BIG HOLLYWOOD

As of today, I am now blogging my movie reviews as an official member of Andrew Breitbart's BIG HOLLYWOOD. That's the big news--I hope you will follow me there. Click here to get started.

Revolutionary Road: "It takes backbone to live the life you want."

When I was 31, I realized that I shouldn't be a systems analyst. I hadn't set out to be that, anyway, and it had become (quite literally) painfully clear that I could not be happy in that life. I had a middle-class income, interesting and often brilliant colleagues, and a path to more money and more responsibility. But none of that could outweigh the crushing sense that I was not doing what I ought to be doing.

I moved from Nashville, Tennessee to Washington, DC with my wife and little son to become a writer and speechwriter. It seemed a foolish gamble to everyone but me. I was happy from then on--happy down to the bones. That probably would have been enough, but eventually my success (as I count success) brought some of the more traditional benefits. That's nice, but they weren't necessary. What mattered was finding the backbone to live the life I chose.

"Revolutionary Road" is about that. It's about the common 20-something realization that "being special" isn't bestowed upon one at birth, it's something only we can make for ourselves. It's about the excuses we find to make ourselves believe that the trappings of success are not only an acceptable substitute but also a responsible and wise alternative for life choices that most of the world labels "immature" and "careless." It's about acting as if we regret not "taking chances" when in fact we are utterly relieved.

It's about being honest with oneself that there are tremendous opportunities in life, and how few of those called to do something out of the ordinary actually answer that voice. And it's about the pain some feel when they understand just what they've passed up.

"Revolutionary Road" is not, as some have said, a condemnation of suburban life or the middle class--seems to me that's a simplistic reading of a subtler point. The picture is about people who want to be special by their own standard, about the process of realizing that the achievement will come only if they themselves do the work, and that following through takes fortitude. Or, as Kate Winslet's character says to her husband, "It takes backbone to live the life you want, Frank." It sure does.

"Revolutionary Road" is one of the best pictures of 2008.

Coming Soon: "Big" News

I have a big announcement about this blog to make in the next couple days. Check back, okay?

Too Much Certainty to "Doubt"

"Doubt" is a little too subtle, believe it or not. We don't tend to think of movies as subtle--so many things blowing up, so many emotions played for the back of the house--but frequently, a significant fact is provided to the audience in only a line or two; in a two-hour movie, that is easy to miss. This happens in "Doubt," toward the end. I think filmmakers do this because they grow so familiar with the project that they forget the story will be entirely new to the audience. But after watching dailies every day for months, then sitting in an edit bay for weeks and months more, they become familiar with every tic and nuance, and quite naturally lose their ability to think about the film without any foreknowledge--which of course is how audiences come to a picture.

"Doubt" turns on ambiguous interpretations of events and human reaction, but the judgment reached by the female lead in this picture is pretty clearly the one that about 99.9 percent of people would make, too. It's almost impossible for a reasonable observer to make any other choice because any reasons for that other choice are so subtly presented that they are lost. In a great irony, too much subtlety creates too much certainty--we don't really hear the other side of the case. Thus the "Doubt" of the title loses some of its impact: The lead character may end with doubt about her faith, her God, and the wisdom of her actions--and so the audience may doubt, too--but nobody doubts the conclusion she draws. I think we were supposed to be able to do that.

Then again, maybe somebody else who saw it feels entirely differently about the subtlety and certainty in the picture. I hear that was the point.

"Frost/Nixon": People Who Need People

You can't trust movies for facts, you just can't. And you especially can't trust a movie for political facts--not too many folks making movies show up without a big ol' stewpot of politics they're just dying to feed you. So "Frost/Nixon" ought to be a buffet of opportunity to bash Nixon without the inconvenience of rebuttal, rewrite the era for a generation who gets its history from entertainment, and portray Nixon as George Bush with jowels.

But "Frost/Nixon" is a surprise. Accuracy aside--it appears correct in detail though not in tone--the picture offers up these two as professional climbers, each desperately needy in his own way, each possessing something that would complete the other. Frost covets Nixon's gravitas--that he is disgraced seems not to tarnish the appeal in the least for Frost--and Nixon covets Frost's common ability to, well, be liked.

To tell the story this way is to do almost nothing but leverage stereotypes--and again, the truth is probably taking the hindmost--but it feels real; rather, it is emotionally effective, and that's what movies are all about. In this case, the pulling of the big punch is not only a relief, it is the wiser choice for making entertainment.

"Frost/Nixon" avoids Big Obvious Statements for a study of two people and not, mercifully, a study of the politics, or the era, or morality--imagine the preachy mess if director Ron Howard and writer Peter Morgan set out to make not "Frost/Nixon" but "Good/Evil." They made the right choice.

I liked "Frost/Nixon." I think you will, too.

"My Bloody Valentine 3D" Has a Weak Heart

It's the 3D effects that make this picture worth your time, even if you don't care much about horror flicks. (But if you're turned off by gore, even rather cartoonish displays, and standard-slasher-issue sex and nudity, stay home, cos there's lots of all that. Lots.) "My Bloody Valentine 3D" is more like a thrill ride than a going-to-the-movie experience; when there's not stuff jumping off the screen at you (I actually flinched once) there's jaw-dropping realism in the 3D: lots of well composed shots with plenty of depth so that the 3D effect has value even when there's no action.

And speaking of no action, MBV3D has way too much of that kind of "nothing." Of course, this is the downfall of most 3D attempts. They do a few razzle-dazzle shots, then make us wait around watching yawn-inducing exposition until the next 3D go-round. For every pick-ax through the occipital orbit here, there’s seven or eight minutes of Kerr Smith and Emergency!’s Kevin Tighe arguing like the second leads in a community theater.

The picture isn’t a non-stop thrill ride, and it lacks a good wind-up of the audience or a good story. It wouldn’t be anything special without the 3D. It should have been the first of those three options—after all, how difficult would it have been to make this thing non-stop 3D effects? It would have been a first, too, in the same way “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was the first picture to deliver a cascading series of reversals.

3D effects should enhance the experience, or be the entire experience, but as occasional spice, it doesn’t work. MBV3D almost breaks free of the “just spice” syndrome by virtue of the strength of the effect in mostly static scenes. Kids standing around a pickup truck is suddenly a new visual experience. In fact, the most impactful 3D effects come in static shots and in normal-speed action. The real-time flying pick-axes, not so much. Too much to process in the brain, I guess.

The picture doesn’t quite work, but I really can’t say enough good things about the technology. It was made using the RealD 3D system, which in my experience is the best 3D system ever. They may improve it at the margins--a brighter image would be nice; dimness has been a shortcoming in every incarnation of this technology--but we can now say that practical 3D really is here. The image is sharp, the depth is viewable from all angles (I moved around during the credits to check) and does not degrade at all. Remarkable.

Here's a helpful hint: The best seat in the house is about eight to ten feet from the screen, right in the middle. You read right: If you want the best 3D experience, sit in those usually crummy seats down front. The 3D seems clearer, plus the technology seems to have an interesting side effect that makes sitting close work out okay. Turns out that when you're looking at the big screen, the 3D system makes it seem considerably smaller. Don't ask me why that is or how it works. I don't know. But I felt like I was looking at a very large HDTV, not a wall-sized movie screen.

See "My Bloody Valentine 3D" if you like technology or interesting visual effects, or if you want to see the latest iteration of projection technology--but skip it if you're squeamish.

A Quick Comment on The Golden Globes

Since I'm feeling my way with this new blog, trying to decide what kind of posts fit and what kind do not, I've been torn on writing about the Golden Globes.

I've decided against it.

I think that any commentary I could offer about them would boil down to my opinion about other people's opinions--and that's not comment about pictures. It would, however, be a commentary about popular culture--and that would be good enough, except for this: If you read this blog at all (or if you know me) you'll quickly figure out what I would say. I think that popularity (the kind that determines these awards) is a measure of the effectiveness of marketing and the product of herd mentality. It is not a reliable a pointer toward what is edifying and what will last.

So "no comment" on the Golden Globes. Let 'em pick whoever they like, and good for 'em.

It's just movies, after all. It's just entertainment! (When they start giving awards for Best Plumber Who Showed Up At 4AM When The Pipes Burst, gimme a call.)