XiaoReview

The Dark Knight

2008-11-21T11:58:00.001-08:00

I don’t get why the critics have given The Dark Knight so many rave reviews. I don’t enjoy this movie any more than I liked Iron Man. In fact, I personally prefer Iron Man. In my opinion, it is a far wittier movie and a superb adaptation of a comic book hero. The movie Iron Man has made that superhero much more interesting than he has ever been on paper.

To me, Knight only proves one thing – Christopher Nolan is certainly capable of making a big budget Hollywood movie and he is excellent with action scenes. However, I miss the Christopher Nolan who made one of the most original movies in this new century, a huge indie hit – Memento. The success of his first feature length feature has led him to one after another major Hollywood production. Sure, he has revived the whole Batman franchise and probably made the Batman movies far better than under any other directors, but that doesn’t really say much about cinematic accomplishment. I find the entire Batman franchise takes itself way too seriously and needs to lighten up a bit.

One bright spot in Knight, of course, is the much talked about Heath Ledger. His Joker injects many much needed sarcastic comments to offset all the self-righteous sermonizing done by Batman and pretty much all the other “good” characters. A black and white matter is always boring in real life and putting them on screen doesn’t make it any more fascinating. I hope that the Nolan brothers will realize this fact and write some more real-life dialogues for their next Batman installment.

In The Dark Knight, two new characters are added and they are the Joker and Gotham City DA, Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart). Batman, Dent and Gordon all work together to deal with the chaos created by the Joker. Dent is also wooing Batman’s love interest, Rachel, hence a love triangle is born as a subplot. This is another problem for this movie – there are way too many characters, side plots and the actions are simply too long. I think any time when a superhero movie includes more than one super-villain, it tends to be too much and too distracting. The whole Two-Face transformation feels forced and too bad that Eckhart doesn’t get a chance to truly show his acting chops.

Seeing both Knight and Iron Man has also shown that Robert Downey, Jr. is a far more seasoned and experienced actor. I applaud Christian Bale’s determination to challenge himself in different roles, but unfortunately he seems to have about four or five facial expressions. When he plays the playboy side of Bruce Wayne, he looks so uncomfortable despite his good looks. He needs to be more relax in his work; super intensity after a while becomes too much to bear on the audience.

With the huge box office The Dark Knight has brought to the studio, it is certain that I will have to endure more of Bruce Wayne/Batman’s inner struggle. I hope at least next time we will face only one villain, one that will match up with Ledger’s genius and creativity. That at least gives me something to look forward to.

Iron Man

2008-11-01T16:37:00.000-07:00

First I will make myself loud and clear: I DO NOT LIKE SUPERHERO COMIC BOOKS. Hence I dislike most blockbusters based on those comic books. After making that little disclaimer, I have to admit that Iron Man has joined Superman II as my only two favorite superhero movies.

One thing these two movies have in common is that they don’t take their materials too seriously. It is unthinkable to me how grown-ups can keep a straight face reading and watching those superheroes involved in some outrageously silly conflicts with some completely two-dimensional character arc. Superman II was a great movie because it is just so damn campy. Iron Man may not be on the same campy level as Superman II, but the writers and director Jon Favreau understand the importance to keep the movie light. It is not just another superhero vehicle loaded with constant action sequences and loud explosions. It has plenty of sidewinding conversational riffs, wordplays and witty banters. The script, at its sharpest, has really made Iron Man worth seeing for me.

Unfortunately, like any other superhero origin movie, Iron Man is cursed to explain how this specific superhero started his journey. Wealthy industrialist, Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey, Jr.), is a genius and a playboy. After being kidnapped by Afghan terrorists, he is forced to build an armored suit in order to escape. The ordeal has changed his view in life and the world. He perfects the suit and becomes Iron Man to battle the evil. It is one of many irresponsible-meet-responsible types of superhero stories. If you have read a few comic books and watched a few superhero movies, it is not hard for you to predict what exactly is going to happen in the movie. Iron Man is a little bit on the long side in its set up. Stark doesn’t really transform into Iron Man until at least one hour into the movie. The villains he fights are still very much black and white, two dimensional characters. Director Jon Favreau’s visual skills at action sequences are limited. It’s just the usual junk, noise and big explosions. To me, the satisfaction lies completely in all the light touches Favreau and all the writers give to this movie.

All along the way Robert Downey, Jr., who plays Tony Stark with such an irreverent air, reaffirms his excellence. Downey is the heart and soul of this movie. He recalls a variety of old school stars in the way he keeps it simple and delivers all his lines with humor and charm. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, Stark’s long time assistant and true love. Paltrow has matured tremendously from her early years of Shakespeare in Love. Her banters with Downey has such sexy chemistry that it is far more enticing than a simply romp in the sheets. Other supporting characters hold Iron Man back from complete enjoyment. Terrence Howard’s best friend character is pretty much the token black guy in the movie. Leslie Bibb’s beautiful, smart reporter/one of Stark’s many conquests is very clichéd. Fortunately Paltrow’s Potts character will certainly appease some of the anger maybe felt among female audiences.

As usual, the summer movie season starts with a big bang, but whats unusual is that this bang is really worth viewing.

Sex and the City

2008-08-21T12:31:00.000-07:00

The girls are back, this time in a big screen version of Sex and the City. This is the kind of movies Hollywood does best: entertaining, beautiful to watch yet somehow quite vacuous.

The movie picks up where the TV series ended. You don’t have to be a fan in order to follow the movie. Although I have not seen a single episode of the TV series, I had no trouble understanding all the relationships in the film. The film is quite long, clocking at 148 minutes. In fact, it feels like two different movies put in one with a major event happening right in the middle of the film.

Carrie (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) is finally going to marry Mr. Big (played by Chris Noth) and of course, things go awry. Her three best friends, Samantha (played by Kim Cattrall), Charlotte (played by Kristin Davis) and Miranda (played by Cynthia Nixon) are always by her side whenever she needs a shoulder to lean on. The story is, honestly, quite dopey. The conflicts in the script are those that easily frustrate any half-intelligent audience. The tones in the movie switch from cheery and light-hearted to nostalgia and sentimental at the mid-point. The first half of the film deals with all the chaos associated with a society wedding in Manhattan while the second half is mainly about the usual woes women complain about – lack of good men. We as the audience can see plainly where these good men are, but it takes our heroines quite some time to figure it all out so that, I guess, they can stretch the film into feature length. Considering the running time of 148 minutes, they certainly have succeeded in that regard.

The star of the movie is fashion. Parker and her gang certainly give us an eyeful to look at. Parker has 81 outfit changes in Sex and the City while the movie’s three other stars also have 200 wardrobe changes among them. In my opinion, the big attraction about Sex and the City has always been people’s curiosity about how the elite in Manhattan live their lives. There may be richer people elsewhere in the country, but nobody acts more like American aristocrats than the elites in Manhattan. Their life style is always a fascination for other parts of the country. Face it, we may never live that life style, but it is sure easy to enjoy them on screen.

I have to admit this movie is my first exposure to the Sex and the City enterprise created by the hugely popular TV series. I did read the book by Candace Bushnell based on her newspaper columns and found the book extremely boring. Bridget Jones’s Diary attacks single womanhood far better and more realistically than the four glamorous gals in this movie. However, I do find the four actresses likeable and endearing. Seeing Parker in her teenage roles, it is hard for me to imagine her as a fashion icon, but she has really reinvented herself since her early years. She looks and feels like a chic Manhattanite.

The whole movie has a sense of fantasy to the story and the most serious issue the filmmakers deal with is unfaithfulness. As I said before, it is a fun movie to watch for a little over two hours, but afterwards, it is also very easy to forget. After all, with so many people in this world with no food to eat and no shelter, who cares if some spoiled Manhattan woman cannot find a perfect apartment.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

2008-07-24T13:32:00.000-07:00

There’s a reason why Judd Apatow is the reigning It boy of Hollywood comedies: he is funny and knows how to tickle our funny bones. Sure, he misfires sometimes, but does get it right more often than most of other comedians out there. I guess it also helps that he is surrounded by a group of outrageously talented young comic actors.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is the latest coming out of Apatow factories. Apatow’s role in this movie is simply a producer. The script is written by Jason Segel, a graduate of Apatow School. He got a major start when he was cast in Apatow’s short-lived but critically acclaimed TV show Freaks and Geeks. You will spot many Apatow regulars in the movie such as Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill and Bill Hader.

Segel’s script is suspected loosely based on his own relationships and experiences in Hollywood. Peter (played by Segel) is a composer for TV show Crime Scene and he has also been dating the star of the show, Sarah Marshall (played by Kristen Bell), for five years. He seems to have a pretty good life and then disaster strikes. Marshall breaks up with Peter and Peter is too distraught to do anything, so he decides to go to Hawaii to mend his broken heart. Who else does he run into but his ex-girlfriend and her new rocker boyfriend. Hilarity ensues and by the end of his stay he has learned something new about himself and life.

The movie clearly falls under the general Apatow umbrella – an ordinary looking man/child hooks up with a beautiful woman and eventually grows up. Yes, it is that unbelievable premise again. But ever so slowly, and certainly by his finish, the first-time director Nicholas Stoller wins us over, delivering not another imitation but a very persuasive and entertaining comedy. The movie certainly satirizes our pop culture – all the crime programs on TV, entertainment reporting and rock star’s self-indulgence. Many of the segments on pop culture are over-the-top and caricaturized, however, when it comes down to characters, it portrays them as human beings. Too many Hollywood comedies cannot have two-dimensional characters and be funny at the same time. Sarah Marshall successfully manages both. In this movie, Apatow seems to have taken his final assault on American Puritanism. He has always talked about putting penis in every movie he makes. In Sarah Marshall, penis is not implied or insinuated. The movie is truly Apatow’s frontal assault and intends to make audiences laugh while feeling uncomfortable at the same time. Segel’s full frontal scene has been widely talked about by media. The scene feels quite natural in the flow of the moment and certainly got big laughs among my fellow audience.

The performance in this movie is good even though I can’t really decide if most of the actors are simply being themselves. I am not sure that it is an honor for Bell to be chosen as Marshall, considering that Bell’s claim to fame was her TV show Veronica Mars, a crime solving drama. It is almost like Apatow chooses the insider of his jokes to play his jokes. It is as if life imitates art. More recently Bell has also been featured in tabloids for dating a comedian who has a reputation very much like her on-screen rock star boyfriend. No doubt Apatow has chosen the right actress for his Sarah Marshall. Segel may be a pretty good writer and a likable guy, but his acting skills are pretty much limited to putting on a cute puppy dog face. The only standout performance belongs to Mila Kunis. She has set herself apart nicely from her role on That 70s Show. In the movie, she plays the hotel receptionist Rachel. She is beautiful, warm and smart. There is certainly a bright future, I hope, for her in the show business.

Sarah Marshall is not up on the same level as The 40 Year Old Virgin, but it is certainly much better than Knocked Up and probably even superior to Superbad (depending on your raunchy taste). It is not going to be easily forgotten.

Redbelt

2008-06-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

David Mamet’s newest feature Redbelt is a real dud and a bore. It is sad to watch a once top-notch playwright, screenwriter and director all dried up in creativity and simply repeat all his old tricks with farfetched scenarios.

In Redbelt, Mike Terry (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a mixed martial arts instructor. His martial arts center is in financial trouble, but he refuses to participate in prize bouts to make easy money. As in many other Mamet movies, unexpected events (or are they?) leads the protagonist into some kind of moral dilemma.

Starting with The Spanish Prisoner, Mamet seems to be on a downward slide. He tries to make taut, twisty, modern film noir-ish thriller, but the plot always stretches the believability. With Redbelt, it reaches to the level of absurd. There are many little things going on at the first 20 minutes of the movie. Knowing that Mamet likes to set us up early for later twists, I paid attention, maybe too much attention, to all the little details. Nothing I noticed played out in the end. It led me to question why Mamet did close-up shots of so much inconsequential stuff.

Mamet has always been known for his sharp dialogue and fascination with masculinity. In Redbelt, Mike Terry has such impeccable moral standard that he may as well be living on a different planet. I doubt any audience can connect with this character. Chiwetel Ejiofor, in my opinion, is the perfect heir to Denzel Washington if people know how to pronounce his name. (It should be pronounced as Chew-tell Edge-four.) However, even with his prodigious talent, he cannot save this mess of script.

Redbelt does not deserve any belt at all.

The Bank Job

2008-06-14T06:53:00.000-07:00

You know the movie industry is in a sad state when a mediocre heist movie The Bank Job is hailed as “the most entertaining heist movie I’ve seen in years!” by Richard Roeper, co-host of At The Movies With Ebert & Roeper.

The 1971 Baker Street bank robbery in London was one of the most remarkable and daring bank jobs that shocked Britain and was never solved. Writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais wrote The Bank Job to explain what they think might have happened. It is very well for people to come up with their theory about the robbery, but for some inexplicable reason, Clement and La Frenais leave certain parts of the aftermath unexplained. It is head-scratchingly frustrating when the writers have already implied a conspiracy theory that will make Oliver Stone proud, but they wouldn’t speculate who may be behind the murders of two minor robbery team members.

Director Roger Donaldson creates a right 1970s atmosphere with brick-size walkie-talkies, bell-bottom pants, leather jacket and long hair, but the script is just not that exciting. The filmmakers have a real-life bank robbery mystery on hand, but the script feels flat. At many points of the movie, one may expect certain kind of twist and turns, but it never happens and the film proceeds pretty much as one may have expected at the beginning.

I do like the cast a lot. Jason Statham plays the ring leader Terry, another tough guy role on his acting belt, although this one is much more grounded than his other over-the-top action characters such as the ones in Transporter series and Crank. Terry is a small time crook and a family man. Statham inhabits this guy like it is a tailor-made suit for him. He really is my favorite bald action hero. A couple of my favorite British actors also play important roles here. Stephen Campbell Moore, who proved himself as leading man material in his film debut Bright Young Things, plays Terry’s sidekick. I hope I will see him more often on big screen in American theaters. Sultry Saffron Burrows is the ex-girlfriend to both Terry and his sidekick. Burrows made her sexy splash in 1999 shark movie Deep Blue Sea, but despite her beautiful face and decent acting chops, never managed to crack the American market and make a bigger name for herself. The role in Job can serve as a perfect transition stage for her to play older and more mature roles.

Maybe I am too critical of The Bank Job. With so much trash in the theater, I guess one can do much worse than The Bank Job.

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation

2008-04-24T09:09:00.000-07:00

It is always hard to resist a film with a little kid bonding with an old man, no matter how predictable the result may be. The Year My Parents Went on Vacation is such a sweet yet predictable tale.

The story takes place in 1970, a tumultuous and exciting time for Brazil. Brazil was under the rule of an authoritarian military regime and the Brazil soccer team was trying to win their third World Cup. The main character in the movie, a boy named Mauro is caught in the soccer fever overshadowed by his parents’ apparent uneasiness about the political situation. His parents drop him off with his paternal grandfather in a Jewish neighborhood and tell him that they are going on a vacation. They are in such a hurry that they simply drop him off the curb, expecting that he would find his grandfather inside the apartment. Unknown to the parents, the grandfather had just suffered a heart attack and died in the hospital. Mauro is left all alone with a kind old neighbor Shlomo to look after him. Soon the whole Jewish community has taken on the responsibility to take care of Mauro.

Writer-director Cao Hamburger compensates for the cliché scenario with believable dialogue, low-key naturalism and a solid cast. The portrayal of the Jewish neighborhood is so warm that you wish you could be a member. We also get firsthand experience about Brazilian soccer fever. Even though people may have different political beliefs, soccer is a bond that ties them all together. In one memorable scene, a group of leftist students are watching a match between Brazil and Czechoslovakia. One student proclaims that a victory for Czechoslovakia will be a victory for socialism. Yet when Brazil scores, all the students cannot contain their excitement for their country. All the elders in the synagogue also gather in front of their tiny TV and cheer for every shot Brazil makes. In a country so divided and oppressed for political freedom, a game gives them so much hope.

One of the producers for the film is Fernando Meirelles, director of 2002 Brazil hit City of God. Vacation cannot be more different from that movie. City of God dazzles the audience with its style and fast paced editing while Vacation is slow moving and realistic with a traditional story structure. I really wish that Vacation could have soared above the old-fashioned boy/old man bonding storyline, but it doesn’t offer any new or surprising twists to an often-tried formula. Unfortunately, Vacation is just OK, though I still think this film is worth viewing by people eager for a little diversion from Hollywood blockbuster and curious about a different culture and a different era.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

2008-04-11T08:12:00.000-07:00

The first 15 minutes of Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is dreadfully unbearable. It may put you in shock to see two wonderful actresses such as Amy Adams and Frances McDormand in such an over-the-top farce and indulge themselves in a seemingly world competition of who can open their eyes the widest.

In the movie, Adams plays Delysia, an aspiring American actress and singer in London. She has no qualms about using her charm to get whatever she wants and she wants plenty: money, fame and true love. McDormand is Miss Pettigrew, an unemployed, middle-aged London governess. Out of desperation, Miss Pettigrew steals Delysia’s address from her employment agency and finds herself as the social secretary to Delysia. She has quite a lot on her hands. To be precise, she has to help Delysia juggle three men in her life. The three men represents three things that Delysia wants in her life: a powerful mob boss who provides Delysia her nice London apartment and a singing gig in his club, a son of a famous West End producer who is putting on a new show that Delysia desperately wants to star in, and a poor piano player (played by Lee Pace) in the club who Delysia truly loves. I don’t think the audiences will need any hint, in this predictable farce, with Miss Pettigrew’s help, who Delysia will pick in the end.

The movie, based on Winifred Watson’s same name novel published in 1938, seems to mold Delysia into a character frequented by Marilyn Monroe in the 50s. With her wide eyed innocence, Delysia’s selfishness and shallowness is portrayed in a cute way, as if beauty and cuteness could provide excuse for any misconduct. It is hard to swallow this kind of concept in this day and age.

I have to admit half way into the film, the crazy farce pace has gradually mellowed into some touching romantic moments. Adams is always at her best when it is time to show deep emotions for some seemingly naïve character. Her duet with Pace of If I Didn’t Care is the highlight and most moving scene of this otherwise light-hearted fare. Adams has proved in 2005’s Junebug that she can act and in last year’s hit movie Enchanted she showed us that she can act AND sing. Now with her star on the rise, she is truly in danger of being typecast as some pretty, simple girl with abundant cuteness. She is so much more than just that and I hope that she will find some more challenging roles in the future.

Miss Pettigrew is a wish fulfillment sort of movie. Director Bharat Nalluri’s attempt to add some seriousness to the movie by having the pending World War II loom over the city totally backfires. It breaks the consistency of the film and only reinforces some audiences’ notion about why we should care about any of those self-absorbed characters when World War II is about to break out.

The real delight in this movie is an unknown actress Shirley Henderson. She plays Edythe, a shop owner who wants to marry a famous fashion designer. Her soft raspy voice and sarcastic manner is just right for the character. Like most of the characters in this movie, Edythe is selfish and can easily become the most unsympathetic one out of the whole bunch, Henderson puts real feelings into the character. The few scenes she is in are all done with heart and soul. When she delivers her bitchy comments about what women need to do to succeed in this world, her eyes are shooting out evil rays with tears ready to roll out. She is both tough and vulnerable at the same time. Despite her conniving ways, you still feel for her and, in some ways, hope things may work out differently for her.

Miss Pettigrew is truly a popcorn movie – light entertainment. At the end, the filmmakers even pour extra butter on all the popcorn we have just consumed. It feels way too buttery in my mouth and it has the kind of ending that really only happens in movies. However, for some of you out there who love your popcorn with extra butter, this may be just the right movie for you.

Persepolis

2008-03-21T08:03:00.000-07:00

In our current international political environment, Persepolis is a timely animated movie about the history of Iran, especially during the last thirty some years.

It is a shame that the Foreign Language Film Award Committee continues to ignore some great foreign films for reasons unfathomable to many movie lovers. This year Persepolis and Romania’s 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days are two such victims. The film is a poignant coming-of-age story of a spunky, offbeat young Iranian girl and it gives viewers a peek into a life that western viewers have rarely seen. The movie is also an Iranian history lesson. If history had been taught in such entertaining fashion at schools, we would all have become history buffs. In particular, Persepolis covers in detail what the political environment and daily life have been like in the last thirty years in Iran.

The movie is based on Marjane Satrapi’s autobiographical graphic novel Persepolis. Satrapi doesn’t hide the fact that the book is based on her real life and in fact, the little girl in the center of the story, shares the author’s name. Marji is an extraordinary child, precocious and outspoken. Satrapi is so honest about herself, portraying all her weakness and exposing all her selfish and unkind acts towards others. Through her eyes, we see a country in constant turmoil and resilient people who are innovative in their secret defiance against an oppressive regime.

My favorite character in the movie has to be Marji’s grandma, an old lady with endless words of wisdom to dispense. I am sure every one of us wishes to have such a wise lady to guide us in time of confusion and darkness.

In current days of computer generated animation world, it is also fresh to see animation done the old fashioned way: drawing by hands with pens in simple black and white color. Satrapi’s drawings are immensely creative and she clearly has an imagination out of this world. Her rendition about Iran’s history is done in a funny yet serious fashion. She cuts down history to the bone so that it is easy for the westerns to follow. All the violence portrayed in the movie is either implied or done in a very tasteful way and it suggests horror much more than some so-called “realistic” approach preferred by many gratuitous directors.

With animation, Satrapi shows so much emotion without resorting to special effects or make up artists. The best sequence in the movie is about Marji’s first love affair in Vienna. When she is first in love, we see everything so beautiful and romantic and the mood completely reflects a woman in love. When she finds out that she is cheated on, we are shown a more realistic portrayal of their past time together without the tinted glasses and with an apparent bias to skewer the reality to the other extreme. I don’t think we truly know what her first love really looks like and we can only surmise he has to be somewhere in between the two images we are presented.

One way to know that you are watching a good movie is that you find yourself wanting to know more about the character and their lives. That is how I feel about Persepolis. After seeing the movie, I walked out of the theater still with many questions in my mind. The big one is how Marji supports herself while she is in a boarding school in Vienna. Can her parent send her money from Iran even under the rule of the Islamic Republic, or have they transferred some of their assets abroad before the revolution? I definitely want to know more about people’s economic situations in that country. It is a country so mysterious to many of us, and watching this movie makes that mystery shrink a bit. The movie also makes clear that we may differ in culture and history, but underneath we are fundamentally the same: we are all people who love freedom and may even share same craziness about rock’n roll. We need more movies such as Persepolis to bridge cultural understanding.

The Savages

2008-02-29T11:46:00.000-08:00

The Savages begins with a strangely funny and surreal sequence: a group of old ladies all wear age inappropriate, cheerleader like uniforms, come from behind a row of sculpted topiary and dance in unison to an old Peggy Lee tune. This bizarrely charming scene sets the tone for the entire movie. Writer/director Tamara Jenkins’ script is an intimate portrait of old age full of pain and heartache, but also filled with love and compassion. I can’t deny that the subject matter is depressing, but Jenkins provides some comic relief here and there to alleviate the dark mood.

Wendy Savage (played by Laura Linney) is an aspiring writer living in New York with some temp job. Her older brother, Jon (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman), is a college professor of theater at SUNY Buffalo. Their father, Lenny (played by Philip Bosco), has been diagnosed with vascular dementia. The siblings have not been close to their father over the years, but as their father’s health state deteriorates rapidly, they are forced to deal with his care. I love the fact that Jenkins never wastes much time explaining in detail the estrangement between the father and children. We get a good sense of what kind of parent Lenny may be simply from a few fleeting conversations between Wendy and Jon.

A lesser writer/director could have easily turned this movie into some cliché melodrama, yet Savages is as far from a melodramatic film as a film can get dealing with such a bleak subject. Jenkins chooses a good location for the nursing home in the film. Buffalo, especially in winter time, is quite befitting for the tone of this movie. The calm observational detail of its visual strategy brings out brings out the eloquent, ashen gray and silver tones in a wintry world that seems deprived of any liveliness. The grainy images in the movie reflect well the harsh realities depicted.

Jenkins’ script gives vivid reality to aging and difficult choices both parents and children have to face. She delivers a relatable dark dramedy that allows us to peek into the lives of the Savage family to get a glimpse of what many of us may have already experienced or will surely face in the future. The best moments of Savages tend to be those most ironic and contradictory scenes such as the opening sequence. When Jon and Wendy drinks at a restaurant/bar in Sun City, AZ trying to figure out what to do with their ailing dad, an old couple is singing an old tune for the diners. The song is about a couple acting like little tots. It is funny to see this old couple perform like two youngsters, yet also sad to realize how much the old people want to hold on to that sense of youth. I guess that is what a place like Sun City all about – try to make elders’ lives full of activities, make their lives seem normal so that they could put the thought of death and senility behind. However, time will catch up with all of us. Forgetting doesn’t mean death won’t come knocking. When Jon calls Wendy and tells her the news about the nursing home he finds for their dad, the nursing home’s name is Valley View, but all we see is the dreary view of a deserted wintry street. Later to soothe her sense of guilt, Wendy looks through promotional materials for different nursing homes. We see videos of sunny and pleasant places, but when Wendy takes her father to one of those sunny places for an interview, it is just as depressing as Valley View.

Jenkins is a master caster. The cast of Linney, Hoffman and Bosco is just about perfect. None of the characters is exactly likable, but these able actors have the ability to make their roles incredibly human. They have flaws just like you and me, and they have to struggle with issues that face many of us in similar situations. They are just ordinary people doing their best under desperate conditions.

I am a bit disappointed about the movie’s ending. Throughout the entire movie, I feel Jenkins has been trying to be as honest as she can, but the ending is a surrender to Hollywood conventions. Every loose end is tied so perfectly that the movie loses its sharp edge. However, overall Jenkins has done a terrific job. It has been almost ten years since her last movie, Slums of Beverly Hills, was released. It is good to know that she still writes awfully sharp dialogue and all her good dramatic senses are intact.

The Band's Visit

2008-02-18T15:25:00.000-08:00

The Band’s Visit is an unassuming, sweet little film from Israel. It has been in the news lately for its disqualification for the Motion Picture Academy’s Foreign Language Film category. I am not sure that the movie is strong enough to be picked as a nominee, yet it is ironic that a movie very much about language and communication is shut out of the competition in that category.

Visit tells a story about a small Egyptian police band’s visit to Israel to perform at the inaugural ceremony of an Arab cultural center. The band is hopelessly lost in a desert Israeli town in the middle of nowhere. A sassy restaurant owner and her two customers take the men in for the night, and both sides discover that they have much in common despite their different background and religion.

The plotline is quite predictable. I think audiences can easily see that the Arabs and Jews in the picture will get along in the end, however, writer/director Eran Kolirin still manages to keep the situations and characters fresh, interesting and alive. Kolirin belongs to Jim Jarmusch’s school of filmmaking. There are many prolonged, purposefully awkward silence in the film to stress the characters’ discomfort, unfamiliarity and carefulness with each other. There are no big hilarious comic gags in the film; all the humor comes from realistic little moments such as the scenes in which three band members, with their Jewish hosts, sing off-key the American song Summertime, and in another instance, the stud in the band, Haled, tries to teach his Jewish friend how to woo a girl.

The acting in the film is superb. All the band members feel like non-professional actors because they all have that kind of originality and rawness amateur players are sometimes capable of bringing to a movie. The leader of the band, Colonel Tawfiq, is played beautifully by Sasson Gabai. The restaurant owner Dina is clearly attracted to him and his relationship with Dina in the film is touching and truthful. A less able filmmaker may have Tawfiq kiss Dina on the cheek or hug her at the end of their night, but not Kolirin. He keeps Tawfiq within his character and makes him consistent throughout the movie and that makes you love him and this movie even more.

The main problem I have with this film is the pacing. It is probably very slow by most audiences’ standards. I don’t want to sound like an advocate for constant action, but a film, in order to capture mass audiences’ attention, needs to have a faster pace. A few prolonged silent scenes are all fine, but having too many of them will only alienate some audience and lose its novelty factor.

A foreign movie always has a hard time attracting a large audience in this country. In this foreign picture, the characters speak English in over half of the screen time, so don’t be intimidated by the foreignness of its poster. It is a little delight to watch and you won’t have to read subtitles that often.

There Will Be Blood

2008-02-10T14:24:00.000-08:00

2007 may go down in movie history very much like 1939, the height of the golden age of Hollywood. In 1939, Hollywood produced such classics as Gone With the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach and The Wizard of Oz. In 2007, we have films such as Sweeney Todd, Atonement and Once. Each of those films can be appreciated even years later. Now I have just seen Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest work, There Will Be Blood, and it is simply his best work to date.

Ever since his feature film debut Boogie Nights in 1997, Anderson has been considered a boy genius, very much like Orson Welles was in the 1940s. His 1999 follow-up Magnolia puzzled many audience and some critics. I didn’t particularly like Boogie Nights, but was quite intrigued by Magnolia, especially the singing sequence and biblical references. Anderson is a filmmaker who is not afraid of trying anything and clearly wants to break the conventional narrative mold. His third film in 2002, Punch Drunk Love, is a weird dark comedy/drama starring a big commercial asset Adam Sandler. It is a very light film in his standard and it lost me.

Now five years later, Anderson comes back with an epic that may astonish even his strongest supporters. His three earlier films simply don’t prepare you for the greatness that shows in this film. One reason that this film stands far above his other three works may be the star in this film: Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis has long been regarded the best actor in his generation. In Blood, he gives a performance that will be taught in film schools for years to come.

Like the other three films, Anderson wrote the script for Blood, loosely based on Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil!. I have not read the book, but according to most critics, Anderson’s film is quite a departure from the original book. Blood is very much a fable dealing with two biggest American obsessions – greed and religion.

Daniel Plainview (played by Day-Lewis) is an ambitious, greedy oil prospector at the turn of the century. The first 10-15 minutes of the movie has little dialogue and shows us clearly the harsh conditions in the early days of oil business. We see Plainview’s humble beginning and how he slowly and steadily accumulates his fortune. Anderson has always been eager to break movie traditions, but ironically, in his best film, his narrative style is very much old-fashioned. It may still be looked upon as slow paced by audiences used to Hollywood action films, but moves much more quickly than his other three films. It is not too artsy aloof like Magnolia to keep the audiences interest. There are many conflicts around in Blood to keep us interested.

The landscape used in the movie for the Texas location is ideal for the purpose. Its vast emptiness represents all the wealth waiting to be discovered and the loneliness experienced by Plainview. The lands may be his only friend in his quest for fortune. Through the years, he has alienated his few loved ones. His relationship with his son is a perfect example of his complicity: he loves his son while he also has no qualm using him as a tool in his business dealings; when his son becomes disabled, he cannot accept the consequences and does something unthinkable of a parent; even when he realizes his mistake and tries to rectify it, he still cannot face it in a rational way. Ruthless is in his blood and gentleness is alien to him.

I also love the way Anderson pit greed against religion. Plainview’s nemesis in the movie is young preacher Eli Sunday (played by Paul Dano). The best scenes in the movie are the ones they face each other. Dano is clearly quite green next to Day-Lewis, but that is exactly the effect Anderson needs for the movie: Dano’s seemingly innocent piety vs. Day-Lewis’s shrewd and hard-hearted greediness. Even though the film deals with serious moral issues, Anderson’s script is not all dry and heavy. There is humorous dialogue and many small details in the movie, especially those scenes between Dano and Day-Lewis. It is such a delight to watch how Day-Lewis uses both word plays and his actions to torture Dano.

Day-Lewis is an intense actor. One can argue that his Plainview character may not be that different from his last Oscar-nominated role, Bill “the Butcher” in Gangs of New York. They are both cruel yet vulnerable and they even look alike with their mustache. However, Daniel Plainview is a much better written and developed character. If Day-Lewis was robbed of an Oscar in 2003, 2008 is definitely going to be his year to shine. He is not really acting in this movie, he has become Daniel Plainview. Plainview suffers some physical hardship at the beginning of the movie and later on when we see him, Day-Lewis always walks with a slightly bent stiff back and a slight limp in his legs. These special character quirks add to his credibility as the character. Even when he laughs, you feel worried and can sense some terrible things that he may utter or do. That is how good he plays this character.

Near the end of the movie, Blood feels very much like Welles’ Citizen Kane. Plainview may be rich beyond his wildest imagination and lives in a mansion probably far bigger and grander than his childhood dream, yet he is so lonely and isolated in that big house, the same way Charles Kane was in his final days.

The best part of this movie is no doubt Plainview, but he is also the main flaw of this movie. In the end, Anderson cannot escape the tendency by many filmmakers to make their characters too dramatic. It seems that all complicated characters have to be insane in some way to complete their character arc and I was disappointed when Plainview sort of falls into the same trap. I don’t quite buy the film’s ending. To me, Plainview would have enjoyed his victory over Eli financially and emotionally. However, this tiny flaw does not diminish the greatness of Anderson’s film. It is truly a powerful masterpiece for all to see.

Atonement

2008-01-21T15:52:00.000-08:00

Rarely a movie based on a book can shine above its source material, make you feel fully satisfied and maybe even open your eyes to one or two things you have not thought about reading the book. Atonement is one of such rarity. It is based on the same name novel by British author Ian McEwan. McEwan is a giant in contemporary British literature. His 1998 novel Amsterdam was awarded the British Booker Prize, sort of the equivalent of Pulitzer Prize for fiction in our country. Atonement was published a few years later and shortlisted for the Booker Prize. Time Magazine named it the best novel of 2002. His subsequent two novels have all been highly regarded by critics and the later one, On Chesil Beach, was once again shortlisted for Book Prize. McEwan has become a perennial Booker favorite whenever he finishes a novel.

In movie history, there are plenty of incidents in which good books are ruined on screen. For this movie, I had the same kind of doubt before walking into the theater. I was really persuaded by the director’s name, Joe Wright, to give this movie a try. Before Atonement, Wright had only made one other feature-length movie, Pride & Prejudice. The classic Jane Austen novel has been turned into countless films and TV series. Many of them are mediocre and some are excellent. It seemed foolhardy to try another remake, but what a remake it was. Wright completely made Pride & Prejudice feel fresh and new by using most young unknown actors who were close to age of Austen’s characters. He also conveyed the 1800 English life and countryside scenery beautifully on screen and made that movie artful and pretty to watch.

Now once again, working with a different screenwriter, Christopher Hampton, he captures the heart and soul of a great book that, at first glance, seems impossible to be adapted on screen. There are four parts in the book. Part one happens on a hot summer day of 1935 at a sprawling country estate. This is the fateful day that sets the wheels in motion for all later events. Briony is a precocious 13-year old. From her room window, she witnesses an incident involving her older sister Cecelia (played by Keira Knightly) and gardener Robbie (played by James McAvoy) near the fountain in her family estate. Robbie is the son of the family’s cook. Because of his brilliance, Briony’s father has supported his education all the way through Cambridge and now plans to support him through medical school. He works for the family during the summer. Later, Briony opens a letter written by Robbie to Cecelia which accidentally contains a page that shows explicitly his feelings toward Cecelia. Right before dinner, Briony also sees Robbie and Cecelia in compromised positions in the family library. All these events prompt Briony to make a mistake of her lifetime and wrongly accuse Robbie of a crime he does not commit. It exposes the hypocrisy of aristocratic British upper class – they feel generous and liberal of themselves to support a lower class member for their education, but deep down, they still consider them far below themselves and therefore capable of hideous crimes. Because of Briony’s accusation, Robbie is put in jail and Cecelia is alienated from her family. Part two fast forwards to 1940. It is Robbie’s journey in France as a British army private during the Dunkirk evacuation. It interweaves with Robbie’s flashback to the past. Part three is about Briony as a nurse trainee in London right around the same time. She lives under a heavy guilt and gets to experience firsthand the horror of the war. Part four is contemporary London and ties up all the loose ends in the book.

Hampton stays fairly faithful to the first three parts of the book, but differs dramatically in the last part in order to deliver the surprising twist on screen. There are no dramatic actions in the book, so the pacing of the movie may be too slow for American audience used to fast moving plot lines.

Once again, Wright gets it just right with that upper-class stuffy and self-absolving atmosphere at the beginning of the movie. Briony herself is a product of that upper-class upbringing. She is educated to be far more knowledgeable than she can handle with her meager real-life experiences. A tragedy is bound to happen when a precocious kid knows no boundaries about imagination and reality. Hampton shrewdly cuts off the father figure from the film version and the mother only shows up for a few very short scenes, but we get a good sense about what kind of household Briony lives in.

In the 1935 part of the movie, perspective is everything, so Hampton and Wright designs a clever way to visualize different perspectives. We frequently see one event first from Briony’s point of view and then quickly Wright cuts to the same event again, but this time we are seeing it from the perspective of people really involved. When Robbie is agonizing over his apology letter, Wright puts Cecelia in an equally unsure state. The editing goes back and forth between these two characters: Robbie working furiously at his typewriter and Cecelia trying to choose what dress to wear for the party. Their emotions are subtly in sync. Later when Robbie was in France, he accidentally walks into a movie room where soldiers are watching a French film starring great actors Jean Gabin and Michele Morgan. Their sensuous kiss reminds the audiences of Robbie and Cecelia’s kiss years ago as well forms a sharp contrast with Robbie’s current lonely figure.

Jacqueline Durran’s costume design is breathtaking. It reflects that time period in London and the exquisiteness may well start a new fashion nostalgia trend. The green dress Knightly wears to the party recalls old Holly wood glamour and is a simple elegance that can stand side by side with Audrey Hepburn’s famous dress in Sabrina.

It is also quite a treat to have many quiet moments in this movie without the constant intrusion of music. The sound designers and mixers selectively amplify certain nature sound such as bees, typewriter, etc. When Briony sits in a London train on her way back from her cousin’s wedding, the clacking sounds of the train is almost synonymous to the striking typewriter key. We can imagine that in Briony’s mind, she may be furiously writing the next chapter of her book or the exonerating letter to the authority. The music only slowly creeps in when necessary and never feels overwhelming here.

The cinematography is also quite spectacular in this film. In the first half of the movie, it is bright and has all the hopefulness in that lighting. Of course, British countryside always looks beautiful. Later during the Dunkirk evacuation, it becomes gloomy and dark. There have been many talks about the famous almost 5-minute long shot through the Dunkirk beach. Because of the budget limit, Wright had to shoot that scene in one day and he did a good job recreating the despair on that beach. However, I think all the talk about that shot has spoiled it for me because it simply doesn’t live up to my extremely high expectations. Also I guess because of the limited budget, there are no German airplanes seen in the evacuation except the shadows of three planes in shallow water when Bobby and his two buddies walk toward the beach. The treacherous German plane is one of the greatest menaces mentioned in the book during the evacuation. By cutting them out of the picture, it reduces the dire situation British soldiers are facing at the time. McEwan’s book is not only a great romance, but also an interesting historical read. For us Americans, Normandy may be our chief knowledge about the European theater in World War II; but to British, Dunkirk evacuation is an important historical event. It was a major retreat on a large scale and may have saved the war by preserving as many British military resources as possible.

I have also experienced some new enlightenment while watching this movie. When Briony talks to a delirious French soldier at his death bed, he thinks she is his lover and dies knowing that she loves him. Of course, it shows the horror of war, but this little incident may also serve to deepen Briony’s guilt. Her action of years earlier has denied the happiness between Cecelia and Robbie, but during the war it has further damage and complications.

There are some minor flaws in the movie such as revealing the face of true perpetrator of the crime, to me, seems to be quite unnecessary. I think most adult audiences pretty early on already know who may be the guilty party. Still those flaws are few and minor.

The dramatic change in last part of the book is a clever solution to revealing the twist in the movie. The final sequence of the movie, in fact, is a far more superior ending than the one in the book. Seeing Robbie and Cecelia frolic near the cabin that they never get to use during the war is the most romantic way for this sweeping love story.

The acting in this movie is first-rate and frankly surprised me. Knightly won an Oscan nomination for her performance in Wright’s last movie Pride & Prejudice. It was a solid performance, but still I considered it as a lark. I guess I have been an art house snob against her because of her involvement in such blatant blockbuster series Pirates of the Caribbean, but I have underestimated her acting ability. She is good, super good. At a tender young age of 22, she exudes such emotion that shines through on screen. Both she and McAvoy are way too good looking for the roles they play, but good looks are not crime in movie business, lack of acting ability is. In this movie, no crime is committed by these two stars. Their scenes together are electrified and full of chemistry in the beginning; sad and full of tenderness in the second half. McAvoy strikes me as an arrogant hotshot in The Last King of Scotland, so I was truly touched by his vulnerability shown in this movie. When he and Knightly meet in the café years later, his hand seems to slightly tremble under her gentle touch and tears well up right away in his eyes. It looks and feels so natural to see this handsome man break down.

2007 is a great year for movies – there are great small independent features, resurgence of movie musicals and some wonderful adaptations of great works. I hope the audience can embrace the theme of love and sin in this movie. Some wrongs may never be able to be righted, but the journey to forever atonement is a story worth telling and watching.

Sweeney Todd

2008-01-12T14:46:00.000-08:00

Tim Burton has finally done it: he has found a perfect story for his trademark gothic style and the combination of a superb script and his creative, imaginative directing style has resulted in a film masterpiece. And that masterpiece is Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

First of all, let us get one thing straight – it is a musical in a traditional musical sense. People break out in songs mid-sentence, but it is a musical based on contemporary stage giant Stephen Sondheim’s Broadway hit that has been revived many times on stage, so you know the music has to be good. I have never seen Sweeney Todd on stage before. I love quite a few of Sondheim’s show tunes, so walking into the theater, I assumed the music would be great. What I did not expect was how powerful the story is and how well Sondheim integrates the songs with the story. It is not a musical to show off any specific tune like the way Andrew Lloyd Webber likes to do in his musicals. Todd is a rarity in the musical genre: the songs are designed to complement the story and they work closely together to make the end product (in this case, the movie) a divinely engaging experience for the audience.

Todd is not for the faint-hearted. It is the closest modern stage work we get to ancient Greek tragedies. Burton’s London of Victorian England is gloomy and depressing for a big chunk of time throughout the movie. It reflects well Sweeney Todd’s (played by Johnny Depp) dark mood. He is a barber bent on revenge against evil Judge Turpin (played by Alan Rickman) who, years ago, convicted him on made-up charges and sent him to Australia so that he could court Todd’s beautiful wife. Upon Todd’s arrival in London, he soon hooks up with his fellow tenant, Mrs. Lovett (played by Helena Bonham Carter) and Mrs. Lovett’s meat pie business starts flourishing once Todd picks up his old trade and opens his “barber” shop.

Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography is astonishing. The sullen London sky seems to hide menace and danger in every street corner. The entire film is soaked with Burton’s unique gothic style. Depp and Carter look like live version of the couple in Burton’s animated movie Corpse Bride (which has Depp and Carter voice the two main characters). The violence in the movie is shot in a stylistic, over-the-top fashion. You feel squeamish when the blood is shooting out, yet all the blood clearly looks fake and Burton purposely wants a lot of blood to add another gothic element to this tale.

Unlike most movies based on stage shows, Todd is shot on sets in movie studios instead of outdoor locations. Burton understands Todd is not meant to be a realistic drama and recognizes its true grand theatrical scale. However, he does not let shooting on set, in any way, deter his cinematic vision. There are plenty of cinematic qualities in the movie that can never be achieved on stage. First of all, the set looks so much larger and incorporates London so much better than any stage production can ever imagine. Second, Burton employs many mirror shots, especially cracked mirror shots, to show Todd and Mrs. Lovett’s distorted faces, hence implying their deranged minds. Third, the color is so rich even though the entire movie may be described dark in general. Burton and Wolski have different shade and different layer of darkness and paleness. The only colorful sequence later in the movie is simply shot and designed perfectly. Mrs. Lovett’s dream vacation and life for Todd, her boy helper and her has an unrealistic post-card look, yet even in all those beautiful settings, Todd and she still look ghostly pale in a sharp contrast.

Burton also changes mood in a scene masterfully. When Todd’s daughter Johanna sings a romantic duet with the sailor, we see Judge Turpin peep through a peephole. When he enters in the room, Johanna instantly stops singing and then we hear this sad, sob-like woman voice singing a rueful menacing tune. It is not clear right away who is singing. Then we see a beggar lady approach the sailor and she is actually the voice we hear. She is covered in rags and we cannot see her face. It casts an ominous shadow into the characters’ future. This scene feels much creepier than some cheap scare moments done by lesser directors.

It may take you a minute to get used to Depp’s singing voice. He is adequate as Todd both singing wise and acting wise, but I don’t think he has done something extraordinary and surpassed his other freakish performances. The actor that shines for me in this movie is Carter. Her Mrs. Lovett is evil yet a seemingly suffering character. While you may hate her for some of her actions, you cannot help sympathizing with her in other circumstances.

The ending of the movie surely will make most American audience used to typical Hollywood movies uneasy, but I applaud Burton’s conviction in carrying out a Greek tragedy style finale. That finale is actually the most realistic and natural end for Todd. In any lesser hands, Todd can be easily made into a more realistic period drama but with a more hopeful and sweetened ending, but Burton chooses a completely opposite approach and the movie is all the better because of that.

There is so much duality in this movie. Burton is never a director who shoots his movies realistically yet he fully evokes the audience’s emotion far more than many realistic dramas released in 2007. One cannot help but marvel at his cinematic genius.

I Am Legend

2008-01-06T15:04:00.000-08:00

I Am Legend is a competent scary thriller, far above the latest critic hit, zombie movie 28 Weeks Later, but as a human drama, it is not up to par with 2000’s Cast Away, a gripping movie about a solitary man’s struggle to stay alive and sane.

The opening scene of Legend reveals that a cure has been found for cancer, but we can sense a sinister undertone based on the less exuberant expression on the doctor’s face. Fast forward three-year later, the entire New York has become a wasteland and we meet Robert Neville (played by Will Smith), the sole survivor of a plague that kills most of mankind and transforms some into zombie-like monsters. Robert lives with his dog Sam at his home in Manhattan. He pretty much has everything needed to survive at his disposal. He drives a car, has plenty of food supply, protects himself with weapons, is stocked by a large amount of ammunition, exercises nightly, broadcasts daily about a meeting place for other survivors to find him, listens to his iPod, watches DVD and even has his research lab fully functional in the basement. Here is a guy much better organized than most people under no duress. He is a perfect human specimen to survive, proving Darwin’s theory of natural selection; however, it also leaves us mere mortals a little cold to his predicament.

Probably the biggest mistake in screenwriters Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldman’s script is to introduce the audience to Robert Neville three years after the plague instead of witnessing Neville’s initial shock after finding himself the only survivor in New York. It might have been a more absorbing and ambitious thriller. I, for one, would like to see how Neville has established his daily routine after the disaster. Instead, the Neville we meet at the beginning of the film is already well set in his solitary life. He has his dog as his loyal companion. He seems to have all he needs for survival and even has luxury items such as music and movies to sustain him spiritually. His research lab looks top-notched and his mind is still pretty sharp to carry on a very systematic research. Yet, Protosevich and Goldman want us to know all is not well. Neville has built a relationship with the mannequins in a video shop he routinely visits. He goes there regularly to check out videos and return them; all the while carrying on conversations with the mannequin cashier and stealing glances at an attractive fellow mannequin shopper. If we had been gradually exposed to Neville’s nightmare, those quirks might have come naturally; however, only knowing Neville three years after the disaster and seeing how well he functions elsewhere, those quirks seem forced onto the character.

While failing to create a deep psychological drama, director Francis Lawrence succeeds in creating an eerie atmosphere for the film. It is a treat to just see the whole Manhattan being deathly quiet and empty. Will Smith is a good choice playing Neville. Smith is a likeable actor and often underestimated by critics. He doesn’t undercut the seriousness of the subject, but he also understands there has to be humor to lighten up the mood from time to time. Smith’s acting works well with Lawrence’s direction and Andrew Lesnie’s cinematography. When he looks one way and then the other in a dark building, every nerve-wracking whatwasthat? registers. The audiences are truly frightened when something jumps out. Even a cheap “gotcha!” moment, in which a heavily sedated zombie jumps up and grabs Neville, is very well done and can scare you out of your seat.

I Am Legend will not become a legend, but it has plenty of thrills to offer for simple thrill seekers.

Juno

2007-12-30T08:27:00.000-08:00

Every year around the award season a little-film-that-could tends to jump out of nowhere and generate a lot of Oscar buzz. Actually the buzz was heard earlier this year when the extremely low budget musical Once did surprisingly well. Now the talk of this year’s Sundance Festival and Toronto Festival, Juno, is poised to be the dark horse during the award season. Considering Americans’ aversion to musicals and any movie set in a foreign land, I bet Juno is going to have a much wider appeal to the American public than the little cult favorite Once.

It is actually a little deceptive to call Juno a mere comedy and not a musical comedy. The first half hour of the movie has so many songs on the background that it feels pretty much like a musical. Yes, the first half hour of this movie is quite painful to sit through. One has to get used to writer Diablo Cody’s stylized, rapid-fire dialogue that does not ring true and some very caricatured sideline characters. But after the first 30 minutes, the story hits its stride once all the main players are introduced and start to interact with each other.

At first glance, the premise for Juno is rather clichéd, but don’t let that fool you. Cody succeeds in adding new elements and twists to a very used-up concept. Sixteen-year-old Juno (played by Ellen Page) finds herself pregnant after having one-time sex with her best friend, Paulie (played by Michael Cera), a shy and sweet-natured track star. The movie is sort of like Knocked Up meets Little Miss Sunshine. Like Katherine Heigl’s character in Knocked Up, Juno is knocked up after a one time thing and has to face the consequences of her action; like the dysfunctional family in Little Miss Sunshine, Juno’s family at the beginning of the movie appears to have plenty of eccentric behavior. However, Cody combines the two movies’ ideas nicely together in Juno and makes it all afresh.

Once we pass all the unrealistic talk among the high school kids, Juno’s conversations with adults are much more believable. I don’t think Cody really knows the teenagers’ lingo, but she understands human relationships quite well. The witty banter in this movie doesn’t make me laugh out loud much, but the few quiet moments in this film are among the best of this year. Juno’s question to her dad about love and her realization that there is no perfect life touched me deeply.

Director Jason Reitman handles Cody’s material deftly. In a lesser hand, a movie about pregnancy and baby inevitably becomes over sentimental and melodramatic. Not Jason, he keeps those maudlin sentiments to the minimum and concentrates on Juno’s growth in this movie. There are also some beautiful shots in the movie. After a painful realization, Juno drives her car wildly on the street along side a slow moving train. She finally pulls to the side and the train still keeps the same pace. That shot says so much about her state of mind and life. At her age, she may think life moves at a much faster pace, but it isn’t necessarily so. Even when she stops, life still goes on.

Like that train shot, the casting in this film is also picture perfect. Ellen Page is the heart and soul of this movie and I believe she elevates good material into something superior. It is not easy to deliver fast dialogue with a sense of realism, but she pulls it off effortlessly. Her Juno is the coolest kid I would like to meet in high school with a sense of self and sometimes smart beyond her age, but at the same time she is still a kid and still believes in certain kind of fairy tale life. When that bubble bursts, it is heartbreaking to see the pain written all over her face. My favorite character actor, J.K. Simmons, plays her dad. He knows exactly when to act comedic and when to be serious. He can get more comic mileage out of a short witty line than so many professional stand-up comedians can get in an entire show. When he tells Juno about his unconditional love, he turns an easily corny scene into something truly beautiful and moving.

Please don’t walk out or dismiss this movie after the first half hour because I think more than likely you will be like me, totally won over by the character Juno, her loving family and Page’s phenomenal performance.