August 8-10, 2008

High Fidelity -

It's probably considered some sort of hipster sin that I hadn't seen this movie. A lot of people assume I am just like the guys in the film. I'm not. I know a couple people just like them, but I am not. I do not have the comprehensive knowledge of music. My musical tastes are somewhat limited. I dabble in genres, but most of the time I stick to the ones I like. It just so happens that those genres aren't necessarily mainstream. Now, if we were talking movies, that'd be an entirely different matter...

I liked the film. It's clever. It's witty. It knows it will appeal to a specific crowd and it doesn't care. John Cusack does a good job, though it is odd to see him acting so manic after seeing him act subdued in a number of films. But he pulls it off well, jumping in the bed, orating at the camera, ranting. The supporting cast is kind of blase. The woman that played Laura was good and Jack Black was almost tolerable. I don't like Jack Black. I'm sorry, but I find him annoying as all shit. There was, as would be expected, some damn fine music. But just as the record store is compared to a porn shop in terms of a targeted fetish consumer group, this film is the same way. It's appeal will be directly proportional to how appealing you find hanging out in a record store discussing albums.

On the up side, it has tons of Chicago flavor. Cusack knows how to bring out the best of Chicago.

Grade: B-

Rushmore -

I like Wes Anderson films. I do. I loved The Royal Tenenbaums and I found lots of redeeming value in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I realize Wes Anderson isn't for everyone. He has a particular tongue in cheek style. It's like everyone is acting with a poker face and what they say has little bearing on what their face is saying. It's like watching a smart person intentionally acting dumb to get a laugh. This works for me, but I could understand how some people wouldn't like it. It's high-brow low-brow comedy. As such, his films are even more niche-targeted than High Fidelity. Fortunately for me, I belong in that niche.

While this film does have the characteristic Wes Anderson feel, it's too much of the Wes Anderson feel. The characters are overly quirky, instead of middling quirky. In other words, Anderson learned to tone it down in his later films.

The story went interesting places, places I did not expect it to go. In that, I was pleased. Bill Murray was awesome, as should be expected. However the pace of the film and any emotional involvement with the characters was off-kilter. It was entertaining, but I'd watch some of Anderson other films instead.

Grade: B-

Wonder Boys -

Michael Douglass' bad day turns into a bad week. But seriously folks....

Michael Douglass plays a professor at a liberal arts university. He wrote a novel 7 years ago that was a hit and a brilliant piece of literature. He hasn't written anything since. He smokes pot, cheats on his wife with the Chancellors wife, has one student lusting for him, drives an ugly-ass car and is basically slowly disintegrating. Into his life comes another one of his students, a reclusive angsty fuck that also just happens to be a brilliant writer. The two writers share three days of hell, learn about themselves and each other and their place in the blah blah blah.

While there are many unusual things that happen in this film, it is not a plot driven piece. It is character driven. It is how the characters act, react and interact that drive the film forward. As such, it was a rousing success. The characters are incredibly well written. They are flawed. Humanly flawed. Almost Charlie Kaufman humanly flawed. Changes that happen to the characters are minor, subtle, and derive from within. Along with the characters I cannot but mention the cast. This film has one HELL of a cast that dig into their parts with relish. Michael Douglass, Tobey Maguire, Frances McDormand, Robert Downey Jr., Katie Holmes (who looks hot as fire), Rip Torn and even a small part played by one Mr. Alan Tudyk of Firefly fame.

This film also appeals to me on two other levels. For one, it is set in academia. It portrays a very realistic reality of the underside of academia. Those parties where the faculty get together and there's booze and food and all sorts of overly intelligent discussion intermixed with swearing and crudeness? Yeah, that happens. I've been there. That's sort of where my life is heading. I actually kind of enjoy it, but I do admit it's weird. Secondly, it deals with writing. As most people that (supposedly) read this blog do belong to a little writing group, it's something that we can relate to. The film deals in part with the despair that comes from writing. The desire to create something beautiful conflicting with the actual ability to do so. When I write sometimes I feel like I'm trying to paint the Sistine Chapel with a box of crayons. You want to create something amazing, but every attempt feels childish and amateurish. It also deals with the crude reality of writing. Fact of the matter is that writing is a pretty shitty job. You are only as good as what you publish, and one book can't carry you forever.

I think writing is sort of like being a punker or making a zombie film. You never can call yourself a writer, and anyone who does is missing the forest for the trees. A writer just writes. They write because they have to, and it's nothing more of a big deal than that. I also don't think I'm a writer. A real writer can't stop, never stops. It's like being a professional athlete or musician. The best ones, the ones that make it, have not only the talent but the drive and determination to see it all the way. I may have talent, but the drive is lacking. Story of my life.

Enough of that shit. Point is, damn good movie. Damn good movie. Except for the ending. The ending wasn't bad per se, but it was a little too pat. A little too cute. A little too wrapped up in a nice bow. We are dealing with frayed people here, the ending should be frayed too.

Grade: A-