"Please, I need help"

(Warning: plot spoilers)

“Well shit, man. I guess that’s why they call it a ‘way-homer’…because you only get it on the way home.” I always think of this Coen brothers’ line from their second directorial effort, Raising Arizona, whenever I’ve just watched another one of their movies for the first time. I’ve continued this trend after watching their latest film, A Serious Man, starring Michael Stuhlberg (Body of Lies) as Larry Gopnik, a down-on-his-luck assistant physics professor who desperately seeks answers to life's questions as his world begins to crumble.

The story, set in a 1960’s suburban Minneapolis Jewish community, follows Gopnik as he faces unethical students, a possible denial of tenure, a surprising divorce, a bigoted neighbor, and an eccentric live-in brother—all as he’s tried to live the life of a decent man and an upstanding husband, father and brother. Since it’s a movie, the audience, along with Gopnik assumes that solutions will be found for his mounting problems. To me the movie is a more serious version of Burn After Reading, consisting of a series of wacky subplots which do ultimately propel the main arc of the plot (Gopnik’s troubles).

I’m going to deviate from my normal routine of writing for this particular post. I felt a sense of enlightenment while writing my initial review before I decided to scrap it. I knew that I wasn’t confident in my interpretation, but I still tried to present myself as if I knew what I was talking about. I’ll now describe to readers my thought process when writing a review for a movie that takes me longer to interpret.

When exiting the theater after watching A Serious Man, I wondered what the Coen brothers wanted me to grasp from their film. I remember hearing some teenager chide his friend for not understanding the plot. “Dude, how could you not get it? I understood everything that was going on. It was all connected,” he said. I remember sneering at the kid for a second because I sure as hell didn’t get it. In my cynicism I assumed that he was only pretending to understand the movie, because how could anyone know more than the Movie Guy? After coming back down to Earth and getting into the driver seat of my car, I thought of key quotes and scenes I wrote in my notepad: “receive with simplicity,” mounting troubles, graphic dreams representing closure. I realized that the main character, Gopnik, accomplished nothing and solved none of his problems during the movie, but I also realized that there were a number of other scenes that went right over my head.

After I started writing my review I knew I wasn’t completely confident in my interpretation. Obviously, the Coen brothers wanted audiences to understand that bad things happen sometimes, and there won’t always be an answer or remedy available. What else could I say? Sure, I could summarize some other plot points or scenes that I liked, but I felt I’d be masking the fact that I didn't fully understand how audiences should interpret it. I decided to research the film and read some other reviews to see what I may have missed. I usually wait to do such research after I’ve written my review because I don’t want to be influenced in any way before I express my view.

After researching, I found that all of the allusions the Coen brothers present within their movie are biblical. According to the Internet Movie Database, “Larry is a Job like figure – a good man to whom many bad things happen with no explanation…his son Danny’s looking at the tornado coming recalls God speaking to Job from out of the whirlwind that He will not explain why these bad things have happened to him.” While I’ve read all of the New Testament, I’m only on Numbers in the Old Testament, so that’s why I was unable to make the connection. Most of the reviews I read made the connection.

One quick note for those who may not be aware. There are no original ideas in screenplays—they’re all combinations of cribbed ideas/stories/news from around the world. Most can be traced back to the Bible (i.e. Donnie Darko, The Matrix, etc.)

Anyway, for me, even though I enjoyed A Serious Man, I think it'll grow on me even more after I watch it again. I’m looking forward to catching all the little things I missed my first time watching it.

My point to all of this is that I’ve come to appreciate movie critics more since I’ve delved into the review process myself. They constantly make sound, insightful interpretations after watching a movie only once. It usually takes me a couple of viewings to catch key points I may have missed.

I could take more time to elaborate on how each character is more of a caricature, or discuss the over-the-top performances by some of the actors (shout out to George Clooney’s best friend, Richard Kind, who plays Gopnik’s socially awkward brother), but I really don’t feel like it. The movie is worth seeing, so go check it out. Even though there aren't as many laugh-out-loud moments as other Coen brothers films, I still rank it near the top of their body of work.

Rating: 7 out of 10











Up next - The Men Who Stare At Goats

"The First Girl I Let Into My Life and She Tries to Eat Me"

Welcome back, Woody Harrelson. The actor has steadily worked since the show Cheers but was out of the spotlight for most of the new millennium, costarring in After the Sunset, which flopped at the box office, and the cult hit A Scanner Darkly. Since costarring in No Country For Old Men in 2007, Woody said he was ready to be back in Hollywood. Man, is he ever. Just remember to get top billing if Wesley Snipes asks you to do White Men STILL Can’t Jump, Woody—you’re the bigger star now.


Now on to Woody's latest starring role in Zombieland.

Is it possible to make a feel-good post apocalyptic zombie movie? Ruben Fleischer pulls it off with his third directorial (first theatrical) effort, Zombieland. This horror/comedy about a group of emotionally detached humans living amongst an outbreak of zombies infected with mad cow disease will leave audiences laughing as they cover their eyes in disgust.

The story, set in the not too distant future, refreshes the idea of a “code” of the zombie world that has been presented by horror films for the past 40 years. Some have already called it America’s version of Shaun of the Dead, which also pokes fun at survival techniques in a land of zombies. I thought the latter film was both original and overrated, so I’m not as quick to equate Zombieland with it—yet.

The film opens with an iconic picture of the American flag before the camera zooms out to show an upside down president’s limo in a zombie infested land. Our nerdy hero, Columbus, played by Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland), narrates the state of the world and how he has managed to stay alive. I won’t spoil it for you but he does enlist a set of rules to avoid becoming a “human happy meal.” It’s similar to Ferris Bueller’s list on fooling your parents into letting you stay home.

It’s not too long before Columbus meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a Twinkie craving country bumpkin with zombie-killing on his agenda. The two embark on a road trip east. Columbus hopes to find his family while Tallahassee is looking for his next kill.

Shaking things up for the two new road buddies are Emma Stone (The Rocker, Superbad) and Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine) playing sisters, Wichita and Little Rock, who are also trying to survive as they travel across the states. Good for Breslin: the girl’s only 13, and she’s already trying to break her sweetheart typecast.

The characters are each different, but they all either were societal outcasts before the zombies or have since become emotionless. Columbus describes his life before the apocalypse as consisting of World of Warcraft, Code Red Mountain Dew (do they still make that?), and agoraphobia. After all, you must be somewhat of a zombie yourself if you expect to live among them. No family, friends, purpose, or compassion—just survival.

However, through their journey together the four do begin to appreciate what they have either never experienced or have lost—love. They learn to appreciate “the little things” in life, which Columbus writes as another rule. Also (no spoilers), while each character tries to live an emotionless life, it takes a comedic legend’s all-too-brief cameo to make them feel human again.

My only problem with Zombieland is the drought between action (i.e. kills). For most of the second act, zombies are merely a backdrop as our main characters delve into their emotions and start to care for each other. The comedy works better when it's combined with the undead. Fortunately, the movie's only a little over 80 minutes, so there isn’t too much downtime.

I’ve got to admit that I was skeptical with what director Ruben Fleischer might produce. The only previous work of his I recognized was the Borat movie, in which he was part of the miscellaneous crew, and as director of three Jimmy Kimmel shows. I’m guessing he’ll get more calls to direct in the future.

Zombieland is gory fun for anyone who enjoys zombie flicks, and even those who may be inept to the genre. With more apocalyptic movies headed our way (Legion, The Road, The Book of Eli, 2012.), I imagine this will be the most lighthearted. Is it coincidental that so many apocalyptic movies are coming out after our recent presidential election? Note the destroyed president’s limo in the beginning of the film.

7 out of 10














Up next - Paranormal Activity:

"I Didn't Even Know Where the Fuck Bruges Was--it's in Belgium"

You’d think a film featuring drug induced hit-men, economically conscious prostitutes, extreme acts of violence, and racist dwarfs would send moviegoers running to theaters, but, for the most part, In Bruges came and went in 2008.

If the trailer led you to believe that Martin McDonagh’s second directorial and screenplay effort is an action-packed thriller with some comedic elements, think again. This is not an emotionless story featuring cliché dialogue and some sly wit. It’s heavy on dialogue and dark humor, action scenes are few and far between, and the setting is, of course, in Bruges.

The story is set in present time and opens with a monologue from the main character, Ray (Colin Farrell), who states that he and his partner/friend Ken (Brendan Gleeson), both hit-men for the mob in London, were instructed to hideout in Bruges after a mishap on the job.

After arriving, our main characters learn that they’ll be hiding in Bruges for an extended time. Over the next hour, viewers watch as our characters involve themselves in what feels like episodes of a sitcom or scenes from a play. Audiences may feel the dialogue is Tarantino-esque as they watch Ray and Ken discuss why so many dwarfs commit suicide, the ethics involved in killing a "lollipop man," and why Burges is/isn't a "shithole." Their occupation as hit-men is almost irrelevant for the first two acts, except for a few instances where Ray displays his knack for violence.

Looming over the characters is Harry Waters (Ralph Fiennes), Ray and Ken’s boss from London, England. It is unknown at the beginning why Harry wanted our characters to go to Bruges, but his insidious and confusing plan is revealed later. This leads to an exciting, if not abrupt third act climax.

What truly makes the film is the acting of Farrell, Gleeson and Fiennes; although, Fiennes' talents are limited due to the script. Don’t worry—no plot spoilers ahead. Farrell, fresh out of rehab and running from anything related to 2006’s Miami Vice, broke new ground with his role as a neurotic Irish hit man. Gleeson’s portrayal of Ken can be equated to Jiminy Cricket from Pinocchio. He acts as a conscience for both Ray and Harry. McDonagh also manages to work in racists, druggie dwarfs; Belgian drug dealers and hookers; and fat, coarse Americans. None of these comedic elements are forced and McDonagh manages to tie them all to the main arc (plot), while also leaving audiences laughing.

The film displays more heart than the trailer leads audiences to believe. Ray struggles to cope with a fatal mistake he made on the job. Ken, ironically, becomes something of a father figure for Ray who seems to transcend from a self involved child to a socially aware man.

What’s great about In Bruges is that the director manages to perpetuate the aesthetic qualities of the setting amidst all the violence and vulgarity. McDonagh highlights some of the more scenic areas in Bruges, which are often referred to as "fairytale place[s]" by the characters. His screenplay combined with Carter Burwell’s (Burn After Reading, Fargo, etc.) score will stir your emotions, evoke more sympathy for a hit man than one might have imagined, and keep audiences laughing well into the climax.

With so many elements that worked, McDonagh almost imploded the film with the third act climax. So much of the screenplay included witty dialogue and fluid transitions, but the climax seemed to transcend from Pulp Fiction to Lethal Weapon. The end seems to crawl to the credits on the strength of the first two acts.

Some of the humor in the film could be considered, well, it is, offensive or immature to some viewers. Everything from gay jokes to a simile using a fat, “retarded black girl" on a seesaw are callously said, but viewers must remember which characters are making the jokes and what personality traits have already been established by those characters.

The negative aspects still do little to take away from the overall quality of the film.

Like so many other great films, In Bruges was embraced by awards ceremonies after being dismissed by audiences. Such awards included a best screenplay nomination from the Academy Awards and a best actor win for Colin Farrell at the Golden Globes.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Check out this scene from the film:



Next up - City of God