[DVD]

Okay, I watched this movie via Netflix Watch Instantly, which means I didn’t give it the full attention it deserved. Even though I’ve never seen most of the movies in my Watch Instantly queue, I can never seem to give them full attention. So Man on Wire was mixed with catching up on my feeds and then prepping dinner. Take that for what it’s worth in reading this review.

This movie was pretty excellent. It’s a documentary, but more like movie than many documentaries. It’s basically the talking heads telling the story with a few reenacted scenes to help the visual coupled with real pictures and video from the event. Oh yeah, so it’s the story of a man who tightrope walked between the Twin Towers in 1974.

Because of the interviews of the principals involved you really get the sense of excitement, need, wonder, and whimsy they had when planning and executing their plan. The archive video footage showed these people, especially the protagonist, were the same guys then as they were now. And they were really understood they were part of something special.

The movie plays with caper movie tropes. It is suspenseful and gripping, even though you know how it’s going to play out. Very impressive. A good watch.

[DVD]

This movie was kind of what I expected it to be. It was sort of the typical aftermath of group sex/open relationship kind of indie movie, if there is such a kind of movie. I actually enjoyed it though. I thought there were actually a few real beats in the two relationships that were the focus of the movie. Not wholly believable, but enough real bits that I didn’t dismiss it out of hand.

In a lot of ways, this movie reminded me of Closer [DVD]. But for younger people. This movie had a typically emo/indie soundtrack, which I’m always a sucker for (especially given my recent desire to have sound cues for a lot of things, I can appreciate how difficult it is to find appropriate music). I don’t know if I’d recommend people watch this movie. To be honest, I’m not exactly sure how I feel about it. I enjoyed Closer. I guess I enjoyed this movie. It didn’t break the suspension of disbelief. I guess my earlier statement stands as well as anything else I could say “Not wholly believable, but enough real bits…”

The performances by the four leads (headlined by Macauley Culkin and Eliza Dushku) I didn’t think were dreadful, like the movie as a whole, it was all passable.

[

Blu-ray | DVD

]

Not good. It’s not a strong statement about a movie where the biggest thing that stuck out in my mind was “no way Forrest Whitaker keeps up in a footrace with a policeman and a Secret Service officer.”

The single time frame repeated from multiple viewpoints could’ve been cool. Not really original, but then again what is in life. Dennis Quaid was like Bourne, Bauer, Liam Neeson in Taken. One man kind of sucky wrecking crew. It was a short movie. It was passable I suppose. Not a complete waste of time.

[I don’t think my reviews are really all that helpful, insightful, or informative, but I’m going to keep on writing them, just to keep up with something. I think/hope they get better with time, maybe I really do need to nail down a format.]

[Blu-ray | DVD]

Okay, so I’ll admit that I’m not a fan of stoner comedies as a genre. I mean they are all funny enough to a degree. I’ve never thought one was a good movie throughout. These things hold true for Pineapple Express as well.

The movie is fairly predictable. Not really that revolutionary, except in as much as it’s billed as the first stoner action movie. In fact that was the single best thing about the movie. I think they really made efforts to slickly play on action movie standards in the context of the stoner movie. These standard action moves were well executed and fun to watch. It wasn’t really making fun of the action movies, but almost celebrating them.

I don’t have much else to say about this movie. Some people will love it. I can’t seem anyone just hating this movie. Compared to the other tentpole movie of the summer, Tropic Thunder [Blu-ray | DVD], I don’t think it’s on the same level.

So Gran Torino and Frost/Nixon and now Doubt. If this series was a math equation, it would make a lot of sense. All three have been warmly regarded for the most part. Gran Torino was terrible. A paper thin plot layered with terrible dialogue and even worse acting. Frost/Nixon was a pretty straight forward biopic that was carried on the back of the powerful performances. Performances that made up for the failings of the plot. Doubt was the mix of the two. Supremely powerful performances, but not enough to take away from the inherent holes in the plot.

Let me reframe the discussion a bit. I don’t mean plot holes like you’d find in, say Bad Boys II. But it really seem like the entire plot of Doubt was just a single HUGE macguffin. It wasn’t the device that forwarded the plot, it was like the entire plot. And it really seemed to come out of nowhere. They try to explain it throughout (not the actual act that is the basis of the movie), but the genesis of the problem within the movie, and I just never bought it. And it was such a big piece of it that the entire movie, despite how excellent the actors were, I kept thinking “How did this even start?”

The things to take away from this movie are certainly the performances. I don’t know if the praise for Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep can be effusive enough. I know she’s considered one of the finest actresses ever, but the past few movies I really thought Meryl was kind of dipping into current-Al-Pacino (and I suppose current-Robert-De-Niro) acting. But she was just ridiculously good here. Her accent was spot on. Her character was so real I just hated her. Hoffman is cementing his status as best-of-generation. Viola Davis, in what little screen time she had, was spot on. A woman doing what was needed, putting up with what she could because of the circumstances.

I’m not saying the performances in Frost/Nixon were better than those in Doubt. But for me, the single problem in the plot of Doubt was bigger than any niggling issues with Frost/Nixon. And given how central the problem I had with Doubt was to the movie, it was just hard to overcome.

But watch Doubt. Watch Frost/Nixon. Feel free to skip Gran Torino.

Wow. There are problems with this movie, but unlike Gran Torino the acting, dialogue, and performances were very powerful.

I fully admit the problems with the movie. The use of a fake documentary to frame the movie seemed weird, since it was the only bit that was in that style. And the direction wasn’t anything really to marvel at. Ron Howard is a more than capable director and this movie was of that level.

But during the actual interview scenes, I really felt it. It’s not anything really amazing or revolutionary to frame an adversarial interview as a boxing match. And a turn in the plot of the underdog getting a jolt of energy and focus and bringing the big guns ready to blast in his final moment is about as underdog movie as you can get. But the performances just sold it.

Even the supporting roles. Sam Rockwell was excellent. You really got the emotion of the character. Matthew Macfadyen was also excellent. From being Frost’s right hand, down to earth man to the turn where he slightly lost faith in Frost for a moment. Trying to hold the team together. Kevin Bacon was excellent as well. His sense of honor and loyalty to a man who held the highest office. You could see the sense of duty and service he felt. How his service to Nixon was a piece of higher service and duty to the country.

And to top it all off, Langella. There have been a lot of biopics in the past few years. And Joaquin Phoenix certainly deserved an Oscar if Jamie Foxx did. But I think Langella was better than the both of them. I’ve not seen Milk, but I’d say Langella was better than Brad “Ben Button” Pitt. I’d put it ahead (though not by much) of Richard Jenkins. I’d even give him a slight edge over Rourke. I was just so impressed with the nuance from Langella.

This movie stereotypically topical given the end of the Bush presidency. But I have to think that despite his public statements, Bush has to feel like Langella’s Nixon’s did. And I also have to believe President Bush’s aids and such (even Scooter Libby) had to feel Bush did what he did for the most part in the best interest of the country, at least in his view. And they were dedicated in their service. I’m sure there are more ways to parallel this movie to the Bush era, especially as time passes. I was very impressed with this movie. Especially coming off watching Gran Torino. It was what Gran Torino could’ve been. If the performances and dialogue weren’t so stilted. Frost/Nixon was great.

Let’s start with the growl. Only because he’s older is it even, however slightly, passable. As opposed to, say, Christian Bale’s Batman voice.

Is it bad that I’m saddest for the dog?

This movie is terrible. The only slightly okay performance is the guy who plays the young priest.

It was a fairly obvious ending, but I loved the angry/disappointed look on the family’s faces when the kid got the car.

I REALLY need more Clint Eastwood singing. Umm, yeah, I’m very much kidding.

The dialog was bad, the acting was bad. I don’t understand what’s good about this movie. I can make arguments to forgive a lot of things (like why does the gang want the cousin to join the gang so badly or why the neighborhood will testify against the gang when the priest said they didn’t talk), but why bother? Only worth excusing good movies. And this was not it. I really feel like I wasted time watching this.

I don’t even know where to go with this movie. I mean it’s really bad. So bad that my normally unorganized thoughts/review is even more so this time around.