MichaelRunyon.com – All Things Geek

After reading some extremely favorable reviews of The Hurt Locker in some trusted website sources, I was anxious to see it. Numerous sites rated it the best movie of the year. However, despite making an appearance at my local cinema (shocking given it’s limited release status), it dissapeared quickly. To my elation, I found it was playing at my local budget theater and went immediately.

To be succinct, the movie is excellent in most every way. The cinematography is beautiful, the actors give strong performances (especially the lead, Jeremy Renner), and the story gripping. None of the scenes feel forced, and yet, you find yourself deep in heart-pounding action scenes. The tenuous and slippery path between the actions onscreen and the overwhelming feeling that something terrible is about to happen keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Politically, the movie is pretty subtle, though some would comment that the psychological aspects of it are tired. You genuinely feel the frustration and longing for change that the soldiers are experiencing as they try to get through their rotation, without any real sense of purpose, except keeping one another alive and doing their job.

In a key scene, the lead breaks away from your typical soldier group scenes and infiltrates a small village in civilian clothes. In my opinion, this willingness to break apart the man from the machine, and show the vulnerability and emotion that drives him is what sets this movie apart from many of the others made recently about Iraq and Afghanistan. You can’t help but identify with the struggles of the soldiers to remain relevant and keep positive, despite the hostility of their environment and their general unwillingness to succumb to death at the hands of their hosts.

Overall, one of the best war movies of the decade, especially so given the light of current circumstances.

10/10

Last night I watched District 9 with my wife. I found it to be excellent, in more ways that one. However, it seems a tad unfair that I am less driven to verbosity by greatness than by failure, so I will limit my remarks to just a few comments.

I thought the execution of the storyline was great; it was a sci-fi situation, certainly, but one that was incredibly unique and one that paralleled directly conditions very present in our minds in the world today.

I thought the action was well directed and in adequate dosage to alleviate the moral pondering that we are ultimately left with. Some of it was sublimely minimal; other parts were over the top awesome.

Finally, I took great pleasure with the performances of a largely unknown cast. It gives me great pleasure when a director/producer/studio can find success based on the strength of their story and their product, rather than the drawing power of their cast. The fact that this movie succeeds so well is not due to this fact, but in spite of it, and while I risk sounding like a cynical critic, this is perhaps its strongest point, especially when viewed in contention with all of the other products of this year thus far. To perform a piece at this level, with great performances by all, and not be limited to powerplays and money making decisions by the studio/director/distributor/etc is wonderful indeed.

Last night, Leah and I went to the dollar theater to see Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist. Given the highly comedic nature of the other works that I have seen the headlining actors in previous to this, I was somewhat excited about yet another great movie full of snarky dialogue and faux angst (a la Apatow). However, I found the movie to move very slowly. It’s dialogue was too weak to carry my attention through the long lapses in the story’s motion, and the gags that made you smile or laugh were squeezed so absolutely hard that by the end you were yearning for some kind of comic relief. 

The movie is a classic example of trying to ride the success of the actors, rather than the picture. The actors are well known for acting in certain kinds of movies, and producing a certain kind of product, via their delivery and genre looks. But this picture squanders all of that, trying to promote some ethereal air of romance between two characters that have never met except through music mixes. The over the top ex-girlfriend seems somewhat forced, and the prolonged longing of the male protagonist is not well displayed nor well understood by the audience. The chemistry between the two lead characters is not cute enough to evoke feelings of sympathy and not strong enough to carry a real bond. 

The scene stealers (the gay friends/band-mates and the drunk friend) do their parts, but in the end, we don’t see/know enough about them to really get a laugh, and their motives in the movie are plain, unexciting and clearly stated. We are never suspended and waiting for what is to happen next. We are only waiting for the the director and the scene to get on with it so that we can get out of our seats with somewhat a good feeling about both the actions of the characters onscreen and the actions of ourselves, for coming to the movie. But I found myself ultimately dissapointed in both regards. I found myself more bored during this film, even though I only paid $1.50 for it, then I have been at the movies in a long time. 

Overall Rating: 4.3/10

Synopsis: Though you may be intrigued by the past appearance of the characters in this movie, they are not well supported by a threadbare and poorly written script, and a meandering plot stuffed so full of stereotypes that there is little left to laugh about.

Leah and I went to see the new Bond movie tonight, Quantum of Solace. I had read a few reviews of the film before going, and despite my initial excitement at the second film in the reboot of the series featuring Daniel Craig, the reviews adequately prepared me for what I was about to experience. 

The movie is violent…extremely violent. That is not to say that there is a spectacular decapitation or something controversial. Moreso, it is that everything near and dear to everything, save the MI6 agents and the lead female, is destroyed or killed. What’s wrong with this concept is that it is not adequately setup with situations or dialogue that make it important to the viewer. The viewer should feel vindicated when a premier villain is gunned down or dies in some ironic way. The viewer should gasp in astonishment at the candor of the villain, when their master evil plan is revealed. Here, there is none of that. The film makers wrote the plot and the dialogue with much the same manner that the hero executes them: cold-blooded efficiency. 

The climactic moments are all destroyed by elements that are revealed prematurely in other parts of the film, the villains are not properly setup, their evilness is not well conveyed or even well explained. The protagonists accomplish their goals, but their is no celebratory sex so common with the genre. There is no feeling at all.

Sure, this is supposed to be a brutal reboot of the series, a more down to Earth James Bond. But to strip away both all that make a good film and all that makes a Bond film is leave nothing for the viewer to enjoy. The inventive circumstances and remote locations are barely noticed amid the unthinking combat and brutality. We are never on the edge of our seat, because we know so little about what is going on. If we are to enjoy ridiculous circumstances, at least make them a little fun. Don’t thtow the baby out with the bathwater: it leaves the film taking itself too seriously and alienating its proud and historic heritage.

Overall Review: 5.1/10 

Friday night I saw the new Cohen borthers movie, “Burn After REading”. I actually convinced my wife, sister, and mother to join me in watching it. It helps that the movie has serious star power and appeal in Brad Pitt and George Clooney. I also love John Malkovich in pretty much everything that he does.

The movie is the next in a long line of black comedies from the Cohen brothers, who have been making many movies like this over the years. Even in last  year’s smash hit, “No Country for Old Men”, they incorporated a bit of the situational black comedy, where something shocking or ironic happens, and the audiences just has to laugh at how absurd or unexpected the action or twist was. Don’t be confused, however, by my description. The plots in all of their movies are well constructed, and “Burn After Reading” is no exception.

I did not find the movie as successful as some of the other Cohen brothers offerings, and thought that a few points in the movie were a bit weak, and a few points of the dialogue seeminly forced, but did enjoy myself overall. I am not certain how much my anticipation of the next offering from one of my favorite directorial talents played into my enjoyment. I feel a fair amount of confidence that the same movie, played with different actors, would have been just as successful, but that the same movie, directed by others, would not. It’s the small things that they do that make it great, along with great dialogue and excellent storyline.

I would put this movie somewhere above “The Ladykillers” and somewhere below “The Big Lebowski” in terms of enjoyment and success. I did enjoy the movie, but feel that it will not have the staying power that some of their other offerings have enjoyed.

Overall Synopsis: 7.7/10

Leah and I went to see eHancock tonight, on our designated date night. This movie premiered on a Wednesday night, being that Friday is a holiday, as it often the practice of movie studios to do before the holiday weekend. We ate at the local Mexican supermarket/restaurant beforehand. I must say, I am having difficulties forming what to opine about without totally ruining it for someone who hasn’t seen the movie themselves. But I will do the best that I can.

Hancock falls into the mold of the tried and true “hated superhero” movies that seem to dominate the comic book superhero movie market. The difference of Hancock is both the absurdity of the premise and the source of the story (in this case a novel written in the 90’s).

Another beef is that I am growing well tired of the roles that Will Smith is choosing to play lately. This is the 3rd consecutive movie that Will Smith has played in which he plays the solitary hero (either through ideology or natural consequence). I’m beginning to think that the success of the movies is driving Hollywood, in all it’s formulaic predictability, to pitch movie after movie to Smith, who is thus far declining to turn them down.

The movie starts out with some attitude and some pretty unbelievable abilities from the namesake of the movie. The audience is asked to abruptly and violently suspend their disbelief and keep it that way for the remainder of the film. But some swagger goes a long way in establishing the story of the character. But then, unbelievably, the story immediately diverts to the absurb/insane once we are well on track for a pretty decent storyline. It’s so different, it’s also as if someone higher up the food chain insisted that further steps be taken to keep stepping up the story.

Overall, I can’t say that I wasn’t entertained, especially at the beginning, when we are wondering what the story is all about. But the severe plot letdown and sheer unbelievability of it all, combined with the dramatics thrown in the end with absolutely no character development, lead to an unfavorable view of all components involved. Having never read the novel, I can’t say whether a travesty was made of its storyline, but one would certainly hope that the original storyline was either better explained or better played out.

I was looking today on the Rotten Tomatoes website (where I frequently go to get a barometric reading on the movies that I am thinking about seeing) and saw the total box office earnings. I noticed that “Meet the Spartans”, a horrifically bad spoof movie made by the same group that did Epic Movie and others. It has a 3% on Rotten Tomatoes (which means that 3% of people had a positive view of the movie). It has earned $31 million. Unbelievable….

To contrast my point, 3 of the movies that are likely to produce the Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Picture awards this year (No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, and Michael Clayton) have earned $61 million, $31m, and $36m,respectively. Only Juno, the possible other exception for Best Picture, has earned more ($125 million), and that’s due mostly to its youthful leanings and stature as an indie film. Sometimes, I do not understand the inverse relationship between critical success and box office failure. That’s not to say that the critics don’t speak for the people, because they often do not, but that a film that is nearly universally understood to be utter trash can out-produce such high quality films speaks well of the degradation of the film industry.

8.5/10

After they finally released this movie into a theater close to me, I persuaded Leah to go see it at Showplace 16. Despite the lulls in the action at times, she was able to stay awake throughout the whole movie, which is pretty good for her after a stressful week. That right there is a key criteria for my review.

After thinking about the movie for a while, I come to different thoughts about the different aspects of the movie that there are. Firstly, the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis was stunning, as usual. I hyping to my friends that this is only his 4th movie in the last 10 years, so you know that he is crafting unforgettable characters. To this tune, however, the character that he plays is quite similar to the character that won him an Oscar in Gangs of New York (Bill the Butcher). Much of this is because of his distinctive look in the two movies, as well as the accent that he plays through. Also, the savageness and lack of empathy for his fellow man is evident throughout the movie as well.

I have read some but not all of Upton Sinclair’s Oil and found the movie to be strikingly different than the book. I was pleasantly surprised that this did not bother me that much, however, as the departure was great enough that this felt more like a different work entirely.

The rest of the movie is up and down for me, with plenty of visual and sonic space throughout the film, and apt audio cues that draw you in during the intense scenes of the movie, the director is content to jump wildly back out to absurdity of the situation developing throughout the film, and indeed, until the very end. In this way, though, this non-chalant, flippant handling of the movie and it’s emotive ability mirrors both the attitude and actions of the central character, Daniel Plainview(Day-Lewis), and the work on which it is based. The viewer is left with an empty feeling at the end of the movie about the resolution of certain conflicts and relationships, but rest assured that this is no tidy happy ending. There is severe emotional baggage left to be sorted through when this ends, but again, this is such a needed touch of reality that you are not dismayed when the cut to black is on the screen and your mind is sorting through all that is still out there.

To sum up my feelings, I appreciated the outstanding talent of Day-Lewis, and appreciated the gritty reality of both the period that was portrayed and the vicious humanity of those living in it, despite their sometimes absurb and whimsical leanings. The visual and audible space in the movie both served the piece well, and wrapped up a plain outstanding cinematic work that should well vie for prestigious awards this year against the best out there, and stand a great chance of taking it all home.