Monthly Archives: September 2009

Office Space in a Factory: Extract

September 18, 2009
By

Overall Rating: C
Filmmaking/Artistic: B−
Storytelling: C
MPAA Rating: R (Some language, some drug use, some adult themes)

The pitch

What if we tried to re-do Office Space with an assembly line, and added this like hot chick who was like an ultra discounted Julia Roberts from Duplicity or a modestly discounted Theresa Russell from Black Widow?

Overview

A movie that’s a kind of dramedy about work likfe that isn’t terriby successful at either at comedy or drama, but does have a few good moments and some great character actors.  If you loved Office Space, you’ll like this.  If you liked Office Space, you’ll find this ok.  If you’re not a fan of Mike Judge, you might want to invest (the $9 and the 2 hours) in something else. 

Review

Your Movie Monkey enjoyed Office Space, but not quite to the extent most of his friends did.  The parts his friends found hilarious, he found amusing.  He also found it a bit loud (the soundtrack was extremely jarring).  His favorite part was Mike Judge’s brief scene as the manager of a Bennigan’s-esque restaurant, scolding Jennifer Aniston for not wearing enough “flair”.   The Monkey was also of fan of Beavis-N-Butthead in his grad school days (his roommate was an ultra-fan, who may have actually quoted BNB on job interviews), and later King of the Hill and, although not quite as whole-heartedly, The Goode Family. 

With this background, and with a half day vacation and permission from Beaudelaire to watch a movie, The Monkey headed out to Extract, having heard from both friends and critics, “not as good as Office Space, but ok”.

These reviews were spot on.  Jason Bateman plays a guy in his late 30′s who owns an extract factory with a lworkine (although it really, really looks like a movie set version of a factory) full of crazy characters.  Although the stereotypes were present, Judge doesn’t really hit you over the head with them.  Through a once in a million accident, a worker loses one of his, um, family jewels, and the other may be in trouble as well.  So Bateman is under the pressure of a potential lawsuit from this kind of not-quite-there-but-nice co-worker.

Bateman (the characters names aren’t terribly memorable) is also having marital troubles, and neighbor troubles, in that his nerdy and annyoing next door neighbor won’t take no for an answer regarding Bateman’s attendance at a Rotary Club dinner.  (The neighbor is played brilliantly by David Koechner, who keeps coming over and insisting on payment for the tickets.)

It seems almost a shame to describe any more of the plot, because it just sounds terrible.  Bateman’s marital troubles go from bad to worse in a kind of Simple Plantype way, and a gorgeous female grifter ends up employed at the factory and causing lots of trouble.

All the character actors do a wonderful job.  Ben Affleck far exceeds Your Movie Monkey’s expectations as Batemans stoner new-age bartender and confidant, Dustin Milligan as a young moronic gigilo is able to pull off stupid-good-looking-guy in a way that doesn’t beat you over the head, JK Simmons is JK Simmons, and others are great.

But somehow, you never really want to see more, but you also don’t want to leave.  The marital matters are played well, and are kind of sad, but then the movie’s supposed to be a subtle comedy, but it’s kind of a bummer.

All of this has come during a two week period when many of Your Movie Monkey’s friends are seeing their marriages either take serious turns for the worse or dissolve completely.  Because of this, Your Movie Monkey found some of the feelings portrayed by Bateman and his on screen wife to be believable and real, although of course placed in an over the top, Mike Judge setting.

If you’re a fan of Mike Judge, you should probably see it.  The movie definitely isn’t for kids, as there is prostitution and drug use and infidelity and other topics that aren’t appropriate.  Judge himself makes a fun cameo appearance, which is great.  But whether it was Your Movie Monkey’s mood after all these marital issues happening in real life with his friends, or just the movie itself, it didn’t really seem to have the oomph of some of Judge’s other work.

What makes us human: Defiance

September 13, 2009
By

Overall Rating: B−
Filmmaking/Artistic: B−
Storytelling: C+
MPAA Rating: R (Realistic depiction of Nazi crimes and resistance countermeasures)

The pitch

As this film portrays the true story of Belarussian Jews who resisted the evil of the Nazis (and in some cases their own countrymen), Your Movie Monkey does not believe a humorous “pitch” is appropriate.

Mini-review

Although Your Movie Monkey is not enough of a history buff to confirm the accuracy of the claim, this movie retells the story of Belarussian Jews who resisted the orders of the invading Germans to go to their deaths. 

Led by 4 brothers, these Jews hid out in the woods beginning with the 1941 invasion, and lasting for about 3 years.  While in some cities the number of Jews was dropped from the thousands to 50 in a few short weeks, these descendants of these 1200 survivors now number in the thousands or tens of thousands.

The two eldest of the brothers, who experience or learn of the murders of their parents, wives, and children, are played by Daniel Craig (the oldest who leads the band) and Liev Schreiber (the second oldest who ends up joining the Red Army in resistance), and both do a decent job.  Schreiber’s character, Zus Bielinski, is a militant intent on revenge, while Craig’s character, Tuvya, believes that refusal to stoop to the level of the Germans is what makes them human.

The two philosophies clash often throughout the film.  As an example, the brothers decide that they will only take food from farmers “who can afford the loss”, and they take milk from a farmer who claims that if he doesn’t make his quota, the Germans will kill him and his family.  They take the milk (and Zus takes the farmer’s coat as well), but Zus believes they should kill the farmer who is a witness.  Tuvya lets him live, only to have him lead the Germans to their camp.

These moral dilemmas are highlighted in the conversations between a rabbi and an intellectual who become friends and enjoy good natured argument.  Further, the people who live with Tuvya and Tuvya himself are presented with a real dilemma when they capture a blond-haired, blue-eyed German solider, who is clearly terrified.  They find valuable information on this German who screams “Bitte, ich habe eine Frau und kleine Kinder! (Please, I have a wife and small children!”)  While Tuvya willingly turns his back, the Jews scream in return “And my brother’s name was Max!  And my mother’s name was Anna!”, and cannot resist, and beat him to death.

As a film, it seemed a little  bit plodding.  Your Movie Monkey found himself hitting fast forward on several occasions.  Plus, the characters speak a combination of their native tongue and accented English.  Your Movie Monkey finds this construct distracting… if there is to be a switch to English, just switch to unaccented English.  (It’s the Kevin Costner Theorem.)

But even with these slow pieces, it feels like an honor to watch the resolve of these people who were faced with unmitigated evil, and who choose to take everyone along with them (including the elderly and the sick), so that no one would be left behind.

Too clever by half: Julie and Julia

September 13, 2009
By

Overall Rating: A−
Filmmaking/Artistic: A
Storytelling: B+
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (Rare coarse language, some “sensuality”)

The pitch

Imagine that old Saturday Night Live sketch where Julia Child gushes blood all over the chicken, but no blood and we’ll get Meryl Streep to do Julia’s accent.  Oh yeah, and we’ll get Nora Ephron to write it and we’ll add a modern heroine straight out of a Lifetime movie to get the chicks to come, but we’ll keep Meg Ryan out so their husbands can tolerate it.

Overview

A very life affirming movie about Julia Child, with a very Hollywood version of a modern woman thrown in.  It’s a nice look a couple who clearly loved each other and loved life, and who changed the face of cooking in America.

Full review

Julie & Julia is a movie in 3 parts.  One part is the story of Julia Child in Paris (and then later in Cambridge, MA) as she first discovers that culinary experience and goes on to write the seminal book Mastering the Art of French Cooking.  The second part is the modern hook, a young, whiny New Yorker named Julie Powell who is depressend in her job and her new Queens, NY apartment, and decides to cook through Mastering (all 500+ recipes) in one year, and blog about it.  (This is in 2002, when blogs were first beginning.)  And the third part is the food–beautifully shot French food cooked by both Julie and Julia.

The Julia part is as heartwarming as any story presented on film.  Julia and her husband Paul, who works for the foreign service in Pairs, are completely in love, and enjoy every minute they spend together.  Julia is a tall, quirky, and very self-assured as she conquers many obstacles.  She enrolls in a very male-dominated cooking school, where the female director (or head administrator) clearly hates her, and tells her many times that she has no discernible talent for cooking.  Julia rises above all this, and ends up by chance meeting Simone (Simca) Beck at a party, who happens to be writing a French cookbook for English audiences.  This becomes a labor of love for Julia, whose unflappable spirit prevails, and even though many audience members know the ending (clearly, she’s going to get the book published and eventually become a household name in the US), it’s still wonderful to watch.

The food is also a star.  From Julia’s first bite of an unbelievably butter fish in Paris, to Julie’s gorgeous creations from her tiny Queens kitchen, the sumptuous creations are definitely a co-star.  Your Movie Monkey has read that all the food was real, cooked on stage.  However they accomplished it, it’s a great treat… some have even called it food porn.

The third part of the movie is less entertaining and slightly less watchable.  The modern Julie comes across as, well, modern but certainly quite whiny.  Her husband seems a complete cartoon.. you know the type — dark, handsome, of a somewhat slight build so as to be non-threatening.  He lives to support his somewhat snotty bride in her quest, and the one time he does blow up briefly at her for being so self-absorbed, he comes back after a day and esssentially realizes that he was wrong in not putting his entire life on hold in support of her project and moods. 

Interestingly, Your Movie Monkey’s wife Beaudelaire, who read the book before seeing the movie, claimed that the movie actually made Julie far nicer than she appeared in reading the book.  Beaudelaire claimed that, while she quite enjoyed the idea of cooking through Julia’s book in a year, she found Julie Powell’s writing so coarse that it was a difficult read.   In fact, one of Your Movie Monkey’s co-workers told him that she refused to see the movie after reading the book.  For more info regarding this, follow the links in the blog entry by Maki Koitoh.

Despite the kind of potato-skin-with-extra-colby-jack appetizer of the story of Julie, the entree of Julia in Paris makes this movie an enjoyable.  Meryl Streep is absolutely dead on with her imitation of Julia Child, and Stanley Tucci  gives a subtle performance as her husband Paul.  Amy Adams as Julie and Chris Messina as her husband Eric provide good performances given the material they had to work with.

Tarantino does WWII: Inglourious Basterds

September 7, 2009
By

Overall Rating: B+
Filmmaking/Artistic: A−
Storytelling: B
MPAA Rating: R (Extreme violence)

The pitch

You know how Tom Cruise stunk up the place in Valkyrie trying to do history?  Well, what if we changedhistory and made a group of renegade Jewish-American soldiers who scalped the Germans (you know, like in Dances with Wolves or Nurse Betty) into submission?  And what if the lead were a Southerner, just to make fun of Cruise’s accents?  Someone like Brad Pitt doing an accent?  Hey, can we get Brad Pitt?

Overview

A brutally violent Jewish revenge fantasty set in World War II, Inglourious Basterds sets up a “what if” scenario, and plays it out with Quentin Tarantino flair.  What if we could have knocked off Hitler, Goebbels, and all the Nazi big wigs while they were watching Cinema Paradiso?  A master of dramatic tension, Tarantino delivers a film that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats, in a story that is of course improbable, but engaging.

Full review

Your Movie Monkey was one of those rare audience members who liked, but didn’t love, Pulp Fiction.  The dialogue was of course fantastic, and the chronological sequencing fascinating, but the mix of violence and comedy just didn’t sit completely right.  Perhaps some of the issue was the moral mixing of gangsters and thieves as heroes, but The Monkey just couldn’t find it at all comic when an innocent young man in the back of a car was accidentally shot, and the movie turned to the clean up of the “mess”, even though the following scenes were intended as comedic.

Inglourious Basterds on the other hand provides a fictional setting where the motivation for the violence is the horror inflicted on the Jews (and others) by the Nazis.  The opening scene of the film involves a German colonel, Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), investigating a French dairy farmer suspected of hiding Jews.  Landa’s slow, methodical, non-threatening examination of the farmer, with his calm, almost happy demeanor, creates dramatic tension in a way almost difficult to describe.

As with Pulp Fiction, the stage has been set with this interchange, and Landa’s actions will be reflected later in the film.  In the meantime, in another chapter of the movie (literally), we learn that Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt, doing a decent Kentucky Fried Accent) has established a Jewish-American guerrilla squad of soldiers (the Basterds) whose job is to each obtain 100 Nazi scalps (again, literally).   Those Nazis who are captured and are released (no prisoners are taken) have swastikas carved into their foreheads, so the world will always know what they did, even when they remove their uniform.

The rest of the plot is fairly complicated, although it involves a chance to take out Hitler through the power of the movies.

Through it all, the Tarantino formula of long discussions building to an intense, violent climax is successfully implemented.  If you like the formula, you’ll probably love this movie.  If you are squeamish at all, stay at home.

Christoph Waltz is brilliant as Col Landa, and clearly the show acting wise, although Brad Pitt also does a decent job in his role.  The strangest bit of casting (stunt casting?) was Mike Meyers as a British army officer.  His makeup was such that he wasn’t instantly recognizable, but Your Movie Monkey kept thinking, “why is he talking like that?”  And then… “0h, that’s what they did with Mike Meyers.”

Your Movie Monkey did find the movie revolved around a kind of theme… “What we shoulda done back then to the Nazis”.  The actions of the Basterds and others whose intentions are to thwart the Nazi regime are definitely presented as heroic.  Even Raines carves up one Nazi’s forehead after making a deal for his release, and when the guy insists “but we had a deal–you’ll be thrown out of the army”, Raines says something like, “No, I’ll just get yelled at, and I’ve been yelled at before”, the message is that this retribution… this torture. .. is “what’s right”.   Is it?  If this is right, then what about  the interrogation methods we are now discussing as a nation (of which waterboarding seems to be the worst, clearly far less than carving swastikas into a forehead) for our military services?

It has long seemed to the Movie Monkey that the message of Hollywood is mixed.  Popular film depicts acts of physical retribution as positive, and yet the same folks that make these movies fight hard against any form of “rough” interrogation in a prospective way in a real life situation where some have threatened death to Americans.  The Monkey isn’t sure what he thinks about the whole issue (mixed feelings, of course, and he wishes we lived in a world where the discussion wasn’t even necessary), but he is sure that our popular culture and our political discourse reflect nearly opposite opinions.

Archives

Critics
Critic ratings from
Audience ratings from