Dreamscape. B

At the Oscars this year, there was plenty of buzz over old legends Christopher Plummer and Max box Sydow each getting nominations. But did anyone mention that these two actually appeared in a film together? The title is an unlikely one, an old blockbuster called Dreamscape. Dreamscape wouldn't survive today in an age when it takes a blockbuster like Inception to truly wow viewers. But for an 80s sic fi adventure, it's actually pretty cool. It's also got a story similar to Inception's, in which people can enter someone's dream in order to unlock secrets in reality. But the movie's really just campy air with plenty of comic energy and some lively action sequences. There's a requisite love story, an above average villain in Plummer, and some decent special effects (for its time, that is, though the big green snake was pretty painful). The star of the film is Dennis Quaid, back when he was sort of a B-grade version of Harrison Ford. He's always been a good actor, but in his young days he was actually pretty funny, too, here, and even more so in Breaking Away from 1978. Dreamscape isn't trying to be anything great, and it shouldn't be approached as anything other than the 99 minute entertaining breeze that it is. But that doesn't sound too bad, does it?

The Inkeepers. B+

After countless horror movies featuring the brainless character making stupid decisions in order to scare the viewer, The Innkeepers starts a new pattern, the bored character eager for excitement, yet possibly still bored once it's found. And it works, in a dry, sardonic sort of way. The main characters are two fairly young workers in an old hotel that's about to close down. Director Ti West makes no attempt to make these people at all impressive, though the girl, played by Sara Paxton, is cutely likable. This is a ghost story that we've seen before, but haven't seen in a while. But more importantly, its methods of horror are so intelligent, the work of real master. This of course would be West, who is still pretty young, but worthy of such praise. No director in years has demonstrated such a mastery-and restraint-in the horror genre. And in a time when the old masters like Craven, Hooper, Carpenter, and Romero are getting old, a new talent in horror is very reassuring for the genre. Horror filmmaking has been abused more than any other, with countless pieces of garbage being produced over the years. It's almost stopped being a genre and become a zone for fraud. It is perhaps the easiest genre to do poorly, and one of the hardest to get right. West doesn't just get horror, but he's come up with new ways to make it a better genre. He subtly uses old tricks and in the process introduces new ones. In House of the Devil (2009), there's an old lady upstairs in a big old house, which of course recalls Psycho. Yet when it turns out she is the baby the babysitter thought she would be watching, West is suddenly on fresh ground. The same could be said with what goes on in The Innkeepers. Watch how he works out his characters, allows plenty of room for comedy (the movie isn't really a comedy, rather the people in it are funny), and incorporates pieces of horror not intended to scare the viewer. That's why the final twenty minutes are so surprising because the movie really does start to scare us. West had no real reason to try to frighten the viewer early on. The scares all depended on how the narrative unfolds. I think the best thing about is that West isn't actually trying to scare the viewer most of the time, and yet because it's a horror movie we expect to be scared. Thus, it can be surprising when we find ourselves quite calm, and even more so when, in a snap, our heart starts to beat. 

Scream 2. B+

Scream 2 isn't as quiet and sneaky as Scream. It's the common theme of overblown sequels, but the difference here is that Scream 2 knows it's a bit more over the top than its predecessor. Its purpose is to consciously be that sequel that's bigger and better, where the body count is higher and the blood flows more freely. Yet that's not enough to excuse the movie of being an overblown sequel. Like Scream, Wes Craven's going for something better, and it shows. Between bits of clever dialogue and a budding romance, Scream 2 consists of one cleverly staged horror piece after another, all involving the serial killer in the creepy mask terrorizing his prey. There's something unique in all of them, a twist or turn that actually elevates the film above many pieces of the genre its making fun of. Well, making fun of might be a harsh term. Scream 2 is in love with the horror genre, and I suppose Craven is really just acknowledging it has stalled and doing something about it. The great thing about the Scream series is just how good the characters are, not the archetypes one might expect. I would say that's chiefly why the sequel works as well as it does. I was actually glad to see these people again. That's how a good franchise is built, after all. 

The Descendants. A

Remember that movie Grace is Gone with John Cusack? It was a movie that had a fair bit in common with the far superior The Descendants. Grace is Gone was a deeply earnest drama about a father who is suddenly a single parent of his two daughters after his wife dies. Sound familiar? Yet The Descendants is so much better, mainly because it knows how to handle its material. It may not be quite as funny as Sideways simply because the material and the comedy are far more delicate, yet I think it's definitely Payne's best film. It's immensely watchable and almost mystifying in the way it makes some fairly dense material so light and enjoyable without compromising any of its intelligence. The movie carries itself with a certain playful charm, and it can because the wife (in a coma, soon to die) seemed to have led an unscrupulous life before her boating accident. We don't meet her, but one of the main plot threads is that she was cheating on her husband, played of course by George Clooney. Much of the movie concerns Clooney trying to track down the other man. When he eventually does (with help from his oldest daughter), we see him peeking over a bush and watching the man enter his house after a jog. Then his wife and kids come outside, and Clooney's head slowly moves back under the bush, realizing things are going to be more complicated. Set in Hawaii and filled with native music, there's something funny about the whole thing, even though it's all very serious. That's Payne's gift. He takes somber material and doesn't throw in little humorous scenes for comic relief. Instead he makes the movie funny and dramatic almost simultaneously by not taking anything too seriously. A good example is when the cheating man's wife goes to see Clooney's wife in the hospital after learning about the affair. She bursts into a deeply emotional, almost parodic fit. The scene is uncomfortably melodramatic, and Payne knows it. Watch how he has Clooney react, and you'll see how well he understands his material. That certain light, airy quality also has to do with the supporting characters, mainly Clooney's daughters and an easy going friend named Sid. They're all perfect, their presence always welcome. The youngest daughter is ten and has the same age and look as the youngest daughter from Grace is Gone. Yet in that film, the daughter was given too many cute moments. Here, she gets a handful of scenes, yet she's honest, sometimes foul-mouthed, and always likable. Payne gets kids, he gets adults, and he gets the whole mess that life can be and puts a fresh spin on how to perceive it. 

The Godfather. A

The first time I saw The Godfather was on a poor, fuzzy VHS copy a few years ago. An upgrade to DVD, plus a greater wealth of movie knowledge turned my opinion on a second viewing from all around good film to a film that's every bit as good as everyone says it is. I saw The Godfather again not because I wanted to love it but just because it was a necessity. I couldn't honestly argue its strengths or weaknesses based on that one, highly un-cinematic viewing. It turns out the movie absolutely wowed me a second time. If there was a perfect movie it would be this one simply because no one can really see any place where it falters. I was thinking it had gotten lazy in Michael Corleone's development from war hero opposed to the family business to the next Godfather. It really seemed like it hadn't given him much time to reflect on the decision. Then I deduced that he didn't need to. It's when his wife is blown up in the car that he sees there's no going back. He's going to be in this for life, so he might as well be at the top of it (one can guess from his war hero status that Michael's a high achiever in any field he pursues). I don't have anything really original to say about this movie, but right now it's awfully tempting to say it's objectively the best, most complete motion picture ever made. And I also think it's better than Godfather II, mainly because of Brando. His performance might just be the best thing he ever did. 

New On Blu Ray?

There are still a good deal of great movies that have yet to get the blu ray treatment. Two that I'm dying for and hope to see soon (hopefully): Vertigo. Universal Legacy Series released beautiful editions of Psycho, Vertigo and Rear Window on DVD a few years back. It didn't take long for them to get a blu ray for Psycho. Why the wait for Vertigo? True, the movie already looks phenomenal on DVD, but those colors could look so awesome in hi-def. Several of Hitchcock's 1940s films just got released on blu ray, so something tells me it might be a while before we see anything new from his body of work. But I'd say within about two years Vertigo, as well as Rear Window and The Birds, will be arriving on blu. The other title I long for is Duel In the Sun, the great King Vidor pulp Western that's unlike anything you've seen. Unfortunately I don't see this one on the horizon, unless Martin Scorsese steps in to push the upgrade. It's one of his favorites, by the way.

Shakespeare in Love. B

Here's a perfectly respectable film. It's got good acting, a great look, an original story, wit to spare, and tender, even moving dramatic elements. But the movie still isn't a great one, and I'm trying to figure out why. I think it has something to do with it not taking enough risks. Yes, the plot spills over with originality, yet but the unfolding narrative events end up being pretty conventional. I think the movie's too old fashioned. Playwright Tom Stoppard co-wrote the script, and while his skill is clearly present, I wish he'd gone to greater lengths to make it something we've never seen before. Stoppard is the kind of writer who can take seemingly ordinary material and blow your mind with it. We saw that with Arcadia (my favorite play), but here he settles with a more traditional approach (he also wasn't the sole writer, plus one can assume the studio didn't offer complete freedom). But this isn't to say that the movie is poorly written. It's got plenty of zing to it, just not as much as I'd hoped. It's a delightful little movie about a love story that inspired Romeo and Juliet. It's also got plenty to say about the theatre back in the days of Shakespeare, something a lesser screenplay wouldn't bother to delve into.

A Man Escaped. A

The great POW films involving grand escapes are generally thought to be Grand Illusion, Stalag 17, and The Great Escape. What do these all have in common? Well, among other things, the escape routes in all three involve underground tunnels. So being familiar with this popular method of escape, I sat down to Bresson's A Man Escaped and was almost relieved it didn't involve men scraping through the ground for freedom. The main character in the film, a French WWII prisoner named Fontaine, meticulously plans his escape using various tools. Tunneling isn't an option since each prisoner is confined to an individual cell. His first job is of course to figure out how to open the cell door. The beginning portion of the film involves him using a spoon to chip away at the wood until he can open it from the outside. He'll also have several walls to get over, so his main task after that is to get a rope for the job. Since real rope isn't an option, he's forced to get creative by tearing about bed sheets and even a new set of clothes he receives in the mail. He keeps it sturdy with the wire from his bed spring. A Man Escaped is chiefly about what the title suggests. The subplots are few. Besides some scenes with the prison community, the movie mostly takes place in Fontaine's cell. Yet through Fontaine's mission, Bresson tackles the theme of faith, both in one self and in others (the latter concerns a young cell mate Fontaine gets near the end of the film). This is probably the most accessible and popular of Bresson's work. For a prison movie, it's a bit unorthodox, but for a Bresson film, it's fairly straightforward, yet no less exceptional than his most boggling efforts.

Contagion. A-

I've certainly admired and been entertained by the movies of Steven Soderbergh. But has he really made a great film? Out of Sight and The Limey are fantastic, but Traffic is overrated, and Erin Brockovich is simply not very good. The Good German is just an homage, hardly good on its own terms, while Solaris is nothing but a remake of a classic. The Ocean's movies are merely flashy entertainment (with the first one being the only good movie in the series). The Informant was smart and witty, but not one of Soderbergh's best. As for his smaller, "artistic" films, well, they're essentially experiments, interesting but not particularly good or memorable. Soderbergh has tremendous appeal for film buffs because of the way he's put his mark on big studio pictures while also working on low budget Independent projects. He's extremely prolific and often works as director, cinematographer, and editor (he uses pseudonyms for the latter two) for his films. Soderbergh's career, which was supposed to be over by now, has recently gotten better though. In January he released Haywire. I didn't see it, but it's good to seem him doing an action movie. And then last September Contagion arrived. Compared to all his other films, this might just be his finest piece of work. It's an enormously ambitious work that only a skilled filmmaker like Soderbergh could pull off. Arguably the best virus movie ever, Contagion skillfully uses a major all star cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne, and Marion Cotillard) that really jams pack this pretty short (about 100 minutes) film. Not a minute is wasted. Usually these big ensemble pieces have an epic sprawl to them, but Contagion is tightly managed. It gives all the characters plenty of time without having very much of it to do so. I think one of the reason it works so well is that with the exception of the Matt Damon storyline, the film is mainly focused on science and procedure. Melodrama takes a seat to the things that really matter, that produce a film about as real as it gets without being overtly graphic (though the scene involving an operation on Paltrow came close to crossing the boundaries of the PG-13 rating). Contagion doesn't come across as terribly preachy despite its pretty obvious criticisms of world germ organizations. Soderbergh seems more concerned with showing what would happen if, say, the swine flu from 2009 became an epidemic. The result is his most gripping, stylish, and interesting picture to date.

Tinker Tailor Solider Spy. A

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was definitely on my must-see list of 2011, but for reasons not worth mentioning, I neglected its theatrical release. So I popped in this movie on blu ray instead, which wasn't too bad; it looks phenomenal in high def because of just how much is packed into so many of the shots. This film is easily one of the best of last year, if not the best. It essentially gets everything right. First off, it's meticulously directed by Tomas Alfredson, who gained fame for his 2008 vampire film, Let the Right One In. Alfredson has an eye for detail and how to construct a great shot. The film makes great use of English architecture, yet Alfredson balances this with plenty of outdoor locations. The movie also uses color better than any film in recent years. Most of the exteriors contain dark clouds, the interiors gray floors, walls, and suits. It's a very somber look, but Alfredson contrasts it with some vivid colors, like the walls of the meeting room, green lawns in a park, and various colored 70s European cars. Aesthetically this film is a marvel, but there's so much going on in the plot that it can be hard to focus on what Alfredson is up to visually. The story, the classic Cold War tale of finding a Russian mole operating within British intelligence, is thrilling. The intensity isn't in James Bond style chases and fist fights, but in just how quickly the story jumps around from one character to another. Being mentally alert might not even cut it. Gary Oldman plays the protagonist George Smiley, a retired agent who returns to the service to investigate the mole. Oldman may be the best thing about the film, giving a performance unlike anything we've seen before. His early days of histrionics are completely abandoned for an extremely quiet performance. Yet as many have cited, his presence is almost terrifying, his silence and his face his weapons. What a watchable, all around great movie this is. It's a spy thriller, not an action movie disguised as a spy thriller (as James Bond as turned the genre towards). I expect most American viewers will be surprised at the limited action, that Smiley never fires a gun. But hopefully this film will inspire more like it. But we definitely won't be seeing any before the next Bond adventure arrives.