The Brothers Bloom (2008)

Director: Rian Johnson

 At this point, it's pretty difficult to make a unique con film because the genre itself has with it a set of expectations that make it difficult to do anything new (Inception is the only unique recent heist/con film that comes to mind). The main expectation for the audience is a clever plot/con, and that must be the first priority. The Brothers Bloom tries to stand out by adding a unique sense of style to the con film, with some commentary on truth vs. fiction and whether a life is written or unwritten. What it succeeds at is the style, and while the themes are ambitious and refreshing, they don't quite come together at the end. There are hints of a greater movie that does much more than your average conman film, but it doesn't quite reach that height and director Rian Johnson seems to buckle under the weight of the convoluted plot.

The reason to watch this film though is clearly the fun stylistic flourishes that exist mainly in the first half of the film. The opening scene, showing the two conman brothers as children, is absolutely brilliant and is as good as anything in a Wes Anderson film. The film never really lives up to that beginning, but the characters are fun, quirky, and likable the whole time. The relationships between the characters are also important, and those are hit & miss. The romantic friendship between Adrien Brody's character and "the mark" of the con, played by Rachel Weisz, works well and you feel their connection. But the more important relationship, which is between the two brothers, Brody and Mark Ruffalo's characters, doesn't quite come together the way it's supposed to. The last third of the film relies on this relationship heavily and this is one of the main reasons I lost interest in that last third. The problem with long cons is that they can get quite complicated, and if there's no strong emotional anchor it just feels kind of pointless, and that's what happened in this movie.

Grade: C+

Shadows (1959)

Director: John Cassavetes

This is a film I admire more for its place in film history and its capture of a time and place than I do for its actual quality. This is John Cassavetes' first film, the man who is known as the father of American independent cinema. He took American film out from under the studio system and made films that were more experimental and more honest in nature and in turn influenced the great American filmmakers of the 1970's. For the late 50's this is a film that is very progressive, especially in its depiction of race. The film depicts prejudice against blacks, and the identity problems of someone who is half-white and half-black. The structure also is very unique for the time, it's not plot-driven at all, and the style is more handheld and improvisatory. The film represented a way of filmmaking that was spontaneous, low-budget, and free.

An aspect of the film I very much liked is the jazz score that goes very well with the jazz-like structure of the film. The movie is improvised heavily (though there is debate about what that means), there are seemingly random scenes that don't add much to the whole at all, but in the end the experience as a whole is satisfying. I'd say this is more a slight and minor piece of jazz than it is a major one. In today's standards, it's not a very ambitious film and it doesn't quite feel as new. The film is great if you really want a time capsule experience and want to see how a transgressive film of the late 50's is like. I found it more interesting in that sense than as I did for the actual qualities of the movie itself.

Grade: B-

Curb Your Enthusiasm: Season One (2000)

Creator: Larry David

It was hard for me to figure exactly what this show was trying to do in its first season, but it was certainly funny and showed potential. Larry David plays himself, and he plays sort of a social observer role poking fun at social norms. His character is in the vein of Woody Allen, but without the personal stakes that Allen had in his films. David shows great talent in plotting episodic TV comedy, but I found his character mostly one-note, because unlike Allen's films, there wasn't much at stake. This is a show though that has gone on for many seasons, so I would not be surprised to learn quite a bit more when I see more episodes (and similarly I can't imagine a show like this going on for 5+ seasons without stakes).

The average episodes basically seem to unspool a yarn of unfortunate events that occur due to unforeseen events that unfold due to usually some innocent action that David did. It's the classic comedy of chain reaction. For example we might see one very subtle racist comment that David makes becomes so much more by the end of the night, affecting his wife's health. Even though the dialogue is improv, the plotting sure isn't, and the plotting is done very well and seems almost effortless which is remarkable considering the planning that has to go into writing these types of stories. What the show does well this season is establish a tone, and a feel for who David is. I hope the subsequent seasons do better in creating cohesive stories that actually affect David's life more substantially.

Grade: B-

The Master (2012)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

 Elusive. Challenging. Mysterious. These are just some of the words that critics and audiences used in describing The Master. Paul Thomas Anderson certainly did not intend on making an easy film in which the meaning is preached to the audience. Instead, the audience must extrapolate the meaning, but what makes it even more difficult is that it would be perfectly legitimate for five different viewers of the film to have five different interpretations of what the film means. I'm sure it's a film that will see its various interpretations dwindle as more people see it more times, because this is a film that slowly reveals itself as you watch, and reveals itself more on repeat viewings (I've seen it twice). At first we notice Joaquin Phoenix's outstanding performance as Freddie Quell, a man who is the epitome of social outcast. But then we start to see his relationship to Lancaster Dodd, the leader of a newly launched cult, and the many complexities involved in the relationship between the two men. Then later it occurs us to the broader social implications the film has on topics as broad as post-war America and cults.

The way I see it, and I think that's the only legitimate way I can start a conversation about this film, is that that this is a film about the complex relationship between a master and his followers. In the film, Dodd sees Quell as a wild savage dog, and he sees it as his duty as the civilized master to tame this seemingly untamable dog. Why Dodd decides to take this challenge up is because he sees his past in him, and he sees a successful taming of Quell as vindication of his own self and his own efforts. But the film is not so simple as to show Dodd as simply a noble master and Quell as dastardly savage dog. The lines between the two are blurred. The performances of both Hoffman as Dodd and Phoenix as Quell couldn't be more different, one is Wellesian in it's grandeur and control, while the other is unpredictable and wild. They are two extremes of masculinity, but we still see that Dodd is not the saint he thinks he is and Quell is not simply a barbaric wild dog. Dodd has outbursts and desires that Quell has, while Quell shows small moments of compassion and empathy. The Master questions the follower-leader relationship, but it's not specifically for or against the notion that everyone needs a master, instead it shows us how complex that relationship truly is. Yes the film feels elusive when you first watch it, but it's a film that comes closer and closer to you the more you take it in.

Grade: A

Chronicle (2012)

Director: Josh Trank

Many people seem to dislike superhero origin stories, but when done right they can be the best films of the genre. Chronicle is a good movie in a similar vein. The movie finds a group of kids who mysteriously get superpowers and we then follow them as these superpowers start to define and mold them. Our main character, the one videotaping this found footage style film, is the one who gets the largest arc, one that is informed by his troubled upbringing and difficult home life. Following this type of story to the end is a great idea on paper, and while the teen actors don't always rise to the occasion, the intriguing plot does reach its potential at times and even tries to add some interesting philosophical subtext, though that angle is glanced over.

That all sounds quite serious, but the real joy of this movie comes in the first half when the kids are just experimenting and having fun with their powers. It was like watching an actual documentary on what real teenagers would do if they got superpowers. By giving them superpowers we get to see who these kids really are, but it also functions as wish-fulfillment for the audience. The movie is most enjoyable when watching the three guys just have fun with their powers and discover how to use them. It's basically the "Spiderman tries to figure out how to use his powers" part of Spiderman movies, though the main difference is that Spiderman usually messes up a few times for laughs while in this one the actions of the kids are much more controversial. While the found footage style adds to the documentary feel of the first half, it turns into a distracting gimmick in the second half when the filmmakers struggled to keep the gimmick going when the main camera man doesn't need a camera anymore. By the end it is clear the film is still a genre film, it's a very good one, but it cannot surpass its genre limitations.

Grade: B-