The Film Thugs Movie Show

Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant are an odd pair. They are capable of creating some of the freshest, funniest, and inventive comedy I’ve ever seen. Their work in television has been spectacular (Gervais even got to write his own episode of The Simpsons, which has happened exactly never before or since), Ricky’s stand up is uproarious and natural, they even have a podcast that gave the world Karl Pilkington, a man for whom the word “genius” could be fairly applied.

But for all their massive success, and it has been massive, there has been one area in which they have been lacking; feature films. Gervais’ first, “Ghost Town,” was interesting but, while it delivered in some areas, felt like it was missing something. “The Invention of Lying,” was an absolutely brilliant idea that just felt… well, like a good idea. By that I mean it was an excellent situation that would have made the best 30 minute short film ever, but as a feature it just didn’t have the substance to sustain the premise.

So, when I heard the two made a heartwarming, coming of age buddy film set in England in the early 70’s I had a few thoughts. First of those was, “Really? You are aware that you are British and this sort of film is kind of an ‘American thing?’” The second being, “Wow, this is going to have a great first act, decent second, and about half way through the third it will completely lose it’s way.”

This poster does kind of sum up the film. Except for Ricky. He looks like some sort of aging British Fonzie, but he isn't. He is a factory working father with little time for any of this nonsense!

My first question was something they addressed. They viewed making this film as “beating the Americans at their own game.” No offense to the British, but the coming of age thing… that’s our thing. We do it all the time. Not that we necessarily do it better, but damn it, quantity has to count for something. But they didn’t necessarily beat us, they changed the game. This isn’t an American coming of age film, this is very much a British film. Not just in the accents, but the sensibility, the delivery, and the style are all very British, and in this film that is a very good thing.

The second set of issues slowly vanished as the film progressed. The brilliant first act became a brilliant second act that culminated in a brilliant third act. Finally, after years of wanting it, Ricky and Stephen made a really, really good film. Is it cliché ridden? Yes. It is one of the most cliché ridden films I’ve ever seen, but the difference with this one is, the clichés work.

The story is fairly standard; three friends, Freddie (the ambitious one), Snork (the harmlessly dopey and socially inept one), and Bruce (the rebel, who talks about getting out of his dead end town, but is destined to end up just like his father) dream big about leading the types of lives they are too scared and set in their ways to lead.

Each character has their own story, but they all rely on each other. Freddy meets an old flame, daughter of his new boss (played with assholeish abandon by Ralph Finnes), fiancée of his insurance firm’s best seller, just as he starts his new career path. Snork is desperate to find a girlfriend but keeps getting in his own way. Bruce blames his father for his mother leaving them, talks big about his future, but all he does as talk as he slowly turns into his father.

All three of these performances are exceptional and the friendship between these characters feels very real and compelling.

Now, there are a lot of details here that I am not going to go into plotwise because it is a standard coming of age type film. There really aren’t that many surprises, but there are a few genuinely touching scenes. Snork and the waitress, Julie (the love interest) and her mother (Emily Watson doing what Emily Watson does, which is being awesome), Bruce and his father (this quiet, understated scene is one of the most subtly written and directed I’ve seen, and it is supremely effective) are all truly moving and powerful.

Now, I might have just been in the right mood when I saw it, and perhaps were I in a different mindset the predictability would have bothered me, but as it was I really found this to be a very enjoyable film. It’s not the best thing I’ve ever seen, but for light entertainment it is very well written, well directed, well acted, and in the end a fairly good entry in the coming of age genre. Well done chaps.

My review of the first 30 minutes of Kevin Smith’s “Cop Out.”

I’m going to tell you this up front, I only watched 30 minutes of this film. I do not turn movies off. I just don’t. As a fan I always want to see how the story resolves, and as a critic I do not feel that one can give informed thought based on incomplete information. I have sat through more crap to the bitter end than I am proud to admit, but I made a rule and damn it, I follow that rule. No matter how bad it is I will always stick it out to the bitter end. No exceptions. I made an exception here.

This movie has so many embarrassing, painfully unfunny, ill devised, badly written, clumsily paced, poorly shot, horribly developed, flaccidly delivered, inept moments in the first thirty minutes that I am surprised it didn’t reach critical mass and explode, sending the earth spiraling into the sun.

That’s right; the beginning of this is so bad I was afraid it might cause the end of the world. So I had no choice as a responsible and caring human being than to shut it off after only 30 minutes. For all I know it could have reached “Blazing Saddles” levels of comic brilliance after the first 30 minutes, but I just couldn’t risk it.

I honestly cannot make sense of this thing. There is nothing in the first thirty minutes that sets this film apart as a Kevin Smith project. It is clumsy, both in writing and directing, somehow drags and feels rushed at the same time, and ahs the feel of a writer screaming “LAUGH!! THIS IS FUNNY!! LAUGH YOU ASSHOLES!!!” after every line.

Why Smith, who calls himself out as a “put the camera on the talking guys and let them say my words” director chose this is a mystery to me. If the action scenes were the only problem then it would almost be excusable.

They aren’t the only problem, it’s not excusable, and the first 30 minutes of this film are very nearly the worst thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

Congratulations. You broke me.

I am going to try and pin down the problem here. Smith is a filmmaker who makes films with a fairly personal feeling to them. They may not be what one would typically call "personal" films, we aren't talking Cameron Crowe with "Almost Famous" type personal, but there is a definite personal relation between Smith and his protagonists. His best films have characters who are, on some level, different versions of himself. This is not an insult, hell, Truffaut has an entire series of films where he employs the same actor as an onscreen version of himself throughout his life. But the strength of Smith has always been the very close personal connection he seems to share with his main characters.

That was nowhere to be seen here.

This film reminds me of something I tell my filmmaking and creative writing students all the time. If your story or film doesn't mean anything to you then it won't mean anything to anyone else. I'm not just talking about "arty" fare here. I am talking every type of film and story. It doesn't have to be deep or life changing, but there has to be something of meaning there for the filmmaker.

There is a reason "Clerks" gets a 10 year anniversary release, and "Chasing Amy" got a Criterion edition, but "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back," probably won't. The first two were stories that obviously meant something to Kevin. He was making a statement about his day to day life and how easy it is for someone to feel trapped and overpowered by life in one and saying something about the nature of love and human connection in the other. Not that "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" is bad, but it is not in the same league as the other two.

I miss the old Kevin. Really, I do. This is a guy who can really tell a story when he wants to and has the potential to be a really fantastic filmmaker. Sadly, I don't think he has made anything that really means something to him since "Jersey Girl." For better or worse, regardless of how it fared that was a "put it all on the line for something that is important to me" moment for him. That is what I want to see more of from him. He's proven with his early work that there is a good filmmaker in there, but that potential has been stagnating for a while because he's in a comfort zone. Not that I blame him. The one time he ventured out he got smacked right back into it by pretty much everyone. But still, I really want to see that promise developed.

Like I tell my students, "Think of it as climbing Mt. Everest. Either we will succeed spectacularly, or we will fail spectacularly. But if we die trying, then we die trying to do something awesome. Don't be satisfied walking a hike and bike trail. Go for something amazing. That way, even your failures will be amazing." I would love to see Kevin go really put it out there. He may succeed, he may not. But I would rather see him fail with something he loves than put out something like "Cop Out," a film where his indifference is undeniable.

The Social Network

Recycling has gone too far. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with recycling glass, paper, and aluminum or what have you; everyone needs a hobby I guess. But in our culture anything that starts out as a good idea ends going horribly awry.

Awesome microbrew beer leads to Mike’s Hard Lemonade, the endless potential of information exchange that is the internet becomes the endless parade of dongs that is chat roulette, and REUSE, REDUCE, RECYCLE becomes a Hollywood creative mantra. Everything and I do mean EVERYTHING that is old is new again in the town of tinsel.

Remember that crappy TV show/board or videogame from 25 years ago that you were slightly aware of, but by no means watched or played with any real frequency? Neither do I! But, it’s coming soon to a theatre near you.

So, when the initial grumblings began about a “Facebook Movie,” I almost got a shotgun and set out for LA.

Really? A fucking FACEBOOK movie? It’s not enough that it’s dominated our lives for years, but now we have to go see a… a what? A dramatic interpretation of a website? I think I’ll pass.

Then more information started slowly coming out. Names like Aaron Sorkin, and David Fincher were being mentioned. I started to feel like I was being set up, something was way, way off.

As release approached buzz started picking up. Good buzz. Really good buzz. The first preview, all moody and Radio-heady, and interesting hit and I stopped cold.

Could I have been wrong? As impossible as it is to admit, I was. I was very wrong.

How?

Well, for starters, it really isn’t a “Facebook movie.” It is the story of business, friendship, greed, betrayal, exclusivity, revolution, and the basic human desire to build a community and gain acceptance.

This is a good film. There has been a LOT of hype surrounding this film, some of it very deserved, while some of it is insanely hyperbolic. It is a good film, possibly the best I’ve seen in years. But there are those who call it “a modern ‘Citizen Kane’” and while I can see why from both a stylistic and thematic standpoint, I think such comparisons are silly.

Let’s begin with the premise. A socially awkward but brilliant Harvard computer science student wants to be accepted by the old money elites. He knows he won’t be and allows that to consume the rest of his life which leads to him being dumped by his girlfriend. In his drunken woman hating rage (this movie kind of nails the awkward geek/woman dynamic, but more on that later) he hacks the private social network pages of the dorms on campus and creates a site that allows students to compare the attractiveness of Harvard women against each other.

On the plus side (to him at least) his website is so popular that its traffic crashes the entire Harvard computer network in less than two hours and gets the attention of every student on campus focused squarely on him. On the minus, the site also pisses off every woman on campus.

Further on the plus side, it gets him the attention of three of the very people from whom he seeks acceptance. They don’t want him to join their club, just build their website, harvardconnect.com, which will allow women who want a Harvard man to find one. He takes the basic framework of their idea and adapts it into The Facebook.

It starts out a Harvard only thing and slowly moves outward until it becomes the all encompassing free time devouring menace it is today. But, as the poster says, “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.”

Yes, this is a movie about the rise of this now ubiquitous part of our lives, but it is really about so much more.

Facebook started a revolution (If you don’t believe me just ask where you are reading this or where you found the link to it. If you and I have never spoken, why not hop over to Facebook and find me Jim Dirkes, there are two of us, but I know the other through Facebook. I could go on, but I think my greater point has been proven.). It just is, and every revolution has fallout. This movie follows that fallout.

What makes the movie good, for starters is that everything works.

Jessie Eisenberg, who I use to consider “the poor man’s Michael Cera,” but who is now “Michael Cera with range,” is amazing. Yes, his performance is reminiscent of his early work, but that isn’t a bad thing. It is reminiscent, not redundant. He isn’t a stumbling, muttering, “I’m so adorably awkward,” guy. He’s an outright genius who suffers the same problem so many other geniuses suffer. He is horribly inept with people. The world he inhabits is entirely cerebral and anything outside of that, you know like people and stuff, is alien to him. He isn’t an asshole exactly, he just doesn’t really know how NOT to be one. Eisenberg is entirely believable and real in this performance.

Armie Hammer, as the Winklevoss twins, turns in two of the best performances of the year. I say two because it isn’t just two versions of the same person. One is hyper aggressive and kind of a douche, the other is more refined and struggling NOT to be a douche. He creates a compelling bond between the two that is believably in both conflict and camaraderie.

The only one I will mention is the one that surprised me the most. Justin Timberlake absolutely kills it as Napster creator Sean Parker. He plays the cocksure, self aggrandizing paranoia of his character perfectly and balances both the charming Pied Piper of internet rebellion and the scheming backstabbing prick sides of him without it feeling forced.

I could go on and on about the performances, because they are all that good, but I won’t. These are the standouts, but honestly everyone gives a fantastic performance.

-A quick aside. There has been some who criticize this film as misogynistic and that criticism goes beyond foolish into self indulgent stupidity. Some people want to criticize and call this film misogynistic, so they find some reason to. Those people need to get a visit from Problem inc. (If you listen to the podcast, this makes sense.)

Making a film about misogynists is no more misogynistic than making a movie about the life of Hitler is anti-Semitic. Could it be? Yes, of course. Is it automatically? No, it isn’t.

Showing characters, no matter what your personal feelings about them are, as who they are is not acceptance of their ideas. It is simply an examination of who they are.

This brings me to what seals this film; the writer, director combination. Can please, please, PLEASE have these two work together again? Please?

Sorkin, as always, achieves the difficult balance between being a writer’s writer and a fan’s writer. He does cool, interesting things that writers go nuts for without confusing of ostracizing people who don’t care about that stuff. His dialogue is interesting, realistic, crisp, and never feels forced or overwritten (this is HARD). He gives his characters interesting voices and lets them use those voices tell the story.

Bring in Fincher with enough of his style to make everything look amazing, enough sense to pace it well, and the touch needed to help the actors communicate their scenes and there isn’t much NOT to like.

I remember joining Facebook in 2004. You had to have a .edu email and it was pretty much just used to keep up with people in your classes, find old friends, and stalk attractive people you didn’t have any valid reason to talk to. I remember watching as it slowly turned into something else. Photo tags and status updates, people willingly giving up any semblance of privacy made some people rich off a website that provided no content. This movie addresses the question, “What is Facebook?” And repeatedly answers, “We don’t know, yet.” That’s the beauty of it, we think we know, but we don’t. In a year it could be something completely unrelated to what it is now, and that is what makes this story so compelling. We have allowed this enigma into our lives, and even those behind it don’t know what it is.

Right now if Facebook were a country it would be the third largest country in the world and nothing that big can happen without a good story behind it. Thankfully, someone decided to tell that story well.

My relationship with Ben Affleck is a long and tumultuous one. Our first encounter was when I was forced to endure a young Ben as a part of the crew on the ill fated " Voyage of the Mimi," which attempted to teach us science by showing how it would help you in the real world.

You know, like when you and a group of scientists get stranded on a deserted island. It was about as helpful as an episode of Macgyver as far as the science went, and kind of turned many young minds off to science in general with the early, and I think somewhat unnecessary, all male "we have to spoon naked to keep from getting hypothermia" scene.

From there he was kind of a background player until he hit it big as O'Bannion in "Dazed and Confused." I do like this movie but being from Austin I do get a bit sick of it at times. When he entered the Kevin Smith world it seemed that he would have himself a good career as an actor.

Then came "Good Will Hunting," and it was on. He went from a decent actor to a movie star and the cash came rolling in as the credibility went rolling out.

Don't get me wrong. I have never thought Ben was a bad actor. I just though he was an actor with incredibly bad judgment. But, let's be honest, if you put enough zeroes in a paycheck and most people's judgment goes to hell.

I had written this once promising actor off as celebrity tabloid fodder who occasionally was in a bad movie when something incredible happened. He started directing.

At first, I was apprehensive. I mean, weren't we all?

I was especially so. The Dennis Lehane Patrick Kenzie books were something I had discovered in 1999, when I was just out of college, didn't know anyone in town, and did little more than work low paying jobs and read. They were solidly written detective books in the vein of Robert Parker's Spencer series that were a big part of my life during those dark days.

So, when it was announced that Ben would be directing a movie based on the fourth of, at the time four, books I didn't know what the hell to think.

I was upset that he was directing, that he was casting his brother, that he was skipping the first three books, all manner of things had me upset.

Then I watched it, and had to eat a whole bunch of my words. This was good. Really good. I mean, DAMN THAT WAS GOOD, good! Suddenly, Ben Affleck went from once promising actor to... my favorite new director.

So, when I was waiting for "Inception," and got hit in the face with the trailer for his second film "The Town," I was more than a little excited.

I finally got around to seeing it, it took a while but that is how I roll sometimes, and I was hoping was that it was half as good as the trailer.

And it was. It was, dare I say it, much, MUCH better. What could have been a cheap, easy, cliché ridden vanity project (Ben plays the lead as well) turned into something spectacular right before my eyes.

This was a solidly balanced, well written, well acted, well edited, and above all WELL DIRECTED film that kept my full attention from beginning to end.

This is the story of a group of friends in Charlestown, Massachusetts who are following in the family business. It just happens that business is bank robbery. Charlestown is the nation's capital for such crime and this crew is good. Very good.

After a successful heist, Doug McRay (Affleck in probably his best performance) entangles himself in the life of the bank manager, trying to see if she knows enough to be a witness. This does not go to plan, and the two fall for each other.

In the meantime, FBI Special Agent Frawley (the always awesome John Hamm) begins to close in on the crew.

There are almost too many great performances in this to go into, but I must.

Pete Postlethwaite is amazing, as always, as the "godfather" of the neighborhood.

Rebecca Hall adds a nice bit of humanity as Claire the bank manager.

Blake Lively proves that she is more than a nice body.

But the show was stolen by Jeremy Renner as James. As my Jewish friend Matt said after the show ended, "Looks like I'm going to have to keep up with this guy now." He was pitch perfect as the loose cannon best friend. His insanity never came off as forced or phony. James is just a fucking dangerous guy who honestly doesn't care what happens to him. He is fiercely, almost dangerously loyal, and has a determination that is equally dangerous and frightening. He is an amazing actor who is absolutely captivating here.

As the film unfolded I found myself getting lost in it. The characters were well drawn and engaging, the dialogue was crisp and real, the action scenes were seamless and were obviously directed and not just put together in editing, the character dynamics were outstanding, the pacing was great, and the emotional development felt genuine.

I have to say with surprised confidence that Ben Affleck is now one of the best directors working today.

Some people are victims of bad timing. Peter O’Toole should be one of the most Oscar heavy actors out there, but throughout his career he kept running into the ridiculous. Of his 8 Oscar nominations he has lost to

1) Gregory Peck (To Kill A Mockingbird)

2) Rex Harrison (My Fair Lady)

3) Cliff Robertson (Charly)

4) John Wayne (True Grit)

5) Marlon Brando (The Godfather)

6) Robert De Niro (Raging Bull)

7) Ben Kingsley (Gandhi)

8) Forrest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland)

Were it not for his bad luck at being put up against timeless, generation defining performances, sentimental favorites winning essentially “Lifetime Achievement Awards,” and films that just captured the spirit of the times he would be sitting on a mountain of little gold men.

I fear the same might be becoming true of Colin Firth.

Granted, he only has one nomination, but damn! If he can’t win for “A Single Man,” than no actor deserves an award for anything ever.

Now, I have nothing against Jeff Bridges, in fact I quite like him. But… really? To be fair, I still haven’t watched “Crazy Heart,” but I know the score. Jeff is a popular guy who makes some good movies and this one was probably the only opportunity Hollywood would get to give him this award. But that is no excuse. It’s an award for a performance, and on those grounds the Oscars this past year should have had the following occur:

“The nominees for Best Actor in a Lead role are- Colin Firth for “A Single Man.” And the winner is- Colin Firth for ‘A Single Man.’”

This is an outstanding performance. I mean this is an OUTSTANDIGN performance. Colin is an amazing actor, this has never been in question, but in this film he reaches Day-Lewis levels of incredible.

I didn’t even feel like I was watching someone act, he just was this guy. He made you feel the loss, the empty feeling when you lose someone, the loneliness that exists when they are gone, the slow journey into despair and hope that is unmistakable to anyone who has gone through it. He made you feel like you were watching a friend go through something awful and all you can do is wish you could help but know that you really can’t.

The problem is that the rest of the movie isn’t that great. This is a stream of consciousness journey through one day with a man, Prof. George Falconer, who has recently lost his partner of 16 years. He is not just single in the fact that he is now without a lover, but he is completely alone and disconnected from everyone around him. Life is an isolated series of events that leave him feeling more like a spectator than an actual participant. He tries to reconnect with people but he can’t. You definitely feel his isolation.

This is a stream of consciousness film, and there aren’t many of them for a reason. You get a very solid, emotionally charged and affecting opening, but then it starts to feel rudderless. Not that that is inherently a bad thing, quite the contrary, it can be very powerful, it’s just that here it feels too scattershot.

First time writer/director Tom Ford writes himself a very big check to cash with this film and, sadly, doesn’t quite have the funds to cover it. There are too many times where it feels like he is trying to let the lighting and the art direction do the emotional work for him. There is no question as to what George is feeling and how we are supposed to feel about it. It is either gray and cold, or really, really orange and warm. It was an interesting device at first, but started to feel a bit overused quite quickly. I know what Ford was going for, but too many people looked plastic and fake and the contrast was just too much. Firth was already conveying the emotional weight and it felt like Ford really wanted to drive it home.

The events of the film kind of run together, this being the very nature of stream of consciousness, but what happened felt secondary. Firth was doing all the work, and where he went was just a function of his journey. I know character is supposed to drive the story, but there didn’t seem like there was much being driven.

Ultimately, this movie left me feeling almost puzzled. I felt for Falconer, I really did. Firth made him so accessible and vulnerable and real and raw that it’s almost impossible not to feel his loss. But the rest of the film left me wanting more. Perhaps the events worked better in the novel, but on screen they just felt lacking and a bit forced at times.

Firth makes this a very powerful movie, but in the end you end up wishing he had a better stage to work on.