Alex: True Grit (2010)

          True Girt is another example of why movie trailers are not to be trusted. Everything about the True Grit trailer pointed to it being the best film of the year. COEN BROTHERS. WESTERN. JEFF BRIDGES. MATT DAMON. ADORABLE GIRL. JOHNY FUCKING CASH. My friends and I, whose opinions appear in this very space, were positively a tizzy about the movie and the sheer brilliance that was going to be shoved down our eyeholes. Sadly this was not to be.
          The movie focuses on Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a 14-year-old girl looking to avenge the death of her father. The story begins with Ross arriving in a rural western town to settle the affairs of her family, and to begin her personal vendetta against her father’s murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Ross is a fast-talking, intelligent girl able to outwit the adults who insist she is too young to go out into the country hunt a man wanted across the states and territories of what was at the time the Southwest. To help in her quest she enlists U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) a ruthless old man and drunkard. In town she meets Texas Ranger Laboeuf (Matt Damon) who is looking to bring Cheney to justice for a crime he committed in Texas. The three set out into the impossibly vast country looking for the criminal.
          And if you’ve seen any movie, ever, you should be able to piece together what happens next. The three bicker. Laboeuf leaves. He gets in trouble and Ross and Cogburn save him. Cogburn reveals that he really is an old drunk. Laboeuf leaves again. Every scene telegraphs what is about to happen and the entire script fits into the simplest plot the Coen Brothers have ever put to film. There is no discussion of morality or depth to the story like in the duo’s previous western, No Country for Old Men. The three heroes set off to catch the bad guy, and then, 90 minutes later, they do.
          The simple nature of the plot, however, does not make the movie bad. Bridges and Damon give excellent performances and Steinfeld stands with them unflinchingly. The dialogue is the best you will hear this year outside of the Social Network. The threesome throw complex zingers at one another for the duration of the movie and the chemistry between them, particularly Bridges and Steinfeld, is entertaining to watch. The Coen Brothers captured the setting with respect and admiration of the vastness of the West. Other westerns and Red Dead Redemption glorify sleeping out under the stars and getting everywhere by horse back, but True Grit accurately captures the anxiety that stems from the fact that the only law in the country is the gun you have and your ability to shoot it straight. The compete isolation that the characters feel after they left town is shown by the actors and captured the directors. I find that world absolutely terrifying, but that’s only because I’m a wimp. I would not last a day in the Wild West.
          Sam said it best on facebook. “True Grit is a very good movie, a great Western, and a mediocre Coen Brothers film.” If you want to spend your 10 bucks on an enjoyable movie with great performances go see True Grit. But the fact is that, even though it could have been, and even though I wanted it to be, True Grit is not the best film of the year.

Sam: Black Swan (2010)

          “The Wrestler” was crap. It was a simple comeback movie used to be the comeback for a star (who should have stayed in obscurity) that relied on a very cheap archetype. It tugged on heartstrings in ways it knew would engender positive critic response. So, when I say Darren Aronofsky has made the best film of his career, it means he only marginally beat out “Requiem for a Dream” considering his only other films included “The Wrestler”, “The Fountain”, and “Pi”. He is hardly a seasoned director. However, in a time when people are taking risks in film for the sole purpose of seaming bold and artistically superior, Aronofsky takes a major risk that ends up being so fulfilling.
          The story is so. An ingénue ballerina (Brilliant and Bulimic Natalie Portman) finally lands the role of her dreams as the Swan Queen (both white and evil black) in her company’s production of a re-envisioned Swan Lake. She soon meets a new ballerina from San Francisco who seems to be both friend and foe. She the embarks on a quest imparted on her by the ballet's director (Vincent Cassel) to become "Perfect". The pressure continues to build on Portman’s character Nina and it starts to manifest itself in slight mental slippages and finger rippages.She begins to feel intense physical and mental changes that seem to parallel the story of Swan Lake. She becomes both the black and white swan. Eventually, the story culminates with a desperate move on Nina’s behalf to keep Lily (Mila Kunis) from taking her role in the ballet’s premier.
          So, where did Aronofsky go right? Well, as I mentioned before, Aronofsky takes a huge risk. He does this by setting his film in a world of mirrors. In fact, the ballet’s rehearsal rooms are covered wall to wall in mirrors. This presents the problem of not letting the camera be seen in the constant reflection. Even outside of the Lincoln Center location Aronofsky surrounds the actors with mirrors that seem to offer a visual of Nina’s confined dark side. He manages to never let the audience glimpse the camera, which poses the initial difficulty of whether he will use innovative camera placement or CGI reflections. Aronofsky uses both methods in very appropriate manners depending on each scenario and ends up with an almost two-hour film with a mirror in every single scene (no exaggeration). I applaud him for it.
          The writing is not at a loss either. There is incredibly subtlety in the language, although some blatant and utterly laughable lines slip through the delicately weaved vale of dialogue. For example, the scene where Nina and her mother briefly argue about who was the more promising ballerina and Nina’s mother just slightly hints that Nina was an accident, revealing a whole layer of the mother’s character. But at other times, the provocative nature becomes simply too much and you are forced to watch silently well holding in gut-laughs (“Show me your black swan, Nina” and “Did you suck his cock?”). Other than that, the story was well put together and excellently spiced with ballet techno-babble (I still don’t know what a Coda is), and the ending didn’t rely on a canned twist that we’ve seen thousands of times before. I only wish more thrillers were so concise and elegant.
          The acting is one thing that truly stood out in this film. Although I could sit here and type out a long winded paragraph on how great Natalie Portman was in this, I would rather like to focus on the supporting cast and say only this: Natalie Portman is able to act because of how smart she is. She truly understands human emotion and full psychological immersion. She is Nina. However, the film ultimately sparkles with the help of an impeccable supporting cast. Barbara Hershey as Nina’s mother is one of the best older female roles since the mother from “Carrie”. She is appropriately loving and creepy with a hint of abusive and neurotic. If anyone is to blame for this films critical success, it is the brilliant Ms. Hershey. Vincent Cassel never disappoints and this film is no exception. Mila Kunis is finally embraced as a full on sex symbol and thusly emerges as one of the sexiest Femme Fatales to grace the silver screen. Finally, there’s Winona Ryder. She’s excellent but gets so little screen time she never really gets noticed. If only someone would give her a leading role.
          Some may consider the film disturbing. Well, that's because it is. I mean there are some pretty disgusting visuals that include a woman stabbing herself in the face and Natalie Portman's feet becoming webbed. Also, her toenail cracks clean in half. This doesn't retrospectively hurt the film and only improves the dark motif of transformation. Also, the awesome lesbian sex scene makes up for all of it.
Ultimately, this uber creepy thriller makes you leave the theater checking your fingers for hangnails, hoping to god you won’t find one. And that’s exactly what this kind of movie should do. This beautiful psycho thriller simply puts you in the dark, underground world of ballerinas and gives you irrational fears (like your kneecaps inverting) because of how astonishingly real it seems, despite some heavily outlandish content. Aronofsky took his gritty side of film making and put it to some good use. Instead of being unnecessary like “The Wrestler” (which could have been easily polished into a Hollywood cookie cutter piece) he used basic but uncomfortably close shots and a cheap camera to ensnare the audience in what would otherwise be a run-of-the-mill, twist-based bowl of swan excrement. One final statement: This movie may have almost been "perfect" but I much rather preferred the ballet scene in "Top Secret!"

Introducing: Diane

          A couple weeks ago we said hello to Emily as she became the newest writer for Any Old Film. But then, in a truly Shyamalanian twist she never showed up. It was like she didn't even exist. Or was dead. No word yet on whether or not she still plans on writing anything... or apologizing for being a lying liar who might possibly be dead in a dumpster somewhere.
          In the meantime, we can bid a hearty welcome to our newest newcomer, Diane. Diane approached me with some review ideas already in hand and I just couldn't turn them down. I know she'll produce some great material and I can't wait to read it. In fact, you can expect her first review to be put up sometime next week. Diane, welcome aboard, I can't tell you how glad we are to have you, and like with all the other newcomers, I have to warn you to stay away from Sam, we keep him on a short leash... literally. It's so he doesn't bite anyone, so just stay away from his corner.

Marcus: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

          I've read all the Harry Potter books and seen the movies but I want to say right away that I'm not a fan. It's not that I dislike the series, I'm simply impartial. I read each book exactly once, and I can't even remember Richard Harris' face without looking up a picture from the first two movies (he was the original Dumbledore). I don't own any Harry Potter fan gear or merchandise, and I will lose almost every game of Harry Potter Trivial Pursuit that I take part in. I've merely gone with the flow on this cultural phenomenon, I haven't studied the minutiae of the mythos, and I have no regrets about this. I also believe this allows me to write a review that is relatively unbiased, let's see how it goes.
          "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is quite different from all the other movies in the franchise. An important thing to remember about making any movie is knowing what the intended audience is going to like. For example, fans of Transformers love action, explosions, cool CGI effects, and shitty writing. Twilight fans are much easier to please because they don't even need the action, explosions, or cool CGI effects. Harry Potter fans love the whimsical magic, the diverse characters, the escapist fantasies and momentary release from the realms of reality. It's fun to imagine a world like that of Harry Potter, where you're free to turn invisible or dissaparate on a whim or totally do it with a Death Eater.
          My point is that, what I think Harry Potter fans are less inclined to, and paradoxically what I think this movie succeeds best at, is technical mastery of cinematography. The camera work in this movie is superb. The settings are gorgeous, and I mean the natural settings, not even including the ones with giant chambers and impossibly constructed ramshackle shacks. The outdoor shots could be assembled into a well compiled montage of reasons to visit Britain, even at its gloomiest. At this point, I won't be surprised if the movie gets an Oscar for cinematography, or at least a nomination. But the real shame about this is I feel the effort will be lost on most fans. Obviously they expect a good movie, but the work here goes so far beyond simply showing the spells and creatures and villains, and yet I feel the appreciation will be lost amongst many, for the major issue I will now address.
          In comparison to all the Harry Potter movies that have come before it, Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is really uneventful. It's a shame because some people may say it's boring, but there's a distinction to be made. It's an interesting movie, a lot of important events happen. But a lot, and I do mean A LOT of the movie is made up of glorious scenery shots and pans and blocks of heavy dialogue with minimal action that just aren't what the Potter fan base is all about. The books were great because they allowed so much freedom of imagination, to picture for ourselves the world as we wanted. Now that we're being shown the world, there's nothing else for us to imagine, and because this movie is really lacking in action packed fight scenes, especially throughout the middle, all we can do is sit and watch them talk in tents or shacks or old houses. They're filling in the pictures, essentially doing for us what was the best part of reading the books.
          The thing I do appreciate is that they do a bloody good job with the visuals, the setting, the locations, the mood. But no matter how well it's done, people are always going to prefer the image they originally had in their heads. That being the case, a lot of the movie can come off slow, which again is necessary to set up the cinematic orgasm that is sure to be Part 2. But I feel that this movie could never be a total hit because it doesn't have action, and it needs to compensate for that with other visuals. It's tough for me to say because this movie is executed so well, and I know it's going to be hugely successful, and that many people would disagree with this opinion. But it's reasons like this I will always be a "the book was better guy," because no matter how close a movie comes in quality (and Harry Potter gets about as close as they come), you do the fans a disservice by asserting your visual imaginings over theirs, and that's never a good thing.

Marcus: Starship Troopers (1997)

          New review, here we go. And wouldn't you know it, I'm at a loss.

          I'm not at a loss because I don't know what movie to review, as the title would indicate, nor am I at a loss because I don't have anything to say about the movie. It's just that, in the end, I'm not sure how I feel about "Starship Troopers." Is it good? Is it bad? Is it a masterfully crafted silly piece of drivel? Is it a poorly executed attempt at a modern masterpiece? The answer to these is the same answer to the question of why am I writing this review with my head covered in baby powder: I can never definitively say.

          Let's start by noting that the film was nominated for an Academy award for best visual effects. It lost to "Titanic," but what the hell didn't lose to "Titanic"? And the film does have some great effects ranging from vast and epic to personal and detailed. The film does a great job showing shots of both huge vistas of exploding starships and close-ups of a dude getting his brain sucked out of his head. That's what I respect so much about this movie, it seems to make excellent use of its budget and I really believe the setting and visuals.

          But at the same time, and here's where my inner conflict starts to occur, I still find it cheesy. I don't think there is any real reason to feel that way. The movie is dark, violent, gritty. But I still feel like, I don't know, it's goofy somehow. I think it stems from the choice of casting. You've got Casper the friendly Van Dien as Johnny Rico, the infantryman quickly rising through the ranks, and who's so soft spoken that even when he's shouting threats at you, you feel he's going to end by asking you if you'd like a glass of warm milk to help you get to sleep. Then you've got Denise Richards as Carmen Ibanez, who's supposed to be, like, totally smart or something, and, like, eligible to become a pilot, which is, like, totally a big deal. Then, what better actor to top off the leading cast of an interstellar war movie than musical theater/comedy phenom Neil Patrick Harris as Carl Jenkins. He's the braniac, the military intelligence officer, the one making the tough calls, though far removed from the field of battle. These three have vowed to always stay friends even though their jobs could leave them stationed billions of miles away from each other (which of course doesn't happen) which is sweetly naive, especially when the first message Carmen sends Johnny is a video saying she's breaking up with him.

          Michael Ironside is in it too, which is totally badass. He has a metal arm, which just exponentiates my last statement. But keep in mind, he's a supporting character in a movie where nearly every supporting character dies (What I'm trying to say is, he dies, but his death is also pretty badass).

          So here's the problem: usually I can weigh the pros and cons of a movie and still come out knowing whether or not I like it. In this case, I can say I enjoyed "Starship Troopers" but I don't know if it's in a mocking way or because it's legitimately awesome. It's all very confusing. I think it wanted to make something like "Aliens," but ended up more like "Mars Attacks!"

          So much inner turmoil... I need to go write in my journal, or make a magazine cutout collage or something.

Introducing: Emily

          We have a new contributor joining us here at Any Old Film. From now on expect to see some articles from another hilarious person, Emily. All of us who already write for this site are good friends with Emily and we know her addition to the team will not only make us stronger as a whole, but more diverse because up until now we've just been a band of four stinky dudes (seriously guys? I don't believe that none of you know where that stench is coming from and I swear I'll fight to my last breath discovering its horrendous source). We thank Emily for agreeing to join our cause here of voicing opinions while celebrating the world of cinema (even the movies we hate... Especially the movies we hate). Emily, welcome aboard, we know you'll be a great asset, we just hope you can stand the smell (WHERE THE HELL IS IT COMING FROM?!).

Marcus: Nosferatu: A Symphony Of Horror (1922)

Once a movie is by and large accepted as a classic, there is not much that it can do to reverse that decision. Sure, some movies don’t age as well as others, they lose their relevance or they make references to parts of an era that are long gone and forgotten. Keep in mind, though, that the film industry’s really only been around for about a hundred years, but in that time we’ve amassed quite a library of films that would be considered historically or aesthetically important. But there becomes a point where, no matter how groundbreaking a film is, no matter how revolutionary or insightful or heart-stoppingly wonderful a piece of cinema it is, it just becomes so dated that it affects how you watch it. You pop in The Godfather and it’s always going to have that strong message of the mixing of corruption and family and whatever else that movie’s about, but when you watch a “classic” that is clearly past its prime, the mere quality of its oldness becomes a noticeable factor in and of itself.

Enter “Nosferatu,” directed by a man named F.W. Murnau (the F.W. stands for Friedrich Wilhelm, but apparently even he thought it was too German to keep calling himself by his full name). You’ve probably never heard of F.W. because he’s been dead for quite some time. In fact, everyone involved with this movie is dead, many of them were dead by the time World War II broke out, and all of them were dead by the 70’s. Many of their children are probably dead as well. I know I’m painting a grim portrait, but it’s just to show you how absolutely old this movie is.

“Nosferatu” is consistently ranked among the top 100 films ever made by any magazine or institution who claims to give a damn about cinema, and to say the movie was a revolution for its time is completely true. F.W. Murnau not only wanted to show action, he wanted to show where it was happening. Setting plays a huge part in “Nosferatu” where it rarely did in films preceding it. Murnau sets up some artistically beautiful shots in his film, a method which at the time, really was groundbreaking.

So it was ahead of its time, but remember, its time was 1922. It’s gotten to the point where the technology available to make it (or lack thereof) is so prominent, it takes away from the experience. The film is so grainy and skippy and jumpy, it’s like a first date on the beach. And the actors! Oh the actors with their overacting! These are people who began their careers without the medium of film, so they learned the craft of stage acting and only stage acting. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great way to perform when you have audience members half a mile away, but on film every action comes off as grandiose and every emotion is so overwrought. It’s not so much a Charlie Chaplin type of exaggeration, it’s more of a starved for attention exaggeration. Granted, these actors had to convey the language through their actions, because hey, silent film’s a bitch like that.

Still, none of this explains why when the film does cut to a block of text (a narration by an unseen character, or a page from a book, for example), it stays there for a full minute. It’s three sentences, honestly, I know the illiteracy rate was higher back then, but the people who could read should have been able to do so at more than a word a lifetime. It seems like we’re staring at these short, short pages of text for well longer than is required. And at one point it repeats! A second character reads from a book that had already been read, and yet the page comes up again, for the same amount of time as before. It’s the definition of redundant. I mean that the action demonstrates redundancy in its purest form, the page that was read twice didn’t actually have the definition of redundancy on it.

I can also appreciate the fact that this was made in a time where they must have still been experimenting with the concept of a film having a soundtrack. There is what I think can technically be called music playing, but it’s like someone let a toddler loose in a room with a piano and a one-string bass. There’s almost no point where the music adds to the scene at hand, nor does it correlate to the actions that are taking place on screen. It’s all just wandering notes. I like that there’s some sound, I just wish it wasn’t random sound. For a film that has the word "Symphony" in its subtitle, you'd expect the music not to suck so much.

Ok… ok deep breath. I’m getting too worked up about stuff that was really out of the foresight of the creators, it was no fault of their’s that the film wouldn’t live up to future standards. What’s important to remember is that for its time this was as good as it got. I need to focus on the positive. And boy oh boy is there one giant nose nugget of positive yet to pick.

Despite what I said about the acting, it does not apply to the antagonist of the film, Count Orlok (it’s actually supposed to be Dracula, but they couldn’t get the rights to that so shhhhh) played by a gentleman named Max Schreck (different spelling from the Christopher Walken character in Batman Returns, but allegedly the inspiration for it). Now, I know nothing about Max Schreck or his other work, but I can assume that he is either the greatest actor to have ever lived, or completely and utterly psychotic. If Bela Lugosi romanticized the vampire, that’s only because Max Schreck first presented the notion of a vampire as being creepy as Satan’s grundle. And really, when you’re perceived as being as creepy as Lucifer’s taint, you can really only go up from there. I’m confident that the image of Max Schreck as Orlok will haunt me for a good ten months, and even after it’s done haunting me, it’ll still be there, oh yes, he’ll be lurking down there in my mind with his wide, bulgy eyes with dark circles and his inhuman thinness and his… his long fingernails and weird turban thing he sometimes wears and his crooked, pointy teeth, and the way he walks without bending a single joint in his body and the way he always turns around to look behind him, with the eyes looking first, and then the rest of his head… so slooooowwwwly.

What I’m trying to say is that, despite its age, “Nosferatu” will still give you a good scare, or at least creep you out, and you should definitely give it a chance, but prepare to have the image of Orlok tattooed in your dreams for a while afterwards, probably accompanied by some shitty music.