Review: "The Bourne Legacy"

Director: Tony Gilroy
Runtime: 135 minutes

Rather than function as a full-blown sequel or prequel, The Bourne Legacy exists as a standalone adventure that exists alongside some of the events of 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum. Though Jason Bourne (Matt Damon, sorely missed) never appears on screen, the events of his story do tie in to the somewhat convoluted narrative involving the CIA and an experimental program gone awry. Yet even though series scribe Tony Gilroy is still involved (he also takes over directing duties), it's difficult to jump back into the Bourne universe this time around.

The most immediate, and glaring problem, is the characterization (or lacktherof). Though Jeremy Renner performs convincingly in the role of ex-agent Aaron Cross, he has no depth outside of his desire for answers. Were his quest understandable, this wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, Gilroy's screenplay is so dense, vague, and at times fractured, that it's difficult to get a grasp on the film's protagonist. Gilroy introduces a supposedly important plot point - a series of pills that Cross is required to take on a rigorous schedule - but never gives a decent explanation as to what they really do or why they matter.

With so little to latch on to, The Bourne Legacy trudges on through its first two acts or so. Throughout the narrative, we're given some painfully vague glimpses into Aaron Cross' past, but it adds up to precious little that carries any weight. Not helping things is a surprisingly uneven turn from Rachel Weisz, cast as a scientist who Cross coerces into aiding him in his quest for...whatever the hell he's supposed to be after. Things improve for the actress in the final act, but in one key scene (an interrogation), she's all lightweight surface, awkwardly shifting gears from anxiety/confusion to anger. 

Only in the finale does Legacy start to feel like a proper entry in the Bourne series. As dull and stagnant as much of the film feels, Gilroy and DP Robert Elswitt do an excellent job when it comes to capturing the film's action sequences, which have the series' trademark gritty energy and verve. Editor John Gilroy smartly strings them together, creating an electric sense of pace while still holding on shots long enough to give the viewer a clear sense of what's going on. 

Yet the finale isn't nearly enough to redeem the film as a whole. By and large, it feels dense , but also completely uninteresting. The vague sense that something important is happening pervades the run of dimly lit office scenes with Norton and company, but all it ever amounts to is one big shrug. Worse still is that Gilroy ends on a note meant to suggest some romantic possibility between Renner and Weisz, despite their absolute lack of chemistry.There is so little to latch on to here, that The Bourne Legacy ultimately becomes everything its predecessors weren't: just another action movie that lacks any pulse whenever people aren't running, jumping, punching, or shooting.

Grade: C/C-

Review: "Bachelorette"

Director: Leslye Headland
Runtime: 87 minutes

It would be easy to dismiss Leslye Headland's Bachelorette on the grounds that it is nothing more than a cheap cash-in on the R-rated lady comedy trend bolstered by last year's Bridesmaids. However, that's not quite the case. Headland's film is based on her own play. Even if Bridesmaids paved the way for something like Bachelorette, this particular film shouldn't be passed over just because of its timing. Why? Because there are so many legitimate reasons to ignore Headland's dumb, ugly, and unpleasant film.

Regan (Kirsten Dunst), Gena (Lizzy Caplan), and Katie (Isla Fisher), three best friends from high school, suddenly find themselves in the bridal party of Becky (Bridesmaids' Rebel Wilson), whom they used to make fun of. To the dismay of the trio (mostly Katie), Becky says that her bachelorette party will be a tame affair, consisting of little more than hanging out in a nice hotel room and eating ice cream. Desperate to spice things up, Regan, Gena, and Katie soon find themselves in over their heads when matrimonial disaster strikes in a moment of mean-spirited fun.

And by matrimonial disaster, I'm talking about the moment when Regan and Katie, squeezing both of their bodies into Becky's plus size wedding dress, tear it almost completely in half. As part of a larger tapestry of screw ups, this incident could lend itself to a wild ride of bridal party hijinks. But that's it. No, really. The driving force of the plot is the torn dress, and nothing more. The only other wild and crazy incident in the whole mess is that Gena and Katie both did cocaine earlier in the night. Can you handle the manufactured wackiness? Suffice it to say that there are more laughs in any one of Bridesmaids' comedic set pieces than in the entirety of this film.

Not helping matters is that Headland doesn't seem interested in making her characters interesting or multidimensional. This only becomes a bigger problem because they're not remotely likable. Regan is a type-A bitch, Gena is a sarcastic slacker, and Katie is just an over-the-top party girl. The roles do little to capitalize on the gifts of the talented women playing them, especially when it comes to Fisher's Katie, who's rendered little more than a shrill and cartoonish nuisance. Headland seems to be striving for (once again, mind the comparison's chronological faults) a mix of The Hangover and Bridesmaids by way of a Noah Baumbach film, and it flat out doesn't work. I'm usually not keen on much Mr. Baumbach's work, but at least he's capable of crafting insightful character portraits and drawing strong turns from his leads. If Headland possesses that talent, she's done nothing here to indicate that this is the case.

And so Bachelorette chugs along, throwing in three blank 'love' interests (Adam Scott, James Marsden, and Kyle Bornheimer) for our protagonists, and an over dose subplot that only drags the film further down the rabbit hole into tedium. Much could be forgiven if the writing had any punch to it, but it just feels blunt, dumb, and mean. The occasional line or gag registers, but the successes are still weighed down by the failures of the whole enterprise. Worse is that Headland tries to wrap things up in typical raunchy rom-com fashion, with a happy ending where everyone gets together with "the right one." It's that unfortunate sort of bad movie where not even the strengths of the cast members make it worth checking out.

Grade: D

Review: "The Campaign"

Director: Jay Roach
Runtime: 85 minutes

Despite an early penchant for goofball comedies like Austin Powers and Meet the Parents, Jay Roach has evolved into quite the politically minded director. First came 2008's HBO film Recount, which tackled the aftermath of the (still) controversial recounts after the 2000 election. And then, just a few months ago, Roach and HBO gave us a second collaboration - Game Change - that looked behind the scenes of the 2008 election from the standpoint of the McCain/Palin campaign. Despite flashes of humor, both films showed that Roach was capable of doing much more than simply directing comedy vehicles for Ben Stiller. So, with the 2012 election right around the corner, it's not surprising to see a Roach-directed film in theaters centering around politics. The difference, though, is that Roach's latest, The Campaign, is a mix of the sincere political commentary of Roach's Game Change combined with the cartoon wackiness of your typical Will Ferrell comedy. As a result, the film is certainly relevant, but the humor is less successful, and The Campaign feels more like a valiant missed opportunity than a riotously funny political farce.

No stranger to playing larger-than-life oafs, Will Ferrell plays Cam Brady, a North Carolina Congressman who has never lost an election...because he was always running unopposed.  Over in Washington D.C., the manipulative Motch brothers (Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow)   decide that Brady's district would be the perfect spot to pull off a scheme to help them become even wealthier. They decide to fund a candidate to unseat Brady, and settle on Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis), a sweet oddball of a man who is estranged from his wealthy father (Brian Cox). From there, it's a slowly escalating war of idiocy as Huggins tries to take on Brady.

And just as Ferrell is comfortable playing oafs, Galifianakis is more than comfortable playing oddballs. Marty is a mincing, oddly prissy man who seems incapable of ever becoming angry, and Galifianakis nails the role when it comes to the broad strokes of the part. Unlike Ferrell, Galifianakis has a role that is (somewhat) opened up for an iota of genuine depth. After Brady humiliates Huggins at a supposedly friendly political breakfast, we see Marty walking to his car in tears. But Roach isn't playing up Marty's sadness for laughs. It's nothing heart-wrenching, to be certain, but Roach does allow it to work as a moment that can be played straight. Compared with the all-out silliness that characterized the Austin Powers films, The Campaign marks an interesting evolution in Roach's execution as a comedy director.

That's not to say that the film doesn't include the usual looniness. Most of it stems from Ferrell's side, particularly in the opening stretches before we first meet Marty. Where Marty is built up as a more sincere figures (despite some goofy scenes and lines), Cam is bombastic and hollow, though Roach and Ferrell keep the character from becoming as over the top as so many of the actor's other notable comedic roles. Playing things much more 'straight' is Dylan McDermott as Marty's Motch-appointed campaign manager, who so thoroughly gives Marty's life a make over that he even replaces his dogs (pugs) because they aren't American enough.

It's scenes like this that call to mind broader versions of the "make over" scenes of the Palin family in Game Change, and Roach proves adept at handling the very different forms of execution. Unfortunately, Roach doesn't really elevate the material he's working with, aside from keeping the proceedings from becoming total buffoonery. Though the film maintains a decent momentum, the script jumps unevenly between Brady and Huggins. Rather than feel like a solid look at both candidates, the alignment of scenes gives the feeling that the film would rather just stick with one major character, but then remembers that, oh yeah, there's that other guy. And even though the script has entertaining lines and scenes, they're more mildly amusing than hilarious. In trying to inject a bit of the maturity showcased in Game Change and Recount, Roach has somewhat sedated the broad comedy that the script is striving for. 

So when The Campaign settles into its last act, there's no doubt as to where it's going to go, in terms of narrative and message. Game Change, with its strong rooting in reality, packs more surprise. Ferrell and Galifianakis' talents are decently handled, but at this point in Roach's career, he doesn't seem like such a good fit for this sort of material on the whole. He wants to have dumb laughs and semi-earnest political commentary working side by side. Though it fares better than another Ferrell vehicle (the awful The Other Guys) in striving towards this goal, The Campaign winds up little more than a mildly amusing and thoughtful farce, rather  than a truly hilarious comedy with a thoughtful side.

Grade: C+

Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

Director: Christopher Nolan
Runtime: 165 minutes

To say that expectations have been high for The Dark Knight Rises would be a monumental understatement. Christopher Nolan certainly got off on the right foot with the 2005 reboot Batman Begins, bringing a brooding and gritty vibe to Gotham's Caped Crusader. With Nolan at the helm, the story of Bruce Wayne took on a newfound sense of darkness and dread, devoid of the campy sensibility that so pervaded Tim Burton's two late 80s/early 90s films and the much-maligned Joel Schumacher films (Batsuit nipples; never forget). Here was a superhero movie that stood, more than any before it, as a testament to the post-9/11 mindset of America, and the world at large. 

Now, I'll admit, I've avoided using the term "post-9/11" to describe Nolan's bat-flicks until just now. Yes, the two (now three) films exist in a darker and more realistic world, but the thematic connection to 9/11 seemed not to click. But the mind has a way of working these things out when we least expect it. Nolan's films show realistically rendered depictions of attacks on American soil in so many ways that have otherwise been absent in comic book adaptations. 

Violence, even for superheroes, was now capable of achieving a rather chilling resonance, whether it was watching Ra's Al Ghul try to launch a biological attack on Gotham in Begins, or watching the Joker's attempts to instigate anarchy across the city, the threats felt more powerful because we lived in an age where A) these things were eerily possible and B) we knew there were people out there who wanted to hurt us. If Sam Raimi's first two Spiderman films (and to a lesser extent, the first two X-Men films) took comic book movies into late adolescence, Batman Begins took them into full-blown adulthood.

Yet it was 2008's The Dark Knight, with a large debt owed to a certain Mr. Ledger, that turned Nolan's series into a critical and financial mega hit. In addition to the gushing praise for Ledger's turn as the Joker, Nolan's film also became labeled as the best comic book movie of all time. And, among certain segments of the population, it has even been hailed as one of the best movies of all time. Period. As in, people were prepared to compare it to The Godfather (let's not go there).

The big question for Nolan and company, of course, then became "how do we finish this trilogy without letting people down?" And when it comes to answering that question on paper, The Dark Knight Rises seems firmly headed in the right direction. Instead of trying to repeat the success of The Dark Knight's iconic villain - a lone figure who essentially defined the film - Nolan has split villain duties (sort of) between Tom Hardy's hulking Bane and Anne Hathaway's slippery Selina Kyle (Catwoman, sans moniker). Lightning doesn't strike in the same place twice, and Nolan was smart to try and spread the role of antagonist among multiple characters.

Yet for all that seems okay on paper, there are equally as many missteps in the writing and in the execution on-screen. There are many individual aspects to pick apart, but it all fits under one giant umbrella: Nolan (and co-writer/brother Jonathan Nolan) have simply tried to cram in too much, despite the 2 hr 45 min duration. Batman Begins contained itself with ease, and The Dark Knight, despite sometimes bursting at the seams, managed to hold all of its pieces together, if just barely. Yet the pressure to create an epic and satisfying ending has, unfortunately, blasted a massive crater in the franchise's armor. The characters and subplots are many, yet even with nearly three hours, there's barely room for any of it to breathe. Combine these problems with the serious tone and massive expectations, The Dark Knight Rises often buckles under its own weight.

Nolan has never made a film that I've found dull, but here he's finally made one where I was actively distracted by the pacing issues. The scenes don't drag so much as they feel like Nolan has misplaced the emphasis. After a fun, Bond-style opening introducing Bane, the movie settles in for quite a bit of set up, which involves everything from a cop (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) trying to help a boys' shelter, to a Wayne Industries board member who won't stop inquiring about an abandoned clean energy project (Marion Cotillard), to Bruce Wayne's physical and emotional recovery after eight years away from his alter ego. Nolan has so many dots to connect that he often races things along. It gives one the feeling that the writer/director simply expects us to just go with each development without daring to question it. The film may never become stagnant (thanks again, Lee Smith), but so often it feels, well, off. As lovely as Ms. Cotillard is, the romance that develops between her and Bruce comes right the hell out of nowhere, only so that it can be used later for a BIG moment that ultimately rings hollow and completely wastes the actress.

All of this is compounded by two big issues: dialogue and narrative structure. Nolan's tendency to have his characters spell out themes and motivations has, sadly only become a bigger problem since Inception. Sometimes it feels entirely appropriate (variations of Begins' "Why do we fall? So we can pick ourselves up again" line), yet often it’s just unnecessary. The personalities of the characters struggle to shine through because they're burdened with such heavy dialogue and thin characterization (as such, the series' returning players achieve the strongest emotional resonance). As for the structure, Nolan falls into an odd cycle of repetition. I'll avoid the details, but the film essentially puts Bruce Wayne through an arc of physical and emotional recovery twice during the film, when all it does is eat up time. It's the second arc that really deserves the time, yet a period of nearly half a year ends up flashing by so the film can charge into its conclusion. Not only does the second arc have the potential for more resonance, but it's also more interesting in what it reveals about Bane, and how it brings the trilogy full circle.

And so when all hell breaks loose in the finale, Nolan is stuck making a bunch of revelations and cutting among a bunch of threads so that they can reach their conclusions. On their own, any one of them could have worked, but in trying to be so epic in scope, the film accomplishes the plots with most of them not coming off as meaning much. In the end, only Wayne and Batman's story, though it has its share of rushed moments and implausibility, resonates. Against all odds its ending provides a lump-in-the-throat moment amid an otherwise emotionally-distant film.

That's not to say that the film is a complete loss, by any means. There's quite a bit that's well done, once one looks past the flaws. The performers, at least those with something to work with (sorry Ms. Cotillard, Ben Mendelsohn, Matthew Modine...) are all perfectly engaging. Bale does nice work in his last run as Wayne/Batman, adding an extra amount of pain and exhaustion where the script fails him. Hardy's Bane is also enjoyable, and his oddly suave and cheeky tone make him a compelling presence, even though he lacks the Joker's overt psychotic tendencies. The film's biggest and best surprise, however, is Hathaway, who manages to make Selina teasingly sexy without making her ludicrously sexual. Watching her switch her personality on and off with an effortless snappiness is one of the film's strongest elements, even though Nolan saddles her with a strange subplot in which she's looking for a powerful computer program.

On the production front the film is also aces, with nice cinematography and art direction. The only puzzling exception is that, for the first time, Gotham actually looks like it's made up of multiple cities (scenes were shot in New York, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh), instead of a cohesive metropolis. Hans Zimmer's kettle drum-heavy score, despite being repetitive, is used nicely to either enhance the tension and momentum, or add them when the film can't quite generate them on its own. And, as much as Nolan is to blame for the film's flaws, he also deserves credit for some of its successes. As a director, he remains capable of moving an audience through a dense narrative with surprising ease, despite the problems that pop up along the way. And, when it comes to pulling out show stopping moments that actually carry weight, his skills remain firmly intact. A massive attack at a football stadium is, besides massive in scale, truly stomach-churning, and the aforementioned finale is nicely handled despite the borderline ridiculous circumstances.

How it ends, I won't say, but at the very least Nolan ends with his best foot forward, more or less. The journey can be rough and overcrowded, but at the very least the ambition deserves some level of admiration, even when the execution sometimes falls short. Unfortunately, it's not just a case of expectations. The film is easily the weakest of Nolan's trilogy, despite some compelling stretches and decent acting. It may improve with time, once the disappointment has worn off and the flaws accepted, but it's a shame that such an adult-minded trilogy had to start tripping over itself as it crossed the finish line. As far as its craftsmanship and ambition, however, The Dark Knight Rises is still more successful than your average summer blockbuster. But in trying to cover so many bases instead of just cutting to the core narrative, this franchise's epic final chapter struggles to stay afloat. It doesn't sink, but only by a hair's breadth, thanks to its conviction and the goodwill built up from its two vastly superior predecessors.

Grade: B-

Personal Ballot: The 2012 Emmy Awards

I don't spend nearly as much time writing about TV on this site, which is odd considering the ludicrous number of shows that I try and keep up with. So, instead of merely commenting on just the Emmy winners and the show itself, I figured that this year I could spend a little more time on TV's biggest awards show, namely by offering up my picks for some of the main categories, along with my winner(s). Also, my friend Patrick has done this exact same thing over on his wonderful blog (link), and I'm once again tempted to steal his format again, just like I did for my Best of the Year/Oscar ballot a few months ago.

A quick word on the awards though. I'm generally trying to follow where shows are placed, which means that something like Sherlock will be left out (it was submitted as a miniseries). However, Downton Abbey, previously submitted as a miniseries, was submitted under drama series for its second season. Now, despite the amount of TV that I watch, I'm a little surprised at the categories that I'm unable to fill (the Emmys have 6 nominees in major categories, as opposed to the award show standard of 5). So, for certain categories, there may be a slot (or two...though I hope not) with a series of dashes. Clearly I'm still not watching enough TV, at least now when it comes to certain categories. Finally, as with my Oscars post, my picks are listed alphabetically, with the winner in bold/italics.

Outstanding Drama Series

Boardwalk Empire

Breaking Bad

Game of Thrones

Homeland

Justified

Mad Men

This was painfully close, especially because Breaking Bad's fourth season had so many breathtaking moments (remember the end of "Crawl Space?"). However, I'm giving it to Showtime's Homeland for starting off with such a stellar first season. The mystery, intrigue, and tension were handled in a way that many shows can only dream of doing in their first runs.

Outstanding Comedy Series

Archer

Community

Girls

Happy Endings

Parks and Recreation

Veep

Though season 4 marked a slight step down (the Tom and Anne subplot), Parks and Recreation was once again my favorite comedy. The characters are so well drawn and so fun, and the show knows how to be hilarious and still break out moments that are genuinely touching. Bonus points for excellent guest stars Kathryn Hahn and Paul Rudd.

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series

Steve Buscemi - Boardwalk Empire

Bryan Cranston - Breaking Bad

Jon Hamm - Mad Men
Jason Isaacs - Awake

Damian Lewis - Homeland

Timothy Olyphant - Justified

Another insanely difficult showdown between Breaking Bad and Homeland, and once again I find myself picking the freshman show. There was so much strong work in this category (even from Buscemi, who's show I have here almost as filler), but it really boiled down to Cranston and Lewis. The tipping point? Lewis' scene in the bunker in Homeland's season finale, which is such a tightly-coiled, emotional tour-de-force that it might be some of the best acting I've ever seen on TV.

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series

Claire Danes - Homeland

Michelle Dockery - Downton Abbey
Kelly Macdonald - Boardwalk Empire

Elisabeth Moss - Mad Men

--

--

As the other half of Homeland's dynamite leading duo, Danes was on fire from episode one. Carrie wasn't always likable or sympathetic, but Danes made sure we always knew where she was coming from. Even when scenes called for BIG emotions (the green pen, watching her work dismantled, etc...), Danes ensured that it never felt over the top or forced, and in turn gave us one of the most powerful performances of the past season.

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series

Alec Baldwin - 30Rock

H. Jon Benjamin - Archer

Louis C.K. - Louie
Neil Flynn - The Middle

Joel McHale - Community

Adam Scott - Parks and Recreation

Since joining Parks and Recreation at the end of its second season, Adam Scott has become one of the ensemble's most valuable assets. And as he relationship with Leslie developed even further in the show's fourth season, the actor only got more and more room to shine. Scott is, to a point, the show's straight man, yet he's never dull or the weak point. His facial expressions remain a joy to watch, and I'm often reminded of a less goofy/personable Jim Halpert. Well, before The Office started to collapse like a dying star.

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series

Laura Dern - Enlightened

Lena Dunham - Girls

Patricia Heaton - The Middle

Julia Louis-Dreyfus - Veep

Martha Plimpton - Raising Hope

Amy Poehler - Parks and Recreation

Poehler has been on fire ever since Parks and Recreation's second season (when they stopped trying to make her a female Michael Scott). While the show's third season remains my favorite (for now), the fourth season gave us Poehler's best work to date. Funny and goofy, yet still completely human, Leslie Knope comes out on top in a season filled with strong work, from established shows and promising new ones (had it not been for Poehler, this would have gone to Louis-Dreyfus' outstanding comedic exasperation on Veep).

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

Peter Dinklage - Game of Thrones

Giancarlo Esposito - Breaking Bad

Walton Goggins - Justified

Vincent Kartheiser - Mad Men

Aaron Paul - Breaking Bad

John Slattery - Mad Men

While I've had a little trouble filling out the leading categories, in supporting there's simply too much good work, this category included (Game of Thrones' Charles Dance is among the many not listed here). All of the work here is outstanding, and I gained a new found love for Slattery's work on Mad Men this year, but ultimately I have to go with Esposito, who created a cold, calculating figure of menace who was capable of making the room feel 10 degrees cooler. It's the sort of chilling work that calls to mind Javier Bardem's work in No Country for Old Men...if Anton Chigurh had been involved in meth dealing and fast food chain restaurants.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series

Anna Gunn - Breaking Bad

Lena Heady - Game of Thrones

Christina Hendricks - Mad Men

Jessica Pare - Mad Men

Fiona Shaw - True Blood

Maisie Williams - Game of Thrones

Another year, another wonderful season of Joan moments on Mad Men. Despite not having as much to do in Mad Men's fifth season, when the show brought out moments for her, Hendricks seized them and made her mark. In a season where so many new performances came forward and impressed me (especially Heady, who was so good in Game of Thrones' "Blackwater" episode), I've ended up going back to an old favorite. 

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series

Ty Burrell - Modern Family

Donald Glover - Community

Nick Offerman - Parks and Recreation

Adam Pally - Happy Endings

Chris Pratt - Parks and Recreation

Damon Wayans Jr. - Happy Endings

Though I remain a loyal devotee of Ron Swanson (Offerman should have won for one of his show's previous two seasons), it was Glover who really won me over this year. Though Community as a show can sometimes strive too hard simply to be different at the expense of humor, Glover remains one of the show's consistent bright spots. His mix of awkward non sequiturs and full-throttle hysterics remain one of the show's best sources of humor, even when the show is having an off day.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series

Alison Brie - Community

Eliza Coupe - Happy Endings

Jane Krakowski - 30Rock

Aubrey Plaza - Parks and Recreation

Eden Sher - The Middle
Jessica Walter - Archer

Casey Wilson - Happy Endings

Possibly the most jam-packed category this year (I'm sorry, Aisha Tyler, Julie Bowen, Anna Chlumsky, Zosia Mamet, etc...), and yet Eliza Coupe's type-A neurotics on Happy Endings still stand tall. In a year that saw Jane Krakowski do some of her best work on 30Rock to date, along with so many new performances and returning players, Coupe remains one of the funniest women on TV right now. Look no further than "The Kerkovich Way" for a demonstration of the actress' completely spot-on comedic timing, which possesses a nearly laser-like precision.

Outstanding Directing in a Drama Series

"Box Cutter" - Breaking Bad
"Crawl Space" - Breaking Bad
"Blackwater" - Game of Thrones

"Marine One" - Homeland

"At the Codfish Ball" - Mad Men

"Commissions and Fees" - Mad Men

Outstanding Directing in a Comedy Series

"Documentary Filmmaking: Redux" - Community
"She Did" - Girls
"The Kerkovich Way" - Happy Endings

"Ron and Tammys" - Parks and Recreation

"Win, Lose, or Draw" - Parks and Recreation
"Catherine" - Veep

Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series

"Crawl Space" - Breaking Bad
"Salud" - Breaking Bad
"Valar Morghulis" - Game of Thrones
"Marine One" - Homeland
"At the Codfish Ball" - Mad Men

"Signal 30" - Mad Men

Outstanding Writing in a Comedy Series

"Heart of Archness: Part 3" - Archer
"She Did" - Girls
"Documentary Filmmaking: Redux" - Community
"Subway; Pamela" - Louie
"The Debate" - Parks and Recreation

"Ron and Tammys" - Parks and Recreation

"Catherine" - Veep

Review(s): "Magic Mike" + "2 Days in New York"

Magic Mike dir. Steven Soderbergh

 Whatever doubts there might have been about Steven Soderbergh's foray into the world of stripping-centric movies, you can stop worrying: it's not Showgirls. The uber-efficient director's latest outing may focus on the world of male strippers and even include a character named Big Dick Richie (Joe Manganiello), but there's a significant distinction between Mike and a certain Paul Verhoeven-directed train wreck. Soderbergh's film never indulges in the elements of sleaze. It observes them, but never turns them into moments of trashy exploitation.


Based on star Channing Tatum's actual experiences as a male stripper before his acting career (which, at this very moment, is looking pretty damn bright), Magic Mike follows a clear trajectory. Experienced stripper Mike (Tatum) takes on a newbie (Alex Pettyfer), who falls into some less-than-admirable tendencies. As a film and as a simple morality tale, there's little here that surprises. What matters are the details that make up the story's setting, and thankfully the movie comes through, albeit only modestly. 


For all that the film does right - its characterization, its humor - there are any number of other aspects that don't quite stick the landing, namely the pacing. Clocking in at roughly two hours, there are times when Magic Mike feels repetitive and devoid of development. The flow of scenes can feel bumpy, which makes Pettyfer's moral failings feel rushed and a tad contrived. The cast, thankfully, are quite game. Tatum, already having a solid year with Haywire and 21 Jump Street (I've seen both but have yet to review the latter...), impresses yet again with a nice, understated sense of charisma that cuts through his slightly thickheaded appearance. Supporting roles are energetic, though most get little to do outside of Pettyfer and a wonderfully smarmy Matthew McConaughey (also have quite a nice year, along with his work in Bernie and Mud). I'm not entirely sure how I feel about Cody Horn's love interest, on the other hand. The character is fine, but the actress sometimes comes across as too sullen to the point where she seems deprived of screen presence. Still, on the whole you have to hand it to Soderbergh and company for cutting through the cheap surface appeal of the subject matter and churning out a decent character piece. There may be plenty of glistening abs on display, but Magic Mike remains grounded and never forgets to keep its characters front and center, and not just when they're taking their clothes off.


Grade: B-


2 Days in New York dir. Julie Delpy

A sequel to Delpy's hilarious 2 Days in Paris (2007), the writer/director's newest feature sadly doesn't quite measure up. Though it starts off on solid ground (barring an overly cutesy puppet theater intro), it quickly devolves into what 2 Days in Paris wasn't: exasperating and brimming with neuroses, but without the laughs. Rather than truly turn the tables and have Delpy meet her boyfriend's (now played by Chris Rock) family, she has her own family come over to disturb the new boyfriend. The result is that we're mostly getting the same sorts of interactions. Mingus (Rock) may not be as neurotic as Jack (Adam Goldberg), but he's being put through the same set of frustrations, as he's forced to adapt to French culture, even though he's on his own turf.


The performances are generally handled effectively, and Rock makes a nice straight man to offset the rest of the ensemble, but after a point it all becomes too much of the same, without the same amount of successful humor. Even Delpy seems off, and her character's constant frustration and apologies to Mingus sometimes feel too shrill. A decent attempt, but one that simply doesn't have the goods to justify itself. Your time is better spent simply watching 2 Days in Paris again.


Grade: C

Review: "360"

When a director makes a big splash with a debut or with a film that catapults them into new found recognition, an extra amount of scrutiny is thrust upon any following work. Fernando Meirelles has been working as a director since the early 80s, but he didn't make his mark on world cinema until 2002's stunning City of God. Focused on a very singular world - the slums of Rio De Janeiro -  Meirelles turned out a visually striking and relevant film about poverty and crime. Fast forward a decade, and the director has expanded his vision to more than a single city, with incredibly diminished results. Obvious and lacking anything resembling suspense, passion, or insight, 360, the latest film from Meirelles, lives up to its title to the point that it goes almost nowhere.


Inspired by Arthur Schnitzler's play "La Ronde," the film weaves a series of stories across the globe into what one hopes would be quite a powerhouse of a narrative. Unfortunately, the problems in 360 become evident all too clear. Despite some smooth and smartly employed split screen work, many of the characters couldn't be less interesting. Among the ensemble, Jude Law and Rachel Weisz, as a pair of unfaithful spouses, are truly wasted. Law, in particular, is stuck in a small series of scenes that merely exist, without anything there to drive the film from a narrative or thematic standpoint. Other cast members are given more to do, but suffer a similar fate, stuck with story threads that border on being vignettes, which isn't quite the film's goal.


The lone bright spot is Ben Foster, playing a convicted sex offender temporarily on leave. In a critical scene set in an airport hotel, the actor brings an intensity and depth missing from all of the film's other scenes. In that one moment 360 feels alive and filled with some sense of purpose. Unfortunately, once the scene ends, we basically never see Foster again, and the film resumes its unintentional aimlessness. Other performers (other than the big names in the cast) perform capably, yet there's nothing they can do to overcome the writing (a Bulgarian subplot feels particularly empty, despite everything that happens). Peter Morgan's script feels, sadly, like a very rough sketch or first draft, with all of the characters and arcs feeling too distant for the film's own good. 


So when it all comes together for the finale and lives up to its tagline ("Everything comes full circle"), all that's left to do is shrug and say "...and?" 360 seems almost built on a gimmick, to have its narrative come full circle and then, surpriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiise, conclude with a scene identical to its opening, albeit with different characters. Though it borders on predictable, there are plenty of films with similar ideas that carry it off well. Here, however, it just feels like an inevitable conclusion to a thoroughly dull affair that feels too long (certainly a lot longer than 2 hours) and too empty to justify its existence. This is one of those films where all of the ideas were down on paper or in someone's head, but never even came close to achieving the proper transition to the screen. Other unsuccessful films like this include 2006's Babel, of which I'm no fan. But that film at least has some emotional resonance, as contrived and manipulative as it is.The methods may be cruddy, but at least there's an attempt to connect to the audience and make them feel. 360, by contrast, runs on autopilot the whole way through, never trying to be anything more than a series of scenes strung together just so it can have a been-there-done-that hack job of an ending.


Grade: D+