REVIEW: The Informant!

Here's a quick plot synopsis of Steven Soderbergh's latest, The Informant!, from IMDb.com:

Mark Whitacre has worked for lysine developing company ADM for many years and has even found his way into upper management. But nothing has prepared him for the job he is about to undertake - being a spy for the FBI. Unwillingly pressured into working as an informant against the illegal price-fixing activities of his company, Whitacre gradually adopts the idea that he's a true secret agent. But as his incessant lies keep piling up, his world begins crashing down around him.

If you look at the history of movie trailers, there's an interesting progression. The earliest movie trailers contained extended scenes from the movie, with all kinds of white text sliding in and out, and usually with some clever narrator talking about how the film stars are "back at it again." Then you got Don LaFontaine with his booming voice and his trademark "In a world..." phrase. Nowadays, trailers either give away the plot of the film or make the movie seem like something its not. The Informant! trailer is one of the latter. The film is pitched as an absurd comedy, but is much more serious than the trailer lets on. Sure, there are elements of dark humor and Matt Damon seems like a buffoon (key word "seems") but this really is a fairly serious film, like a somewhat light The Insider or All the President's Men.

And kudos to Steven Soderbergh, by the way, for taking a novel about corporate espionage in the agricultural sector and turning it into a good film. It is a good film, with the performance of Matt Damon being its centerpiece. Its really Damon's film more than Soderbergh's. It hinges on certain believable nuances of Damon's character and Damon definitely pulls them off.

I think Matt Damon is underrated as an actor. I told this to Kinsey the other day and she didn't buy it, saying he gets tons of praise already. Yeah, the guy's got an Oscar, but its for writing, not acting. He has an Academy Award nomination for Good Will Hunting, his first lead role, but since then, nothing. The Talented Mr. Ripley, Syriana, The Good Shepherd, The Departed, heck, even the Bourne movies; his performance in any of these films was good enough for a nom. The guy should have at least one Best Actor trophy on his mantle. Maybe it'll be this year, his performance in The Informant! is definitely worthwhile.

Kinsey: 3/5 stars

Wade: 4/5 stars

Mon meilleur ami (My Best Friend)

I decided to change up how I do these movie reviews. The part that I'm the worst at (and like the least) is trying to sum up the plot in a nice little package. I feel like I ramble a bit and leave out important items. So instead I'm just going to borrow a plot synopsis from imdb.com and then get on to the fun stuff: what I think about the film. So here is the IMDB synopsis about My Best Friend:

François is a middle-aged antique dealer. He has a stylish apartment and a fabulous life, but at a dinner with a group he considers his dearest acquaintances, he is blindsided by the revelation that none of them actually likes him. He's arrogant, self-centered and harsh, and they don't believe he knows the meaning of friendship. His business partner Catherine makes him a bet: if he can produce his best friend, she will let him keep the massive Greek vase he acquired that afternoon on the company tab. If not, it's hers. Having accepted the wager, François naively tears through his address book, trying to shoehorn an increasingly unlikely series of contacts into the all-important role. Moving through Paris, he keeps encountering a trivia-spouting, big-hearted cabbie named Bruno. Bruno's chatty, lowbrow ways grate against François's designer temperament, but he covets the other man's easy way with people. He convinces Bruno to teach him how to make friends and sets about learning the "three S's" - being sociable, smiling and sincere - though they don't come easy. Ultimately, François victory will depend on Bruno's naiveté in playing along, but what's the cost of cheating at friendship?

OK, now that's out of the way.

This film was recommended to us by Anthony, my brother-in-law, a little bit surprisingly because he doesn't watch a ton of foreign films. I think the fact that it was foreign was a big reason he loaned it to us.

Personally, I was able to sympathize with the main character Francois' dilemma. I also find it difficult to make friends at times, to "socialize." But Francois has a much more semi-tragic, semi-comic arc than what I've experienced. This stems mainly from what he thinks are the best ways to procure quality friends. His whole notion on this matter is symbolized in the Greek vase mentioned in the synopsis above. The Greek vase, as described at the auction, was created in tribute to a dead friend, and the creator then filled it with his tears. This is the devotion that Francois desires. But instead of simply keeping the idea of the vase in his mind, he gets in to a bidding war for it, spending 200,000 Euros of company money. The film constantly demonstrates how Francois attempts to buy friends. He goes up to strangers in a cafe and attempts to pay their checks, offers to buy the next round, he even spends 10, 000 Euros on a worthless table in an attempt to make Bruno's parents like him. It becomes pretty pathetic.

Francois doesn't improve much when Bruno, the chatty cab driver, becomes his friend out of pity. It reaches a culmination when Francois tricks Bruno into committing insurance fraud for him. When the trick is revealed, Bruno smashes the symbolic vase. It is only at this point that Francois sees clearly. This vase, which he valued as the utmost symbol of friendship, was only brittle terra cotta that was easily shattered, and by someone he considered a friend. It didn't have the tenacity that real friendship does. It's place on the Pedestal of Ultimate Devotion was too much to live up to; it was holding Francois back. Only after he thinks the vase is gone does he act as a true friend towards Bruno.

The movie makes a big deal out of Francois' "friends" stating that the hate him. They say he's self-centered, arrogant, obsessed with money. And although that is true in a way, I don't think Daniel Auteiul's (also in Cache) portrayal totally brings that home. But I think that's a good thing. It would have been bad for the film if it portrayed Francois as some Ebenezer Scrooge-like curmudgeon, not too mention a French one. Who's going to feel for that guy? Kudos to Auteiul for keeping the Francois character somewhat likable.

Overall, a funny, enjoyable to watch French film.

Wade: 3.5/5 stars Kinsey: 4/5 stars

REVIEW: Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino is one of those directors who usually inspires a whole bunch of disproportionate criticism/praise. There's no middle ground with him; it's a love/hate type of thing. Unless you're me. Personally, I could lean either way. I've seen almost every film he's directed (the exception being Deathproof) and while I've enjoyed the majority of them, they're not knocking on the door of my favorite movies of all time. So while I was expecting a good film when I went to see Inglourious Basterds, I wasn't expecting anything amazing.

I was wrong. Inglourious Basterds is one of the best films I've seen this summer and one of Tarantino's best.

Inglourious Basterds definitely fits into the director's style. Instead of gangsters or assassins, this Tarantino film deals with characters in the realm of WWII. The film, broke into five chapters, has three major character groups that become more interwoven as the film progresses. There's the evil Nazi, the femme fatale Jewess, and the gung-ho American soldier.

Even though this film uses actual history as a starting point, that doesn't mean that Tarantino is going to take said history seriously. Has he ever taken anything seriously? The intentionally misspelled title should tip you off that this is going to be parodic in nature. And it is. Actual facts are thrown to the wayside as fictional characters mingle with real people and major aspects of WWII are changed drastically. How to explain the over-the-top accents of Brad Pitt (his character, Aldo Raine, pronounces Nazi like Yahtzee with a N and a hard A), Michael Fassbender, and Mike Myers than to realize that the director/screenwriter is just having a good time? And, in that same thought, how to justify the inclusion of a comedic actor like Mike Myers?

But the parodic nature of the film doesn't mean that it lacks gravitas. Two scenes in particular, the opening scene on a dairy farm and the basement bar rendezvous, deliver tension and suspense in spades. Both feature inordinate amounts of talking capped by moments of extreme violence. That would be a good description for the entire film, lots of talking punctuated with violence. But that's not a bad thing. It's the great verbal banter that keeps this film moving through its 2 1/2 hour runtime.

The true surprise of this film is unknown (at least in this country) Austrian actor Christopher Waltz as Col. Hans Landa, the Jew Hunter. Waltz takes the character of Landa above and beyond typical villainy, creating a smooth-talking, smarmy, evil Nazi that you can't help but stay focused on. Rather than casting a "name" actor for his villain, Tarantino searched for someone who was right for the character, who could act in four languages, and Waltz is his perfect match. Great casting is another strong point of the film. Other than Brad Pitt (who is just a piece of the ensemble), there are no big names. Actors are cast for their similarities to the characters. Germans are cast as Germans, French as French. Its another quality aspect of the film that can be chalked up to Tarantino (I sure am giving him a lot of praise, but its really his movie, through and through).

So whether or not you enjoyed Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, or Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds is really something to behold.

Wade: 4.5/5 stars