Doubt

Doubt is a film adaptation of the same-named stage play. The film stars a trio of Oscar nominated actors: Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams. The plot involves the Catholic Church, specifically P.S. Hoffman's (the priest) relationship to a young male student. Streep and Adams are two nuns (the tough one and innocent one, respectively) who attempt to unravel the truth about the priest and the student.

Kinsey and I were both looking forward to this film, specifically because of the cast, and we both came out of it a bit disappointed. Don't get me wrong, the acting was good, especially P.S. Hoffman (I think Meryl might've pushed it too hard). But overall, the film was pedestrian and forgettable. The director, John Patrick Shanley (who wrote the play and the screenplay), attempts to jazz up the film with the occasional canted camera angle and an overdone sense of visual metaphor, but there's no rhyme or reason for any of it. In my opinion, he should've taken the approach of Ron Howard, director of the film version of the stage play Frost/Nixon (which I haven't seen), and let the acting be the focus.

And as for the main conflict, well, the answer seemed fairly obvious to me. The film doesn't give the audience a straight answer of did-he-or-didn't-he and tries to place seeds of doubt (hence the title) in your mind, but I didn't really buy it.

For me, the saving grace of this film was Philip Seymour Hoffman, who has become such a good actor that I will see any film he is in (I sat through Synecdoche, NY, didn't I?). The guy is so natural and is able to envelope such an array of different characters, it's really astounding. He strikes the opposite tone of Meryl Streep in this film, who really forces the representation of her character as the stereotypical "to be feared" nun (Kinsey would vehemently disagree with me on this note). Their scenes together are still the best ones in the movie, however.

Like I said before, Doubt was disappointing and I doubt (ha, ha) that it'll stand out in my memory for very long.

Wade: 3 stars
Kinsey: 3.5 stars

Anthony: 3.5 stars

Ashley: 3 stars

Drive Home Review: Doubt

Click on the title of this post to listen to our drive home review of Doubt, featuring special guest critics Anthony and Ashley!

Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire is the new film from Danny Boyle, director of such eclectic fare as the underappreciated sci-fi flick Sunshine, the zombie movie 28 Days Later, and the dark comedy Trainspotting. Slumdog Millionaire follows the story of Jamal Malik, a kid from the slums of Mumbai, as he competes on the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?. Suspected of cheating, we flashback to situations from his life that help him know the right answers.

Kinsey and I were both amazed by how good this movie was. Everything, from the directorial style to the soundtrack, effectively captured the aura of the story, creating an interesting and modern spin on the typical fairy tale/love story/rags-to-riches story. Its amazing how hopeful and uplifting a movie featuring torture, mob violence, and murder can be. The acting was competent (I think the movie featured a lot of nonactors or at least inexperienced actors) but the real star of the film is director Danny Boyle. Just his ability to make a feature-length film in the slums of one of the largest cities in the world is enough to justify that praise. But also the way he captures the feel of these places is really well done. The frenetic pace and handheld style of the images shot in the slums build layers of grit and tragic beauty that you can almost feel. At certain points you could almost say that he shows the slums in too beautiful a light, but that is quickly balanced by stark images of slum reality.

There are only a few small faults I can find with Slumdog Millionaire. One of them, and I've been struggling with this, is the way the film presents its story. The relationship between Jamal's life and the questions on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? seem a little too tidy at times, especially considering the last question. But once you appreciate this film as a fairy tale, that conceit gets easier to swallow. But, overall a wonderful film that I really recommend everyone see.

Wade: 4.5 stars Kinsey: 5 stars

Drive Home Review: Slumdog Millionaire

Click on the title of this post to listen to our drive home review of Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire.

Australia

It's been a couple of weeks since we've seen this movie, but we weren't exactly clamoring to get the review out there, which should tell you something about the quality of the film.

But first, the details. Australia is directed by Baz Luhrman, most well known for his modern musical Moulin Rouge! and his MTV generation adaptation of Romeo + Juliet. The film stars Nicole Kidman as a proper English lady trying to figure out what to do with her dead husband's ranch, and Hugh Jackman as the Drover, an Outback cowboy. The plot ranges from a cattle drive to save the ranch, a Japanese air attack, and a fight to protect a mixed race Aborigine boy from bigoted white people, with a little romance between Kidman and Jackman tossed in for good measure.

I don't even know where to start with this film. Kinsey and I are pretty big fans of Baz Luhrman's previous work, so we had big expectations for this film. It was a huge disappointment. Australia is a bloated, overwrought attempt at an epic, filled with subpar acting. It's over two and a half hours long, which isn't a big deal in itself; there are plenty of really great films that long that are very entertaining. But Australia was a really dragging two and a half hours. There comes a point in the film where everything wraps up and you think it's going to end, but then it goes on for another hour, on an entirely different plot loop. It's like it comes with a built-in sequel.

My biggest beef with the film, however, was its cinematography choices. I think Australia was Baz Luhrman's ode to the close-up and slow-motion shot, because 90% of the scenes seemed to be composed of those types of shots. And I got real sick of them real fast. If you're going to make an epic, don't spend so much time zoomed in on the middle third of an actor's face. Noses and eyes aren't epic. The actual climax of the film is ruined by close-up shots. Not to give anything away, but it involves a character attempting to shoot another character, and a character getting speared. Sounds like a fairly easy scene to shoot, right? Now imagine it with nothing but close-ups. It gets confusing, to say the least, and borderlines on becoming ridiculous.

I really have nothing positive to say about this movie. I think Kinsey somewhat enjoyed the first 2/3 of the movie, but if you want my opinion, skip it.

Kinsey: 1.5 stars

Wade: 1 star

Milk

Milk, directed by Gus Van Sant and starring Sean Penn as the title character, is a biopic about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to major public office in the US. The film centers on the decade (the '70s) when Milk ran and eventually became a city supervisor of San Francisco. During this time, Harvey Milk fought for gay civil rights and successfully defeated a proposition that would've banned homosexuals from teaching in public schools. Tragically, Harvey Milk was assassinated along with San Francisco mayor George Moscone in 1978 by former city supervisor Dan White.

Kinsey and I were both looking forward to this film and we were not disappointed. Gus Van Sant has crafted a great film with a cast that totally embodies their characters. The acting was really superb in this film. Sean Penn has got to be a lock for a Best Actor nomination. When you look at Penn's performance alongside video of Harvey Milk, it is astounding. Not only are the mannerisms and speech patterns spot-on, but wholly taps into Milk's mood and personality. He doesn't play Milk, he becomes Milk. James Franco, Josh Brolin, Alison Pill all give great supporting performances, with some spotty jobs tossed in by Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna. The supporting role that really stood out to me was Josh Brolin's portrayal of Dan White, Milk's eventual assassin. Brolin plays White as this pathetic, tortured soul, who only wants to be included. The character almost comes off as childlike, which makes him all the more complex when he eventually murders two men. What a great run Brolin has had the last couple years. First a great, overlooked performance in No Country for Old Men, then the only semi-decent thing about American Gangster, and this year, a subtle performance in W. and now, Milk.

The only issue I had with Milk was the subservience to the genre of the biopic. Kinsey and I are familiar with Gus Van Sant's mainstream work like Finding Forrester and Good Will Hunting and I am at least familiar with the critical opinions of his more art house fare like Elephant, Paranoid Park, and Last Days. The thing most shocking about Milk was how much it was mainstream Van Sant and not art house Van Sant. I guess I was expecting more of vision like Todd Haynes' presented in his Bob Dylan biopic I'm Not There. Not that mainstream is bad, or that it makes Milk anything other than a great film, its just a little surprising considering the director. And the main thing that bothered me was a couple standard biopic framing choices. One was the framing device of having Milk describe his life into a tape recorder, and then having basically flashbacks appear showing those life descriptions. It just seemed like too easy of a way to move the film along. And the other one was the standard "what happened to them later" text and pictures at the end of the film, you know, where they show a picture of a character and say that they went on to do so-and-so later in life. That seems like standard fare for biopics now and for some reason it just bothers me. Show what you want to show in the film and don't make me have to read anything at the end.

But, overall, Milk is a great movie and definitely one of the better films we've seen this year.

Wade: 4 stars

Kinsey: 4.5 stars

Drive Home Review: Milk

Click on the title of this post to listen to our Drive Home Review of Milk.

Quantam of Solace

After watching the latest Bond film, Quantam of Solace, I surfed over to IMDb, out of pure curiousity, just to figure out how many of the 22 Bond films I have seen. If I recollect correctly from all those TBS marathons back in the day, I figure I've seen 18 Bond films and a few snippets of the other ones. The reason I bring this up is because of how different this Bond movie felt compared to the older ones. Frankly, it didn't feel that much like a Bond film. Now, I realize that Hollywood is on a big "old character reboot/realisitic action star" kick right now, what with the darker Batman and Superman restarts in the last few years and especially with the Bourne films. But you know what? Just because other groups are making formally fun characters all super-serious doesn't mean you have to as well, Mr. Writers and Directors of James Bond Movies.

Before I go on a rant about character resuscitation, let's talk about this current Bond film, Quantam of Solace. This film is the first true sequel in the Bond oeuvre, basically starting where the last Bond film, Casino Royale, left off. The overall plot resolves around Bond trying to discover whether or not his lover, Vesper, betrayed him and also avenging her death. While trying to do this, Bond somehow gets mixed-up in a General's plot to overthrow the Bolivian government, a man trying to hoard the world's water supply, a Bond girl's revenge, all of this being somehow linked to a shady group known as QUANTAM . . . oh, and there's also some rogue agent, "who trusts who?" stuff thrown in there as well. If that sounds confusing, its because it was. There was some positives about this film. Once again, Daniel Craig does a great job playing Bond with more depth than should be possible. And Mathieu Amalric does a great job playing Dominic Greene, the main villain. In fact, the best part about these last two Bond reinventions (besides Daniel Craig), has been casting high-quality European actors as villains, first with Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre and now with Mathieu Amalric. I hope they keep this up. For the next film they could bring back Blofeld as played by Rolf Lassgard (look him up in After the Wedding).

Anyways, like I was mentioning earlier, my biggest beef with Quantam of Solace is that its taking itself too seriously, making it feel not like a Bond film at all. Look, I loved the serious take on Bond in Casino Royale, but even in that film you had witty banter, martinis, good car chases, and sexiness. That's what makes a good Bond film. The only recognizable "Bond Film" elements in Quantam of Solace are characters named James Bond and M and a quasi-sexist title sequence. This film is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Bond films like Moonraker and Octopussy, movies so cheesy and over-the-top as to be bordering on satire. The writers and director of the next Bond film need to find a happy medium.

Wade: 3 stars
Kinsey: 2 stars

Drive Home Review: Quantam of Solace

Click on the title of this post to listen to our Drive Home Review of the new James Bond film, Quantam of Solace.

Synecdoche, New York

Synecdoche, New York (which is a mouthful, so I'm going to call it S, NY from here on out) is the directorial debut of acclaimed screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, scribe of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Being John Malkovich, and Adaptation. S, NY stars Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Caden Cotard, a dejected, hypochondriacal theatre director who, after winning a MacArhur "genius" grant, decides to "do something important while" he's "still here." This "important" thing he decides to do is create a enormous stage play about his life.

S, NY is the type of film that caters to a certain crowd. More specifically, to the type of crowd that enjoys thinking about a film experience long after its over. S, NY does not offer up a beginning, middle, end or even a very plotcentric story. What it does offer up is layers, layers of information and insight into vast ideas of life and death, reality and truth. Now, that being said, I can't say that I always understood any of these layers or if they're all even meant to be understood. Take, for instance, Hazel's burning house. Hazel is a character, played by Samantha Morton, who serves as an on-again, off-again love interest and theatre assistant to Caden. Hazel's house is always on fire and smoky, yet she still lives in it, still has visitors, without anyone mentioning the fire happening around them. What does the fire mean, symbolically? Is it a representation of the passion that Caden only felt toward Hazel? Is it a sign of the danger of constantly falling in love with a person like Caden Cotard? The movie gives you no solution to this symbol and, unless you could crawl inside of Charlie Kaufman's head, I don't think you could ever find it's true meaning. The film of situations like this, situations that leave you scratching your head, trying to make the connection.

Another example of S, NY's depth came up when I reread the NY Times review of the film. In the review, Mahnola Dargis (who I'm not a big fan of, but that's neither here nor there) brought up the significance of the main characters last name. So I googled Cotard and it leads me to Jules Cotard, French neurologist who is best known for first describing the Cotard delusion, a patient's delusional belief that they are dead, do not exist or do not have bodily organs. In the film, Caden Cotard seems to suffer from his delusional namesake, at least in reference to the existence part. But, like I said before, I could by mistaken by this significance as well; the film never even mentions the connection.

The acting, on the whole, was very well done. PS Hoffman does a great job as usual, although Kinsey mentioned that he seems to be stuck in a rut of playing overly pathetic characters. The cast is filled with actor's actors, like the beforementioned Samantha Morton, Michelle Williams, Emily Watson, Dianne Wiest (she of Edward Scissorhands fame), Catherine Keener, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Hope Davis. It's hard to go wrong with a cast like that.

Overall, I would recommended seeing it, but only if you're in the mood to think and ponder. If you want a "comfort" movie, you should probably go see the Madgascar sequel.

Kinsey: 2 stars

Wade: 2.5 stars

Drive Home Review: Synecdoche, New York

Click on the title of this post to hear our Drive Home Review of Synecdoche, New York.

Happy-Go-Lucky

Happy-Go-Lucky, the most recent film from director Mike Leigh, stars Sally Hawkins as Poppy Cross, overly cheerful, single primary school teacher. The film follows Poppy through several days in her life, observing her relations with her friends and family, taking driving lessons, learning how to flamenco, and bringing new love into her life.

Your perception of this film will probably depend on how you feel about character studies. Because that's what this film is. It's an in-depth look at the character of Pauline 'Poppy' Cross ... and that's it. Poppy is in almost every scene in the film. All the other characters in the movie exist to provide development for Poppy's character. Family problems are viewed, but only so Poppy can gloss over them (and maybe show the origin of her happiness as a coping mechanism). If you like plot, then this movie is probably not for you. There's really not any conflict to speak of until about 2/3 into the movie. Does that mean it's not an interesting movie? Not necessarily. Mainly because Poppy is such a strange character to follow.

Watching the trailer, you might think that Poppy is portrayed as over-the-top. But the film is able to set up a character that is utterly happy about life and uber-optimistic but isn't naive or irritating. Leigh is able to accomplish this by introducing darkness into Poppy's life but not bruising her spirit. Judging from what I know about Leigh's previous films, it wouldn't have surprised me if Poppy would have been crushed into oblivion at the end of movie. I'm glad that didn't happened.

Happy-Go-Lucky does provide it's fair share of laughs. The early scenes with her hot-tempered driving instructor, who really is the polar opposite of Poppy's character, are quite funny, as well as the few scenes with the over-the-top flamenco dancer. But like I said before, the funny parts of the movie are tempered with enough strong doses of real life conflict to ground both the film and Poppy in reality.

Overall, it was an enjoyable movie experience. This might be a film where a second viewing would be helpful, just to get around all that British slang and style of talking. Kinsey said she needed subtitles.

Kinsey: 3 stars
Wade: 3 stars

Drive Home Review: Happy-Go-Lucky

Happy-Go-Lucky

Rachel Getting Married

You ever have a movie experience where you feel like you've checked out after about 30 minutes? That's what happened to me when we saw Rachel Getting Married. I just wasn't into it. Thankfully, that changed.

Rachel Getting Married is about, well, Rachel's marriage. Anne Hathaway stars not as Rachel, but her sister Kym, an ex-junkie coming out of rehab for her sister Rachel's marriage. Family difficulties ensue.

As I was saying earlier, I had written this movie off about a half-hour into it. I wasn't buying the family interactions. It seemed like everyone was trying too hard. I know that Kym was trying too hard to have normal relations with her family, but it came off as an actress knowing that her character needs to try too hard so she tries too hard to look like she's trying too hard, if that makes any sense. Anyway, there was that and a couple of unbelievable exchanges ("Didn't I see you on Cops?") that made me feel like this movie wasn't going to work. And so about a half hour in, I'm glancing around the theater, feeling bored, and we get to the rehearsal dinner scene. There are a bunch of toasts and then Kym gets up to speak. It started out as I expected, with forced references and rough dialogue, but as Kym kept speaking, talking about her time in rehab and the mistakes she had made, she started to suck me in. And then, as the movie kept going, I got even more sucked in. The more details the movie gave me, the better it became. I got to admit, there was a couple of times that my "allergies" nearly kicked in. The middle and last part of the film really drove it home for me, emotionally-wise. (By the way, Kinsey thought the total opposite about the beginning of the movie. She liked Rachel Getting Married all the way through.)

Let me finish this post with a little bit about Anne Hathaway. I've never been a big Hathaway fan. She was sufficient in the Princess Diaries and The Devil Wears Prada. She ruined Becoming Jane while James McAvoy acted circles around her. She was the weak link in Brokeback Mountain. So I was pretty surprised when I heard all the Oscar hype around her performance in Rachel Getting Married. The preview certainly didn't convince me. But, after seeing the film, I think she deserves it. The scenes with her mother (played by Debra Winger) are especially good. And she is able to convey so much emotion with just a stare, which is something I definitely didn't expect from Anne Hathaway.

Wade: first half hour 1.5 stars, rest of the film 5 stars

Kinsey: 4 stars

The Duchess

Welcome all, to the Goodenberger family movie blog. This blog will have a mix of new release reviews, usually one every weekend, and I'll also toss in a few classic movie reviews from our Blockbuster queue (that's right Blockbuster, not Netflix; take that Netflix!) just for good measure.

First up, a review of the film The Duchess starring Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes. Now I read movie reviews from lots of different places, the New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, CNN, and none of them had much good to say about this film. Really the only reason we went to see it was because Kinsey loves period films with big, poufy dresses. And when it was over, and we were weaving through the crowds of senior citizens at the Uptown Theatre, I found myself pleasantly surprised. It's not nearly as dull as you'd think it'd be. The film makes some different choices than your typical old-timey dress-up picture. I'd get into those choices but I feel like I'd give a lot away.

Keira Knightley does a decent job but gets blown away anytime she shares the screen with Ralph Fiennes. You can't blame her; she's just not as good of an actor as he is. She could definitely take some cues from him, like the importance of subtlety or just being still for a couple of seconds. Everything with Keira Knightley is so pronounced, whereas Ralph Fiennes can move a scene along with a simple grunt.

Overall, it was an enjoyable movie experience. It would be nice to see someone else get these period roles other than Keira Knightley. I bet Kate Winslet would've knocked this one out of the park.

Wade: 3 stars

McKinsey: 3 1/2 stars