Scott William Foley

What can I say?  Putting Hellboy and James Lipton together is like chocolate and peanut butter - it just doesn’t get any better.

I’m proud to admit that the main reason I wanted to see Lars and the Real Girl is because I’m a Ryan Gosling fan.  I loved his work in The Notebook, Stay, and Fracture, so I figured as strange as Lars and the Real Girl sounded, I’d give it a shot.

If you ask anyone, they’ll tell you Lars and the Real Girl is about a guy who falls in love with a sex doll.  On the absolute most superficial surface, yes, that’s what this movie is about.

(SPOILERS)

However, what it’s really about is a repressed young man who absolutely has no idea how to interact with the world.  His mother died giving birth to him, and his older brother left him with their equally antisocial father.  So after the father dies, years later, the older brother and his wife return to share the father’s house with Lars.  Lars, being a genuinely good man, lets them have the whole house and moves into the garage.

Lars forever wears a baby blanket his mother made him around his neck as a scarf.  When he discovers his sister-in-law is pregnant, his awkward behavior intensifies.  You realize that he is suffering from a crippling fear that she will die giving birth as well, but he has no idea how to verbalize or even address these fears.

Enter Bianca.  Bianca is a sex doll Lars orders online.  The minute she arrives, Lars begins acting more normal and even happy.  When he brings Bianca over for dinner, his brother, Gus, and sister-in-law, Karin, are at a loss, but they don’t attack him over it.  Instead they watch as Lars interacts with Bianca as though she’s truly speaking to him, and he then asks if she can stay in the house because she’s very religious and doesn’t want to give the wrong image.  This is very important because it allows the audience to realize that sex with the doll is the last thing on Lars’ mind.  He needed a companion and something to help him get through his anxieties, and Bianca was the answer.

Karin suggests they take Bianca, who, according to Lars, was just in from Brazil, to the doctor to make sure she hasn’t suffered any illness as a result of her travels.  This, of course, is really a subtle way of getting Lars to the doctor.  The doctor pretends Bianca is real, and she later explains to Karin and Gus that Lars is experiencing a delusion, but he’s not schizophrenic.  Her suggestion is to treat Bianca like a real person and see what happens.

Before long, the entire town gets in on the act.  Bianca becomes a thriving member of their community, even getting elected to the school board.  It’s not that the town believes she’s real; it’s that they all love Lars so much that they’re willing to do anything to help him through this possibly life-long phase.

Before long, Lars undergoes several growing experiences that I believe ultimately leads to his relinquishing Bianca, though in a slow, heartbreaking, and natural process … relatively speaking.

(END SPOILERS)

I adore this movie.  My wife and I both were all-but crying at its conclusion because Gosling completely immerses himself in Lars’ quirks and Lars’ emotions.  Plus, the message is so absolutely touching.  I felt ashamed because throughout the movie I kept expecting some jerk to get on Lars’ case, but it never happened.  Lars and Bianca were accepted at Church, at office parties, at the bowling alley, at the hospital-everywhere.  And I felt shame because I forgot that when dealing with people face to face, when dealing with people you know, they will usually do right by you.  People are good.  People do care.  And it took this movie to help me realize I shouldn’t always assume the worst, most people in this world really are kind and generous.

Seriously, I implore you to watch this movie if you haven’t done so.  It’s labeled a comedy, but you’ll be amazed at the emotional depth of it.  It is so much more than just a movie about a guy who falls in love with a sex doll.

The fourth installment of the Indiana Jones mythos was adequate and entertaining, but failed to capture the charisma of earlier films.

I thought something that worked particularly really well was the pairing of Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf.  LaBeouf takes a lot of flak from the internet community, and I’m not sure why.  He’s got a charm about him that complimented and even augmented Ford’s.  I was also glad to see Ford pretty loose in this film.  He’s played a few of my all-time favorite characters, but he can at times come off fairly stiff on the big screen, especially in The Last Crusade.  As with Sean Connery, LaBeouf helps to add another dimension to Indiana Jones that gives Ford a little something more to work with and enriches his performance.

Furthermore, I appreciated that while Indiana Jones is much older in this movie, he’s also much wiser and has a sense of confidence and aptitude about him that really resonated.  Though always a professor, it wasn’t until this film that he really came across as a mentor as well, especially to Mutt Williams, LaBeouf’s character.  (Very funny that both characters named themselves after some aspect of a dog.  Remember, Indiana was the name of Jones’ dog when he was a boy.  Mutt … well, that speaks for itself.)

The dialogue in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull also wasn’t quite as rigid as in previous films.  While I loved The Last Crusade because of Connery, some of Ford’s dialogue really grated on my nerves.  This film had a sense of wit and fun about it that really helped the actors with their delivery.

The addition of communists as Ford’s antagonists seemed totally appropriate.  They acknowledged so much of the time period, from atomic bomb testing to the King, it really felt like a logical progression from where Indiana Jones was last film.  I loved that they peppered some of what he’s been up to over the last few decades into the story as well.  That was a very nice touch.

So while the acting and chemistry between LaBeouf and Ford was a positive, and the dialogue was a bit more organic, and the story had some enjoyable nuggets of times past, there were a few negatives.

First and foremost, it really bothered me how they took Karen Allen’s Marion Ravenwood, a tough, spunky character from Raiders of the Lost Ark, and basically made her into an ogling space cadet.  Nearly every time they had her on screen she had a goofy grin on her face like she’d been hit on the head too many times.  Marion was a character that was almost tougher than Jones, and they didn’t stick to that blueprint in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  It takes more than a flighty grin to win the heart of Indiana Jones.   

Also, I can appreciate that this is a family film trying to lighten things up for a broader audience, but there were moments in this movie that had me rolling my eyes.  I can handle mainstream appeal, but it had some really blatant lunacy that I couldn’t get past.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

For example, Jones escaping a nuclear explosion by climbing into a lead-lined refrigerator and luckily getting blasted clear was a bit hard to swallow, but I managed.  Later, though, they had LaBeouf swinging from tree vines with a troop of simians in the jungle like he was Tarzan.  That … was impossible to overlook.  Finally, the mystery of the crystal skulls is revealed to be a race of inter-dimensional beings that we had previously believed aliens.  Now, I can handle aliens, no big whoop.  But, when it comes to Indiana Jones, I like him chasing down religious artifacts or some other mystic collectibles.  Seeing him face-to-face with an alien, it just didn’t completely work for me.

(END SPOILERS)

But even with all those issues, the overall movie was fun to watch and greatly entertained.  I felt like I wouldn’t be “wowed” by it and I wasn’t, but I enjoyed the evolution of the Jones character, his world, and the dynamic of his supporting characters. 

On a side note, I really hope they’ll continue on with the Indiana Jones movies, especially considering Jones’ new role.  I think they’ve left the future wide open for some potentially fun movies.

So while I wouldn’t say you MUST go see this movie in the theatre, it is definitely one to rent and if you’re willing to put up with a little silliness, I think you’ll find yourself entertained.

If you’ve ever been a fan of the Hulk, hardcore or otherwise, go see The Incredible Hulk.  You’ll be glad you did. 

This version of the Hulk is not the psychoanalytical drama of Ang Lee from a few years ago (which, while a little boring, didn’t particularly bother me).  No, this Hulk is directed by the guy who brought us Transporter 2, so he knows a little something about high-octane action.  And action it had!  They spend the first three minutes brilliantly recapping how Bruce Banner became the Hulk, why General Ross is after him, and how he hurt and abandoned the woman he loves.  From that moment on, it picks up five years later and races to the finish!

However, while this is most certainly an action flick, Edward Norton as Bruce Banner brings a certain amount of credibility to the film that might have been lacking without his involvement.  He delivered a depth to Bruce Banner that was expertly understated, but there nonetheless.  Honestly, when I heard they were making another Hulk movie, I thought, “Too soon.”  But when I heard Norton was in the lead, I said to myself, “This will work.”  I’ve always respected Norton’s artistic integrity and even with a comic book movie he does not rest on his laurels. 

Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, Banner’s love interest and daughter to General Ross, delivered a good performance and I felt as though she and Norton had real chemistry.  I really believed she and Norton’s characters had a history and wanted a future together.

Jettisoning all remnants of Ang Lee’s Hulk, The Incredible Hulk surprised me by its tight plot.  Though straightforward in nature, all portions of the film actually worked to progress the storyline and/or characterization.  I especially appreciated that the character who eventually becomes Hulk’s nemesis, The Abomination, slowly worked up a grudge against the Hulk and went through a slow process over the duration of the film to become a powerhouse himself.  Too often in movies a villain shows up out of nowhere with little explanation or logic.  Such is not the case with The Incredible Hulk.

They made sure to pay homage to all Hulk’s history that came before, too.  You’ll see familiar scenes and hear theme music from the old seventies show, notice the original Hulk actor himself, catch a scene with Stan Lee, and get some classic lines from the comic books.  And, if you’ve seen the commercials, a certain “Iron Man” appears as well, laying the foundation for the future.

Finally, this Hulk actually looked real.  They did such a great job of blending him in with the live action.  There were times I forgot I was watching a CGI creation with all the rippling muscles and realistic movement.  And move this Hulk did!  We finally get to see the berserker Hulk we’ve all waited for!  He’s on the rampage, tearing things apart, and it’s a blast to watch!

In summation, The Incredible Hulk is an all-out, fast-paced action movie that took special care to deliver a tight story with logical progression, rounded characterization, and very good acting.  But even with all these wonderful attributes, they delivered the most important aspect-they gave us a Hulk who relished smashing stuff up.

I’ll say it again, if you consider yourself a fan of the Hulk at all, go see The Incredible Hulk.

I’ve read a few of Ian McEwan’s books, and while I’ve always found them stylistically impressive, I’ve never been too enthralled with the actual stories.  Because of this, I wasn’t in a huge rush to watch Atonement, a movie based upon one of his novels.

In all honesty, I brought this movie home only as a courtesy to my wife who’d been sitting through an inordinate amount of “guy movies” of late.  Strapping myself in for a painful experience, I was humbly surprised when I found myself completely enamored with Atonement.

The story takes place just before the days of World War II, and is about a young girl in her early teens who falsely (and somewhat innocently) accuses a long-time family friend and secret lover to her sister of rape.  From that moment on, the lives of all three become forever changed for the worse.

The stunning angles and cinematography made this film gorgeous.  Each shot truly appeared as a work of art.  The story itself isn’t terribly innovative, but the editing of the film presented the story from multiple perspectives-using flashbacks brilliantly-in such a manner that the audience had to actively think as they watched the film, connecting dots and building bridges.  Because of this artistry, the story became far more complex and captivating than it would have been if presented linearly.  They don’t make movies quite like this anymore, movies that actually seem to take pride in presenting itself as an artistic endeavor.  I believe film students would have much to learn from Atonement.

Saoirse Ronan, the actress who played the little girl, was utterly convincing and authentically unsettling.  James McAvoy, who played the falsely accused, was likable without being overly dramatic.  Even Keira Knightly, who normally annoys me to no end (along with Orlando Bloom), acted her socks off and really seemed invested in her character.  In other words, all the main actors did a magnificent job with their characters.

Finally, I loved the ending to Atonement.  I won’t spoil it for you, but some movies are meant to leave you with a sense of satisfaction, even if not entirely realistic, and some are not.  Some present life as it really happens, and, as we all know, many times things don’t work out as we hoped.

I honestly recommend Atonement for anyone who appreciates inspired filmmaking.

It’s a rare occurrence indeed when a film adaptation lives up to its source material, but with No Country for Old Men, Ethan and Joel Coen have done right by Cormac McCarthy. 

In McCarthy’s novel, he is terse and economic with details.  The book moves at an incredibly frantic pace and he shows no mercy to any of his characters.  Often violence is implied and sometimes even painfully described.  The Coens made sure not to deviate from this established tone.

Because they work in a visual medium, the Coens not only had to capture the essence of No Country for Old Men, but they also had to literally show us what these characters looked like, all the way from their faces to their boots.  McCarthy allowed the reader to fill in quite a few visual and auditory gaps, but the Coens had no such luxury.

And so, in my mind, we were awfully lucky the Coens found the perfect Moss and Chigurh in Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem.  Brolin oozed the silent, capable resourcefulness of Moss while Bardem took a character who had thus been sparsely described and created cinematic gold. 

Chigurh is unsettling in the novel, but in the movie the Coens and Bardem make him a terrifying study of subtle villainy.  I don’t think Bardem raised his voice even once in the movie, but his empty facial expressions and slight voice inflections were more nerve-wracking than any chest-thumping or profanity-laced tirades.  Too often villains simply become the reverse of the protagonist.  Not in No Country for Old Men.  Not by a long shot.  Each character is his own man, far and away.

From a cinematic point of view, the Coens were marvelous with their choice of shots, locations, costumes, props, and acting directions.  There’s a particular scene near the beginning of the movie where a man is strangled while laying on his back upon the floor.  Graphic, yes, but what impressed me to no end is the fact that the Coens made sure the man’s boot heels left hundreds of scuff marks on the tiled floor.  That sort of attention to detail is much appreciated.

Some may feel the Coens offered too violent of a film.  I think it’s important to note that they embellished nothing from the novel.  The movie is one of the purest adaptations I’ve ever seen, and McCarthy wrote one very violent, unapologetic, merciless novel. 

I personally am grateful to the Coens for taking a masterfully written novel and treating its subject matter just as the author intended.  It would seem that because they converted literary art to true cinematic art, they were amply rewarded.

Not as eccentric as The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou or as dark as The Royal Tenenbaums, The Darjeeling Limited falls somewhere in-between and is an entity unto itself.  However, make no mistake; this is a Wes Anderson movie through-and-through.  In other words, it’s well-made and very fun to watch.

Owen Wilson plays Francis, the oldest of three siblings who calls his two brothers, Peter and Jack played (respectively played by Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman) to India.  They meet on the train called the Darjeeling Limited with no idea as to Francis’ plans for them.  It turns out they haven’t seen each other in a year, and Francis wants them to reconnect as brothers on a spiritual quest.  However, he also has some other plans for them that he keeps to himself for as long as possible.

Wes Anderson is one of those creators that I prize.  He brings a unique vision to his projects that I both revere and respect, no matter what the subject matter or presentation.  The Darjeeling Limited was equal parts funny and dramatic, but it was never laugh-out-loud, nor did it bring a tear to your eye.  At times, though, it had you on the verge of both.

Furthermore, it delved into the relationships between brothers and delivered dialogue and ridiculous situations that, while certainly “Anderson” in nature, were still relatable to anyone with a brother.

The quiet interpretations of such outrageous characters by Wilson, Brody, and Schwartzman made me love them and, at times, detest them.  Really, though, isn’t that what real life is like with people? 

I’d like to say that Schwartzman is always wonderful, Owen presented himself as the actor I wish he always was, and Brody was a fine addition to the Anderson universe.  We’ve seen Schwartzman and Wilson with Anderson before, so I knew they’d knock it out of the park with his direction, but Brody was a pleasant surprise.  He played both the most grounded and troubled of the brothers, and that’s saying something.  There were also some special appearances by Anderson’s favorites that I won’t spoil for you.

A pleasant surprise on the DVD was the inclusion of the short film, Hotel Chevalier.  Roughly ten minutes, it serves as a prequel of sorts to The Darjeeling Limited and fleshes out some of Jason Schwartzman’s character and that of his ex-girlfriend played by Natalie Portman.  It’s not totally necessary to understand The Darjeeling Limited, but it does help the film make a bit more sense in terms of some references.

If you didn’t enjoy any of Wes Anderson’s previous films, there’s no reason to believe you’d like one set in India, primarily on a train, exploring the complex relationship of dysfunctional brothers.  However, while I still consider The Royal Tenenbaums my favorite of his work, The Darjeeling Limited was very cleverly made with delightfully peculiar characters.

Quiet, subtle, and nuanced, this movie is a work of art for those interested in cinematography, story, and acting.  Anyone hoping for a “popcorn” movie will be sorely bored and disappointed.

The title says it all, for it focuses more on the motivations of Casey Affleck as Robert Ford than it does on the exploits of Brad Pitt as Jesse James.  In fact, the film is a classic character study, moving us from Robert Ford’s infatuation with James to his utter resentment of the man, despite their becoming partners (of sorts).

Clocking in at two and a half hours, the story takes its time peeling away layer after layer of Ford’s insecurities and James’ paranoia as it offers beautiful shots, lovely scenery, and props and costumes that are seemingly spot-on. 

The acting is magnificent, by the way.  Don’t look for any robust chest-thumping-this is the stuff of delicacy.  Affleck’s character is a coward, as the title reminds, and Affleck does a wonderful job through body language, facial expression, and voice inflection of seriously creeping the audience out.  He makes his character so uncomfortable to watch, so truly awkward, that he really won me over as a skilled actor.

In fact, James’ gang was terrified of him, and each actor in the gang seemed genuinely fearful.  Affleck was by far the best, but they all squirmed in such understated mannerisms around Pitt that I found myself on edge.  Perhaps Pitt was given the least amount to work with because James is something of a legend, but his acting really paled in comparison to Affleck.  I have to give Pitt credit, though, because while he may not be the strongest actor, he certainly chooses to take part in excellent movies.

The title tells exactly what happens near the end of the movie, but they (including Pitt) offer a very interesting interpretation as to why James put himself in the position he did.  Pitt’s dialogue, if you read between the lines … Well, I don’t want to spoil anything for you.  Let’s just say there is ample material for a character study of James’ psychology.

If you’re looking for a Wild West shoot-out with daring robberies and nefarious misadventure, look elsewhere.  The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a low-key movie driven by the evolution (or perhaps devolution) of character.  It is fascinating, but it is meant for those with patience and an appreciation of story and art.                

As you may know, Zach Snyder released “first look” photographs of all the major characters from Watchmen but Dr. Manhattan.  If you haven’t seen them, you can check them out here:

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=149166

My first reaction to the photographs was that they are full of style.  Zach Snyder, the man responsible for the theatric interpretation of 300, excels at style, and he is obviously bringing that panache to his adaptation of Watchmen. 

However, mention the word “style,” and “substance” automatically follows.  Some accuse Snyder of having no substance based upon his previous work, and some even state that he will utterly fail at bringing the substance of Moore’s seminal Watchmen to the silver screen.

My contention, though, is that movies based upon literature (and Watchmen is literature in every sense of the word) rarely capture the pure “substance” of the source material.  Watchmen was a product of a political and commercial era that has come and gone.  Even if Snyder were the most gifted of directors, I’m not certain he could convey the substance of the source material because it has become so much more than just a simple “comic book” to fans, creators, and the comic book industry as a whole. 

Could anyone truly recreate such an iconic work?  Could any moviemaker honestly take a twelve-issue maxi-series full of nuances and metaphor, and trim it down to a one hundred and twenty minute movie-a movie geared towards a mainstream audience?

Listen, I really, truly hope Snyder does Watchmen justice, but I think it’s naïve to ask the man to create a literal translation of everything the original series encapsulates.  We are fortunate that we’ve read the original!  We’ve experienced the magic and importance of it!  For us, Snyder is simply bringing an interpretation, an adaptation.  It doesn’t mean the original could disappear if Snyder doesn’t do well.

If anything, I hope Snyder brings the adrenaline and style of 300 to Watchmen and that inspires people who normally wouldn’t read comic books to seek out Moore’s brilliant creation and immerse themselves in the sublime substance of the source material.  I would love to sit with my friends who don’t usually read comics and discover they’d read Watchmen because of the movie.  That’s better than them never reading it at all, right?

Moore’s Watchmen deserves mainstream attention by society in general, and especially by the critics and scholars.  It literally changed an industry and influenced today’s greatest creators in a multitude of genres.  If Snyder can capture even a smidgeon of Watchmen and do it justice, if he can thrill people with the characters Moore made so utterly captivating, if he can dazzle us with visuals so incredible, perhaps people will feel compelled to read the real thing.

Snyder will not give us an exact replication of Moore’s Watchmen, but he will give us his translation of it, and I say we wait and see how it turns out.  The worse that can happen is it flops and disappoints comic book fans.  The alternative is that it wakes the world up to a book that deserves credit by all lovers of literature, not just the comic book fans.

It takes style to get people’s attention, and judging from Snyder’s photographs, whether you love them or hate them, you have to admit he’s on his way to capturing the world’s attention.