A Serious Man.

Review #1552: A Serious Man.

Cast: 
Michael Stuhlbarg (Lawrence "Larry" Gopnik), Richard Kind (Arthur Gopnik), Fred Melamed (Sy Ableman), Sari Lennick (Judith Gopnik), Aaron Wolff (Danny Gopnik), Jessica McManus (Sarah Gopnik), Alan Mandell (Rabbi Marshak), Adam Arkin (Don Milgram), George Wyner (Rabbi Nachtner), and Amy Landecker (Mrs. Vivienne Samsky) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, and #1517 - The Big Lebowski)

Review: 
"There were Jewish characters, but in regards to whether our background influences our film making who knows? We don't think about it. There's no doubt that our Jewish heritage affects how we see things."

It all started out with an idea for a short. The Coens envisioned a short film that would be about a conversation between a kid has with an elder rabbi that they described as a sort of "mysterious figure" after his bar mitzvah. Naturally this would spiral into  Some of the characters present in the film had inspiration from people the Coens knew growing up in Minnesota (such as with Melamed's character), with this taking place in 1967 (being shot in Bloomington but set in the Coens' birthplace of St. Louis Park) that reflect their upbringing in spirituality in study as children (Ethan once described wanting to explore the "incongruity" of Jews living in the Midwest as its own "strange subculture" - interpret that however you will). This is their 14th feature film together, which like most of their previous work they also served as editor for in a decade that was their busiest and most prominent as directors/writers/editors/producers (seven in total, which ranged from crime drama to dark comedy).

Sometimes you just have a film where the amusement comes in wincing at what is going on, where certainties and perceptions are never what one might think are coming, particularly when needing answers that suit tradition. Sometimes it all comes down to having one bump in the road turning out to spiral into something way worse, as perspective gives way to irony. Paradox and ambiguity are at the forefront here in a film that reaches as darkly amusing at times, one that will likely benefit from a re-watch for those who find its mesh of fictional and autobiographical work to prove a useful fable that fits upon telling (supposedly helpful) fables of its own involving dybbuks and symbols, which go hand-in-hand with moments that range from attempts at avoid bribes/blackmail to strange neighbors. This was the first starring role in film for Stuhlbarg, who had been acting in the theater since 1992 and in minor film + TV roles since 1998. He does quite well with a role that almost seems to be an observer in his own story, capturing pathos with a well-infused sense of anguish and confusion that manages to reflect well for a viewer in what is found and not found with him to look upon without having to spelled out for us. He reflects the alienation and hollow charade that can come from the conflict of certainty versus mystery of life, one who has been described as fitting the mold of the Book of Job (a Hebrew Bible book on divine wisdom and suffering) that might as well fit into a parable for the times now, which he does with well reflection. Kind makes for an interesting creature of habit in his time on screen, one that reflects his on-screen brother with careful and distinct sad quality. Melamed utilizes his time as a greatly captured creature of smug confidence, warm to the point of overheating that makes an amusing curiosity. Lennick fits the mold of no-nonsense interest that gravitates towards said serious folks with brazen confidence. Wolff and McManus do fine as the children of their own path of life and spirit, while Wyner provides the best laugh in the whole film in a scene near the end and Landecker does well in one elusive scene. The ending is as offbeat and elusive as the mysteries that came before it, which certainly will be interesting for those who find it worthwhile to fit its revolving message of mystery without needing a direct answer (or for others something of a cypher). It is a peculiar movie, fitting best for those with prior experience with the films of the Coen brothers or for those who like something with its own way of telling a story about mystery and certainty that work itself just well enough for satisfaction in the long run.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Review #1148: Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode / Keri Tate), Chris Durand (Michael Myers), Michelle Williams (Molly Cartwell), Josh Hartnett (John Tate), Adam Arkin (Will Brennan), Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (Sarah Wainthrope), LL Cool J (Ronald "Ronny" Jones), Adam Hann-Byrd (Charlie Deveraux), Janet Leigh (Norma Watson), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers-Whittington), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Jimmy Howell) Directed by Steve Miner (#761 - Friday the 13th Part 2)

Review: 
Hmm, a Halloween film review? Must be that time of season again - or perhaps there is a new Halloween film out, complete with ignoring continuity of the previous few films and having it star Jamie Lee Curtis being stalked by Michael Myers yet again. Obviously I wanted to be a bit thorough with this review and some of its background, so I hope you enjoy the final result.

There is something to be said about doing another Halloween film, as this is the seventh film of this franchise that reached its highest point of suspense and terror with its original installment in 1978. Although I do find some enjoyment from some of the sequels that followed (whether for a few cheap scares or laughs), it is weird to see an attempt to try and capture the magic in the bottle once again after seeing how the franchise had progressed in the previous three installments, which reached the bottom of the barrel in scares. The fact that this film washes away the continuity of those films should mean that there is some hope for a good horror film that doesn't delve into a cheap shadow of what had made the original (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the sequel) so effective. Having Curtis back also pulls a point in that hopeful direction, since she had expressed in bringing back people from the original, such as John Carpenter. However, he expressed a demand for a starting fee of $10 million that was rejected, which led to him not directing. The film was based on a story by Kevin Williamson (writer of Scream who is credited as one of the executive producers for the film) that would develop into a screenplay written by Robert Zappia and Matt Greenberg, although Williamson would do un-credited re-writes for certain parts such as character dialogue, and it was his idea to come up with the story-line involving the paramedics that would be followed up in the sequel that was filmed after shooting had ended. The working title for the film was "Halloween 7: The Revenge of Laurie Strode", and there was a version of the script in which the events of 4-6 were actually acknowledged at one point, but somewhere along the way it was decided to go with a title that is actually more ridiculous to say out loud than reading it on a screen. But I suppose the idea for titles in this series were running low, owing to the films that followed - alongside the idea to release it in August, clearly the month one thinks of for horror films.

With all of this, how does the actual product pan out? On the one hand, it doesn't go as low as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers in terms of execution, but there isn't anything here besides the climax that is particularly interesting, and it doesn't approach the levels of either the original, Halloween II, or even the fourth one, which was really more of a cheap thrill made ten years after the original. Ten years after that, and they still can't make a Halloween installment that actually has some sort of real scares or interesting side characters. Oddly enough, the easiest sticking point I have with this film involves Myers. For the second film (which the film doesn't ignore), he had burnt to a cinder, while having his eyes shot out. With this one, you see too much of him and his eyes (particularly when trying to fake out the audience), which only cheapens his presence for actual moments to try and spook the audience. This is made especially weird by the fact that there is a scene involving Myers in a CGI mask meant to cover up the original mask used for the scene. It's just weird in general that there were numerous masks used for the film in general, as if it was really hard to pick one and just stick with it. By the time the fourth or fifth jump scare happens, the film seems to glue itself into mediocrity. I suppose the best trick this movie has up its sleeve is to try and have jump scares and comic relief bits (such as LL Cool J talking to his off-screen wife about some ambitions to write romance novels) as if they will make up for the already stacked cliches that seem to date this film more than the original. Perhaps they wanted to out-do the original in cheesy dialogue. I can understand what they were trying to do with the focus on Laurie and her trauma and how it affects her after twenty years, especially with her son. However, the writing doesn't make this go anywhere besides cursory moments. However, the climax makes it nearly worth it in a ridiculous yet weirdly satisfying way, a venting out of frustration by Curtis' character that leads to an action that would have perfectly encapsulated the end of this franchise...but of course, that is not quite the case. At least its somewhat tolerable at 86 minutes.

Curtis, in her third go at the role, is the best part of the film. You can see her effort to try and give this role some sort of growth in the time elapsed since the original two films that make her someone worth following. It's easy to see why she wanted to be back for another one of these films (later expressing her love of the film despite calling it a payday movie), and she is easily the best part of the final showdown, taking control of how this film uses its one effective trick. The other actors aren't terrible, but most of them are fairly wooden, with the teenagers not being at all interesting to be with, especially with Hartnett. I suppose they thought it would be really clever to have Leigh (mother of Curtis) be in the film for a few scenes - complete with the same car used by her in Psycho (1960). At least we get to see Stephens (present in the first two films) in the opening sequence, the first in a few ways to invoke memories from the past - for better or worse. By the time Myers starts terrorizing this group, you don't really care who survives or not, and the deaths seem pretty hollow this time around. Maybe its the fact that there is no character in the vein of Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence until his death in 1995) besides a reference in the opening scene that makes this film feel hollow with its pursuits. Ultimately, this is a Halloween product that only serves as a pale shadow of the original two films that should have served as the end for this series.

But of course, that's not the case, is it...?

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.