Biutiful People

On my (seemingly) never-ending journey to see the major films nominated for this year's Academy Awards, I found myself at the theater on Monday taking in yet another major release. This time it was the foreign film nominee Biutiful that made me travel into the downtown area, and I really wasn't sure what I was getting myself into. After all, I had a VAGUE idea as to what the main story entailed, but the trailer contained so much in the way of stimuli that the entirety of the tale was lost to me. I've also never seen any films by director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, including his internationally-renowned Babel. So I have no idea of the story, and no perspective as to how it might be told. Top that off with an actor I genuinely respect - in this case international superstar Javier Bardem - but one I have actually seen in very little compared to his acting library. I've only viewed is work in recent Hollywood films No Country for Old Men and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, two films that show two vastly different performances from the veteran Spanish actor. The result is me sitting in the theater having literally NO idea what is coming. And that's how it should be.

In Barcelona, Spain, Uxbal (Bardem) is a petty criminal who coordinates between different groups of illegal immigrants, including African street vendors and Chinese counterfeiters. Having recently learned from doctors that he has scant months to live, he must learn to accept his inevitable demise and put his final affairs in order. It's not easy when he's a single father with two children he loves and cares about, but even more so when you factor in a scheming brother, an ex-wife suffering from bipolar disorder who might end up with the children after his passing, and a Chinese business partner who runs an illegal sweatshop. As his criminal enforcer status might suggest, Uxbal has done so much bad in his life that making everything right might just be impossible.

This particular director has a habit of casting unknowns or non-actors in his films, finding talent where others don't even bother to look. That worked out wonderfully in Babel, in which two complete Hollywood unknowns, Mexican actress Adriana Barraza and Rinko Kikuchi from Japan, were nominated for Best Supporting Actress at the 2006 Academy Awards, with Barraza winning the prize. This time around, the supporting cast has not gotten nearly as much attention, but that might mainly be due to the fixation Bardem draws in his immediate direction. Bardem is just fantastic. It's sometimes difficult to feel sympathetic with Uxbal because he doesn't do good things even though he is a good man and a caring father. He's also something of a psychic, and while I'm thankful that particular storyline was somewhat muted, it really helped to show how figuratively and literally Uxbal is haunted by his past judgment. In all this Bardem shows a larger range than he's shown in either of the films I'd seen him in before. The movie is good because he is great, and I never get tired of seeing him act circles around most Hollywood hotshots. Maricel Alvarez, who plays Uxbal's troubled ex-wife, is also deserving of praise. Playing a bi-polar character often means changing your character's overall mood not only from scene to scene, but also moment to moment. Alvarez vacillates between a loving wife and mother and self-destructive harpy often over the course of the film, and plays a perfect foil off Bardem's imperfect rogue. Cheng Tai Shen plays Hai, a Chinese sweatshop owner, importing illegal labor to make knockoff handbags and work construction to bypass union laws. There's not nearly enough of him, but it generates strong emotions seeing the divide between his care of his family and then of his people. Other great roles belong to Cheikh Ndiaye, Diaryatou Daff, Eduard Fernandez, Luo Jin, and especially Hanaa Bouchaib and Guillermo Estrella as Uxbal's two children, who would steal every scene against a less seasoned performer than Bardem.

Having never seen an Inarritu film, it has since come to me no surprise that this director is practically obsessed with the idea of death. Death pervades every mood present in the film, even its few lighter-hearted moments. I'm not sure what inspired the director to focus on death and dying as film mediums, but he obviously knows what he's doing and how to make an impact visually in doing so. Like many visual directors, he has the skill to capture the perfect shot at any given time and makes many parts of the film worth seeing for the visuals alone. Whereas Clint Eastwood's efforts to instill the same interest in the afterlife in 2010's Hereafter feel forced and contrived, Inarritu obviously has great respect for his subject and manages to instill that respect into quality craftsmanship. The result is a film that feels authentic, honest and at times heartbreaking.

As you could probably guess, Biutiful is extremely bleak. While I can understand Inarritu dedicating the film to his father and basing it on his own father's experiences (or so it is according to the final credits), the film is a bit dark and depressing for that. Abject poverty, the death of children, immigration evils, the difficulties of bipolar disorder, tragic accidents and overwhelming guilt flow from this film like fluid through a sieve, and there's really very little to feel good about after the film's conclusion. There is also much imagery that, while certainly spot-on, is extremely cliche, and even predictable if you even have the remotest clue what is going on. On a final note, Biutiful has the feel of an ensemble film, with several interceding story lines involving similar themes and motivations, but ends up focusing almost entirely on Uxbal. I'm not really complaining about that; Bardem is fantastic and deserves completely his Best Actor nomination, the first ever for a 100% Spanish-speaking role. But I really wanted to know more about the supporting characters, and would have appreciated added content featuring them. These are what make Biutiful to me a good but not great film. Bardem is fantastic, and the film might win Best Foreign Film, but I already knew those things going in. I desired more, and sadly Inarritu didn't bring enough to completely seal the deal.

The Empire Strikes Back

You might recall back in November, I reviewed an independent film from Descent director Neil Marshall called Centurion. The film followed a band of lost Roman soldiers being chased from Pict tribes in what is now known as the Great Britain, the edge of the known world at the time. At the review's end, I predicted that the wide-release and extremely similar Hollywood film The Eagle, when it was to be released, would be nowhere close to the quality of Marshall's film, despite director Kevin Macdonald being a more renowned director (winning an Academy Award for his 2000 documentary One Day in September). The film not only takes places around the same time as Centurion, but also uses the fabled disappearance of Rome's Ninth Legion as its main plot device. In this, it is far from the first. In fact, the Lost Ninth has been the focus of many books and films, not the least of which is the 1954 novel The Eagle of the Ninth, on which the film I'm reviewing today is officially based.With the lack of viable film releases in recent weeks and harboring no desire to be depressed into next month (sorry, Biutiful, I'll get to you soon), I decided this last Saturday to take in the historically-inaccurate action film. I certainly did not expect much from The Eagle, but I was at least hoping it would surpass my limited expectations and make for an enjoyable if brainless activity.

Marcus's secret attack - The Smolder

The film begins with the arrival of Marcus Flavius Aquila (Channing Tatum) in Roman-occupied Britain approximately twenty years after the legion led by his father - you guessed it, the Ninth - disappeared in the wilderness of the north, never to be seen again. Since then, Emperor Hadrian ordered the building of what is known today as Hadrian's Wall, with the intent of keeping the barbaric tribes outside of Rome's control from attacking "civilized" folk. After serving briefly as a Roman Centurion, Marcus hears rumors of the lost legion's standard, a gold eagle statuette, seen north of the wall. Intent on recovering the symbol of Rome and restoring his family's honor, he heads into the unknown world with only the Scottish slave Esca (Jamie Bell) as escort. Together, they search for the item and honor, facing the dangers of Britain's northern lands every step of the way.

Yes, I'm stealing this line from Airplane: "Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

Kevin Macdonald made some interesting, perplexing decisions in making the film. The most obvious was his casting Americans as the conqueror Romans. Normally in film, when you have an over-lording empire, whether it be the Romans or the Sith, your average casting job in these instances calls for lots and lots of British actors. Besides the obvious talent pool you have from filming in Europe, it simply feels more authentic when your empire soldiers speak with a clipped British accent. I know that doesn't make a ton of sense, what with English not being even close to being a language at a time and Britain in fact not even being officially on the same LAND MASS as the city of Rome. But, for me at least, the British accent makes it feel more familiar and acceptable. American voices in comparison just sound so... UNREFINED. Even talented actors like those of Donald Sutherland (yes, I know he's Canadian) simply don't seem to belong in these roles, and they represent the upper echelon of acting talent. In an early scene basically spelling out the pretense of the film, Macdonald managed to secure some of the worst vocal talents this side of a Limp Bizkit concert to set up the film's tale. I mean... I GET IT. You use Americans to represent this country's history as a conquering nation, using Picts and Gauls to represent Native Americans. I can understand that just fine. What I can't forgive is the ham-handedness with which this was carried out, culminating in a first third of a film that just doesn't feel very well put together.

Yes, that will probably hurt

Another unfortunate decision was to make the film PG-13. There are numerous fights that occur through the course of the story, and if this had been a more ambitious film, it would have upped the blood and gore conspicuously absent from the film. It certainly didn't need to be as bloody as Centurion (which made a point of dismembering each representative limb at least TWICE during the length of the film) but the surprisingly bloodless battles and just-off-screen violence make The Eagle feel lifeless and dull in even these instances and practically begs for an "unrated" DVD release. There are some acts (including the murder of a small child) that would easily have knocked the film's rating up to R had it just been slightly more in the frame. This can only be seen as cowardice on the part of the filmmakers, perhaps worried that their film would not reach a prospective audience with an R rating.

What's hidden is that not one of them is wearing pants

As for historical accuracy, Macdonald had said he wanted to be as accurate as possible, but when you're dealing with a disputed legend and ancient tribes for which little is known, there's not a whole lot to work with. The best you can do is nail down the Romans, and for all intents and purposes, the director seems to at least pull that off. Of course, the only major detail they focus on - and of course they make SURE you notice it too - is the fact that the Roman helmet apparently left a distinctive (and convenient) welt under your chin. I guess I can't be too disappointed, since the film is based on a novel written for children, not any actual historical tale. Most historical analysts won't be paying much attention to this film anyway, I suspect.

Joey REALLY liked gladiator movies

The acting left a lot to be desired, though much can be attributed to a lazily-woven script rather than unambitious acting. I thought Tatum was actually much better here than than he had been in GI Joe, though any who remember that particular film know that's not saying much. At times his natural charm shines through, but at others he's still wooden and uninteresting. He's certainly got the looks to be a star; now he just needs his acting talents to rise to that same level. Jamie Bell suffers from the flaw of his first film role being the most memorable; he might likely never reach the level of success predicted for him after Billy Elliot made him an overnight sensation. Since that time he's mainly played supporting roles in big movies, and his future as a top-billed performer probably will be determined by how well his role is received in this year's Tintin movie. Still, he's the best part of this film, instilling heart into young Esca, with the audience never knowing for sure where the slave's loyalties lie. Donald Sutherland is as I have said a talented performer, but he has pretty much resorted to slumming it up in lesser films like this, chewing scenery long enough to get the story underway. I guess now that he has his official star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, he feels he can stop doing the good jobs and just go for a paycheck. Well, I guess I can't blame him for that. Mark Strong (Seriously? Seems like he's in everything lately) appears as a tribesman who knows where the Eagle is, and does a fine enough job with it. And French actor Tahar Rahim puts forth a very convincing portrayal as another tribe's prince and the film's main antagonist. His performance is possibly the most consistent in the whole movie, with the only exception being Bell's.

Apparently gift horses come in all shapes and sizes

As I stated before, I didn't have high hopes for The Eagle going in. I hate to keep comparing it to Centurion, but when Neil Marshall takes the same topic and runs with it, it just comes out BETTER on all counts. The Eagle barely stands on its own feet however, and while you can plainly see Macdonald trying to make this scrap heap of broken parts into a piece of art, it too often reverts to overly-simplistic storytelling, marginally average acting, and a poorly-written story that doesn't make you care one whit about what's happening on the screen. And don't get me started on the positively stupid ending. I'm sure I'll see worse before year's end, but since I've only seen three 2011 films, The Eagle coming in at #4 just doesn't seem to do justice to how poor I though it turned out. With March looking like a packed house of interesting titles, I'm sure this film will be out of the Top 10 before too long, I'm just not sure how long I can wait for that.

Proud to be The American

I can't say I've been a fan of George Clooney for very long. I don't think I've ever seen an episode of E.R. with him. I tried watching Out of Sight years ago and gave up on it. I haven't seen The Perfect Storm, O Brother Where art Thou, Three Kings or Syriana. I haven't watched seen any of the Oceans films, that's how little of his career I've actually witnessed. But I have liked the little bit I've been privy to. He was great in his first big Hollywood film, From Dusk till Dawn. He was a big part of why the live telecast Fail Safe was so enjoyable. I loved his roles in the great films The Thin Red Line and Good Night, and Good Luck. And Up in the Air was an amazing movie for which he might have won an Oscar had he not been up against Jeff Bridges and Colin Firth at the time. There can be little doubt as to his talents as an actor, especially with his particular mix of acting talent, charm and sex appeal, so I'm happy to start paying attention to the man's career with 2010's The American, his indie thriller set in the mountains of beautiful Italy. The film is based on Martin Booth's book A Very Private Gentleman, originally released back in 1990.

Not exactly in a vacationing mood, is he?

In The American, George Clooney plays Jack, a hit-man recently chased out of hiding in Sweden by men seeking to take him out of the picture. His respite ruined, Jack returns to Rome, where his handler sends him into hiding in rural Italy, the literal middle of nowhere. There, he calls himself Edward and befriends both a priest (Paolo Bonacelli) and a prostitute (Violante Placido). Jack, paranoid of the world around of him and trying to get out of the game, is tasked with one more job before he can escape forever.

Focus on the pretty one... oh, right.

The film appears on the surface to be a normal spy thriller, but as you watch it somehow doesn't feel like one. Indeed, when I was watching the special features on the film's DVD, it's stated by director Anton Corbijn that it is in fact a modernized western, which actually makes a lot of sense. Rural Italy is not unlike the old west in its wide open spaces, untapped beauty and the almost ghost-town atmosphere of the villages outside of tourist season. Jack's journey for redemption and an escape from his past are popular themes in westerns, and even his friendship with the priest and prostitute are for needs both spiritual and physical that he doesn't get from his lonesome, outlaw life. When you begin to think of the film in this way as a current-day western instead of just another spy movie, you can appreciate it's intricacies so much more than you might normally. Corbijn may be relatively new to directing, but uses his experience as a professional photographer to effect that far outpaces the tenets of his job. Every shot is perfect - notice I don't say beautiful, as sometimes the perfect shot needs to be ugly - and he obviously put a lot of thought into every single scene before committing it to film.

Oh, boys and their toys!

You could be justified in saying that The American starts George Cloony "and a bunch of European actors you don't know" but the film is at least partially successful due to the talents of that support cast. Johan Leysen plays Pavel, Jack's mysterious handler. While Jack seems to show remorse for some of his actions, it's obvious from Leysen's performance Pavel has little to no compassion in his system, and seems to be annoyed at Jack's apparent loss of edge. Paolo Bonacelli has been acting in film since 1964, but you likely haven't seen him unless you happen to frequent Italian cinema. His role of Father Benedetto tries to get Jack to confess his sins and repent, seeing through the disguise since he himself knows about the sins of man. Bonacelli's performance suffers slightly from having to speak mostly English throughout the film, but otherwise is well cast here. Another assassin is played by Dutch actress Thekla Reuten, who you might have seen before; she was the female assassin Sayid had an affair with in the fourth season Lost episode "The Economist." Here the beautiful Reuten plays another tough woman, obviously a young up-and-comer in the death-dealing trade. She does a great job not letting the audience too far in, keeping her secrets and still seeming open and honest compared to the insular Jack. The gorgeous Violante Placido seems young enough that she wouldn't have a lot of acting experience, but the Italian actress and singer actually has film history in spades and puts it to great effect here. As Clara, the "prostitute with a heart of gold" might seem like a trite role at this point, but she pulls it off nicely and her work with Clooney is pretty damn good. One particular scene is a startlingly strong sex scene in which she sets the mood for the entire scene with the camera almost exclusively focused on her. She's a charming, talented actress and manages to be the heart of the film. Finally we get to Clooney, who actually puts on a restrained face as the assassin whose history seems to be jumping back to bite him after so many years. Clooney plays the grim, emotionless hit-man when he needs to, but his legendary motormouth is conspicuously absent and the emotion on his face throughout makes for one of his more unique roles. It might not be his best performance, but being so different from his previous roles it's certainly one that commands attention.

Doug Ross's Doctors without Borders run didn't work as planned

The film is not without its faults. While much of the film takes place in one Italian town of Castel del Monte, Jack seems to travel to other towns to broker business. It's not clear when he's in a particular town or why at any given time, however. This is a small and mainly unimportant pacing problem. Also a bit off is the introduction of Clara, whose intro is shoved into an interceding five second scene included solely to plug her into the story. Most against the film, however, is it's predictability. I figured out in the first five minutes what the film's big twist would be, and while The American was still an interesting film to watch, the weight of knowing what was coming was too much a distraction to fully appreciate. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, with The American's expert camera work and great cast getting most of my positive attention. It was also great to see Italy's beauty on film, just begging to be visited. It might not be the best Clooney film out there, but its certainly one you won't regret seeing on the way to watching his bigger, better fare.

Dog Eat Dog

So imagine you have less than twenty-four hours to watch a movie and review it for your blog. No problem, right? Well, except when you take eight hours out of that for your day job, two hours travel time, two for a seriously overdue laundry run, not to mention at least six hours of sleep, the time left begins to look a bit leery, doesn't it? Needing to see a film on short notice, I hauled ass down to the local Redbox to check out the latest releases, finally settling on two: the nearly forgotten George Cloony thriller The American and the Australian Oscar nominee Animal Kingdom. I'll admit that The American appealed to me more for that particular viewing, but my roommate took over the main room's entertainment center for the evening. Frankly I didn't mind (especially since I got to see her freak out to the tune of giant spiders in Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles) but the main room is the home of our lone blu-ray player, and I'd picked up The American in that format. This left normal DVD Animal Kingdom as the default choice, and I was hoping that the title didn't leave me feeling I had been stuck with second best.

I think Pearce won an AFI award for "Best 'Stache"

Animal Kingdom calls itself a crime story, and to that effect the film's protagonists are what most people would call the bad guys. Joshua "J" Cody (James Frecheville) is a teen whose mother tried to keep far from her criminal family. When she dies, however, he's brought back into the fold of his grandmother Janine (Jacki Weaver), who is the matriarch of a crime family that includes J's three uncles. J just tries to get along, but while his family can protect him, they're just as scary as the police, led my Officer Nathan Leckie (Guy Pearce). Leckie has the family in his crosshairs, and he may have no hesitation in using the young J to take the whole operation down.

Weaver = Wow

As the directorial debut of David Michod, this film is a good mix of high tension and wonderful acting. There's nothing mysterious about the plot, no secrets to uncover and you are given just about every detail you need to follow the story with ease. This is almost a revelation in modern film, where so many people like to whack you over the head with a surprise and watch you squirm. Everything becomes about the next big scare, or an unnecessarily confusing ending, or a major actor's cameo for little reason more than the director can do it. That's not to say that these things can't be good, just that they so rarely are effective anymore. Shyamalan and ilk, take note: if you have a well-told story and a competent cast and crew, good things will happen naturally.

Special appearance by Coco?

When you think of Australian actors, a lot of names come to mind: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Hugo Weaving, Portia de Rossi, Mel Gibson, Naomi Watts and Geoffrey Rush are but a small sample of the industry's more successful Aussies. One name you might neglect to remember is that of former LA Confidential star Guy Pearce, who makes an appearance here. Pearce plays a police officer who is hard-nosed, but fair as well, making him probably the most sympathetic character outside of J himself. Frecheville by the way seems to be a talented actor, but the role doesn't give him a lot of room to play around, with a lot of moody sullenness that is perfect for the kind of downtrodden character he is. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow me to say whether he'll make it as a performer or if he'll be typecast in this same type of role for years to come. Jacki Weaver has gotten both attention and awards for her portrayal of the maternal crime lord, and while I wasn't sure at first if she was going to have deserved them, she proved me wrong with a scarily charismatic performance that really put her head and shoulders over the rest of the cast. She was almost worth seeing this film on the basis of her talent alone, and she's the main reason I'd see it again given the chance. Another strong performance belongs to the role of J's uncle Andrew "Pope" Cody, Ben Mendelsohn. Pope is by far the creepiest, scariest character on both sides of the legal divide, and Mendelsohn makes you cringe with his every appearance on screen. I thought he was almost as compelling as Weaver, and while he'll never be a big star, his ability to create such vivid characters is deserving of more praise than he gets. Other good performances belong to Joel Edgerton, Luke Ford and Sullivan Stapleton as others in the crime family, and rookie actress Laura Wheelwright as J's unknowing girlfriend Nicky. There isn't a weak actor in the house, and the ensemble cast mesh well enough to make the tale realistic and honest.

You'll see that blank stare a lot in Australia (I'm kidding, don't sic the Koalas on me!)

The film does have a few faults. The pacing isn't perfect, though there aren't many dull moments at all. The biggest problem I had was with some of the minor character introductions. There were some, like Nicky and a few others, who simply appear from thin air without pretense of an introduction. While some summary descriptors for their history are announced, it still makes those few scenes a bit shaky. Still,.this isn't enough to derail what is actually a solid crime film with plenty going for it. With a stellar cast and a good directing job by the talented Michod, Animal Kingdom misses that intangible to be an excellent film but does enough right to be a very, very good one. This is a title I recommend if you want something a little different than the slick, hyper-produced gimmicky fare currently available.

Version 2.0

Today's review is for Barney's Version, based on the 1997 Mordecai Richler novel and starring 2011 Golden Globe winner Paul Giamatti. It would be fair to say that Giamatti's nomination for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical was the main reason I wanted to see this film. A trailer seen not long after those nominations cemented it as a film of interest. Sadly, movies of this ilk tend to keep holding patterns active in limited release and wait until the Oscars are announced before making the final push for box office success. Sometimes this works, as films like Black Swan and The King's Speech made a lot of money in limited release before Oscar nominations and wide release. Sometimes, however, this backfires when a film garners no major nominations and pretty much missed their chance at the big payday. Barney's Version is the perfect example, as here was a chance to really push Paul Giamatti as a major acting force left instead in a gutter by the wayside. But that has to do with marketing and number crunching, which isn't my forte. So how does this title stand up as a film in its own right?

Challenging the idea that one can't look TOO Jewish

The film tells the life story of Barney Panofsky (Giamatti), from his youth as a layabout in Italy through the marriages to his three ex-wives (played by Rosamund Pike, Minnie Driver and Rachelle LeFevre), the disappearance and presumed death of his chemically-addicted best friend Boogie (Scott Speedman), and to the present day, where he recounts all this in the wake of his latest divorce and continued accusations of responsibility for Boogie's death by the detective who originally accused him. The story is presented from Barney's version of the facts (hence the title), and Barney himself is an uncomplicated character, making motions through life until he meets his true, and then does everything he can to keep her with him.

"I'm so high...look at my thumb! Weird..."

I've never read the book by Richler, so while I can't say I was a big fan of the film's story as a whole, I can't be sure if this is a problem inherent in the novel or simply in the transposing of the tale to the big screen. Barney's Version can't seem to decide what kind of movie it is. The film goes from being a coming-of-age tale to a romantic comedy, dabbling in buddy films and gross-out humor, and managing to incorporate a murder mystery between the margins as well. This is unfortunate because with such a jumbled storyline it's difficult to get a gauge on what we're supposed to be feeling towards the characters, especially Barney, who appears to go to and fro along the sympathy scale without any clear destination. This might not sound bad to those reading this, but trust me when I say that I'm sure this works much better in a four-hundred page book than a 132-minute movie. Also of some concern was the film's makeup, which garnered an Oscar nom but nevertheless couldn't make Giamatti look the same age as his cohorts at any given time. I suppose they deserve credit for getting CLOSE enough.

May it last longer than the first two

The performances, however, are what make the film as good as it is. Giamatti especially makes it onto a very long list of lead actors who SHOULD have been nominated for Best Actor at this year's Oscars but didn't make the cut of final five (talk about a category that could benefit from expanding to ten nominees). Though his character goes through a few periods where the audience would be fully forgiven for thinking him a complete and utter douchebag, Barney is more often than not a good man who falls in love, loses and gains friends and enemies, and undergoes a life transformation over the course of, well, his life. Often he's the main reason I kept my eyes on the screen, and for much of the film qualifies as it's savior. Rosamund Pike is also charming as Barney's third wife Miriam, who is the love of Barney's life, the one and only. Though you can't escape that Pike looks years younger than Giamatti at all points during the film (she's only two years older than ME, folks), their relationship is shown in a very realistic manner, and Giamatti can't take all the credit for that. While Pike is forced to work under a lot of aging make-up during the film's run, she still manages to convey a different type of heart than we've seen from her before. Not to be outdone are the first two wives, played by Lefevre and Driver. Lefevre, whose biggest role to date was the role of Victoria in the first two Twilight films (and lost that role in the third by committing to this one), takes a small role and makes it hers as the snotty young woman Barney knocked up to become his first wife. Driver's career prime may not have been as high as some hoped or expected, but she's still delightful here as his shrill, overly-emotional second. Scott Speedman puts on one of the better performances I've seen from him as Barney's talented but troubled best friend, and Mark Addy makes a nice turn as a hard-nose detective sure Barney is guilty of murder. Last and unfortunately least is Dustin Hoffman as Barney's ex-cop father. Hoffman is in his "Focker" phase, with the cliche Jewish persona in full effect. He's not BAD, per se, he's simply played this role far too long and far too often, and it shows. While he still cranks out the occasional award-nominated roles, this isn't one of them.

Is the makeup making him look older or younger? I can't tell

There were times where I really wanted to get up and walk out of the theater. There were times I was sure I was seeing a masterpiece. Unfortunately, these were parts of the same film. While Giamatti deserves every great attemtion for his role in Barney's Version, the movie itself is mainly blah. It ties up every loose end with an annoying lack of subtlety, and while the ending gets up there in the "masterpiece" rating, it doesn't make up for the rest of the film not getting the job done. Not a great movie, by any stretch, but I'd recommend it just to see Giamatti and crew exchange good dialogue over the decades.

The Ballad of Rich People

Oliver Stone is arguably well past his career peak. His films haven't received any major award nominations in over fifteen years. Many of his recent titles have barely made back the money spent in making them. W was the presidential film nobody who lived through Dubya's two terms really wanted to see. Alexander was on the same historical fiction plateau as Kingdom of Heaven that filmmakers wanted to create despite nobody filled audience chairs to see them. Any Given Sunday and World Trade Center were successful, but harbor no hopes of being remembered decades from now. No, Oliver Stone will be remembered not for his recent releases, but those released twenty years ago that we still talk about today: titles like JFK, Platoon, and Wall Street. Having not had ample opportunity to make it to the theaters this week (and with few exceptions any reason to go anyway), I dropped by the Redbox and grabbed the sequel to one of Stone's classics Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, taking the chance to catch a film I'd missed last year in the theaters. Though I've never seen the original, this seemed ample opportunity to catch up on the role that won Michael Douglas his Academy Award, and the trailer had been appealing enough to me that I was sure I didn't need to see the original to understand what was going on.

Didn't I see this the same street on Sex and the City?

WSMNS is a revenge tale set astride a backdrop of the current global recession. After eight years of imprisonment for insider trading and securities fraud, Gordon Gekko (Douglas) is released from prison in 2001. Fast forward seven years, and Gekko has become a best-selling author and celebrity lecturer, his face all over CNN and any major network that will have him. Meanwhile, Jake Moore (Shia LaBoeuf) is doing well as an investment banker with Keller Zabel (KZI), a major Wall Street bank. He may be relatively wealthy, but he has good influences in his life, like his girlfriend (and Gekko's estranged daughter) Winnie (Carrie Mulligan), a successful blogger and social activist. He is also raising money for his pet project, a green energy company. All in all, he's a good kid. That changes when  That changes overnight when KZI, which had apparently been just treading water, finally goes under. A bailout to get the company back on track fails thanks to rival banker (Josh Brolin) and with the company in ruins, Jake teams up with Gekko to try and strike back at the man who destroyed Jake's company.

In an attempt to make them more sympathetic, Stone put them on a train. Genius!

If it all seems overly simplistic, that's because I haven't explained everything. There's a LOT going on in the plot, mostly involving character development over moving the actual story forward. This is a positive turn, as far too often character development can be strewn along the wayside in making a concise story, easily followed by the audience. Unfortunately, the story itself is not as good as the characters portrayed, and while the backdrop especially is relevant to the issues we face today, the fact that this story is told from the perspective of which collar rich folk dulls the impact for the average viewer somewhat. Even the poorest characters in the film are a Blogger who racks up fifty times more hits daily than I've had for the entire run on my blog and an author whose media attention is more than that of Steven Levitt and Ben Mezrich COMBINED. Even though some of their causes are noble, not one character's motivation isn't to be wealthier than they currently are.

Brolin still has the occasional Jonah Hex flashback

The acting is pretty amazing here. Of course most of the attention (and rightfully so) has fallen on the shoulders of Douglas, who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his reprisal of the inimitable Gekko. Though it's been more than twenty years since he played this role, Douglas took to it like a second skin, adding bits of new to the comfortable layers of greed and manipulation that he's famous for. Most notable is his desire to reconnect with his daughter. LaBoeuf is surprisingly good as the story's protagonist, Jake. I say "surprisingly" even though he's been good in the few things I've actually seen him in. I guess it's more his choice of movies that puts me off, from Disturbia to Eagle Eye to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. These are NOT good movies, but LaBoeuf is a good performer, and as a good-hearted conniver who sees everything spiral out of control around him, It's easy to forget how privileged he is when you see how hard he works and his faith in good will. I didn't see An Education, so this was the first film I've seen Carrie Mulligan in, and she's also quite good. Torn between her social ethics, the man she loves and the father she can't forgive, she's probably the most sympathetic character in this tale. Brolin once again rides high on his late-career surge, this time as the film's main antagonist. While Brolin does a good job overall, his role is perhaps a tad oversimplified and while still a serious threat, not one you can't imagine being overcome. Frank Langella and Susan Sarandon appear in the film also, and though Langella's role is somewhat on the smallish side as Jake's boss and mentor, he does a good job early on setting the table for the rest of the film. Sadly, Sarandon is a cipher as Jake's real estate investor mother and hence cannot add a lot to the small role she has been assigned.

Obviously never told not to sit with his eyes that close to the screen

For what the original film represents, it's almost too bad this sequel wasn't better reviewed upon release. Then again, since the original existed in Stone's "golden age", it simply simply be that this new film is nowhere near the quality of the first. That wouldn't be surprising, especially given Stone's propensity for visual elements, such as the NYC skyline overlaid with a stock price chart. Stunts like that alone wouldn't be bad, but Stone seems to enjoy doing things like this a bit too much, since every time there's a break in the story, he fills the void with endless similar visual trickery as a bridge. At best, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a timely, relevant look at the market crash through the eyes of those directly involved, a great exercise in character development, and hosts at least good performances from all involved, and a great one from Michael Douglas. At its worst you have largely useless characters, meandering plot threads and unnecessary twists that make the finale predictable and anti-climactic. In the end, I liked this film, though I feel my appreciation for it would dwindle were I to revisit the original. Stone might no longer be at his peak, but if this is the standard fare he introduces these days, I certainly won't reject any future films of his out of hand.

The Way Back Machine

World War II movies are a tricky business. There's nobody that will deny the cultural and historical significance of the war on the entire world, so changed was most of human society by the events the war brought. That alone makes films about the war popular and almost guaranteed money-makers. The problem with that is that there's no guarantee of quality when it comes to these films. Pearl Harbor is a perfect example of a WWII film that made gobs of dough solely on the patriotic message the film portrayed, and certainly not on any quality film-making. Since WWII films are so popular and populous, they basically construct a genre all their own, one which seemingly every year add more titles to the roll call. That alone put The Way Back on my radar, and it's trailer was intriguing enough to get me into the theater this past Monday and check it out. With a talented director in Peter Weir and a strong acting cadre, the film seemed like more than those similar titles littering the WWII landscape could aspire to.

Guess which ones won't be making it home to momma?

Beginning at a cold Siberian gulag, The Way Back is based on the book The Long Walk by Swladomir Rawicz, depicting his alleged escape from sed gulag on a 4,000 mile walk to India and freedom. Janusz (Jim Sturgess) is a Polish political prisoner, arrested after the Russian invasion of Poland for conspiring against Mother Russia. When torture doesn't get him to confess, the authorities torture his wife to make her give him up, and before long Janusz is shipped off to Siberia and a labor camp that holds men from several nationalities oppressed by the Communist state. After a few months, a severe snowstorm presents the perfect opportunity for Janusz and some of his friends in the camp to make a break for it, beginning their long walk to freedom.

Quote me on this: "Ed Harris in his ugliest role yet."

While the cruelty of the Germans during World War II is practically legendary - most notably their treatment of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and other minority groups - and German Prisoner of War camps enjoy popularization in film and television from The Great Escape to Hogan's Heroes, it's often glossed over just how practically evil Josef Stalin's regime was in the east. Any region conquered by the Soviet Union at that point was absorbed into its girth and the people mercilessly manhandled by a nation bent on global domination. And so a variety of nationalities ended up at these camps, many for political crimes such as preaching religion or conspiring against the state, and many Yugoslavs, Latvians, Poles, Americans and Russians are held at these camps far from civilization for simply getting on Stalin's bad side. That aspect made this film unique even among similar films by focusing on an aspect of the war most people don't think of.

Bet they're not expecting the Spanish Inquisition

The pacing of the film feels uneven at times. The scenes in the camp early on feel rushed, as the film attempts to introduce us to our prospective escapees in a timely manner so as to get the main story underway quickly. Unfortunately, that makes for the worst part of the movie, as some of the characters are not very distinguishable early on, and the result is a mishmash of scenes that don't really make sense until much later on. It's not a complete throwaway, but when you compare it to the seemingly endless distant shots of characters walking across forbidding landscapes, you wish a bit more time had been invested in the opening. Over the course of the film the characters thankfully become much more detailed, and any fear of confusing people becomes far less likely.

Bet Russia's beginning to look real good right now...

The cast also manages to be one of the strongest I've seen in any film of late. Sturgess, who I'd enjoyed in the gambling thriller 21, is amazing as Janusz, the impromptu leader of this motley crew of misfits and malcontents. He seems to be a natural when it comes to using the wilds to survive, and while no background is given as to why that would be the case, he still makes for a believable leader and a compelling and charismatic main character. Ed Harris is surly and strong as the American Smith, a man so beaten down my personal tragedy that he has become solely focused on personal survival, and while you are saddened when any of the film's characters dies, Smith is the one you keep actively wishing to go on. That's the power of Harris's performance. Colin Farrell plays Valka, a professional Russian criminal who forces his way onto the crew to avoid a gambling debt in prison. Farrell, long an under-appreciated actor by film goers, has possibly the most fun on this cast as a man who has done evil things and the experience allows him to see the darkness in others. Saoirse Ronan is also amazing as Irena, a young Polish teen the group takes in. I've never seen Ronan in anything before, though she had been nominated for a Golden Globe (for Atonement), and seeing this makes me want to go back and see her earlier work. It also makes me excited for the upcoming Hanna, which I saw a trailer for the same day. Other standouts include Dragos Bucur as an accountant with a strange sense of humor, Skarsgard family member Gustaf as a former priest, and Mark Strong as a former actor who initially plans the escape. It's to the film's credit that every character represented is interesting and unique, making those people who would be cannon fodder in lesser films into real humans, especially when you know not all of them will be making it home.

Remember when Colin Farrell was a big deal? Me either.

While the lack of success in the box office was a little suspicious in my eyes, The Way Back thankfully turned out to be almost as good as I'd hoped. There are the aforementioned pacing issues, but for the most part it works itself out over the film's two-plus hours. The settings are extraordinarily beautiful, even with the promises of probable death brought with it. That can be attributed to National Geographic's involvement in the film's production. With amazing acting and a powerful story of human strength, The Way Back would probably be #1 on my list of films for 2011, had it qualified. Unfortunately, the film was released briefly in late 2010 to qualify for award nominations, and while it did garner an Oscar nom, it was only for Best Makeup. As good a movie as it is, however, I'll still pop it in as #9 on my list of 2010's Best Movies. Definitely worth seeing, if you can work it in.