Great Migrations - TBD

I am becoming a great aficionado of nature docs. Perhaps the great turbulence of human lives has become too much for me to endure on a regular basis. Nature docs offer a meditative beauty and a sense of scientific assuredness at their core.

Watching my first installment of "Great Migrations", I am struck by the power of the narrator. Don't get me wrong. Alec Baldwin is no David Attenborough. Attenborough's joy and tenderness make him second to none. But I love the poetic turn that Baldwin brings to this new series. I can't imagine Oprah pulling off describing the sun as "the great watch-maker". Instead of the humanizing folksiness attempted in "Life", "Great Migrations" astounds with the drama inherent in the ebbs and flows of the non-human world. The cinematography may not be as staggering as in 'Life', but this is entirely to "Great Migrations"' advantage. Rather than spending all of their money on a few shots and then replaying them in different segments, "GM" seems to be focusing its attention on the stories of the critters and the poetry of the dramatics. The direction of this series is actually quite touching and mesmerizing.

The creation of this series by National Geographic, rather than the Discovery Channel, aids the production in another way. National Geographic rightly should be the premiere creators of nature docs from the US. "Great Migrations" includes a clarifying device that other producers may not be able to produce with as much grace and precision: maps. It is so important to orient the stories. I hate being distracted, wondering where this is taking place.

All in all, I'm impressed and eager for the next installment. I sure do hope that they don't recycle stories and repackage shots like 'Life'. It ruined the entire series, but I guess there wasn't much there in the first place.

And now I'm off to watch Nature on PBS. It's about Wolverines!

American Experience: We Shall Remain - % % % % %

It never ceases to amaze me how little I know about North American Native American peoples. I learned all about Aztecs, Maya, Incas and Nazcas. But I know diddly about Algonquin or Shawnee people and culture.

This series is beautifully constructed of recreated scenes and interwoven interviews with historians and descendants of the historical figures. Watching the first episode I was struck over and over how enlightening this program is. Our children's history books are mediocre and fail all of us.

500 Days of Summer - % % %

Nestled inside a nifty structure, moving throughout a relationship by days from middle to beginning to end, is a romantic comedy of mediocre and flimsy proportions. Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt carry the film admirably, but from the very beginning the narration indicates that this film is filled with crummy people who do stupid things and aren't worth our time. Really. The film tells us that these people suck at the beginning of the movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Tom is shown in flashback as a child and we are told that he sadly misunderstands love, and then we learn that Deschanel's character, Summer, gets everything more easily in life because she is cute. From the beginning we are told not to trust or respect the main characters. Bleck. Why should we want to watch this movie then?

I have a nit-picky problem with this film as well. According to the film, these characters are two years younger than me. There were no eight-year-olds listening to Joy Division when I was 10. I knew who they were because of my brother, seven years older than I. As I pieced together the time-line of Tom's life, I think this screenplay is 10 years old and no one thought to up-date it. In the intro, we see Tom as a child listening to "bad British pop music" while wearing a Joy Division t-shirt. Joy Division was British, but they were neither pop music nor bad. This is a total mis-characterization of the music. This odd misunderstanding of the music indicates a misunderstanding of the main character. If the screenwriter misunderstands this seemingly autobiographical story, how can the audience be expected to connect with the story?

I did get swept up in the the joyous moments, like the choreographed dance sequence following the consummation of the relationship. And while I enjoy a nicely designed set and costumes, this film went into a nauseatingly heavy-handed cutesy-ness of 60's sharp suits and brunette bangs. Heck, they play house in a set of Ikea furnished rooms, as if their romance is entirely an idealized facade. The film, like the furniture, may look cute at first, but it's made of hollow cardboard and won't hold up. A film like "Singles" is a great example of capturing a style or music scene without overloading the film and crushing what little substance it may contain. Perhaps this has to do with the particular style of the film, rooted in child-like illustrations and clean, sharply-styled 60's fashion. Such a style resists a productive outlet for anger or depression. It is meant to evoke nostalgia, innocence and polish. It's exhausting even midway through the movie.

No one seems to have a sense of humor about themselves either. They are all so serious and sincere. Early on in the film we see Tom smashing plates in his kitchen, devastated at the loss of Summer, who just isn't that into him (no better explanation is ever offered). It's ridiculous but no one laughs at it. His precocious little sister speaks sage wisdom in a monotone to him trying to set him straight. A little laughter might release the intense pressure in Tom to hang on to his crummy relationship. A little levity and humorous self-reflection might endear the audience to the characters. In the end, Tom meets Autumn and starts it all over again. Bleck.

The Proposal - % % %

I am genuinely stunned by how well executed this film is. I actually enjoyed it.

I am surprised because most romantic comedies are terrible. It's a genre with very clear rules and it's well worn territory. From the screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s to "When Harry Met Sally" in 1989, the genre hasn't changed that much. We know we want an opposed couple drawn together through circumstances out of their control but compelled by their often opposing desires. We want banter. We want charm. We want self-deprecating humor. And we want penetrating contemplative looks at pivotal moments.

If you've seen the trailer, you know that Sandra Bullock is the bitchy tough boss to Ryan Reynold's dutiful, hardworking, enslaved assistant. She is going to be deported and needs to marry him to keep her job as top editor that she has worked so hard for. They go off to tell his family in order to convince the immigration officer of the veracity of their relationship and of course, her cold exterior is broken by the love of a good family and small town in the beautiful wilderness, and he sees that she's actually a very special woman after all.

The Proposal fulfills the obligations of the romantic comedy and exceeded my very low expectations with a thoughtful screenplay and very charming actors. It develops the characters well, but not so much that the film loses its momentum. Betty White is charming and delightful as Ryan Reynold's Gammy, and as always, Reynolds looks amazing without his shirt on. Wow. Very well executed.

What the film lacks is truly real characters that don't rely on generally held preconceptions about certain people and their relationships. Romantic comedies often fall back on these preconceived notions as shorthand for genuine and well developed characters. So the films feel superficial because they are. While the characters are well rounded, the details that indicate their characters never feel finely drawn, unique and textured. We are told that Sandra Bullock's character has a tattoo that represents her dead parents, but the story is that simple. There's no texture to tell us how they died, how she was told, why she choose sparrows to represent her parents. We just hear the story pat and are meant to derive the meaning for the information from what? Other movies we've seen? Our own lives? It's too ambiguous to be truly resonant and powerful. It's why When Harry Met Sally is fantastic, the subtle details telling us so much about the characters and their lives and environments. And it's why The Proposal is well executed but not super. But with the few surprises that The Proposal works with, it's still charming and well made.

By the way, thank you to whomever encouraged Ryan Reynolds to bulk up. I am really grateful. I even watched Amityville Horror just for the two or three scenes with his steaming torso. Shizzle is riCockulous.

Also. mad-props to Sandra Bullock for not being a skinny, tragedy but a slammin, curvy, svelte woman at 45. She doesn't look tortured like Renee Zellweger or Madonna, nor extraordinary like Halle Berry. (But who does?) I have a lot of respect that she never boobed up like Demi Moore. She is beautiful but not tortured or fake. And that in Hollywood, unto itself, may be reason enough for an Oscar. Well, if not that then some kind of lifetime achievement award at least.

PPPS There's a great moment when Bullock gets down on her knees in her tight, posh suit and stacked heels to propose to Reyynolds and because of her proper attire can barely get back up again. I think there need to be more moments of comedic mockery of women's fashion expectations. What competent woman would wear something that immobilizes her so? Ridiculous.

PPPPS Also Oscar Nunez deserves a frickin Golden Globe for his role as Ramone, the Alaskan small town's caterer, general store manager, exotic dancer and marital officiant. His creepy flirtations are fantastic! He brilliantly meanders across the friendly/sexy line wobbling between endearing and skeevy. I love it!

Breaking Bad - % % % %

Fantastic show built on brilliant acting and witty writing. But I must fault it for a few mediocre members of the cast, such as the wife, and the often pedantic cinematography.

I just watched an episode from the second season in which Jesse, played by Aaron Paul, is thrown out of his house, and then booted from a high school friend's house, and then rejected over a pay phone by another friend and then his bike gets stolen. He breaks into the tow lot where his RV/cook house is being stored and falls into a port-a-potty. It's gross and tragic and while climbing from the blue ooze he cries like a little baby. Once in the RV he collapses on the floor and covers his head with a gas mask to protect from his own stench. It's awesome and brilliant!

It's like a new chapter in Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.

Green Zone - % % % %

Green Zone is the latest film by Paul Greengrass, best known for the Bourne films, but also the filmmaker who created United 93, a suspenseful, dread-filled docu-drama. Green Zone is a combination of these two styles – a tension filled spy action film crossed with a political historical drama. As king of the low-light shakey cam, Greengrass pulls off a twisting turning suspense with incredible shots of helicopters and a taut military procedural plot. But as a historical political film, it indicts the Pentagon and makes the CIA look like noble handlers of the world. Matt Damon’s character, Chief Miller, has just landed in Iraq in March 2003 and leads a team to investigate suspected and empty locations for WMDs. He begins to question the Pentagon intelligence and this leads him on a chase through Baghdad with his new friend, Freddy, played by Khalid Abdalla, from the Kite Runner. As a military procedural it is exciting like Black Hawk Down. But as a drama, it misses. By exciting the audience with semi-accurate portrayals of historical events, almost like a dramatized episode of Frontline, it fails by being a fictionalized account of a very serious issue, the fabrication and falsification of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. I agree with the sentiments expressed in the film that the American public was lied to and failed by our government officials and the press, but by fictionalizing and generalizing a subject of such massive importance, Greengrass dulls his blade. Matt Damon, who has no character other than wanting the truth and doing his job well, gets to shout condemning statements at the Pentagon official played by Greg Kinnear, but it’s truly pointless with our knowledge of the quagmire that is to come. That is one thing that Green Zone does get right. It ends with a devastatingly defeated feeling that many of us feel about Iraq. It’s a disaster and there’s so little that we can do about it. The come-uppance at the end can’t be satisfying because it’s so tragic.

Shutter Island - % % %

To start with, this is a film about a US Marshall played by Leonardo DiCaprio who enters a mental asylum for the criminally insane to investigate the disappearance of a prisoner/patient. You immediately know that the obvious plot would be some version of insidious hospital torturing sane patients or an insane narrator. We’ve all seen these movies before. And this doesn’t disappoint by avoiding obvious plot expectations. It disappoints by following them and then flushing them out completely until you are bored and then bored again as everything gets spelled out. I don’t need to ruin the “twist” but you know exactly what it is without me saying anything.

It’s too bad because the first hour of the film is beautiful and haunting. There are striking dream imagery and some genuinely scary moments. But this is the problem. The first half of the film is dramatic and filled with action, sets, interesting characters and complex conversations. It starts as a surreal mystery and then the last hour and a half is several boring conversations. There’s an entire scene of at least five minutes that feels interminable in which DiCaprio has a boring conversation with Patricia Clarkson that consists entirely of cutting between a close-up of him and a close-up of her. Back and forth and back and forth. I’m insulted by how boring it was. And then there are another two or three scenes of conversations that explain one way of looking at things and then explain in words another way and then Ben Kingsley who runs the asylum uses a diagram written on a board to explain something else like it’s a class lecture. If you can’t show it with action, do not spell it out like a lecture. That’s not filmic! That’s boring. They should have known that they were doomed when they couldn’t storyboard that scene any better. It feels like Scorcese just gave up directing half way through and then slapped an ending on top of the boring section that follows through illustrating all the stuff they talked about before. Terrible. Just terrible. DiCaprio is good through all of this and I don’t usually like him. And then the very last scene has another twist. But by then it’s too late and you are begging for it to end. All the visually interesting parts have long since passed you by and you are in reality which is totally dull after the spooky, fascinating and trippy first half. A total let down.