Okja

Okja (2017)

Starring Tilda Swinton, Paul Dano, An Seo Hyun, Byun Heebong, Steven Yeun, Lily Collins, Yoon Je Moon, Shirley Henderson, Daniel Henshall, Devon Bostick, Woo Shik Choi, Giancarlo Esposito, and Jake Gyllenhaal

Directed by Bong Joon Ho

Written by Bong Joon Ho and Jon Ronson

***This film is currently streaming via Netflix***

Summary (in 500 words or less): Teenager Mija (An Seo Hyun) has raised a genetically engineered super pig for nearly a decade in the mountains of South Korea, but when the Mirando Corporation headed by Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) comes to take their pig back in order to begin selling its meat, Mija takes matters into her own hands with the help of an animal rights organization.

Click here for my Letterboxd review

The RyMickey Rating: D+

Movie Review - Youth

Youth (2015)

Starring Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz, Paul Dano, Alex Macqueen, and Jane Fonda

Directed by Paolo Sorrentino

***This film is currently available via HBO Now***

Oh, the potential of Youth.  A talented ensemble cast.  A sometimes touching story (with hints of humor) about two older men trying to remember their engaging past while dealing with their tediously dull present.  A stunningly beautiful nude woman portraying an intelligent Miss Universe winner.  This had a bunch of things going for it.  And then director Paolo Sorrentino goes and screws things up with some of the oddest direction I've seen in a 2015 movie.  Youth certainly looks beautiful, there's no denying that, but the images Sorrentino places up on the screen feel too esoteric to really push the film's plot along, and while I'm sure his visuals meant something to the director, they just befuddle the viewer with a "can't we just get on with the plot" mentality.

At the film's center is Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine), a famous classical composer and conductor who has left his profession behind after his wife fell ill.  Fred retreats at a luxurious spa catering to the incredibly wealthy in the Alps.  There with him is his daughter-cum-manager Lena (Rachel Weisz) who is always pushing him to reconnect with his sick wife (and her mother) whom he hasn't seen in a decade as well as his best friend Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel), a movie director prepping for what he believes to be his last film.  As Fred and Mick rest and relax, they reminisce and often have quite a lot to say about growing old and the effects it can have on one's life.  (Frankly, some of the dialog they spout is actually quite profound and oddly intellectually stimulating, so Sorrentino -- who also wrote the picture -- succeeds in that respect.)

The conflict in the picture arises from the arrival at the spa of a person into each of these men's lives.  For Fred, it's the Queen of England's emissary (Alex Macqueen) sent on a mission to coax the composer into one last outing to play his celebrated "Simple Songs" collection for Prince Philip's birthday.  For Mick, it's Brenda Morel (Jane Fonda), an aging actress who has starred in several of his films and whom Mick wants to appear in his final picture.  Both the emissary and Brenda cause the two men to question their current way of life, impacting them in surprising ways.

For the most part, the acting raises the bar for Youth with the ensemble impressing (including an understated Paul Dano playing a young actor also at the spa).  Michael Caine in particular captivates as his Fred copes with living with a bit of repressed guilt for past indiscretions.  Unfortunately, scenes that forward along the story are oftentimes broken up by tiny visual vignettes of other spa-goers that fall tremendously flat after Sorrentino decides to repetitively return to them throughout the film.  As I've said, I'm sure they mean something metaphorically, but this isn't a film that I particularly feel is "study worthy" to have to delve into and investigate what they really signify.  These throwaway scenes bog down the film's running time and take away from the heart of the story which lies in Fred's relationship with his daughter, his friend, and his estranged wife.

Youth is a weird beast because there are things I really liked about it (even the throwaway vignette-like scenes were shot well despite being frivolous).  In the end, however, it's too choppy and lacks a cohesion that I feel would've strengthened the picture.

The RyMickey Rating:  C-

Movie Review - Love & Mercy

Love & Mercy (2015)

Starring John Cusack, Paul Dano, Elizabeth Banks, and Paul Giamatti

Directed by Bill Pohlad

Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys was a bit of a songwriting savant making the surf-centric group one of the most popular of the 1960s.  However, Wilson led a troubled life likely brought on by his father's disappointment in him despite his son's great success.  Following a panic attack on a plane, Wilson stops touring and spends his time developing what he thought would be the greatest album ever made -- Pet Sounds.  His intense focus on the album lost him favor with his fellow group members and began the downward spiral in the relationship with his wife.  A few decades later in the 1980s, Wilson finds himself under the care of abusive therapist Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti), but begins to fall for car saleswoman Melinda Ledbetter (Elizabeth Banks) who feels that Wilson is being manipulated and over-medicated by Landy so that he can have control over Wilson's fortune.

The story of Love & Mercy spans both eras of Wilson's life with Paul Dano taking on the singer in the 1960s and John Cusack playing him in the 1980s.  The film's clever balancing act of showing us two aspects of the singer's life makes this biographical flick a lot more interesting than I ever thought possible with both eras getting equal play and sharing equal amounts of gravitas.  Dano rather astutely shows us the downward spiral Wilson experienced, while Cusack does a nice job of playing a man desperately trying to break out of his rigidly structured life set forth by his supposed caretaker.

The real star of the show here, though, is Elizabeth Banks in what is really a break-out role for her as the elder Wilson's girlfriend Melinda.  Banks takes what could have certainly been a throwaway role and gives Melinda depth, strength, and conviction that I wasn't expecting in the slightest.  While it's true that much of her role is reactionary to Wilson or Landy's actions, Banks imbues Melinda with so much intelligence behind her eyes.  There could have been a huge amount of sentimentality or sheer mushiness in a role that requires an actress to "save her beau" from himself, but Banks tells us more from her heartfelt, nervous, contemplative gazes than I've seen in many other roles this year.  It's truly a stellar performance and one that captivated me from the moment she stepped onscreen.  If anything, it was slightly detrimental to the earlier Brian Wilson story because Banks is so good here that I wanted the story to pivot back to her.

Love & Mercy is a nicely directed, nicely written film that definitely deserved some awards attention, but failed to garner any.  If anything, see it for Elizabeth Banks who proves that she's much more of a talent than many of us thought, but even taking Banks out of the equation, the flick is a biopic that lacks much of the sentimental gooeyness that often accompanies the genre.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - 12 Years a Slave

12 Years a Slave (2013)

Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o, Sarah Paulson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, Scoot McNairy, Taran Kiliam, Garret Dillahunt, Paul Giamatti, Alfre Woodard, and Brad Pitt

Directed by Steve McQueen

Director Steve McQueen is fairly new to the feature film scene, but his fantastic 2011 flick Shame put him onto my radar so I came to 12 Years a Slave with high expectations.  McQueen absolutely has an eye behind the camera that I find interesting, but this film lacks a tiny bit of drive to push the story along which knocks the otherwise well-done film down a notch or two.

Based on a true story, 12 Years a Slave tells the tale of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a freed black man living quite well in New York in the 1840s with his wife and two children by his side.  A musician by trade, Solomon is approached by two men (Scoot McNairy and Taran Kiliam) who desire to hire him to play music on tour with their traveling circus.  Solomon agrees and travels to Washington, D.C., where the two men wine and dine him one night to the point of Solomon getting drunk and passing out.  The next thing Solomon knows, he's chained in a dark room and his two new "employers" are nowhere to be found.  Solomon quickly comes to the realization that he was drugged and, despite his pleas, he is sold into slavery and shipped down to New Orleans where he's given the new name of "Platt" to try and conceal the fact that he was ever a free man.

The film then follows Solomon through a series of owners.  The first, William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), is a good man who recognizes the intelligence and education of Solomon.  Despite Ford's kindness, Solomon still finds himself working the field under the watchful eye of the nasty John Tibeats (Paul Dano) who resents the fact that Solomon is so respected by Ford.  Eventually, things get to such a boiling point between Solomon and Tibeats that Ford decides he must sell Solomon in order to keep unity amongst the slaves and the ownership.  Unfortunately for Solomon, his new owner Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) isn't nearly as benevolent as Ford.  Epps, who owns a cotton plantation, could care less about Solomon's education -- he only wants to know how much cotton he can pick in a day.  Adding to the tension, the married Epps is having an affair (however one-sided it is) with female slave Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o) which doesn't sit too well with Epps' wife (Sarah Paulson) and causes moments of chaos on the plantation.

I fully understand that this is a true story of a horrific journey of one man's life -- so who am I to knock it.  I will say, however, that the episodic nature of the tale -- as evidenced by the summary above -- does make the film feel a little disjointed and doesn't quite allow it to ever gain a driving momentum.  Once we finally get to the climax of one tale (the Ford chapter, as an example), we're sent to the next segment where we essentially have to start things all over again.  It's not as if either story isn't worth telling -- they certainly show the varied lives slaves may have endured in the 19th century -- but the screenplay by John Ridley, while good, doesn't quite succeed at keeping the story moving at a typical movie's pace.  Then again, maybe it's this screenplay's slow pace that attracted Steve McQueen to the project.  Many would say his previous film Shame had that same methodical tone to it and I wouldn't necessarily argue with them.  Shame was telling one story, however, whereas 12 Years a Slave almost feels as if it's telling two or three.

Still, despite my qualms, I don't want my criticism in any way to make it seem as if I didn't like the film.  This certainly is not a chore to sit through and I found the story rather fascinating in that Solomon Northup's tale of a free man being resold into slavery is something I'm not quite sure we've ever seen captured on film before.  McQueen doesn't shy away from the hardships slaves faced on a daily basis and the director seals his status as a filmmaker to watch with an incredibly long and unceasingly uncomfortable single-take scene towards the film's end of a brutal beating.  Although this long take filled me with an uneasy dread, I was fascinated by McQueen's technique, forcing the viewer to "stay with" the scene never allowing us to turn away to get a respite from the horrors endured by some African Americans in the 19th century.

There's an understated demeanor to Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance that endears him to the audience.  Behind his eyes, you can always see the longing to return home to his wife and children, but the fear that it may never happen.  Ejiofor gives a strength to Solomon that is admirable and is a commanding presence despite the character's oftentimes repressed nature.  Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Fassbender are two of today's most talked about actors and here they're playing complete opposite sides of the spectrum in slave owners Ford and Epps.  The audience immediately admires Ford's humanity which stands in stark contrast to the bitter anger that permeates seemingly through the pores of Epps.  Fassbender is at his best in scenes involving Sarah Paulson as his wife and newcomer Lupita Nyong'o as his lover.  Fassbender excels at radiating jealousy and he's near perfect at playing such a nasty guy.  However, Paulson and Nyong'o are equally as good at playing the two women he loves.  Paulson's bitterness is spot-on (albeit incredibly nasty) and Nyong'o's pain at being forced to accept being raped on a regular basis is absolutely painful.  I will say (and this harkens back to the screenplay's problems a tad), I wish Nyong'o had a little more to do.  This actress is certainly forced to run the spectrum of emotions (brutally so, at times) and I realize this is Solomon's story, but I wanted a little more depth for Nyong'o to sink her teeth into.

12 Years a Slave isn't an easy watch, but it certainly illustrates a point in our history that needs to be remembered and explored.  I'm happy that Solomon Northup's bittersweet tale has been told and it's a film that's so close to being great, but misses the mark a tiny bit in just a few key areas.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - Prisoners

Prisoners (2013)

Starring Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Paul Dano, and Melissa Leo

Directed by Denis Villeneuve

I'm not sure there's something more horrific than being a parent and having something devastating happen to your children.  In Prisoners, when two young girls are kidnapped on Thanksgiving Day from their Pennsylvania neighborhood, I can only imagine the horror going through the heads of parents Keller and Grace Dover (Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello) and Franklin and Nancy Birch (Terrence Howard and Viola Davis).  The pain, anguish, and anger is all on display in Denis Villeneuve's direction of Aaron Guzikowski's script, but the emotional connection with the characters wasn't there for me and it's something that I really long for in a movie like this.

Take my favorite film of last year -- The Impossible -- or one of the best films of the past few years that you've never heard of -- Trust (seriously, check it out) -- and you'll find yourself becoming completely invested in all the characters -- the kids and the adults alike.  In Prisoners, I never felt that emotional tug I desired.  Maybe it's because the two girls go missing so early and we never get an opportunity to really get to know them.  Or maybe it's because Jackman's Keller takes a rather unique approach to enacting revenge on Alex Jones (Paul Dano), the young man initially accused and then cleared of kidnapping the girls, thus maybe subliminally making me not feel so bad for the tortured father.  Regardless, I kept waiting to have some type of guttural response to the story, but that never really happened.

Performances are good, but oftentimes in movies similar to this, they'll be a character(s) that you immediately find yourself connecting with and rallying behind.  Hugh Jackman is certainly supposed to be that guy and I'm sure I was supposed to be affected by Maria Bello's debilitating anguish, but the film never took me there.  Once again, this isn't to say that Jackman and Bello are disappointing.  In fact, this is probably Jackman's best role yet (and I quite liked his role in Les Miserables), taking a very tricky character and making his motivations understandable.

Perhaps it is, in fact, his interactions with Paul Dano that make this movie so difficult to create an emotional resonance for me.  <<MODERATE SPOILERS FOLLOW, ALTHOUGH THE TRAILER ESSENTIALLY REVEALS WHAT I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS.>>  Dano's Alex Jones is obviously emotionally stunted and psychologically marred.  When Jackman's Keller essentially kidnaps him, we understand Keller's response, but we can't condone it.  And it's maybe this reason why we in the audience can't exactly become as invested in these parents' horror as we'd like.  <<SPOILERS DONE.>>  Dano is creepily fantastic here, though, excelling in a tricky role that somehow manages to walk the line between having the audience both despise and sympathize with him.  Nice turns from Melissa Leo, Viola Davis (who's just great in everything I've seen her in recently) and Jake Gyllenhaal (who, even in this, is a bit overrated in my opinion) round out the cast, but can't fulfill that dramatic oomph I desired.

Listen, it may seem like I'm being overly critical of Prisoners by harping on one particular issue and, quite honestly, I am.  However, Prisoners is good.  It's a smart adult drama with enough twists and turns that make its lengthy running time seem to fly by rather quickly.  Overall, it's the kind of movie that I wish Hollywood created more often.  Admittedly, I think the thing the film prides itself upon -- playing with morality and questioning who's right and who's wrong in certain situations -- hurt its overall resonance with me, yet made it intriguing at the same time.  And, it's for that reason that despite my qualms, it still gets the decidedly good rating I've given it below.

The RyMickey Rating:  B

Movie Review - Ruby Sparks

Ruby Sparks (2012)

Starring Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Chris Messina, Annette Bening, Steve Coogan, Elliot Gould, and Antonio Banderas

Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris

I wasn't the biggest fan of Little Miss Sunshine and Paul Dano isn't ever a draw for me, so a film by the directors and featuring one of the stars of that former Oscar-nominated flick wasn't ever going to jump out at me as a major draw.  However, I couldn't be more pleased that I gave Ruby Sparks a shot because I found the comedy to be more amusing than I ever could have imagined.  Maybe it was a case of lowered expectations, but that's probably selling the film short because I feel like Ruby Sparks is one of the best films to come out of 2012.

A decade ago, Calvin Weir-Fields (Paul Dano) wrote a quintessential piece of American literature -- a contemporary Catcher in the Rye if you will.  Since then, he's been able to live very well off the money brought in from his novel, but hasn't been able to follow it up with any work as he's been afraid of living up to the expectations from his modern-day masterpiece.  Much like his professional life, his love life has stalled.  After breaking up with a long-time girlfriend a few years ago, Calvin spends time at home alone with his dog much to the chagrin of his brother Harry (Chris Messina).  One evening, Calvin has a dream about a beautiful girl beckoning him to be with her and Calvin's therapist (Elliot Gould) seizes the moment and tells the author to start writing about her to try and get the creative juices flowing.

Calvin finds himself engrossed in writing for the first time in years, falling in love with his creation of the character of Ruby Sparks -- his ideal woman.  Color Calvin surprised when he wakes up one morning only to find Ruby (Zoe Kazan) actually in his apartment, complete with every mannerism and characteristic he has made up for her.  Whatever Calvin writes seemingly comes alive in Ruby right before his very eyes placing Calvin in an interesting conundrum -- does he write Ruby to be the woman he wants her to be or does he try and let her become her own woman with her own will and ambitions.

While there's certainly enchanting fantastical elements in this wonderful debut screenplay by Zoe Kazan, the film's directors don't dwell on the fact that this couldn't actually happen.  Instead, it's played rather straightforward and thanks to all players in front of and behind the scenes, we in the audience buy into the whole thing instantly.  Comedy is front and center at the initial meetings of Calvin and Ruby, but as the film progresses, we delve a bit more into what "love" should mean and that the "faults" of our partners endear them to us all the more.

Kazan has created a nice starring role for herself that allows her to play both the initial bubbly innocence of the fresh-faced Ruby and then shift into the more independent-minded woman that Ruby becomes.  While I'd apparently seen Kazan in a few films (most notably the western Meek's Cutoff), she isn't someone that had registered with me before.  However, after this, she'll definitely be on my radar and I hope that she takes another stab at writing as her screenplay proved to be quite unique.

Much to my surprise, Paul Dano didn't annoy me in the slightest.  It's not so much that Dano ever even annoys me, it's just that he always seems to fade away into the background of whatever movie he's in, never really standing out whether that be because his role is minor or because he's being overshadowed by a bigger, more imposing presence (see There Will Be Blood).  Here, however, the sheer fact that his character longs to be reclusive and away from spotlight fits Dano to a tee.  I think it may be his best work yet -- or, at the very least, his most enjoyable to watch.

With some very nice supporting turns from Chris Messina (a guy who I admire for taking even the smallest of roles and making them memorable) as Calvin's lewd, but incredibly well-meaning brother, along with Annette Bening and Antonio Banderas as Calvin's hippie mother and stepfather, Ruby Sparks proves that romantic comedies don't need to play to the lowest common denominators in terms of either raunchy behavior or bland stereotypes in order to succeed.  How this charming film didn't find more success is beyond me considering that it's the best comedy of 2012.

The RyMickey Rating:  A-

Movie Review - Looper

Looper (2012)

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Piper Perabo, Paul Dano, Pierce Gagnon, and Jeff Daniels

Directed by Rian Johnson

Why did I wait so long to see Looper?  Everyone raved about it.  It's directed and written by a guy whose last film I greatly admired specifically for its direction and story.  It stars the guy who was in my favorite scene in one of my favorite movies of 2011.  And yet, I waited.  And the buzz built.  And the movie could never live up to the hype.

But it did...and now I wished I had seen it sooner as it may have gotten me excited and interested about seeing movies again in theaters.  One great movie can do that you -- pique your interest enough to make you realize that not all movies are schlock.  Don't get me wrong.  Looper isn't without its faults (it's first act drags on a bit too long, but it has a second and third act that more than make up for it), but it's an original piece of cinema that is directed with a keen eye and acted with precision from the youngest member of the cast to the oldest.

By 2074, time travel has been invented, but the concept is controlled by someone who has never been seen and is known only as The Rainmaker -- the head of a crime syndicate.  When The Rainmaker wants to get rid of someone, he sends them back thirty years and has them killed by "a looper."  Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a looper in 2044 and he gets paid well for his job, but like all loopers, The Rainmaker will eventually decide to "close his loop" and eliminate Joe's job, allowing him to live a good life for 30 years before he's forced to "close the loop" by killing his future "older Joe" self.  [This sounds confusing, but it really isn't in the slightest when you see it acted out.]  However, when Old Joe (Bruce Willis) is sent back in time to be killed, he refuses to let it happen which puts Young Joe in a bit of a predicament for if he doesn't kill Old Joe, the future will irreversibly change perhaps to great effect.

That summary involves only Act I and the remainder of the film really should be left to simply let unfold before you.  It's not that it contains surprises, but it's a film that only knowing the science fiction basics really allows the rest of the "human" story to flesh out naturally.  Rian Johnson has two tales layered together here -- one would fit perfectly into a Star Trek or Twilight Zone episode involving time travel while the other pushes all of sci-fi to the side and allows a romance to blossom between Joe and a tough farmhand named Sara (Emily Blunt, oddly unrecognizable at first and talking without a hint of her British accent) who comes with some baggage in tow with her young son Cid (the fantastic Pierce Gagnon).  Neither side of the story is given the short shrift and because of that and Johnson's intricate way of melding the two, one finds oneself rapt the whole time with the proceedings.

Although set in the future and certainly peppered with inventions to which we are not yet privy, Looper almost feels retro (much like the tone set in Johnson's former work The Brothers Bloom).  Gordon-Levitt plays Joe as a 1950s James Dean-type guy and, in fact, he's even called out on his old-fashioned stylings by his boss (Jeff Daniels), the head of The Rainmaker's loopers in 2044.  I will admit that it took me a little bit to warm up to Gordon-Levitt's Joe -- I felt he was "playing a character" more than "embodying one" -- but I later grew to appreciate his approach.  As mentioned above, Emily Blunt is quite good here, un-prettying herself and getting a bit grittier than we usually see her.  I love the fact that she can usually elevate comedic fluff to something better, but in Looper she shows that she's also quite a talented dramatic actress.  And her young son, played by five year-old Pierce Gagnon is wonderful.  His role is an interesting one and he manages to be both child-like and adult with such ease that he helps elevate the film's second half to something quite special.

I wasn't a fan at all of Rian Johnson's first film Brick (but then again I'm kind of snob when it comes to good film noir), but I found The Brothers Bloom a pretty fun piece of work.  With Looper, he proves that he wasn't a one-trick pony.  Hopefully, he can continue this upward momentum and we don't have to wait another four years before his next work comes around.

The RyMickey Rating:  A-

Movie Review - Meek's Cutoff

Meek's Cutoff (2011)

Starring Michelle Williams, Bruce Greenwood, Will Patton, and Paul Dano

Directed by Kelly Reichardt

As a self-professed hater of westerns, no one is more surprised than me to be quite taken with Meek's Cutoff, a tale of a group of settlers traveling across Oregon in 1845.  On the surface, Kelly Reichardt's flick may appear to be one of the slowest paced films you'll ever watch, but if you dig deep, you'll find that you're witnessing a horror story realistically portraying the struggles facing American pioneers.  Ever growing in tension as the tale of our settlers' search for water grows increasingly more perilous, Meek's Cutoff turns into an edge-of-your-seat nailbiter unlike any film I've ever seen simply because it achieves this uneasiness by plunging the viewers into the utterly monotonous world of the settlers who begin to question whether their trek is a worthy one.  It's an odd flick, but one that is rather ingenious in the way it tells its tale.

Key to the film's success is a cast of only nine actors who, for the most part, prove to be quite adept at showcasing the desperation of American settlers.  The film's poster places the focus squarely on Michelle Williams and while it could certainly be said that she is the main character, her role as the headstrong (although never too "modern" in manner to seem out of place in the 1840s) Emily Tetherow never gives the film an overtly feminist tone that I thought I was going to see based on previews.  Emily is still a woman who "obeys" her new husband, Solomon (a solemn and subdued Will Patton), but isn't afraid to express her views on how to find a watering hole.

It is her views on that very subject that are the impetus behind the flick's overarching predicament.  Does the group of seven settlers follow their rugged and cocky guide Meek (a brilliantly offbeat Bruce Greenwood) who boasts about his abilities but has yet to really showcase his brilliance or the spiritual Native American (Ron Rondeaux) that they have captured whom they can't understand and may simply be leading them to their demise?  Emily has her own thoughts on which man to follow and, needless to say, the group doesn't entirely agree with her.

The film looks stunning (great work from cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt).  The first ten minutes are nearly dialog-free shots of our group of settlers living off of the land and traveling through the arid landscapes of the American Northwest.  However, at the beginning of the film, director Kelly Reichardt often sets her camera outside of group conversations so that unless we turn the volume up full tilt, we're really unable to hear what's going on.  After having seen the film, I now completely comprehend that in these scenes, we the viewers are supposed to be like the women traveling in the group, only able to hear bits and pieces of the conversations of the men...but it just irked me more than anything else.  As the film progresses and Emily becomes a bit more forceful in having her opinions be heard, the viewers begin to hear all the goings-on and these sound issues become much less frequent.

I know full well that many will watch Meek's Cutoff and think it is one of the most boring films they've ever seen (that's assuming they even make it through the first thirty minutes).  They may scream, "Nothing happens!" and, on the surface, I wouldn't be able to disagree with them.  [And I should readily admit that there were moments towards the very beginning where I was doubtful I would make it through this one.]  To me, though, I find it to be a great (and probably as realistic as you're going to get) glimpse at the life of a roving American settler in the mid 1800s.  It's in this reality that the tension mounts and, like life itself, things aren't always tied up in a neat little bow in the end.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - Knight and Day (2010)

Knight and Day (2010)

Starring Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Peter Sarsgaard, Viola Davis, and Paul Dano

Directed by James Mangold

There's no denying that Knight and Day is a ridiculous espionage comedy-thriller.  It's one of those movies where the bad guys can't make a shot, but the good guys always get their man.  And I doubt I'm ruining anything for anyone by saying that our two big name movie stars share some on-screen flirtation.  There's really nothing that you haven't seen before...and seen done better.

Yet, for some reason, Knight and Day kind of works.  And, honestly, it's because of Tom Cruise.  There's a smoothness and ease that he brings to his secret agent Roy Miller that pushes the movie to just a little above average.  June thinks Roy is winning from the get-go when they meet on flight to Boston, but June soon discovers that Roy's not your run-of-the-mill guy and is (rightly so) frightened by his career.   After the plane that they're on crashes in a wheat field, Roy (with the requisite Tom Cruisian charm) warns June that she unfortunately is now a part of this spy life whether she likes it or not.  June refuses to believe that Roy's correct, but she soon discovers that she may need him to survive.

Despite the fact that I can list many things that aren't great in the film (a lack of sexual chemistry between Diaz and Cruise, some awful special effects, a very disappointing and mildly "cop-outtish" ending), I still enjoyed the sheer fun of the film.  Cruise is funny and his star wattage is in full force here.  Diaz is perfectly fine, and while there's nothing exciting or special that she brings to the table, she certainly holds her own in this flick.  Co-stars Peter Sarsgaard and Viola Davis bring their considerable acting chops to the film as well.

Listen, if you come out of this saying that the film is awful, I couldn't really fight you on it.   There are infinitely better adventure-romance films -- seriously, everyone should check out Romancing the Stone which is the epitome of the genre, to me.  Nonetheless, if you're looking for some mildly diverting fun, you could do much worse than Knight and Day.

The RyMickey Rating: C+

Movie Review - Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Starring Max Records, Catherine Keener, Mark Ruffalo, and the voices of James Gandolfini, Lauren Ambrose, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, and Forrest Whitaker
Directed by Spike Jonze

I can't even begin to tell you how much I want to like this movie. It has so many positive things going for it...unfortunately, a story is not one of them. And the lack of any type of strong narrative really manages to bring this movie down. I tried my hardest not to be bored, but the screenwriters need to give me a little something to keep me engaged.

Young Max isn't happy. His older sister is abandoning him for friends of a similar age. His mom is either working or spending time dating. One night, he flips out, bites his mother, and then runs away "into his imagination" to a land inhabited by larger than life monsters and animals. Max befriends these monsters, becomes their king, and realizes that their problems are similar to humankind.

I guess the problem with adapting a small children's picture book to the big screen is that you're inevitably going to have to add stuff in order to pad the running time into a feature film. There were little vignettes here and there in the film that worked, but it didn't really feel like a cohesive story.

And it's incredibly unfortunate because everything else on display here is top notch. I was quite impressed with young Max Records as Max. I don't think his role as a rambunctious youth was an easy one to play (mainly because the story doesn't really give him a whole lot of motivation or reasoning behind the things he does), but he's onscreen for nearly every scene and I was quite impressed with his work. Catherine Keener's role as his mom is very minimal, but she surprisingly made an impression on me (in a good way) despite her limited screen time.

Let's discuss the monsters now...there's some great puppetry/costumes going on here. Stunning stuff. Each monster manages to have their own distinct personality thanks to some great voice work and some amazing movements. I can't get over how "real" the facial reactions and arm movements and stances of the puppeteers felt to me...like watching a person onscreen instead of a furry creature. Like I said, the voices matched the monsters perfectly. James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Cooper, Lauren Ambrose, and Forrest Whitaker all deserve kudos for creating believable monsters via their voicework.

And despite the fact that his screenplay was weak, as a director, Spike Jonze is something special. The film looked exquisite. Even in the opening scenes at Max's house, I was surprised by how much I liked the visuals. I like that Jonze doesn't rush things and he lets scenes sit there for a while (I know...kind of opposite to the fact that I said the movie was boring, but that's the fault of the script). I can see how some would watch the final scene of this movie - a perfect example of what I mention above -- and go, "What the heck was that?," but I looked at it and was pleased with it.

With so many things to love about this movie (I didn't even mention the odd soundtrack which absolutely added to the film, even if I wasn't head-over-heels in love with it), it pains me to give this the rating I'm going to give it. If only there was something story-wise here, this could've been one of my favorite movies of the year without a doubt.

The RyMickey Rating: C

Movie Review - Gigantic (2009)

Starring Paul Dano, Zooey Deschanel, John Goodman, Ed Asner, and Zach Galifianakis
Written by Matt Aselton and Adam Nagata
Directed by Matt Aselton

I don't know that I've wanted a movie to end this year more than I wanted Gigantic to end. It's not that it was even the worst movie I've seen, but it was full of those "quirky" characters that do wacky things that people would never do in real life simply to try and provide laughs for the movie-going audience.

Paul Dano is Brian Weathersby, a 28-year old mattress salesman who has wanted to adopt a baby from China for his whole life. One day, he meets Happy Lolly (Zooey Deschanel) whose father has just bought a mattress from him. They fall in love. That's pretty much it (except for the weird subplot of a homeless guy played by Zack Galifianakis who is constantly beating up Brian...why? Because it's weird and edgy, that's why). Brian and Happy both have that solemn, emotionless indie characteristic that we see in indie movies where the writers don't know what to write about. The two of them are so blah that I never once felt anything but boredom whenever Dano and Deschanel were onscreen. Dano and Deschanel were playing characters I've seen them play before...they brought nothing new to the table here. Sure, they weren't helped by the awful script, but they certainly were poor on their own merits.

The only thing saving this movie from complete failure are the performances of John Goodman and Ed Asner as Happy and Brian's respective fathers. Goodman's character is a completely unbelievable "quirky" rich guy, but he plays it with gusto and was the only person that breathed life into the movie. Asner was the only "normal" person here and I enjoyed the performance probably for that reason alone.

The RyMickey Rating: D-