Los Abrazos Rotos (Broken Embraces)


Premise: Harry Caine, a blind screenwriter, gets a strange visit from a man who wants to co-write a movie with him. After mysteriously rejecting the man's offer, Caine explains to his assistant, Diego, how he knows the man and why he wants nothing to do with him. In a series of flashbacks, he tells Diego a noir-ish story about an older film he was directing, the wealthy and treacherous man bankrolling his film and the man's mistress, a complex and alluring secretary-turned-aspiring actress (Penelope Cruz). Through this story, we learn how Caine's film was defaced and how his life was changed forever.

Big Draw? Pedro Almodovar's use of Penelope "The Muse" Cruz is excellent. Her versatility is at full view: once a helpless and heartbroken caretaker of her ill father; then a reluctant mistress, pampered but disgusted; and finally a lovestruck participant in a torrid affair. As someone who is not usually an admirer of Penelope's, my appreciation of her here is notable.

Why see it? It's something different. Almodovar's films usually are. While being described as a "noir thriller," Los Abrazos Rotos is an odd hybrid: It begins as a darkly comic mystery in the style of The Player, evolves into a Hitchcockian romance and ends as a meditation on film-making as art and evidence (think: Woody Allen's Hollywood Ending meets Haneke's Cache. I can't believe I just wrote that sentence). Watching this genre-defying drama is like taking a vacation from the typically predictable and maudlin dramas that are Oscar-fodder year after year.

Any problems? The only major flaw of this film is that it drags in parts, which is kid of ironic* since one major theme of the movie is the power of editing. Whole scenes could have been skipped, and the flashback contains more information that is really necessary to create the full range of ideas and emotions the film wants to use. It's only 105 minutes, but it feels like more than two hours.

*or perhaps it's intended, like Adpatation, expressing its content through its form.

Proposal: A Tournament


I have decided that 2009 is just not a good year for the Top Ten List. The problem: Such lists often only highlight the critical darlings, and, in my opinion, that field has been relatively weak this year. That doesn't mean it's been a bad year for movies, though; the middle of the pack has been very diverse and contains some highly interesting gems. That's why I think it might be fun to simulate a tournament, and all that comes with it -- 64 movies, seeded, head to head single elimination match-ups, favorites, Cinderellas, unlikely heroes. One shining moment to decide which is the best film of 2009. Call it January Madness.

The Rules:

1. Each of our regular contributors will send me a list of 25 movies he or she believes should be included in the field.
(a) These do not need to be what the reviewer believes are the best -- the reviewer may use any criteria to decide which ones are deserving (popularity, originality, etc.).
(b) The reviewer doesn't have to rank each movie, but he or she must identify the four that should be considered the top seeds in each bracket.
(c) The reviewer must have seen the movie in its entirety (bathroom breaks excepted) to put a movie on his or her list. Here's a list of the movies released in 2009 to get you started.
(d) If you can't provide me with 25, then give me what you can. If you want to include more than 25, be my guest.

2. Based on these lists, I will construct a bracket, seeding all 64 movies in four groups of 16. My method in doing so will have no strict rules -- however, I can guarantee that I will consider your designated top four seeds, general popularity and critical acclaim to create a rough ranking. Also, I will most definitely take advantage of any possible comically-themed match-ups (e.g. Nine vs. 9?). If the five lists of 25 movies don't contain enough movies to fill the bracket (I expect a lot of overlap), I will fill in movies first based on what other movies have been reviewed on this site, then I will look to other random "Best Of" lists on the internet to fill the gap.

3. The first round will begin sometime shortly after the first of January, 2010. There will be 32 posts in the first round, each with a title that represents the game (e.g. "#16 Transformers 2 vs. #1 Up in the Air).
(a) Each reviewer who has seen BOTH movies will make a call on which is the better movie, and must make a brief argument as to why (two sentences at most) in the comments. His or her vote will be worth 6 pts for the better movie.

(b) Reviewers who have only seen one of the movies in contention must evaluate the movie they saw on a 0-2 scale. This is more of an endorsement that the movie should move on to the next round than a "rating." 0 means you don't approve of the movie moving on to the next round; 1 means you liked the movie, but are doubtful it could compete with its opponent head-to-head (even though you haven't seen the other movie); and 2 means you want the movie to move on to the next round, and you think it would compare favorably with the other movie (even though you haven't seen the other movie).

(c) Reviewers who have not seen either film will NOT receive a vote in the first instance, but in the case of any ties, they may vote for one movie based on their evaluations of their colleague's arguments. Mike Bristow will break any tie that is not broken through this procedure. All reviewers are welcome to make comments of any nature on any post, regardless of whether they've seen the movie or not.
4. After the round of 64 is decided (however long it might take for all five of us to chime in); we'll repeat the process with 32 more teams, then the Sweet Sixteen, the Elite Eight, the Final Four, and the Championship Match. The result will be 63 match-ups in 63 posts. A large endeavor, I know, but I think we can make it happen.

5. Any and all comments from outsiders are welcome, and can be considered by eligible voters (me, Bree, Nilay, Aaron, and Allen) before making their decisions. When the voters complete their entries in the comments, I will re-post the game page with a recap of how the vote went and which movie won.

So. . . Are you in, or out?

Sherlock Holmes: Well-Worth Investigating

Perhaps the best way to begin this review is to access the situation the way Holmes sizes up a much larger opponent, and then takes them down. Strike with a witty opener, stomp on the character's history, tackle the plot, give the performances a roundhouse of praise, and end it by calling this film a knockout of entertainment.

I am ashamed to admit that I am somewhat lacking in professional knowledge of sir Arthur Conan Doyal's literary sleuth. I have not read even one of the books nor have I ever seen any of the numerous other film incarnations. I was still well aware of the characters of Sherlock Holmes and his faithful companion Watson (Played this time around by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law). I knew they solved mysteries in a most upstanding and proper manner using intelligence first and foremost. I knew about the pipe, the hat, and the phrase "Why it's elementary." I realized that my only link to this character was shamefully through Disney's animated adaptation The Great Mouse Detective. But it is possible that going in inexperienced is what resulted in such praise.

The film beings with a thrilling action-packed climax of a seemingly unrelated case in the fashion of numerous Bond films. The villainous Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) is thwarted from sacrificing Holmes's former flame Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), who also acts as the femme fatale, in a supernatural ceremony. Once Blackwood is sentenced to hang it appears that the case is closed. Somehow he manages to cheat death, and with the bodies once again piling up it will take every ounce of Holmes inconsiderable knowledge to solve the mystery. The film also contains numerous fights, scientific skills, secret societies, and unpredictable twists, turns, and triple-crosses. I was expecting a simple little piece of entertainment, but Sherlock Holmes is refreshingly more than just elementary.

Robert Downey Jr. might be the most fun actor working in films today. Perhaps even more so than someone like Johnny Depp. He brings his sharp ego and smart-alec likability to this role and like his Tony Stark makes the character his own. Simply amazing. Jude Law gives an equally impressive performance as Watson. He is the refined voice of reason and loyal backup that keeps Holmes from falling into too much trouble. Much has been said about the supposed 'gay' overtones between these characters. These two might have one of the closest heterosexual relationships in film not seen since Dante and Randal in Kevin Smith's Clerks II. They really do seem to NEED each other. This is a full tilt (non-sexual) Bromance, and it works wonderfully.

Perhaps I jumped the gun by revealing my top ten films of the year just a bit early. Sherlock Holmes is so much fun and entertaining that at the very least it deserves an Honorable Mention. On second thought let's just keep calling number ten a split decision, and I will slip this Christmas gift into the number nine spot. I knew there was a reason I left it open. Get to the theater as soon as possible because the case is reopened and the game is afoot. A-

Note: This is the first Guy Ritchie film I've seen that doesn't quite feel like a Guy Ritchie film.

Merry Christmas!

2009: The Best Was the Rest


If one major thing jumps out at me about the films of 2009 it is that excellence was fairly scarce. This should have made composing a list for the year's best films a fairly simple task, but instead it became insanely difficult. This year might have been lacking in great films, however it was flooded with very good ones. After I organized my list of honorable mentions I noticed that it might in fact be a stronger selection of diverse films than my actual ten best.

Still Need To See
  • Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans
  • Precious
  • Me and Orson Wells
Honorable Mentions
  • 9
  • A Serious Man
  • The Hangover
  • District 9
  • The Brothers Bloom
  • Away We Go
  • An Education
Top Ten

10. (tie) Adventureland/Zombieland: Theme parks and Jessie Eisenberg were not the only things they had in common. They also contained a great deal of heart and brains, even if one of them depicted them being eaten. More fun than an afternoon at Cedar Point.

8. Avatar: The story is hardly original, but the effects, colors, and use of 3-D are outstanding. A visual masterpiece.

7. The House of the Devil: A classy and hypnotic little horror show that breathes new life into one of the most dangerous of cinematic professions... Babysitting. Could have very well been one of the best films of 1982 as well.

6. Thirst: Or as I like to call it William Shakespeare's Dracula. A vampire film that drips with guilt, lust, and blood. It is also further proof that what we Americans are doing to this genre is truly tragic.

5. Knowing: The airplane and railway disasters were very convincing, the visions and predictions were eerie, and that ending has yet to be equaled by any other film involving the threat of apocalypse.

4. (500) Days of Summer: A charming, beautiful, and disjointed tale of love and loss. Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), I feel for you sir. You were not the only one to have your heart broken this year.

3. The Hurt Locker: If you have ever seen parodies of the sweating moviegoer hanging on the edge of their seat whispering "Cut the blue wire!", then I guarantee this was the movie they were watching. A heart-stopping, suspenseful, and explosive war film. Director Kathryn Bigelow couldn't be more of a Bad-Ass.

2. Drag Me to Hell: A gypsy curse be placed on the head of anyone who didn't like this one. This overly energetic thriller was filled with shocks, laughs, and scenes loud enough to make you cover your ears or gross enough to make you loose your lunch. If that's not enough it also has an obscenity spewing goat in it. How is this not one of the year's best?

1. Up in the Air: A film that swooped in at the last minute and was nothing short of impressive. I didn't turn my brain off, and somehow the brilliance still managed to wash over me. Is it possible to find happiness if you have no one to share it with? Especially when you have a career consisting of telling others that they have lost theirs. Just about every scene in this film contains a blissfully emotional mix. It has humor and heart, yet the downer aspect remains completely intact. It contains one of the year's best performances from newcomer Anna Kendrick, has the sharpest dialogue I've heard all year, and is my pick as this year's best film. This is a cinematic equivalent to a first-class upgrade.

Nine: An Uninspired Search for Inspiration

As intrigued as I was to see Daniel 'I Drink Your... Milkshake!' Day Lewis sing and dance, I must admit that Rob Marshall's Nine was not the first holiday film to see on my list. Up in the Air and Sherlock Holmes had yet to arrive, and screw the Squeakquel. That left me with a choice between this one and It's Complicated. A film that I intend to see with some fans of 30 Rock, if I even see it at all. So, I went with the tale of the moviemaker, his muse, mistress, mother, and all the other ladies in his life.

Premise: Guido (Day Lewis) is a writer/director struggling to piece together his new film after a series of failures. Filming begins in a week and all that is missing is a script. With the stress of the project and his personal life bearing down on him he flees to a hidden vacation spot. Once there he gets advice in the form of musical numbers delivered by everyone from his wife to his costume designer.

The cast of ladies in Nine is one of the films stronger elements. Marion Cotillard is quite sympathetic as Gido's wife. A woman who has grown tired of her husband's infidelity. Penelope Cruz successfully balances sultry and ditsy as the other woman. Sophia Loren and Judi Dench are the deceased mother and costume designer that provide the matriarchal voices of reason. Nicole Kidman is the movie star sick of playing the same role. Kate Hudson (who I had all but given up on) looks ravishing as a Vogue magazine reporter, and Fergie has the smallest yet probably most memorable role as a exotic performer Guido recalls from his youth. I have already read numerous complaints in regards to films like this saying you should never hire actors to perform songs in musicals because they can't sing. This is not the case in Nine. Each one of these actresses can hold their own, but a problem still remains which leads me to my next point.

The songs suck. The only thing I really remember about them was how bland they were. They are sung well as opposed to the horrid all ABBA celebrity karaoke sounds of Mamma Mia! But they are just uninspiring and very forgettable. The one performance that comes the closest to a show-stopper was Fergie's "Be Italian" a powerfully belted ballad that tells Guido to remember his roots, and just to be himself. The sand and tambourines were a nice touch, yet it still falls just short. Hudson's flashy number may have looked the best as a glitzy pop extravaganza, but her song's speed and lyrics were possibly the most embarrassing.

Perhaps I am just not a Fellini guy, but the idea of making a musical about the making of a movie that in fact we never get to see being made is just not a very good idea. The only thing that Nine really inspired me to do was to go back and watch Chicago. A darker and more entertaining romp. The songs are much better, the story actually makes sense, and it remains a great little guilty pleasure. Nine has the talent and a very attractive look, but much like the central conflict, a script is missing. C

Avatar: Blue My Mind

The other night on TCM I caught a two hour documentary on the larger than life hollywood epic Gone With the Wind. Most of the documentary revealed that producer David O. Selznick was seen by many as totally insane. He spent years writing and rewriting the script, holding numerous and costly auditions for the perfect cast, went through several different directors, and spent hours upon hours piecing his masterpiece together in the editing room. News reports quickly noted that the film could literally play in every single theatre across the country, and with a then whopping $3 million budget still didn't have a chance in hell of becoming anything more than a flop. It went on to become one of the highest grossing films of all time. Selznick's impossible project became a lesson that taught filmmakers that crazy and stupid are not quite the same thing. Being a perfectionist pays off.

I bring this up because much of the same has already been said about James Cameron's latest project Avatar. This is nothing new to the director having previously bet the bank on past projects like Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Titanic. Remember how those turned out? Now that I have seen this wondrously visual opus I can't quite say if it is going to get all of that money back, but I certainly can say that for the most part it was well spent.

Avatar tells the story of a disabled Marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington). Jake and his brother were brought to the distant planet of Pandora. This is a very hostile jungle planet that houses numerous alien beasts, exotic plant life, and a blue Native American-like race of creatures called the Na'vi. Jake was originally just a tag along, but after his brother is killed he must step into the spotlight as a replacement. A team of scientists led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) have found a way to mesh human and Na'vi DNA. The team also has numerous VR devices that somehow manages to transfer all thought, strength, and life into an being called an Avatar. An alien version of yourself.

This is all part of a trust process. The military led by the scarred and hardened Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) and the money hungry industrialist Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) want to use Jake's avatar as a way of infiltrating the natives in order to drive them from their home so they can mine a precious new mineral.

Even with a three hour running time I'm afraid I might have revealed a bit too much already. This may be one of the few things that keeps Avatar from being a masterpiece. It really is short on plot and surprises rendering it incredibly predictable. If you have seen the longer more explanatory trailer then I hate to tell you that you know the entire story already. I also must admit that the avatar versions of the Na'vi didn't look that amazing (I still cringe thinking of Sigourney Weaver's). Despite all of the time and money spent, certain people who have mentioned it are correct to assume that Cameron has not yet crossed the uncanny valley.

Everything else about the film remains an outstanding visual achievement. The shocking neon colors of blue and green are absolutely dazzling. The trees and scenery seem come to life and respond at night. The way the military hardware fires tracer rounds into the audience. This is the kind of film that was meant to be seen on the big screen and especially in 3D.

It was also pretty fun to match up scenes, moments, or trademarks in this film that were used in some of Camreon's previous pictures. The way the radar picks up a massive signal dead ahead as a marine shouts out "movement!" was used in Aliens. A character ends up dangling off of a missile in a similar fashion to True Lies. And notice how much the control center base in this movie resembles that of the one topside in The Abyss.

In the end James Cameron's Avatar might not be the best film of the year, the story might have been a bit stale at this point, and only time will tell if it generates enough appeal to become a major blockbuster. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." I say see it. A-

Up in the Air: Good, Not Great


Premise: Ryan (George Clooney) is a corporate downsizing expert whose happy life of constant cross-country traveling is threatened by fresh-faced corporate wunderkind, Natalie (Anna Kendrick), who wants to transform the industry with video teleconferencing, making travel unnecessary. Ryan no likey. Like flying. No like staying put. So Ryan and Natalie don't see eye to eye, and their boss makes them travel around the country firing people, in an effort to (a) train Natalie; (b) convince Ryan that Natalie's ideas have merit; (c) get them to work out their problems; or (d) get Natalie to understand Ryan's point of view (pick one -- it's not really clear). Meanwhile, Ryan has romantic trysts with the female version of himself, Alex (Vera Farmiga), and is trying to reconcile his world view with his affection for her.

Analysis: Whenever a movie gets overwhelmingly positive critical consensus, I am naturally skeptical. Oftentimes it just means everyone just decided to turn their brains off and let supposed brilliance wash over them, instead of evaluating a film purely on the available empirical evidence (e.g., Up). However, based on Reitman's track record, I had really high expectations. I went into it expecting a top-ten movie experience on the upside, or a movie as good as Reitman's other two movies (Thank You For Smoking, Juno) on the downside. Either way, not too bad. Turns out the downside won out: this movie is, simply put, nothing special. It's funny, tragic, and possesses good performances, but it just doesn't do anything extraordinary.

Don't get me wrong-- the film works. Clooney turns in a good performance (but he's still playing that same smooth, witty guy he always plays); Kendrick is funny and touching as a newcomer to firing people; Clooney and Farmiga have decent chemistry; Hell, even Danny McBride plays a real character instead of a hillbilly parody. It does all the things tragicomedies are supposed to do. It has what you human beings call "heart." It even ends the right way.

But at its core, it's flawed: The firings are strangely executed, making the characters' jobs seem superfluous; The trip Ryan takes with Natalie is a huge contrivance that makes no sense; Ryan's life philosophy (presented to us via Tony-Robbins-esque motivational speaking events), while hugely important to the plot, is vague and undefended (though thoroughly defendable). Also, the movie is built to drag -- it feels a half-hour longer than it is, and it starts to get a little tiring about an hour in.

I know I'm going to get some blowback on this review, but you have to understand I'm not trying to bash the movie. I just feel it's necessary to point out its problems since everybody else has chosen to wax poetic about how it's the best film they've ever seen. I do think you should see it. All I'm saying is that you should wait for it to come out on DVD.

Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: Cringeworthiness


Before seeing the Fantastic Mr. Fox* last week I was treated to a duet of trailers featuring some of the dumbest shit I've ever seen. The first was Tooth Fairy, in which The Rock (Dwayne Johnson) plays a hard-nosed hockey player who gets in trouble with some sort of tooth fairy syndicate for telling kids that the tooth fairy doesn't exist (or something like that), and gets punished by being forced to become a tooth fairy for some fixed period of time, like community service. Being a tooth fairy, it appears from the trailer, involves shrinking, wearing little translucent wings, applying some sort of invisibility dust, and spending a lot of time avoiding cat attacks and getting smacked in the nuts. As if this weren't offensive enough, there's a cameo by Billy Crystal, obviously desperate for cash, as some tooth fairy version of Miracle Max. I shit you not. This movie concept should have been the premise for one of those pre-film commercials intended to get you to turn your cell phone off. It hurts me, deep in my core, that someone bought this pitch.

However, the second trailer was an even lower blow, in that the movie is not only offensive and utterly unfunny, but there is just no need for it. I mean, as stupid as it is, at least a tooth fairy movie fills in some tiny vacuum in the vast continuum of movie concepts. But this: a sequel of an 80's cartoon show remake? Yes, I'm talking about yet another Alvin and the Chipmunks movie, this time called a "Squeakquel" (for those of you who aren't clinically insane, that's a combination of "squeak" and "sequel"). Apparently the first one was so good and made so much money that they just had to regurgitate one more incarnation of this awful, humorless, childhood-memory-destroying abomination. This time, the CGI-rendered chipmunks are in high school! That means classes (I assume there will be a chemistry experiment gone awry), bullies, dances, football practice (!) and, regretfully, teenage-girl chipmunks, also musical performers, and each specified to fit the characteristic features of Alvin, Simon (glasses) and Theodore (fat). And that's not all. We have to watch these female chipmunks undulate and sing a helium-voiced version of Beyonce's "Single Ladies." Why do they have to mix nostalgic material with modern popular culture references? Squeakquel looks like a real life version of that SNL parody, Bambi 2002.
WHY GOD, WHY?!! This trailer has singlehandedly ruined chipmunks, Jason Lee, the 80's, cartoons, CGI, Beyonce, and high school, all in one shot. Shame on you, Jason Lee. Shame.

* Aaron's review of which was entirely accurate, though perhaps a smidgen too glowing IMO.

My Five Favorite Films So Far This Year


Awards season is upon us again, and that means every newspaper and critic is going to roll out their top ten list. So far, I only have five. There are a lot of good films that could fill in the remaining slots, but only five deserve special mention:

1. The Fantastic Mr. Fox - The most enjoyable and ridiculous heist movie I've seen is also a fascinating piece of eye candy. Wes Anderson's imperfect throwback to stop-motion puppet animation is endlessly detailed and utterly addictive. I could watch it a hundred times and still find new things to look at.

2. Up - Pixar scores again with yet another computer animated adventure that cares as much about its characters as it does about its eye-popping action sequences. Just when I thought it had run out of gas, it throws a bunch of talking dogs and a zeppelin into the mix. I never thought I'd say this, but here's a talking dog movie that gets my full recommendation.

3. The Hurt Locker - Wall to wall suspense. A full-throttle thriller laced with teeth-grinding, gut-wrenching horror. Scene after scene builds to almost unbearable levels of anticipation. A lot of movies blow things up; The Hurt Locker knows that a ticking bomb is much more exciting.

4. Disgrace - Disgrace is so intelligently written and brilliantly acted, it disgraces most other films. John Malkovich turns in one of his most complicated performances as a professor in South Africa who is fired after having an affair with a black student, and goes to live with his liberal daughter and her black neighbors on their ranch in the middle of nowhere. Unpredictable events ensue that test Malkovich's idea of racial relations at the end of apartheid.

5. An Education - A simple coming-of-age story that contains some of the best performances of the year, including the much lauded breakout performance by Carey Mulligan. She deserves the praise she is getting, and the film is so swift and well-executed, some of its themes might slip right through your fingers. It's slick, sleek, and beautiful.

I have yet to see Up In the Air, Nine, Avatar, and some of this season's other highly-anticipated movies, but the five films listed above will be hard to beat. Stay tuned!

Brothers - He Ain't Heavy

Brothers, the new film by Jim Sheridan, director of My Left Foot and In America, could have been a powerful story if it had been told like it was in the preview. The preview leads you to believe that Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman have an affair while Portman's husband (and Gyllenhaal's brother), Tobey Maguire, is thought KIA in Afghanistan. This is not the case, and the film suffers because of it.

The story Brothers tells is largely from Maguire's perspective (He narrates certain sections.). He is a career military man, just like his father before him, and is a Captain in the Marines. He has a wife and two little girls, and feels largely out of place in civilian life, because all he knows how to do is be a soldier.

At the beginning of the film, he picks his low-life loser brother up from prison, out on parole for armed robbery. This is Gyllenhaal's character, tattooed up and cursing up a storm at any mention of what he's going to do with his life. Gyllenhaal and Maguire's father, a Vietnam vet (played by Sam Shephard), constantly boasts of his good son, Maguire, while bad mouthing Gyllenhaal, asking, "Why can't you be more like him?" The first quarter of the movie is this scene played over and over again, with Shephard saying the same thing, Maguire defending his brother, and Gyllenhaal storming out in anger.

Then Maguire is sent over to Afghanistan again, and his helicopter is shot down, and he is thought dead. News is delivered to Portman, and she breaks down. Her life is empty without him, and Gyllenhaal fills the gap. The script develops Gyllenhaal not as a slimy interloper, taking advantage of Portman and making ill advances, but as a kind presence, the cheerful big brother/uncle who tries to wipe the tears away by making a snowman with his nieces and taking everyone ice skating, by fixing up his sister-in-law's kitchen from the mess it is into a pristine white palace. He has lost just as much as they have - his guiding light, the brother who saved him from drowning when they were young, the brother who constantly pulled him out of whatever mess he was in, and kept forgiving him, pointing him back in the right direction, convinced he would find his way.

Eventually, we learn that Maguire is not dead, and is being held, along with a fellow soldier, in a POW camp in the mountains by vicious Taliban soldiers who execute a man right in front of them to show they mean business. They will eventually torture Maguire and the other soldier in an effort to get them to betray intelligence. These scenes of torture and suffering are intercut with Gyllenhaal and Portman's slow build to a romantic interlude, as Gyllenhaal continues to help Portman pull it together, and Portman begins the emotional journey of letting her husband go.

It is here that the movie slips up and becomes something less powerful than it should have been. Gyllenhaal and Portman only kiss, and never consummate their love affair. Then Maguire returns from the dead, and the story becomes about how he has been changed by war, fragmented into a paranoid, compulsive, disbelieving, tortured and violent man, lost to everything and everyone around him, and prone to creeping around his property at night, gun drawn, reacting to the neighbor's dog as if it were the Taliban back to retrieve what's left of him.

Since Gyllenhaal and Portman had only an innocent, fleeting moment together, which they both retreated from, there is no pressure on their part to feel guilt or regret. Therefore, the conflict lies exclusively with Maguire to stomp around and batter the new kitchen cabinets ("Do you know what these hands can do?"), and wave his gun around, and show the whites of his eyes. Maguire immerses himself in the role, and we are convinced of the torture he is going through, but it would have been a more powerful story, a more gut-wrenching and thought-provoking story, if Gyllenhaal and Portman had actually consummated their relationship, and were in love; If Gyllenhaal's nieces had accepted that their real father was gone, and Gyllenhaal was their new one; If Portman and company had laid Maguire to rest and started to build a new life, and were now forced to deal with not only his return, but the tortured, conflicted soul in need of the nurture and love they can no longer provide. But that's not what happens.

Brothers becomes about a crazy brother that everyone tries to keep under control before he kills himself and those around him. It could have been about that, and about so much more. Too bad, because there are scenes of real power here, as when Shephard apologizes to Gyllenhaal, seeing that his troubled son is a kind soul capable of charity and selflessness, or when Portman's oldest daughter refuses to put on the black dress for her father's funeral, and Portmans says, "We have to do this."

There is a scene toward the end that broke my heart, where Maguire, in a stand-off with the police, turns to his brother, pleading for help, and says, "I'm drowning, Tommy." If the whole movie had been like that ...

One Too Many Mornings Makes It Into Sundance


A feature film I worked on has been accepted into the Sundance Film Festival. One Too Many Mornings, directed by Michael Mohan and written by Anthony Deptula, Stephen Hale, and Mohan, will have its World Premiere at this year's Sundance Film Festival.

One Too Many Mornings is an engaging comedy that tells the story of two high school friends, Peter and Fischer, who are reunited when Peter, discovering his girlfriend has cheated on him, decides to drop in, unannounced, on Fischer, who lives, free of charge, in a seaside church in exchange for being its caretaker. What Peter discovers is that Fischer has problems far worse than his own.

Mohan and company worked long and hard on this project, filming on nights and weekends over the course of two years. It's nice to see all that hard work has finally paid off. Here's wishing you the best of luck guys!

Here's a link to Variety's article listing the complete Sundance lineup:


And here's a link to the One Too Many Mornings official website:


I've seen it twice, and it's worth checking out!