THE END OF AN ERA

Well, not exactly. I've just moved my blog into a different location, which is now at SonicFilmBox.com:

http://sonicfilmbox.com/category/movies-film/macus-eger-movie-reviews/

So, check it out and enjoy!!!

OSCARS 10' - Week 2.0

Tuning out: Believe it or not, there was once a time when a hit song from a movie became even bigger on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, creating a certain buzz around the Best Original Song category at the Oscars. Well, I don’t have to tell you the last time any of the songs nominated were that big of hit on radio stations was over 20 years ago, so those days are clearly behind us. Just in how the average music lover gets their music now has changed, helping to create a huge debate on the validity of this category as a whole. Just last summer, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) suggested they would eliminate the category for years where the eligible songs weren’t as prevalent, meaning not good enough. Problem is, how is that determined and when? Too often people, including the academy members, forget what a song can mean to a film, the true essence of the nomination. Occasionally, a song or overall soundtrack does in fact set a film apart from others, helping make that film more enjoyable. And those critical decisions around this category are still lingering, as just this week, a rumor has surfaced that the current slot of songs nominated this year would not be performed live during the ceremony, an unexpected and now highly ridiculed change. Maybe all this is good or maybe this is the beginning to the end of this category, but either way the tide is changing.

The reality is, more and more studies or going away from music being so prevalent in movies, but that doesn’t mean that out of the roughly 500 or more films that get released each year, there wouldn’t be at least five songs that made a difference in the individual film they were written for? I think we all can agree there could potentially be more than five given those odds, which is why this category should stay put. If anything, maybe the selection or rules around the eligibility of these songs should change, so that there is no doubt why this or that song is being nominated for that year. Either way, it’s hard to argue that a song can’t mean something to the film as ONCE proved a few years back with “Falling Slowly” winning. Not many had ever heard of that song or film before the ceremony that year, but if you were among the small population that happened to see it at a local film festival, you weren’t surprised.

But, that’s not the only way a song or musical score can help a film. A great song played during the trailer and/or preview can drive people to or away from the theater as well, so it’s very important for the producers of that film to choose their musical talent wisely. It starts with the main title track for the soundtrack, which will become the film’s energy and feeling. When I think of Best Original Song, I think of a song that reminds me of the film so much, that I want to watch it again. However, the trick is finding out which of the nominated songs each year does that. Maybe they should change the category to Best Soundtrack, since that’s what most people will want, to get the one song you can;t get out of your head. Doing this might solve a lot, actually, as it would eliminate the multiple nominations for one film and offer up more opportunities for films, not among the remaining nominated categories to be a part of the Oscars. Films like 500 DAYS OF SUMMER, for instance, which had great transitions of music in and out of places within the story. Just a thought, but one I would love to see come to fruition one day, given how many good soundtracks get forgotten about as quickly as they come out.

The songs lucky enough to be nominated: It’s always interesting when a film receives multiple nominations for songs played and if trust me, if it’s deserving I have no issue with it. Back in 2007 when DREAMGIRLS had not two, but three songs nominated, I was a bit surprised, but knowing the songs involved, I couldn’t argue too much then or now. All three were huge in that film, given its genre, so to see them nominated only made sense to me. Problem with this year and THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG is only one song should have made it, not two. I can get on board with “Down in New Orleans,” as a nominee, for a lot of reasons, including its source and how it was sung. But, to back that up with a second nomination for “Almost There” was too much in my opinion. The reality is they might cancel each other out as potential winners, leaving the final three to win. But to me, the only song out of the final three worthy of winning this year was “The Weary Kind.” Here’s a perfect example of what a song can mean to the story as this one did with CRAZY HEART, but it also shows the Academy voters can still get one right when it matters most. Of course, maybe I should hold off judgment until the envelope is read in a few weeks, but I have a feeling this one is already decided, and rightfully so. The remaining two nominees include “Loin de Paname” from the little-known foreign indie PARIS 36 and “Take It All” from the musical NINE. But, there can only be one, as my pick below suggests:


Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original Song)

- “Almost There” from THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
- “Down In New Orleans” from THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
- “Loin de Paname” from PARIS 36, Music by Reinhardt Wagner; Lyric by Frank Thomas
- “Take it All” from NINE, Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston
* “The Weary Heart” from CRAZY HEART, Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett



Scoring is more important than you think: Ah the forgotten art of movie-making, the one aspect people don’t appreciate enough, and yet nearly every film includes one. Choosing a song is easy compared to selecting an overall score for a film. And for those that don’t know, the score is usually the music that accompanies the entire film offering little to no vocals. Unlike Best Original Song, the score can truly set a film up for success if the music is carefully intertwined within the story. Being a classical music fan, I guess I get into this category a little more than others, but so many times I’ve watched a film and thought, “I have to get this score.” And there are even some films that have both a score and a regular soundtrack intertwined. So, it’s the best of both worlds, if you don’t care about the gentle touches of instruments as the invisible backdrop. Just think of a film in which music is playing while the camera pans across an extravagant landscape or background. That entire setting can be quite the dynamic feature to experience on the big screen. That’s the essence of a score and why this category should deserve more exposure than it gets, for it truly depicts the vision of a film in a whole different light.

The ‘Jekyll & Hyde’ list of nominees: This year we find a host of films nominated, many of which deserving of the nomination, but it seems every year there is one or two snubbed. I know, only five are lucky enough to be nominated, but when one of them is not STAR TREK, something is terribly wrong. Anyone who saw the J.J. Abrams’ revamp of the movie franchise knows how powerful the music was, mixing the old with the new so well. But, I guess when the composer is already nominated for his work with UP, it’s silly to put him in there twice, right? Well, to me, Michael Giacchino was just nominated for the wrong movie, so if he wins, at least his talents will be recognized. It’s just a shame it comes down to that, but that’s just one example of how politics rule this ceremony each year. In the end, however, it probably won’t matter as the other nominees are simply stronger.

AVATAR alone, composed by James Horner is most likely the front runner, given how the entire film seemed to be almost flawless. But, be aware of Hans Zimmer and his work for SHERLOCK HOLMES, a film that did quite well at the box office here and abroad, despite being released just before AVATAR. Its eclectic and dark movements of sound were uncanny to the story, making it the perfect dark horse in this category. And don’t forget about the final two nominees, FANTASTIC MR. FOX and THE HURT LOCKER. Funny thing is, I don’t even remember the music in THE HURT LOCKER, considering how intense the story was, so maybe that’s the same reason why the academy will bypass it as well. As for FANTASTIC MR. FOX, well, this is just a case where the theme was rewarded, but honestly, for two animated films to even be in this category is a tad bit ridiculous if you ask me. So, I would be shocked if it won, but I have seen crazier things before, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. For now, this is how I see the award being handed out:


Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original Score)

* AVATAR, James Horner
- FANTASTIC MR. FOX, Alexandre Desplat
- THE HURT LOCKER, Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
- SHERLOCK HOLMES, Hans Zimmer
- UP, Michael Giacchino



Friday: (Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing)

OSCARS 10' - Week 1

The skinny:

February to some is just another month. It follows January and precedes March, so no surprises there, but February is bigger than people give it credit for. It not only is the host month for both the Super Bowl of football and racing, it is the month we find out who is among the best in film from the previous year. And although the ceremony itself has been pushed out into the first week of March, Oscar coverage begins and ends in February as far as I’m concerned. The nominations have been released and are once again in prime position to be debated and ridiculed ten-times over by prognosticators like myself. It may be the second month of 2010, but 2009, in regards to film, is far from over. That’s what the Academy Awards bring, an extension to last year and a time to watch some of the best Hollywood had to offer for the first time or again. So, while some may still be reeling from the ride James Cameron recently took them on with AVATAR, I will turn my attention to this year’s nominees, a list that includes the new box office ‘king of the world’ nine times. I do this with an entirely new look to my Oscar column, so sit back and get set, for my own Oscar push begins now.

The history:

Sticking with what works, I will continue to give my thoughts and predictions on everything pertaining to the Oscars, and this week I have no choice but to journey into the topic on everyone’s mind, which is the Best Picture category. My predictions will of course come later, but how many of you were as surprised as I was this past June when you heard the category was moving from 5 to 10 nominees? This was a complete shock for me, given this category hasn’t changed since 1944. That’s right, for the past 66 years, we have seen only five total films eligible for this award, so make no mistake about it, this is a huge change for this ceremony. With less than stellar TV Ratings over the past several years, producers have been looking for something to spice it up and this change by The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) might just do it. Considering anywhere from 8 to 12 films were nominated for this award back in the 30’s and early 40’s, this change isn’t as crazy as it seems.

Question is, why didn’t they do it sooner, given how many years offered up at least 10 or more quality films? Too bad this past year wasn’t one of them, but maybe that’s a good thing given the nominees that did make it into the famed category. Fact is, everyone has their own definition of what was “best” from last year, so with five more choices, it allows the Academy voters to include those films that in past years would have been snubbed. Its often these same excluded films would show up in the lesser categories, so why not give them a shot at the top prize? Seems to make sense, but I just hope all 10 nominated films actually have a chance at winning and it’s not some lame notion that a simple nomination is good enough. Although I don’t disagree with Tom Cruise when he once said that just being nominated is like a win, there is still a pretty big difference there; and easy to say for a guy who has yet to win. Holding up that 8.5 pound statuette on stage in front of all your peers is a lot different than sitting with your all your peers, clapping for someone else who won. So, let’s be real and call it what it is, which is a token nomination.


The reality:
I’ve never steered away from the politics that surround this ceremony, so I won’t now; but by adding more slots to the category, in my mind, lets some of the Academy voters get away with nominating a film despite another. So, essentially, some integrity might get lost in the mix here with this change; but I hope the voters realize with more choices, they can truly pick the best and not just go with the flow. The result should be a more balanced turnout of votes, across the board, which in the end should truly produce the best from that year. But, there are drawbacks to that theory as well, as voters might just go with the one that earned the most money, given they didn’t see all 10 nominated films. I know that’s crazy to suggest, but think about the new audience that will tune in this year to hopefully see AVATAR win. Many probably haven’t watched the ceremony in years, if at all, but knowing AVATAR is among the leading nominees, they will watch. So, sorry to burst you bubble, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, but no one will tune in solely based on the fact you are co-hosting the event. History tells us otherwise, as the year TITANTIC won was one of the highest rated Academy Awards ceremonies and we all know how long that film stood atop the box office. Throw in the fact that part of the reason why the AMPAS changed this category was to be able to include films like AVATAR or the animated feature UP, so the writing may already be on the wall. And that’s just one common point of contention, but in the end, this could very well shake up the voting in a big way, making it somewhat of a popularity contest, which I doubt any of us want.

The trivia:

For those new to this column, each year I pick one aspect of the Oscars that tends to get left out from all the hype that you see on TV and online. And this year, I figured I would let you into some of the more interesting trivia/milestones from the coveted Best Picture category. So, whether you know it or not, it’s still a lot of fun to see it in writing.

And starting way back when this category looked, well, how it will look this year with at least 10 nominees, in 1939, the race for top prize was about as tight as it could be. Many might think a classic such as THE WIZARD OF OZ would be undoubtedly a best picture winner, but it lost this famed year to GONE WITH THE WIND. For those that don’t know, GONE WITH THE WIND was not only the first winner in this category to be filmed in full color, but it holds the record for selling the most tickets in history at the box office. Consider the adjustment for inflation and it’s not even close as this film would eclipse its next closest competitor, AVATAR, two-times over. So, as we move back into an age of at least 10 nominees for this category, let’s not forget the past, as it truly led us to this point.

Moving on into some unusual milestones in this category find us looking at acting and one that caught my eye was a Best Picture nominee, also having nominations in all four acting categories. Only twice in the now 82 years of this ceremony, has that happened, as the film’s FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and REDS (1981) did it. That sure is hard to believe, when you think of all the amazing cast ensembles over the years to grace this ceremony. The flipside to that coin finds THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, which is the last Best Picture winner to win both Best Actor and Best Actress awards. Again, hard to believe through all these years, we haven’t seen a sweep like that, but that’s the reality. The most recent sweep for any acting category was done by AS GOOD AS IT GETS, winning for Best Actor and Best Actress, but falling short in the Best Picture category. However, maybe the one that takes the cake is just last year when SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE won for Best Picture without having a single acting nomination, a first in an extremely long time, so long in fact, that I can’t seem to find the other time it happened, if at all. So, I guess no matter which way you go when it comes to the acting and best picture categories, they find themselves intertwined in some manner.

Now, keeping with the Best Picture theme, only twice has a trilogy been nominated for Best Picture for all three installments; with THE GODFATHER series doing it first, followed by Peter Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy a decade or so later. Now, out of all six films between both trilogies, only half claimed the coveted statuette, with THE GODFATHER, THE GODFATHER II and LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING all winning respectively. Sort of hard to fathom how THE GODFATHER III didn’t win in 1990, considering its pedigree, but it had been over 15 years since its predecessor, THE GODFATHER II, won. And when you look at the other nominees that year like GOODFELLAS, GHOST, AWAKENINGS and the eventual winner, DANCES WITH WOLVES, it’s easy to understand why. But, I still think the Academy got it wrong, as Martin Scorsese’s GOODFELLAS was by far the best movie that year and one that has helped define that genre for the future.

The breakdown:

So anyway, now that you have been privy to some of the unknown history and trivia to these awards, let me educate you on what will come over the next few weeks. And to mix it up this year, I am throwing in a few new categories, not as well known, but full of intrigue. My predictions for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards, beginning next week, are as follows:

Week 2:

Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Film Editing

Week 3:

Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress

Week 4:

Best Director
Best Picture

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (The Weinstein Company)
Written & Directed by Quentin Tarantino

The overused saying, ‘practice makes perfect’, takes on an entirely new meaning with Quentin Tarantino’s newest film, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. For years rumblings of this so-called war epic was in the works by the famed director and yet, nothing ever surfaced leading fans to wonder if it would ever happen. For nearly 10 years, Tarantino worked on this script, writing and re-writing to the point where he had to put it down and make ‘other’ films like KILL BILL: VOL. 1 & VOL. 2 and DEATH PROOF. So, to simply say this film was important to him is a huge understatement, as for Tarantino, nothing would be missed or excluded for what he dubbed his “ultimate masterpiece in the making.” And after seeing this film on DVD finally, it’s hard to argue its not leading me to believe it was well worth the wait and a strong contender to be covered in gold come Oscar night.

As with any Tarantino film, the story is anything but basic, here jumping back in forth between a set of five chapters, all individually titled and part of a bigger plan of two primary stories which merge toward film's end, in true World War II spirit. It all opens in France where SS Colonel Landa (Christoph Waltz) is led to a farm where Jews were allegedly being held in secret, a crime very much punishable back in the 40's. After an enlightening and all too revealing discussion with the home owner, Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet), Landa calls his men into the house, where he instructs them to shoot down at the floorboards. Several rounds later, the hidden family of Jews were all killed, with the exception of Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), who Landa let get away for reasons unknown. Meanwhile, somewhere in Italy, Lt. Aldo Raine, a.k.a. “Aldo the Apache” (Brad Pitt) recruits a team of eight Jewish-American soldiers to hunt down and scalp any Nazi they ran into. And their claim to fame, outside the scalping of Nazi’s, were to let one prisoner escape, so he could go back to headquarters and tell his command what took place. A dirty game, yes, but one Raine and the Basterds loved to play, eventually striking great fear into the opposition.

Back in Paris, Shosanna had established a new identity as a local cinema owner by the name of Emmanuelle Mimieux After meeting a celebrated German marksman by the name of Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), she is convinced to hold the premiere of a new Nazi propaganda film, in which Zoller starred in. The film, dubbed Stolz de Nation, was set to be a big hit and one almost every high ranking Nazi official, including Hitler, would be attending at Emmanuelle’s cinema opening night. Seeing this as a perfect opportunity for her revenge, she compiles a plan to bring down the ones responsible for her family’s death. But, shortly after the premiere began, another plan emerges, one devised by the Basterds, with help from Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), a famed German film star working undercover as a double agent. So, as both plans start to work alongside one another, the end result was anything but pretty, as this Nazi gathering was set to blow in more ways than one.

I guess any cast with Brad Pitt is worth mentioning, but for the first time in a long time it didn’t really matter all that much. I know that might be a shock to some, but this film really didn’t require any one star primarily, as the story in itself was able to hold its own quite well. In fact, despite one amazing performance by Christoph Waltz, the rest of the cast pretty much settled into their roles quietly. And maybe that’s what Tarantino wanted, as Waltz clearly was meant to be the one piece to this cast you remembered the most from his story. So credit Waltz for coming through when it mattered, as his recent awards suggest, but know that without the amazing script from Tarantino, none of it would have been possible. Maybe that’s a given, but to me it often gets forgotten how important a well-crafted script can be, especially one written by Quentin Tarantino, who doesn’t always lay out the easiest of dialogue. Yeah, his dialogue is lengthy and sometimes he gets too carried away with it, but I love it and can always tell a Tarantino movie by the way his characters tell stories. Good thing here is his cast never missed a beat, falling right in line with the story he was trying to tell, which is all I can hope for when it comes to any film, much less one as dynamic as this one.

I would bet if you asked any average moviegoer how many Quentin Tarantino films they had seen , the answer would be less than five almost every time. And what’s amazing about that fact is how large this guy’s name is and how much weight it carries in Hollywood. He literary became a living legend after his second major motion picture, PULP FICTION, and ever since then the draw and intrigue behind Tarantino films hasn’t stopped growing. For me, this couldn’t be truer, as I have yet to be pulled away from his everlasting stranglehold he tends to place on you with his films. To this day, I can remember where I was and the feeling I had after watching PULP FICTION, and the same could be said for his other films. To me, that’s special and why I look forward to anything this guy does, no matter how ludicrous or offensive it might look on the surface. That’s what makes this guy who he is and the more films you watch by him, you start to understand the methods behind the madness at which he writes and films.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a perfect example of that, as it ranges from one level of emotion to the next, almost seamlessly making you wonder why you are laughing at something that truly is not intended to be funny. That’s Quentin Tarantino at his best and in this film he doesn’t flinch with some of the most intriguing and dramatic shot sequences between stories and/or chapters. Sure, there are times where he might irritate you with how he is telling the story, but I guarantee there’s a good reason for it and if you don’t pick up on it this time, you will the next. That’s what makes him so unique and such a rare commodity in Hollywood, because too often we find writers and directors that lack originality, something that quite frankly will never be associated with Tarantino.

If the title INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS doesn’t get you to watch this film, knowing Quentin Tarantino directed it should. And if you’re like me, you will watch the DVD for both reasons, and be treated to one of the best from 2009. I know I was and at first wasn’t too sure what kind of film I was even getting myself into, but the more I watched, the more I liked and by films end, was ready for more. So, call it what you will, but to me it’s already a winner, no matter what happens at the Oscars several weeks from now.

A-

THE HURT LOCKER

THE HURT LOCKER (Summit Entertainment)
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

It’s not often we are treated with a story that sort of sneaks up on you, but that’s exactly the case here with director Kathryn Bigelow’s war thriller, THE HURT LOCKER. Not only is this film one of the best of 2008, its’ one of the best from 2009 as well, after finally being released this past June. That’s right, this film actually came out over a year ago and yet many of us have never even heard of it. One reason for that is the fact it wasn’t considered to be anything big, but the more chatter it got overseas, the easier it became for festivals here in the U.S. to pick it up, with the ‘South by Southwest Film Festival’ being the first in Austin, Texas. Regarded as one of the more respected festivals, THE HURT LOCKER was a hit at SBSW and within four months, the film was being shown on limited screens all over the world. Still a relatively independent film, though, not many will know to rent or buy this film on DVD, but should as its depiction on just one of the many active military groups during the war in Iraq was about as real as it gets.

Taking place in the early stages of the 2004 war in Iraq, the story here follows a EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) unit and their day to day operations, which was nothing short of spectacular given the unbelievable circumstances. After becoming the team leader of the assigned Bravo company EOD group, Staff Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner), quickly defuses a IED (improvised explosive device), but while doing it, irritates his new team consisting of Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). You see, James didn’t listen too well and while he would be confident in his own abilities with these IED situations’, his team didn’t know any better, thus creating a tricky and extremely unorthodox environment at times. Probably not something you want in a time of war, but that’s the price you pay to work with a guy as smart and talented as James, who was very driven and good at his job. So, as James and his team go from one mission to the next, they all start to realize what was really going on in this disarmed country, each reacting and reflecting in different ways. And the longer their tour went, the more real it got, resulting in a multitude of emotions for everyone involved. But, as the story ends, you start to realize just how true the opening quote from a book written by NY Times journalist and author Chris Hodges was; “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”

I almost guarantee this cast is one that no one will recognize and for that, I credit director Kathryn Bigelow. There’s no need to bring in A-list actors when the story is the real star of the film. And Bigelow made sure she picked the right balance with her cast, ensuring the intensity would be at the highest level possible. Because, with a relatively unknown cast, all focus is on the story, which is part of why this film felt so real. And sure, maybe Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty helped with that, but to me, the credit should go to Bigelow and the writers. Without the amazing accounts from Mark Boal, a journalist who was in fact embedded with an EOD squad just like the one in this film, this story would have never made it. Because it was his research and hand-written word that helped Bigelow place her cast in the perfect moments within the story. To have a writer that actually spent time in the war he was writing a screenplay about is incredible and just one example of why this film was special.

For all that’s made about women and directing, Kathryn Bigelow has a found a way over the years to not fall into one specific genre. Instead, she chooses films that mean something and THE HURT LOCKER certainly fulfills that ideal and really shows what a hidden talent she has been all this time. Sure, her resume is relatively short, but I think when you put all the passion into the film, as she does, her films equal out to being more meaningful. That actually might be the secret and recipe to success that many actors and directors in Hollywood fail to employ, but either way, Bigelow deserves credit for what she has done with THE HURT LOCKER. Not since A BLACK HAWK DOWN have I felt so entrenched in a war thriller and the way Bigelow did it was almost flawless. Being able to bring in just the right emotion at times was critical and yes, the subject probably played a part in that, but Bigelow still had to make sure her moments of clarity within the drama mattered, and they certainly did here. At no point did you feel removed from the intense nature of this story and to me, that’s all Bigelow in the way she shot the film. Having the ability to shoot from four different views played a huge role in how this film looked and felt and the more you watched, the more you liked. That’s impressive and frankly, given the subject nice to see as no detail was missed. And realizing the subject won’t do this film any favors, but the truth remains that the war depicted in this film is very real and still ongoing as we speak.

THE HURT LOCKER is a film that will undoubtedly fly under the radar for various reasons, but like many of its predecessors shouldn’t. I realize the subject won’t do this film any favors, but the truth remains that the war depicted in this film is very real and still ongoing as we speak. And its effect crosses so many levels or reality that you can’t help but be pulled into its lore, resulting in a film that might just be Oscar-worthy when it’s all said and done.

A-

SHERLOCK HOLMES

SHERLOCK HOLMES (Warner Bros.)
Directed by Guy Ritchie

Surprises in Hollywood come a dime a dozen and most times with a whole lot of fanfare. That’s just how it’s done and has been done for quite some time when it comes to major motion pictures around the hills and valleys of LA. And honestly, I doubt many of us would want to change that aspect of the famed city, as we all fall victim to the glitz and glamour this city produces on a daily basis in some way or fashion. Fact is, this methodology is what works and has proven to fill seats around the country for films that producers hope might just make a few bucks. Just think about the trailers you watch and how many times it’s the very reason you go to see the film or don’t go; but either way, these trailers serve their purpose quite well in the grand scheme of things. In the case of SHERLOCK HOLMES, the trailer might just make or break its success, as it could either pull people in or drive people away; ultimately leaving its fate hanging in the balance, even though underneath the surface it should have never been in question to begin with.

The story here, based loosely off the fictional character by the same name, follows Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) as they chase after criminals and solve cases no one else wanted to touch. So, as they end a case involving a failed sacrifice attempt at the hands of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), they walk away and at least for Holmes, this would be the last time he would work in three months. For Watson, he was moving on to better things, taking up a new business venture and hoping to marry his girlfriend while Holmes sat around his apartment, bored out of his mind and driving everyone around him crazy. It was then Holmes was summoned to Lord Blackwood’s own execution to speak with the dark lord, in which Blackwood told him that three more deaths would occur after his execution, changing the course of the world. So, after taking a case from Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), the only person known to outwit Holmes, news comes that the tomb containing Lord Blackwood was crushed and the body found in it was not his. This of course did not sit well with either Holmes or Watson, both of whom watched the dark lord hang with Watson even pronouncing him dead. The hanging was just the beginning to this twisted and all too mysterious case the famed duo never thought was possible until they were mired smack dab in the middle of it.

It’s no secret how hot Robert Downey Jr. has been lately and with this role, he is proving he is not quite ready to cool off yet. With IRON MAN 2 set to hit theaters later this summer, this guy is making sure you see him and remember. And you know what, good for him, after being forgotten about all those years prior to his rebirth around 02’ or 03’, depending on who you ask. To come back in the way he has is quite impressive and he finally seems to be enjoying his craft, which is great to see given the extreme talent this guy has. With his role as the iconic Sherlock Holmes, you can tell he was having fun. Initially, however, I wasn’t sure if he could pull this off, but based on how this story was told, he wound up being perfect for the role. He was able to walk that fine line between genius and edginess, both valued traits of the famed Sherlock Holmes.

That was important, especially with the back and forth nature of his relationship with Dr. Watson, played by Jude Law. These two are one of those pairs that on the surface don’t seem right, but the more you watch, the more you understand that their relationship, although complicated, works very well in their specific line of work. Their symbiotic relationship was largely responsible for the entertainment aspect of the movie. Both deserve a great deal of credit and for Law, it’s about time he returned to something prominent. Even in his supporting role, it makes you wonder where this guy has been the past couple years. So, it was good to see him and hopefully we see even more of him with this series and others. And speaking of others, a Ms. Rachel McAdams was present here, playing the role of Irene Adler, a thorn in Holmes side and someone that was both persuasive and vindictive, traits McAdams had a lot of enjoyment with here. And her version of Adler sort of grew on you the longer you watched and even though she might not of had as many scenes as the other two, she made her presence known, which is all you can ask for.

For those of you that are wondering, yes, the director is the same Guy Ritchie that was married to the very lovely and often misunderstood Madonna until recently. But believe it or not, he was more than just her husband. Having said that, I can’t ignore the fact that I pretty much gave up on him as a director after watching his follow-up to SNATCH. To go from such unique and extremely moving work to garbage like SWEPT AWAY was a bit of a shock, so maybe Madonna did have some affect on him after all. But, either way, I’m glad he was finally able to dig himself out of whatever hole he was in, post divorce or not, to direct SHERLOCK HOLMES. And I can’t help but think with Ritchie not necessarily being the first option to direct this film, producers took a big gamble choosing him, but it paid off. Ritchie was the right choice, as no one else could have shown Holmes in this light, filled with so much action and intrigue, something no one had ever attempted to do with this character before. So I credit Ritchie’s vision with this film as it worked very well in creating an atmosphere that was both dark and rich at the same time. His unique style of filming, with narrow shots here and tricky angles there, made for some good entertainment. And he did all this while respecting the story, which actually was better than I thought it would be, given all the ridiculous action and humor surrounding it. So, who cares if some of it seems a bit over the top or fluffy, because at the end the day, I walked out satisfied, which is something I haven’t been able to say for a Guy Ritchie film in quite some time.

SHERLOCK HOLMES is not what it appears to be and I fear most people might not give it the chance it deserves. Sure, it’s wild and nothing like you would expect from this famed fictional character, but that’s actually a good thing. So just embrace it and don’t look back. I also was skeptical at first, but the more I watched the film, the more I respected what Guy Ritchie was trying to do, making me almost giddy at the thought of what could be next for this newly reborn series.

B

UP IN THE AIR

UP IN THE AIR (Paramount Pictures)
Written & Directed by Jason Reitman

Movies come and go and often without much thought, given where they fall on the invisible entertainment value scale. Because the reality is, it all depends on the audience watching it and where 'their' head was at when they sat down in front of the big screen. I truly believe this, as too often people might go into a film with pre-meditated thoughts or expectations due to lack of research on what they are about to see. To me, by doing this, you open yourself to be letdown more times than not, which is why I walk into the theater with a clean mind. Do that and you might just be surprised in what you find, as the simple pleasure of seeing a story unfold on the big screen can be the ultimate payoff, with the right mindset going in. It’s in that spirit we find a film like UP IN THE AIR, which on the surface may not look like a whole lot, but truly is the deeper you become imbedded within the well-crafted story.

The story, adapted from the 2001 novel by the same name, follows the trials and tribulations’ of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), who makes his money by essentially firing people. You see, his company is hired by those companies who are downsizing, etc., to come in, sit down and tactfully let-go of their employees. Sounds ruthless and for the most part it is, but there is a stratigical way to do this and its Bingham’s job to make sure this process goes as smooth as possible. Traveling more than 300 days a year, his home is on the road and in the air, where he meets, greets and ultimately forgets anyone he happens to run across, before moving on to the next city on his itinerary. For years this worked for Bingham, as being attached to something was death to a guy who relished all the variety the road had to offer on any given day or night. And his payoff was the frequent flyer miles he stockpiled, as to him, getting to 10 million miles, something only six people before him had ever done, was more meaningful than a relationship with someone.

That was until he was forced to mentor a young 'up-and-comer' by the name of Natalie (Anna Kendrick), who was hired with the idea she would help change the culture of the company at which Bingham helped build. Having to show her the highs and lows of this job, as he knew it, was no easy task, as Natalie held dear all those things Bingham willingly let go of years ago, forcing the two to learn from each other in a way they never imagined. And for Bingham, this meant possibly acting on feelings he had developed for a fellow lost soul to the road, Alex (Vera Farmiga); but as he began to face what he had been running from all these years, he is reminded in a variety of ways just how harsh this world can be to him and the one’s he loves, resulting in quite the bittersweet conclusion that just might have you all twisted up inside by the time the closing music begins to play.

UP IN THE AIR is one of those films that breed award-winning performances, so it's a good thing George Clooney was at the helm. Director Jason Reitman couldn’t have picked a better actor to play Ryan Bingham, as Clooney in his own right know what it’s like to be single for a long time, same as his character here. And that may seem arbitrary to some, but to me it played a role in just how easy it was to believe in Clooney’s character. Add in all the quick-wit humor and natural demeanor Clooney seems to posses in whatever role he is in, and this is one of his best to date and certainly one I could see winning a few awards down the road here. He just has this way of making everyone else look so comfortable with him, which makes it almost to easy to watch him on the big screen, but that speaks volumes as to who he is as a person. And maybe I should give him more credit, but there always seems to be at least one or two great performances alongside his in virtually every film he plays a big role in.

Here, that role might have been Anna Kendrick’s, as she stood toe to toe with Clooney several times and passed, showing me she has lot more than what she has already shown behind the makeup and lure of the TWILIGHT series. I was impressed and didn’t really expect to be, which proves young talent is still not lost in Hollywood. Then there was Vera Farmiga, a vet many people think they have seen before, but would never guess from where and even if they did, would not believe it until they pulled up her IMDB.com profile. Farmiga has that gentle, yet confident face that will capture you and here, she was a great counter to Clooney and one I would certainly like to see in more prolific roles in the future. The one letdown to the cast and I was surprised as anyone else was Jason Bateman. I’m not sure why he was even in this film, as his role was forgettable at most, given its lack of screen time and meaning to the overall story. Truthfully, anyone could have played his role, which I would have preferred, as I felt as if I was sort of robbed of his talents here, with how little we saw of him.

There’s no doubt in my mind that writer/director Jason Reitman is becoming one of the great young director's Hollywood has to offer and with UP IN THE AIR, you begin to realize he’s just getting started. Already known for his great work with THANK YOU FOR SMOKING and JUNO, I had no reservations about what I would see from a Jason Reitman film. In fact, I was intrigued to see this knowing how different it would look and feel from the standard. I loved that about JUNO and it was no different here, as this film seemed to get better and better the more you watched. Sure, there might have been one too-many over-the-top reactions within the “firing session” sequences, but it all fit neatly into the story Reitman wanted to tell. His timely transitions and shot progressions’ were uncanny at times and frankly, it’s hard to find that with any other drama/comedy. There’s a certain intelligence with this film that I liked and maybe that's from Clooney’s narration, but either way, it made for some good quality entertainment in the end. And to do it so tastefully, given our current national economic instability was great, as such the topic might be frowned upon in some circles. So, credit Jason Reitman for making sure this script was solid, before ever putting it in motion, which he finally did after six years of development.

UP IN THE AIR just has that look of something different and I like that. Too often we get stuck into seeing the same old tired stories, so good for Jason Reitman to bring this Walter Kim novel to the big screen , for it brings to life all the good and bad travelling has to offer; all the while producing a Oscar-worthy story that will capture you in more ways than one.

B+