Badlands

BADLANDS (Terrence Malick, 1973)

Set in the late 1950s, BADLANDS follows 25-year-old garbage collector Kit (Martin Sheen) and 15-year-old Holly (Sissy Spacek), who are running from the law for their killing spree that stretches from South Dakota to Montana. Kit looks like James Dean and shows interest in the red-haired, freckled-faced teen, who admits to not receiving that kind of attention at school. It’s no wonder this man from the wrong side of the tracks captivates her. That her father (Warren Oates) disapproves only makes Kit more attractive. Kit and Holly’s outlaw adventure across the Great Plains is instigated when he kills her father and burns down her home. It’s them against the world as the couple hightail it out of town for a life of survival off of the land and anyone who gets in their way.

BADLANDS is loosely based on a similar string of real-life killings by Charles Starkweather and his young girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate in 1958, although writer-director Terrence Malick uses their story as a jumping off point for his interests than an investigation of true crime personalities. Instead of a psychological portrait of two young killers on the road, it studies the mundanity of murder. Kit and Holly seem not to be disturbed or excited by taking lives. Killing comes naturally and is carried out without consideration for the act’s meaning. They kill because it is an avenue to getting what they want or preserving themselves. They kill because it’s what they do.

The way of nature is a consistent theme in Malick’s films, and here in his debut he cuts to the chase regarding an unyielding universe that operates outside of philosophical constructs. In the animal kingdom Kit and Holly’s deeds would not be judged within a moral framework, nor would they be when considering man’s dominion over all creatures great and small. Shooting a dog to punish a child or tossing a catfish into the yard to suffocate because one is angry are not doings deserving of guilt or ethical penalty much like raising cattle for slaughter is unobjectionable. (In these instances one must account for when the film takes place and was made.)

But of course humans conduct themselves within the parameters of what society deems acceptable and unacceptable. This is why Kit and Holly’s brazen attitudes about the sanctity of life shock the sensibilities. Holly’s flat, matter of fact narration and Sheen and Spacek’s dispassionate performances reflect the emptiness in their characters and the problem of living outside higher and human-determined law. (In fact, the only time they appear to conform to the world’s expectations is when they hide out in the forest free of constraints and playact as civilized people.) Kit and Holly are frightening not because they are unknowable but because their actions stem from nature.

Additionally, this outlaw pair is scary because they’re dumb and likable. Malick has come to be known and revered as a cinematic poet and philosopher, as a filmmaker who explores big ideas, but in BADLANDS in particular he also shows a knack for off-kilter humor. Kit’s cocksure carriage, as though he’s embodying a role in a movie in his head, and the weird ideas that both verbalize breed affection. There’s something hilariously twisted about an adult killer insisting his girlfriend stop by school to get her books so she can keep up with her studies while they are on the lam. If only their strange notions and convention breaking were less sociopathic.

BADLANDS is a clear announcement that Malick is and would be a major talent to watch.

Grade: A

Winnie the Pooh

WINNIE THE POOH (Stephen J. Anderson and Don Hall, 2011)

In WINNIE THE POOH the tubby little cubby and his friends in the Hundred Acre Wood work together to overcome the two issues of a most pressing nature in their community. Eeyore (Bud Luckey) has lost his tail, so a contest is held to find the best replacement. The prize for finding the ideal tail is a big pot of honey. Pooh (Jim Cummings) is already eager to help his pal, but the prospect of satisfying that rumbly tummy of his in the process doesn’t hurt his motivation.

Additionally, Pooh and the others plot to capture the Backson, a frightful creature that is imagined when Owl (Craig Ferguson) misinterprets Christopher Robin’s note and his promise to be “back soon”. A litany of terrible things the Backson does is invented, but the animals persevere in an effort to rescue the boy.

With its hand-drawn style (even if it is computer-animated) and quiet sincerity, the latest Disney animated film featuring A.A. Milne’s beloved characters is a delightful throwback to classic children’s entertainment. WINNIE THE POOH is what it always has been, or at least what many know from the decades of shorts and features the studio has made.

The characters aren’t susceptible to the prevailing trends of their times but instead submit to simple and gentle storytelling that endures across generations. Going to the Hundred Acre Wood at the movies is the equivalent of visiting a nature preserve. Here’s a space where viewers can take a break from the hustle and bustle that dominates the options in kids’ media diversions.

WINNIE THE POOH toys with its storybook origin, as the titular bear wanders onto the page, collects letters from sentences to assist in a task, and interacts with the narrator. These fourth wall breaking techniques never feel like meta intrusions on the material but like a child’s interaction with a parent reading the tales. The writers and animators have great fun playing with the text to sneak in some small lessons about narratives and make their funniest jokes.

Pooh isn’t smarter than the average bear, but he and his friends serve as wonderful examples for the little ones following their adventures. Although the gloomy Eeyore seems under a perpetual cloud, Pooh and company are typically filled with good cheer and courage, even when experiencing doubt and worry. Ever mindful of how children perceive a world that is at turns wondrous and scary, the film approaches the challenges these characters face in a manner that remains optimistic while not ignoring the bittersweet. To do so is to respect the youngsters who are watching.

WINNIE THE POOH is aimed squarely at kids, and its abbreviated running time of 69 minutes is just long enough to pass the time before they get too squirmy in the seats. It also shouldn’t be too long for adults who, like me, may find some of this overly familiar. (I swear I’ve seen these specific subplots before, but maybe they were variations on similar incidents.) I should note that the screening I attended had an inexplicably and verging on painfully loud audio presentation, one that’s in defiance of the tranquil nature of the work. It likely affected the degree of my evaluation for what is intended as a quiet, low key charmer.

Grade: B-

Zookeeper

ZOOKEEPER (Frank Coraci, 2011)

Five years after being rejected during an elaborate marriage proposal on the beach, Griffin Keyes (Kevin James) finally appears to be getting over the heartbreak. His ex-girlfriend Stephanie (Leslie Bibb) spurned him because his job isn’t important enough in her eyes, but he excels in his chosen profession and has become the head zookeeper at Boston’s Franklin Park Zoo. Seeing Stephanie at his brother’s engagement party rekindles old feelings and has Griffin working hard to impress her again.

The zoo animals want Griffin to be happy and scheme to make him look good in front of her, but true to form, he bungles the staged rescue. At this point the creatures choose to break their code of silence with humans and speak to Griffin so they can instruct him in the animal kingdom’s ways of courtship.

Griffin is understandably freaked out that he can talk to the animals, but he quickly adapts and follows through on the pointers he’s given. He begins walking with a swagger and marking his territory, even if it means urinating in potted plants at a classy restaurant. Still, Stephanie doesn’t seem really interested in Griffin until he leaves the zoo to work at his brother’s luxury vehicle dealership.

If a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters can produce Shakespeare, then ZOOKEEPER must have been banged out by one primate pecking away at a keyboard between sessions playing on a tire swing. This nearly laugh-free amalgamation of DOCTOR DOLITTLE and NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM spends far too much time on romantic comedy machinations and away from the talking animals that are presumably the film’s calling card.

ZOOKEEPER is targeted at a family audience seeking amusement in the silly exploits of conversant zoo inhabitants, but it expends a lot of its running time and energy on the main character’s pursuit of a shallow woman everyone knows he’s not meant to be with. As unfunny as the wise-cracking zoo animals are, their antics are preferable to a boilerplate romance that no one’s heart is in. If a love story is absolutely necessary--and it really isn’t in a movie meant for children--keep it in the workplace. Have the animals conspiring to bring together Griffin and his compassionate co-worker Kate (Rosario Dawson). At least that way there will be more scenes with the zoo denizens.

Another ZOOKEEPER miscalculation can be spotted in the celebrity voice cast. Featuring Sylvester Stallone and Cher as a lion couple, producer Adam Sandler as a monkey, and Nick Nolte as a sullen gorilla, the roster is notable for its collective weirdness than effectiveness. Granted, the performers have been handed dire material, but the familiar, if not always easy to identify, voices put in minimal effort and tend to distract.

Nothing about ZOOKEEPER suggests it was ever anything but a crass excuse for selling tickets to parents perhaps tired of taking the kids to animated movies. Still, the product placements in the film are the most shameless of any in recent memory. Out of nowhere the gorilla asks if a casual dining place is as great as it sounds. Later on the zookeeper and the gorilla spend a raucous evening living it up in this particular establishment. More thought seems to have been put into this virtual commercial and truly strange scene than the remainder of this lazy excuse of a film.

Grade: D

Ebertfest 2011: Back to the future

A report from day 4 at Ebertfest will have to wait until I've returned home. Too many nights burning the midnight oil and whatnot, not to mention the four to five hour drive on Sunday.

In place of a full entry for the day, here's a photograph of a DeLorean with Washington state plates that presumably a festival attendee drives. It's been a minor sensation among the film fans here, as well it should be. It's been a long time since I've seen one of these in the wild.

Ebertfest 2011: Day 3

Film festivals tend to be exhausting experiences. The lack of sleep, programming choices that often favor emotionally taxing films, and eating out of convenience contribute to festivals putting attendees through the wringer. It's too much of a good thing on a daily basis. Obviously there could be worse problems to have.

This year's Ebertfest may have presented challenges on the sleep front, but I've noticed that the collective tone of the films screened so far is much lighter. I don't know if this was a conscious choice or it just happened to work out this way, but I appreciate not feeling like I've been pummeled film after film.

Ebertfest has a Midwestern sensibility about it, and that often carries over to some of the selected films. Movies and filmmakers with Chicago, Champaign-Urbana, or Illinois connections have typically found a welcome home at this festival. The documentary 45365 does not showcase the Land of Lincoln, nor are the co-directing brothers from there. The setting is two states to the east in Sidney, Ohio, yet this impressionist examination of the filmmakers' hometown could also reflect any small American city.

(45365 co-directors Turner Ross and Bill Ross)

I grew up about forty miles from Sidney and surely set foot in the city at some point, even if nothing specific comes to mind. (Probably I was there for something related to my family's grain elevator business.) Sidney High School was and is in the same athletic conference as my high school. While Sidney isn't a bustling metropolis, its population of approximately 20,000 is a good bit larger than the 600-700 people who resided in my hometown. I've not lived in that area since the summer after my sophomore year of college, but having been away may have merely increased my interest in seeing 45365.

I explain this because my connection to the part of the region depicted means I'm likely looking at the film differently than most who encounter it. Do I recognize anywhere or anyone? How accurately does this resemble my memories and observations of the area? Does it feel like home? Clearly it is difficult for me to approach the film in an objective manner.

Parts of the film feel very familiar to me. The old farmer talking in the barn and the old women sitting around a table seem exactly like people I knew growing up, primarily because of their voices, expressions, and reactions. Until I went to college, I didn't consider myself to have an accent, yet I'm aware there is a Midwestern twang in my voice that I share with some of these people. (My ears are even accustomed to those who mumble through thicker accents in the film.) Identifying with people and characters we see in movies is part of the cinema's pleasures, but it's kind of disorienting to feel like I am being shown on screen, even if there's not really any one person in the film that corresponds to who I think I am.

45365 is a movie of small observations rather than big moments. The background reaction of a frustrated barber who is thwarted in cutting the hair of a talkative customer, a truck doing donuts in a snowy strip mall parking lot, and the men keeping a heavy rainfall from caving in a performance tent say plenty about the people who live and work in this place. Enough of these accumulate to make this a worthwhile film, even if my concerns about the repetitions and shapelessness still remain after this, my second time seeing it.

(Ali Arikan, Me and Orson Welles director Richard Linklater, and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky)

A sense of community is important in 45365 and at Ebertfest, so it is fitting that Richard Linklater has a film included among this year's selections. Watching ME AND ORSON WELLES it occurred to me that the characters in his films often are searching for an idealized corner of the world to call their own.

The protagonist in this film, a supremely confident 17-year-old who snatches a part in Orson Welles' and the Mercury Theatre's production of JULIUS CAESAR, may not at first seem to have much in common with the bright misfits and outcasts that populate Linklater's films. Gradually we come to see that he too has a specific idea of where he wants to and thinks he belongs, how his conception of this place clashes with reality, and how he's able to synthesize his vision and experience into a hopeful mindset. As in much of the director's work, the character and the film stake out firm philosophical ground.

The takeaway, though, is Christian McKay's outstanding performance as Welles. The danger in a role based on someone with such a strong and well-known personality is to lapse into an impersonation. The audience doesn't see a person or a character but someone doing Welles. McKay inhabits the part from the first time we see him bellowing among his company that he vanishes into the character. In being an unknown actor it may be easier for him to do so, but he does remarkable work in playing the range of being intimidating, tender, funny, generous, and cruel.

World building is usually talked about in terms of superhero movies, but it merits mention in ME AND ORSON WELLES. The seductive bubble of the theater and the entertainment industry blocks out the rest of the world. It becomes easy to understand how someone like Zac Efron as the main character Richard could get swept up in the thrill of being part of this insular environment and lose sight of everything else. Welles' play turned out to be a landmark event, as we are well aware, but the characters don't know it. Linklater treats this period in a contemporary manner, as though the fate of the 1937 production is being discovered as the story unfolds. This stylistic choice makes an enormous difference in the film feeling organic and vibrant rather than as though it's being recounted out of a musty history book.

(Anath White, Only You director Norman Jewison, and Olivia Collette)

Rounding out the day was Norman Jewison's 1994 romantic comedy ONLY YOU. Although recently engaged, Marisa Tomei's Faith impulsively leaves Pittsburgh for Venice when she learns that the man she thinks she is destined to marry is traveling there. A ouija board and a fortune teller told an 11-year-old Faith that her soul mate was named Damon Bradley. Now 25 and less than two weeks from her wedding day, the prospect of meeting this long-imagined lover, whose existence she knows of only through a phone call for her fiancé, is irresistible. When she finally meets the man of her dreams, he appears in the form of Robert Downey Jr. as a shoe salesman from Boston.

ONLY YOU is a standard issue romantic comedy that is both a throwback and very much of the mid-'90s. In comparison to a lot of what is produced in the genre today, it shows signs of being made with a formal rigorousness and seriousness of purpose that these films don't often receive. Longtime Ingmar Bergman cinematographer Sven Nykvist worked on ONLY YOU, and the screenplay isn't larded with a bunch of pointless subplots.

Perhaps the theory I'm going to propose won't stand up to the data or the light of day, but my gut feeling at this late point in the night is that this particular type of light entertainment is rarely made by veteran directors anymore. They've become the domain of inexperienced or undistinguished filmmakers and are thus susceptible to reductive treatment of the story and characters.

For example, whereas many of the current romantic comedy protagonists frequently behave like idiotic children, the leads in ONLY YOU still act like adults. Faith is being irrational, but one or two minor instances aside, she still comports herself like a grown woman rather than a socially inept kid who has trouble putting one foot in front of the other. The film wants to embrace the grand romantic fantasy, but it doesn't enable the sort of foolishness that Faith is engaging in. Sure, everything works out for her, but it comes down firmly on the side of making one's own destiny rather than chucking everything based on unrealistic notions of destiny.

Tomei gives an appealing performance, even if seems like she's still revved up in MY COUSIN VINNY mode, as if it was to be her permanent screen persona. She's well-matched with Downey Jr., who is nimble with the comedy in a thin role. The Italian cities and landscapes provide gorgeous backdrops. While the plot in this type of film is usually predictable, screenwriter Diane Drake drops a couple unexpected but well integrated twists into the mix.

The big surprise is Bonnie Hunt as Faith's sister-in-law and sounding board while the two of them are in Italy. It's a classic supporting character role played in a warm and funny way that makes one long for the major breakthrough that has never come for the comedic actress. With her Chicago roots, I'm a little surprised she isn't at the festival. Her fantastic performance in ONLY YOU reminds me of the gem of a romantic comedy RETURN TO ME that she directed, wrote, and acted in. That would be a good one for a future Ebertfest (hint, hint).

Day 3 grades:

-45365: B-

-Me and Orson Welles: B+

-Only You: B-

Ebertfest 2011: The social network

I intend to get around to writing about the three films that played on day 2 of Ebertfest, but that will have to wait until another day. A night out on the town with several of the attending film critics and far flung correspondents and a few of the filmmakers gobbled up the time I would have otherwise spent alone in the hotel room writing until in the wee hours of the morning. Which sounds more fun to you?

That delay may have been for the best as I'd already seen UMBERTO D, MY DOG TULIP, and TINY FURNITURE theatrically. I watched the latter two within the last six months and wasn't crazy about either one. My opinions remain unchanged, although I'll ease up a smidgen on my rather harsh original assessment of MY DOG TULIP. I still could do with a lot less of the emphasis on the dog's excretory functions, but I didn't find this content as intensely distasteful as I did during my first viewing.

I mentioned earlier that the festival is about more than the movies; it's about the community of people who come together for the event. Keeping true to my word to interact more with those I met at last year's festival and those I've become familiar with via social media, I headed out with the group of critics and filmmakers for karaoke night at a Champaign bar.

But first, before leaving the Virginia Theatre I was able to have a conversation with NATURAL SELECTION star Rachael Harris, who attended the same small liberal arts college I did. That was a pleasant surprise, but it is also the sort of thing that this festival permits more easily. Granted, it didn't hurt that the polo shirt I was wearing had the school's name on it, which she and her director spotted as soon as I joined the group ready to head out for some Champaign nightlife. (And yes, I was truthful when asked if I'd seen her film the previous night and what I thought.) Although I had an in, by and large the filmmakers mingle with the festivalgoers and do so happily.

Best as I can tell, critic Ali Arikan is the unofficial social chair. Wrapped in a cape-like blanket, he led the pack to a local bar that was quickly overrun with us Ebertfest attendees. The chances of me getting in front of everyone to belt out a number were slim to none, but what a blast it was to be in the mix to cheer on IFC's Matt Singer get things started with his smooth Michael McDonald-like stylings, Harris tackle Salt-N-Pepa, and Roger Ebert's wife Chaz perform "Superfreak".

Ebertfest is a celebration of movies and their power to unify. A memorable night such as this, which brought together thirty or forty people from the festival and a few locals who happened to be at the bar, is as much in the spirit of the event as sitting down to watch the films. For those who don't understand the tweets and reports buzzing about a university town film festival whose purpose isn't to find the next hot thing in cinema, a couple hours tonight at Bentley's would have cleared it all up.

Ebertfest 2011: Opening Night

(Chaz and Roger Ebert)

The vintage marquee in front of the Virginia Theatre is no longer there, but otherwise things seemed to be the same as usual at Roger Ebert's Film Festival. Anticipation was high to get things underway, and what better start can you ask for than seeing one of the all-time greats, METROPOLIS, and a live score performed by The Alloy Orchestra. I believe this is the first repeat film at Ebertfest, as it and the band were here for the fourth festival in 2002.

Of course, the easy justification for bringing it back are the restored scenes that make this version as close to an original full cut as is likely to be seen. I believe I've seen three different cuts of the film, with this being my second encounter with this so-called complete METROPOLIS.

Plenty has been written about Fritz Lang's 1927 film, and all of it is going to sound more studied than whatever I type out here at almost 2 a.m. Instead, permit me to rave briefly about this movie. It boasts unbelievably audacious filmmaking. The sets! The setpieces! The sustained climax that must be at least forty minutes long! Basically everything from the "Furioso" title card on is an action avalanche on a ridiculous scale. The restored version makes a lot more narrative sense. The Alloy's live score was a real treat to hear again. The only bad thing about their performance is that we don't have it to look forward to yet in this year's festival.

(Michael Phillips with Natural Selection's writer/director Robbie Pickering and actress Rachael Harris)

Opening Night's second film was the late addition NATURAL SELECTION. After seeing and admiring it at this year's South by Southwest, where it won the jury and audience awards for narrative feature, Ebert found extra room for it.

Rachael Harris stars as Linda, whose marriage of 25 years has been abstinent for nearly the entire duration. Since she is unable to conceive, her husband's religious beliefs compel him to avoid having sex with her purely for pleasure. When Linda is called to see him at the hospital after he passes out while making what turns out to be his regular contribution to a fertility clinic, she feels more than a little betrayed. She was oblivious to how he'd been channeling all of that pent-up energy.

Linda's husband asks that she find the children created from his donations, which eventually leads this frumpy Texas Christian to the Florida dwelling of Raymond (Matt O'Leary), a junkie and escaped convict. She desperately wants to bring this biological son back to her husband. Their misadventures on the road home comprise the majority of the film.

NATURAL SELECTION got off on the wrong foot with me, enough so that it never recovered. Much of the early humor comes from mocking devout conversatives--or an exceptionally rare type of fundamentalist--and there's nothing especially funny about these cheap shots. (In a similar manner, CEDAR RAPIDS got off to a very shaky start with its sneering attitude toward professed Christians while not demonstrating any tangible understanding of those who identify in such a way.)

I didn't find the characters to be particularly credible, especially when they're together. A pivotal scene in a dark restaurant finds Linda and Raymond exchanging painful secrets. The sequence is well-acted, but not for a second did I buy that these two people would connect in this manner. The shortcoming is in the writing rather than the performances. Harris handles the shifts between serious and jokey tones with aplomb. The derision toward whatever beliefs her character holds--something that's never clarified yet ought to be--is in writer-director Robbie Pickering's managing of the material, not her acting.

The loneliest time in a crowded movie theater is when practically everyone is laughing except you, and was I ever feeling it during this film. When you're not enjoying something, it's easy to turn to nitpicking something to death. (I'd point to the unfailing tracking sense that one character possesses.) To its credit, NATURAL SELECTION displays some visual adroitness and eventually settles into a decent storytelling groove. Lose the caricatured character constructions, though.

Opening Night grades:

-METROPOLIS: A+

-NATURAL SELECTION: C-

Ebertfest 2011: Pre-fest thoughts

If the sky is gray, hard rain is falling, and tornado warnings are being issued, then it must be time for Ebertfest. For whatever reason--perhaps the fact that it's spring in the Midwest--Roger Ebert's Film Festival is usually accompanied by rain and strong winds. Yes, such weather makes for the less than pleasant experience of getting soaked when lining up to be admitted to the Virginia Theatre, but it sure does make one feel less guilty about spending the better part of five days cooped up watching movies than being outside. (Truthfully, the weather isn't always rotten. Selective memory probably makes it seem like it's all rain, all the time.)

This marks the eleventh time I've driven to Champaign and Urbana, Illinois to attend the festival. I look forward to seeing the movies, obviously, but I also anticipate the changes to the lovely old theater and the cities. Sometimes I feel like the Harvey Keitel character in SMOKE, who takes the same photograph every day. In my situation, it's snapping what are probably similar shots over a five day stretch year after year.

I can hardly believe that I've been coming to Ebertfest since 2001, nor can I believe how life in general has changed. AAA TripTiks have been put aside for directions printed from the internet, which have been replaced by a GPS. For one year's trip I lugged my desktop along with the intention of blogging from my hotel room and using a free introductory offer on an ISP CD to secure web access over the phone line. (I ended up sitting at a computer in the hotel's lobby well after midnight typing my daily reports.)

The movies are the primary attraction, but the longer I've attended, the more the community around the event been a key reason why I keep wanting to return. It's no accident, I think, that the participatory and communal qualities on EBERT PRESENTS AT THE MOVIES feels like an extension of Ebertfest. The show isn't just two film critics, and Ebertfest isn't only Ebert. The program and the festival provide platforms for multiple voices to be joined in discussing the cinema that we all love. (This was as true of Ebertfest before its namesake became incapable of conducting the post-film talks.) In that spirit, I intend to meet up with more of the critics I've come to know,either by meeting them at this fest or becoming acquainted with them via social media.

What about this year's movies, you ask? I've seen seven of the thirteen and six of the first seven showing, so that defuses some of the excitement for me. (There's also one title I dislike relatively strongly and another I don't have any real interest in seeing again but whatever. I don't want to be a grump about those particular choices.) I'm most looking forward to seeing a film I've seen three times, including once at this very festival. The latest (and longest) cut of METROPOLIS accompanied by The Alloy Orchestra is sure to be a highlight. It was when they played with it here years ago. I'm interested to hear what Richard Linklater has to say when he appears with ME AND ORSON WELLES. Plus, actress Rachael Harris, who's here with NATURAL SELECTION, attended the same college I went to (and where I now work), and the well-shot documentary 45365 covers a town that's near where I grew up.

As usual, you can expect my coverage here every day. I'll be shooting some video as well, although chances are I won't begin to mess with any of that until the festival is over. With that said, let Ebertfest begin.

2011 Cleveland International Film Festival nuggets

My early spring travels included a visit to the Cleveland International Film Festival, which seems
to pack more people in year after year, at least since I've started attending. This year CIFF overtook all of Cleveland Cinemas in Tower City Center, and the crowds continued to pile into the auditoriums. (I read somewhere that one of the days featured more seats filled at the festival than the Cleveland Indians game that was played across the street. Impressive as that is for the fest--and dire for the baseball team--we're not talking about unique attendees but seats filled over the course of the day.)

Anyway, the change in accreditation this year meant a reduced slate for me. While I wasn't ultimately enthusiastic about a lot of what I picked to see, keep in mind that it is a random sample that is not necessarily indicative of the programming's quality. I've had days at this festival before where I've seen five or six films I've liked. I've had others, as this one turned out, where finding a good one was a challenge. There's a luck of the draw involved sometimes. I drew the short one this time around. So it goes.

-WIN/WIN (Jaap van Heusden, 2010) (The Netherlands)

No, this isn't the Thomas McCarthy-directed dramedy with Paul Giamatti as a high school wrestling coach. Rather, it's a Dutch cautionary tale about the corporate world. Oscar Van Rompay plays a stock broker with unparalleled skills when it comes to trading. Of course, this high stakes world turns out to be more pressure-filled and soul-sucking than our guileless hero anticipated. WIN/WIN is a decent enough film, but it hits pretty much every beat you expect it too. More crucially, the drama doesn't really feel like it earns the expected big statement of an ending.

Grade: C+

-IF I WANT TO WHISTLE, I WHISTLE (EU CAND VREAU SA FLUIER, FLUIER) (Florin Serban, 2010) (Romania and Sweden)

The Romanian film scene has been one to keep an eye on for awhile, so this was one of my more anticipated titles of the day. The film centers on a teenage boy who is close to completing his sentence at a juvenile detention facility. Due to a family issue, he makes a rash choice before his time is up and creates a whole new set of problems for himself. This quiet, deliberate film is of a piece from what I know of Romanian cinema, but I can't render a verdict on it. Seeing a full day's worth of films can challenge one to stay awak. In this case, it was the early hours needed to drive to Cleveland for a schedule beginning at 9:15 a.m. that was responsible for me taking multiple cat naps during this. Trust me, I wasn't happy about it.

Grade: incomplete (due to sleeping unrelated to the film)

-SPECIAL TREATMENT (SANS QUEUE NI TETE) (Jeanne Labrune, 2010) (France)

The overlapping qualities between prostitution and psychoanalysis are examined in a film that's moderately compelling at best. The most interest derives from Isabelle Huppert as an upscale hooker who specially tailors sessions with clients and their well-endowed wallets to suit their particular needs. Oftentimes this has more to do with talking than sex, not that intimate physical contact isn't in the equation. The character description alone sounds like a good fit for the risk-taking actress, but she can only do so much with a screenplay and direction that tend to make trite connections regarding how these professions tend to the needs of those in pain.

Grade: C

-THE REDEMPTION OF GENERAL BUTT NAKED(Eric Strauss and Daniele Anastasion, 2010) (United States and Liberia)

How much does religious conversion count for when considering the past? This powerful documentary about a former Liberian militia commander turned Christian minister certainly puts the question to the test. Once known as the fearsome General Butt Naked because of his penchant for leading his soldiers while nude, Joshua Milton Blahyi is a changed man, or so he claims to be. Of course, he also accepts responsibility for the death, many by his own hand, of an estimated 10,000 people. As great as it may be that he's found God, his debts in the universal ledger are probably too steep to ever be paid off in most people's eyes. Yet there he is asking those he's wronged for forgiveness and trying to improve the lives of some of those he once led.

The best thing about THE REDEMPTION OF GENERAL BUTT NAKED is that it leaves you at the end as uncertain about whether this guy is genuine as you were at the start. Part of me is intensely skeptical of Blahyi's words and motives. Yes, we see his victims and some of their family members forgive him, but it certainly seems like such pardons might be granted out of the lingering fear of the man who terrorized them. He's a physically imposing figure, and his pleading for forgiveness can seem too insistent and self-serving. Religion is merely a different weapon for him to manipulate people with. Nevertheles, there are times when it appears that something fundamental has changed in Blahyi and that he is a living example of the faith he professes to hold.

It's a really fascinating film and one that gives the viewer a lot to wrestle with. Of my limited viewing at the festival, this was easily the best.

Grade: B+

-THE HEDGEHOG (LE HERISSON) (Mona Achache, 2009) (France)

This adaptation of the novel THE ELEGANCE OF THE HEDGEHOG feels like it needed the Hollywood awards season once over to get it into fighting shape and make it a better film. (This has the scent of end-of-the-year prestige picture all over it.) Although based on a well-respected book, the dry screenplay and simple construction are at odds with the shocking nature of the plot. 11-year-old Paloma intends to kill herself when she turns twelve in about half a year. Like the protagonist, director Mona Achache handles it all matter of factly, but the rather large leaps the story requires the audience to make are often unconvincing.

Grade: C

-HAYFEVER (FEBBRE DA FIENO) (Laura Luchetti, 2010) (Italy)

Or proof that film festival fare isn't all heady stuff. HAYFEVER is essentially the kind of romantic comedy/drama you'd expect Touchstone to release, except it's in Italian. Put Vanessa Hudgens in the main female role, and it would be virtually indistinguishable from its American counterparts. Even the indie-skewing soundtrack has a calculated commercial quality to it. HAYFEVER isn't written or edited very well, but as slick product that begs for its influences to be spotted (ROMAN HOLIDAY, EMPIRE RECORDS), it is relatively easy to watch. The ending, though, is one of the biggest miscalculations I've seen in a film in some time.

Grade: D+

Still Walking (Aruitemo aruitemo)

STILL WALKING (ARUITEMO ARUITEMO) (Hirokazu Kore-eda, 2008)

In STILL WALKING the Yokoyama home is bustling with activity and chatter as three generations gather for an annual remembrance of Junpei, the eldest son and brother who died years earlier while saving a child from drowning. The prickly head of the household is Kyohei (Yoshio Harada), a retired physician bitter for, among other reasons, being forced to quit practicing. He is as quiet and distant as his wife Toshiko (Kirin Kiki) is talkative and attentive.

The memorial visit is particularly uncomfortable for the oldest living son Ryota (Hiroshi Abe). Unlike Junpei, Ryota did not follow in his father's professional footsteps. Rather than being a doctor, he decided on a career restoring art. All these years later Kyohei still begrudges Ryota's choice as though it was intended as a personal affront. With Ryota's return home coinciding with employment problems, something he wants kept secret from his parents, he is already feeling sufficiently inferior.

Joining Ryota on the visit is his new wife Yukari (Yui Natsukawa) and stepson Atsushi (Shohei Tanaka). Ordinarily this might be an occasion for his parents to express pleasure with their late marrying son, but they think he has taken on damaged goods in the form of a widow and her child. Also fluttering about the house are Ryota's sister Chinami (You), her husband, and their two kids. Chinami is using this time to try and nail down a commitment for her family to move into her parents' home.

STILL WALKING writer-director Hirokazu Kore-eda began as a television documentary filmmaker before transitioning to narrative fiction films. His keen observational sense is put to exceptional use in this lovely and heartbreaking portrait of family and all of its complications. STILL WALKING primarily consists of conversations and scrutiny of interpersonal dynamics. While it may appear that Kore-eda is merely depicting everyday life, his studied method probes beneath the surface of congenial interactions to reveal years of tangled emotions and judgments this loving but bruised family holds against one another.

As is probably true for many families, passive-aggressiveness dominates the Yokoyamas' communication style. Toshiko puts on a warm and cheerful exterior, yet she harbors the greatest and longest held resentments of anyone in the house. Kiki is marvelous in how she can use a smile and an innocuous statement to make the most cutting remarks. By all appearances Toshiko is happily entering her golden years, but gradually she is shown to be a deeply angry and wounded person. Toshiko doesn't have nor require a big outburst to voice her displeasure. Whether it's by word or deed, such as not laying out new pajamas for Atsushi, she subtly lets her new daughter-in-law know where she stands. Politely accepting the arrows slung her way, Natsukawa's sensitive performance as Yukari brings an outsider's fresh perspective on hurtful behaviors and attitudes that her new family takes for granted.

While STILL WALKING'S characters can seem unnecessarily mean while staying civil in how they treat each other, Kore-eda adopts a highly empathetic outlook on the Yokoyamas. He acknowledges the complexity within each person and how difficult it can be for the pieces of a family to fit, especially as each changes over a lifetime. The only experience we can ever truly know to the full extent is our own, and Kore-eda sees that each character is doing the best with what is available to them, even if their understanding of family members frequently comes up short.

Toshiko comes across as cruel at a few specific moments, but Kore-eda doesn't think of her as a terrible individual. He sees that she lashes out because she's in pain. The film doesn't excuse Toshiko's callousness but recognizes where it comes from. That Kore-eda generates this profound comprehension and compassion for multiple characters is the mark of a major talent.

Longstanding family concerns and hang-ups aren't resolved overnight, and STILL WALKING doesn't bother attempting to repair them. Rather, Kore-eda captures a lot of truth in the details of communication, shared history, and the passing down of knowledge. He finds it in a mother's slight nudge of a child on the verge of inappropriate laughing. It's there as a parent tells a kid not to act poor when combining multiple soft drinks from a self-serve soda fountain. It's there too as a family argues over who really did something in a highly retold story in which the facts and reality may not agree. STILL WALKING is so uncommonly and beautifully perceptive about how families interact that it feels as natural as putting one foot in front of the next.

Grade: A

Beastly

BEASTLY (Daniel Barnz, 2011)

BEASTLY, the latest Classics for Tweens film adaptation, bedazzles the oft-told BEAUTY AND THE BEAST story with smart phones, social media, tattoos, and Jujubes, as though such contemporary things will keep the kids from noticing how super lamers it is.

Kyle (Alex Pettyfer) is king of the New York academy he attends and doesn’t bother hiding his disgust for anyone who isn’t beautiful and wealthy. His profile at a generic social media site lists likes as those who are “bangable” and dislikes as “fattycakes”. Yes, he’s a real charmer.

In his speech before an adoring prep school crowd, Alex extols the virtues of the genetically and financially blessed and tells his classmates that he wants to win the election for Green Committee president because it will look good on his resumé, not because he cares about the environment. Apparently Green Committee is the new student council as go-to cinematic signifier of prestige and popularity.

After taunting the school’s rumored witch Kendra (a gothed-up Mary-Kate Olsen) one time too many, Kyle is punished for his cocksure and cruel ways. Kendra casts a spell on Kyle that brings his ugliness to the surface, although really she makes him look like Darth Maul with some nasty facial scars and metallic silver Sharpie scribblings on his forehead and bridge of his nose. He will have one year to find someone to proclaim love for him or else the disfigurements will remain permanent.

When it becomes clear that the magic can’t be reversed, his image-conscious news anchor dad (Peter Krause) hides Kyle away with their Jamaican maid Zola (Lisa Gay Hamilton) and blind tutor Will (Neil Patrick Harris). Kyle stews in luxurious isolation for nearly half of the deadline before venturing into New York City in search of a girl who might break the curse.

He has his eye on Lindy (Vanessa Hudgens), a pretty classmate harboring an independent spirit and a crush on him when he was a handsome brute. One night Kyle saves Lindy from the dealers hassling her and her widowed, drug addicted dad. (Strangely, she doesn’t seem to notice who intervenes.) Kyle uses the situation to blackmail her father into sending Lindy to live with him so that she will be safe.

Once she moves into his penthouse, Kyle begins wooing her with Bulgari jewelry and other expensive gifts while hiding underneath a hoodie and lingering behind corners. Lindy doesn’t want such fancy things. After he considers her interests, shows his face, and begins to open up, she warms to him, but time’s a-wasting according to the tattoo that covers his forearm.

Credit BEASTLY with this: it contains as little flab found on Pettyfer’s carved abs. Unlike the bloated TWILIGHT films, the success of which BEASTLY is clearly trying to capitalize on, it’s edited as though there’s a race to burn through the plot points. It’s about as romantic as a stock swap, but at least it cuts to the chase.

Whether it’s remnants from the source material or the film’s weird way of establishing characters, BEASTLY plays as an apologia for bad boys and the saintly girls who find them irresistible. Kyle’s father ignores him and has raised him with poor values. The pompous teen’s edges are supposed to be softened because the hired help wish only the best for him despite his abominable treatment of them, especially Zola. The immigrant servant’s unconditional care and concern for him borders on offensiveness and would surely be viewed that way with the modern perspective on an older film expressing a similar sentiment. Kyle’s actions are rarely unselfish. He’s just desperate to regain his looks. He becomes more sympathetic to those less fortunate in their physical features and bank accounts, but it stands to reason that he might need a reminder of this lesson in a few years.

Lindy’s portraiture is more problematic. She already likes him when he’s in raging jerk mode and excuses his hideous arrogance as unvarnished honesty. She continues to pine for him while everyone believes Kyle is away spending months in rehab. Lindy is merely another in the long line of funky gals with x-ray specs for the souls of egotistical but misunderstood clods. BEASTLY doesn’t have the decency to grant Lindy any assertiveness in this tale. She’s there for Kyle’s needs and nothing else. For all of the film’s nods to today’s society, in this department it remains determinedly archaic.

BEASTLY is teeming with dialogue clunkers that only Harris makes intentionally funny, although his line readings come off as though he’s skipped forward to starring in the inevitable parody sketch. It’s a bad CW drama writ as a feature film, and one undisguised as a Hollywood executive’s wish to horn in on that jackpot of sweet, sweet teen supernatural romance cash at that.

Grade: D

Unknown

UNKNOWN (Jaume Collet-Serra, 2011)

In UNKNOWN Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) travels to Berlin with his wife Liz (January Jones) for a biotechnology summit. Having forgotten his briefcase at the airport, he hops in a taxi to go retrieve it while his wife checks into the hotel. The cab ride ends in an accident and the car depositing itself in a river. The driver is able to extricate Martin from the sinking vehicle, but when he awakens from a coma four days later in the hospital, he struggles to remember who he is.

Gradually the professor puts the pieces of his identity together, but he still lacks the documents to prove he is who he says he is. Complicating matters, Liz claims not to know him and is with another man (Aidan Quinn) who purports to be Dr. Martin Harris. In the hope of getting to the bottom of this mystery Martin tracks down and turns to Gina (Diane Kruger), the illegal Bosnian immigrant who was his cabbie on that fateful day.

UNKNOWN is a serviceable thriller in the classic Hitchcockian wrong man mold. Martin’s journey into an underworld of cautious illegal immigrants, hoodlums, and former Stasi agents steeps the film in paranoia. Bruno Ganz’s delicious turn as a onetime member of the East German intelligence community adds that extra Teutonic menace below the film’s surface. UNKNOWN often glides by on the European setting’s elegance and grime and Neeson’s steely determination as he works to solve his puzzling predicament.

Director Jaume Collet-Serra links it all together in a generally efficient way, but eventually it seems like the film is dawdling as Martin searches for answers but mostly finds more questions. Especially after he showed the bad guys who not to mess with in TAKEN, there’s a desire to see some Neeson ownage that UNKNOWN frustrates. Enough with the shoe leather scenes. Let’s get to Neeson turning guys into ground beef.

When the narrative explanations begin to tumble out, their absurdity clashes with the otherwise resolute nature of the film. At issue isn’t so much that the elucidations regarding Martin's past aren’t realistic, as UNKNOWN is firmly in movie territory. The problem is that the remarkable revelations don’t mesh with film’s grounded nature. As incredible as it may sound regarding an amnesia thriller, UNKNOWN’S plot isn’t silly enough to merit where it ends up taking the main character.

Grade: C

Hall Pass

HALL PASS (Bobby Farrelly and Peter Farrelly, 2011)

At first wandering eyes and rampant sex talk from married men Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) earn them withering looks and chastising from their wives. Eventually such juvenile behavior gets each of them a so-called “hall pass” from their spouses. They are given a guilt-free week off from their marital commitments to do as they please, including sleeping with other women if the opportunities present themselves.

Their disgusted wives Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate) are following the advice of a friend who suggests that Rick and Fred have inflated senses of their virility and attractiveness. The hall pass functions as a reverse psychology tool that will ultimately provide them with renewed appreciation for the relationships they have and disabuse them of their lustful manners.

While their wives are away, Rick and Fred hit the town with their gawking buddies to flex the old ladykilling muscles. Having envisioned seven days of debauchery, they check into a hotel to keep from soiling their homes, but in reality these two talk a bigger game than they can play. They prove themselves inept at hitting on women. Most nights they’re ready to hit the sack well before last call.

Despite their incompetent flirting, Rick appears to be making some headway with Australian barista Leigh (Nicky Whelan) while Fred’s desperation lowers his initially high selectivity. Meanwhile, Maggie and Grace are forced to examine their willingness to grant the hall passes when they find guys putting the moves on them.

HALL PASS directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly, who are also among the four credited screenwriters, have made a career finding humanity among the crude and outrageous. Amid the puerile gags in THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY, KINGPIN, and DUMB AND DUMBER, the films also possess a generosity of spirit for the foolish characters. HALL PASS features the Farrellys’ familiar combination of vulgarity and sweetness, but this time around the brothers mostly miss the mark.

HALL PASS plays like a third or fourth sequel to THE HANGOVER filtered through cheap pop psychology. Stale bits about marijuana brownies and masturbation come across as the last refuges of the creatively exhausted. While the film elicits occasional laughs, especially in the uproarious end credits sequence with Stephen Merchant, oftentimes it feels like the jokes are more restrained or halfhearted. That old touch isn’t absent, though. Leave it to the Farrellys to deliver a quality explosive diarrhea joke.

HALL PASS’S premise sounds like something out of a here today, gone tomorrow self-help bestseller making the rounds on morning TV shows. Thankfully it’s treated with about the same seriousness since the running joke is that Maggie and Grace haven’t really risked anything in unleashing their big talking husbands.

The problem is that, like this year’s THE DILEMMA and NO STRINGS ATTACHED, HALL PASS dodges to some degree the issue at the heart of this relationship comedy. Why must these men make such displays of their attraction to other women while in the presence of their wives, and why is the solution to have the couples communicate even less? The film doesn’t need scenes of them meeting with a counselor, but it could stand to have more interaction between husbands and wives, if merely to observe the embarrassment these men are causing.

The main cast is likable, maybe too much so as the boys embark on a week of attempted horndogging that is intended to be their undoing while the girls sit back satisfied in their superiority. Wilson delivers an amiable, low key performance that suggests Rick’s wrongs owe more to thoughtlessness and guilt by association. He seems too decent to find himself in this predicament. For all of Fred’s bluster, Sudeikis isn’t a creep as much as he is trying to live up to society’s image of masculinity. Their inherent harmlessness counteracts with the film’s need to take them down a couple pegs.

As the guys’ legendary womanizing friend Coakley, Richard Jenkins brings the sleaziness that HALL PASS is eager to poke fun at but doesn’t dare invest in the leads. In his very funny pick-up artist role Jenkins reeks of patheticalness like the trendy body spray he’s surely drenched in.

Although it’s refreshing that Fischer and Applegate are appealing and loving wives rather than ballbusters, they’re given so little to do and shoehorned into some dumb subplots that their efforts are squandered.

With HALL PASS the Farrellys strive to cut loose like they first did seventeen years ago, but the film’s slack nature feels like they are growing out of the gross-out humor game. Until a dose of cold reality,Rick and Fred hang onto fantasies better left in the past. The question is if the Farrellys need a similar intervention to realize they should move on from their crude younger days or if they’re better off channeling their comedic energies differently. The middle ground, at least in this instance, doesn’t really suit them.

Grade: C-

2011 Oscar Predictions

Since it would be shirking my duties as a film writer not to publish my predictions of the winners at tonight's Academy Awards, I present them now. If you are in a pool with me--for entertainment purposes only, of course--no copying!

Best Picture: The King's Speech

Best Director: David Fincher, The Social Network

Best Actor: Colin Firth, The King's Speech

Best Actress: Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter

Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Ten years ago I think the winners of the headline prizes held more potential surprises, in part because there wasn't nearly as much tracking and discussion of such stuff online. Now anyone who pays attention can reliably predict at least four of these six awards, if not five. I'm not buying into the backlash at Melissa Leo because of the glam For Your Consideration ads she took out, but that casts a smidgen of doubt on my selection of her. Splitting the oft-linked wins between Director and Picture doesn't feel like as big of a risk as it usually is. It could be what makes or breaks my sheet since these categories deliver more points in the pool I participate in.

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Social Network

Best Original Screenplay: The King's Speech

Best Cinematography: True Grit

Best Film Editing: The Social Network

Best Sound Editing: Inception

Best Sound Mixing: The King's Speech

Best Art Direction: Alice in Wonderland

Best Costume Design: Alice in Wonderland

Best Makeup: The Wolfman

Best Visual Effects: Inception

Best Original Score: The King's Speech

Best Original Song: "Coming Home", Country Strong

The guild categories (plus music) are where the pool winners and losers will be separated. While some of these seem clear cut--the screenplay categories are likely locks--it gets trickier after that. Whether it's true or not, my perception is that a "spread the wealth" mentality has been eroding. That's what has me less certain of True Grit in Cinematography. The King's Speech is nominated in both categories I have Alice in Wonderland winning, but my gut tells me that the Oscars will go to the film with the Most Apparent Art Direction and Costume Design.

I'm taking a flier on Best Original Song. The Country Strong nominee is the only one I can claim to know at all, but maybe that's because it's the most recent one of the bunch I've seen. More importantly, while most probably have the impression that animated films have dominated, it's been nine years since a song from an animated film won ("If I Didn't Have You", Monsters, Inc.). That could mean I'm backing the wrong one--just watch the 127 Hours song win--but "Coming Home" seems like a radio- and Grammy-friendly track tailor-made to win awards.

Best Documentary: Inside Job

Best Foreign Language Film: Haevnen (In a Better World)

Best Animated Film: Toy Story 3

Best Animated Short: The Gruffalo

Best Documentary Short: Strangers No More

Best Live Action Short: Na Wewe

Aside from Animated Film, which is a sure thing, the rest of these come down to shots in the dark. This is especially true of the shorts. Seeing them isn't necessarily helpful. Last year I saw the Animated Shorts and whiffed on the winner. This year I've seen the Live Action Shorts and think God of Love is unquestionably better than all of the others, but I'm going with Na Wewe because it seems "important" and is better than the mediocre other three.

The breakdown of predicted feature film winners:

5 - The King's Speech

3 - The Social Network

2 - Alice in Wonderland

2 - The Fighter

1 - Black Swan

1 - Country Strong

1 - In a Better World

1 - Inception

1 - Inside Job

1 - Toy Story 3

1 - True Grit

1 - The Wolfman

Post-awards update: Looks like I made 17 correct picks out of 24, which was good enough to win the pool I was in. (Since each category was worth various points, I needed the fourth tiebreaker--show length--to win the prize.) If I hadn't split Picture and Director, I would have connected on all six major categories.

The surprising difference--and what put me in an early lead--was Leo's win. The majority picked Steinfeld, likely from Entertainment Weekly inexplicably putting her as the favorite.

So much for "research", though. I blew the Live Action Shorts category, although I was happy to see the best one win. Recent history for Best Original Song winners went out the window with the Randy Newman song netting him a rare victory. (Also, were those about as forgettable of a bunch of songs as you could have?) I read somewhere that the Sound categories had been divided in recent years by Sound Editing favoring a blockbuster type and Sound Mixing going to the Best Picture. The latter didn't hold true this year.

On year-end awards

When the calendar turns to early December, year-end film awards begin spreading like wildfire across the entertainment media landscape. Whether such honors are bestowed by critics in the biggest cities and longstanding organizations or cinephiles in little-known groups, there is no shortage of these best-of lists. Regardless of all the ink and pixels devoted to these laudatory announcements, what impact they have, be it on box office, Oscar nominations, or filmmaker egos, is hard to say, although I'm inclined to believe it's insignificant on a large scale.

As someone who participates in polls for the Online Film Critics Society, the Central Ohio Film Critics Association, and the Muriel Awards, I can say that it's a fun way of synthesizing a year at the movies even when it can be a frustrating process. Consider it a way for us film writers and movie lovers to engage in imaginary play as Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members in the same way that fantasy sports owners manage teams. The difference is that the outcomes of our games come with internationally distributed press releases whose results may be employed in ads.

I see a lot of movies, so I enjoy putting my knowledge to use in these polls. The exercises aren't without their aggravations. I get irritated when it seems like my colleagues nominate exclusively from awards season openers and readers assume we're trying to predict Golden Globe and Oscar nominees. I would prefer to nominate what I feel is the best from the previous twelve months and leave it at that rather than filling out my sheet with gamesmanship in mind. I don't intend this as a swipe at anyone specifically or the groups in general. Everyone is free to vote as they see fit. I just wish my tastes could be expressed more in the winners.

That's where the Muriels is a salvation for me and my purist's ballot. The group of professional and amateur writers--or maybe paid and unpaid writers is the better phrasing--takes a more expansive view of the year in film. (It helps that the later deadline grants needed time to catch up on year-end platform releases.) Performances and films that wouldn't muster any consideration in awards season coverage aren't necessarily lost causes among Muriels voters.

This goes for overlooked and underappreciated work in mainstream films as well as arthouse and foreign titles. For example, my 2009 nomination ballot included EXTRACT'S Dustin Milligan in Best Supporting Performance, Male and TETRO for Best Cinematography. I could feel free to include both because I knew that such nominations didn't automatically equate to wasting those slots. As it turns out, I was on my own in nominating Milligan and one of seven supporting TETRO.

Whether my favorites come out on top or not, it's gratifying to see the thought put into the nominations--yes, even the head scratchers--and the essays that Muriels voters write about the winners. It's very satisfying for me to see the group recognize deserving work that, for whatever reason, never gains traction among the ad blitzes and campaigns. For instance, my two favorite supporting actress performances of 2010 also snagged the top two spots in Muriels voting, which somewhat remedies their near absence in the awards conversation. Such wins also confirm that these awards reflect a passion for cinema, something that gets lost too often in the incresasingly industry-dominated, year-long chatter.

As the season comes to a close with tomorrow night's Academy Awards ceremony, I encourage you to check out the slow roll-out of this year's Muriels. They're not to be treated as alternative Oscars--in fact, some category winners may be in agreement--but the results and idiosyncratic nominations ought to give cinephiles plenty of suggestions for films to search out. And isn't that the whole reason for doing this anyway?

The Company Men

THE COMPANY MEN (John Wells, 2010)

The reach of the economic crisis extends even into the executive offices in THE COMPANY MEN. The drama focuses on three high level corporate workers who find themselves unemployed when their company’s stock prices need to be goosed. After all, cutting employees is viewed as the fast track to improving the bottom line.

Sales manager Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) initially refuses to alter his ways after losing his six-figure job. He shows up at the outplacement services office confident that, unlike his fellow white collar cubicle companions, he’ll find new work in no time. As the weeks stretch into months, Bobby grudgingly accepts the reality of his situation. Not only is his family’s lifestyle and home too extravagant to maintain while he searches for a job, but they likely won’t be able to keep up with their previous standard when he does get one.

Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) is a company lifer who started on the factory floor and worked his way into a major position. Being laid off hits him extremely hard. Then he’s walloped with the fact that at sixty his age and hard-living appearance are liabilities that may keep him from returning to anything close to what he’s used to doing.

Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones) was in on the ground floor when starting the then-shipbuilding company with his friend, the current CEO James Salinger (Craig T. Nelson), yet he’s considered expendable too.

THE COMPANY MEN means well in addressing the hardships that come with losing one’s job, particularly in this economy. There’s an air of resignation hanging over the film as these men confront their powerlessness and inadequacies upon being deprived of something that has defined who they are.

The most poignant moments aren’t visible in outbursts but in how they carry on as though still employed so that family, friends, and neighbors don’t pity them. For Bobby the greatest pains are in realizing that his blue collar brother-in-law Jack (Kevin Costner) is kicking him some extra money in his paycheck and that his son returned a gift because he knows the family can’t afford it.

Writer-director John Wells captures these details well. From the embarrassment of knowing one can’t provide for those you love and the indignity of learning that one’s skill set isn’t unique or in high demand, THE COMPANY MEN observes how unemployment can bring death by a thousand small cuts rather than one major one.

Wells displays a light touch in depicting the adversities these men face. He doesn’t linger on their shame and anger but lets such feelings seep into the performances. Wells also doesn’t hammer his larger points. When Bobby’s brother-in-law asks him if the CEO works hard enough to deserve to be compensated seven hundred times more than the guys on the low end, it calls out the gross inequity of business today without making a scene. Gene mourns the decline of manufacturing and bristles at the blind adherence to Wall Street’s lead.

Nevertheless, THE COMPANY MEN could stand to express a little righteous fury. The film is often so low key that it ignores the urgency pressing down on Bobby and Phil. While the point of telling this story through three main characters is to examine the differences in their circumstances, the impact is often diluted. The loss of status and security for the wealthy is a reasonable premise for a film, but concentrating on individuals pulling in stacks of money like these people once made weakens the audience’s emotional connection in this instance. It’s harder to feel sorry for those who now can’t afford country club dues or biding time until stock options can be cashed in.

Grade: C

The Illusionist (L'Illusionniste)

THE ILLUSIONIST (L’ILLUSIONNISTE) (Sylvain Chomet, 2010)

Based on an original unproduced screenplay by legendary French filmmaker Jacques Tati, THE ILLUSIONIST tells the story of an old sleight of hand magician as he strives to maintain a career that is going out of style. The days of vaudeville and music halls are waning in the late 1950s, so the illusionist takes whatever small jobs he can find.

One gig brings him to a Scottish pub where he’s practically second fiddle to the newly installed electricity. There he meets the teenager Alice, who works at the pub and is delighted by his tricks. After giving her a much-needed new pair of shoes, she decides to accompany him as he seeks employment in Edinburgh. They check into a ramshackle hotel populated with his fellow struggling entertainers and wait to see what may come of their futures.

Adapted and directed by Sylvain Chomet, THE ILLUSIONIST is the next best thing to a new Tati movie. The main character is modeled on the comic actor, and the film follows the themes, tone, and almost wordless style of his cinematic masterpieces.

While a through line emerges, THE ILLUSIONIST often plays out as a succession of small setpieces packed with charm. Many of these scenes involve improvising within a closed environment, whether it’s finding a way to bide time while waiting to take the stage, coming up with novel methods for painting a billboard, or performing in front of a less than riveted audience. As in Tati’s classics, the humor brings forth gentle smiles more than big laughs, but the accumulation of droll enchantments is just as satisfying.

While Tati’s fingerprints are all over the film, this remains undeniably Chomet’s work. THE ILLUSIONIST’S wistfulness regarding changing times and fashions could just as well apply to the hand-drawn style of animation in which the film is lovingly rendered.

This bittersweet tale does not argue against progress. Much of the film is concerned with transitional stages and discovering what wonders these changes bring. Yet THE ILLUSIONIST also urges for retaining old ways and the beauty and magic that is lost when such things are abandoned. Whether it’s this film’s lovely animation or a variety entertainer’s craft, to dispose of these pleasures in the endless quest for the next best thing is to limit the creative possibilities.

Grade: B

Just Go With It

JUST GO WITH IT (Dennis Dugan, 2011)

In JUST GO WITH IT Danny (Adam Sandler) detects that wearing a wedding ring and concocting a tale of marital woe is just the ticket for hooking up with any hottie possessing a scintilla of sensitivity. Danny is a plastic surgeon who’s been using this knowledge with great success for more than twenty years.

His technique backfires on him, though, when school teacher Palmer (Brooklyn Decker) finds the ring after a romantic night together on the beach. When he explains that he’s getting a divorce, she insists on meeting his wife to verify the story. Danny bribes his assistant Katherine (Jennifer Aniston) to pose as his spouse. The matter seems to be taken care of, but an ill-timed phone call leaves Palmer with the impression that Danny and Katherine have two kids whom she’d also like to meet.

Lies pile upon lies. To keep up the charade Danny books a trip to Hawaii with Palmer, Katherine, her kids, and his cousin Eddie (Nick Swardson), who pretends to be Katherine’s German lover.

JUST GO WITH IT is an extraordinarily bad match of star and material. Sandler has never been the most energetic screen presence, and his films usually lope along so he doesn’t have to expend too much effort. JUST GO WITH IT, though, is a farce and needs to run at a high speed. The slack pace, as evidenced by its nearly two hour running time, kills any potential humor found in this comedy of deceptions and misunderstandings. The premise practically begs for a flurry of zingers. Instead the screenplay and performances offer soft volleys and returns.

An underlying anger and cruelty exists in Sandler’s films, but except for the movies made with those outside his usual collaborators, he’s too concerned with being likable to let that unfiltered meanness rise to the surface. Again, that makes JUST GO WITH IT a bad fit. This premise requires some acid in the jokes. It certainly has contempt for several of the characters, but the tone here is sickly sweet and sentimental even though nothing about the plot is.

It doesn’t help that the characters come off as beyond stupid. The lies told are never believable and become even more improbable as they escalate. To top it off, JUST GO WITH IT revels in its obnoxiousness, like the little girl who mostly speaks in an exaggerated British accent, and its laziness. Between this and GROWN UPS, it seems like Sandler’s movies are an excuse to subsidize his vacations with friends on screen. Heaven help us when this becomes too much for him and he turns to releasing his home movies with beautiful women fawning over him.

Grade: D-