Late Lunches: "State of Play"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: State of Play

My rating: 4 bites [out of 5]

I showed this movie to my parents a few days ago, and during a moment of Russell Crowe-investigative-reporting awesomeness, my mom turned to me and said:

“You want to be a reporter?”

I shook my head, just as Crowe did something badass again.

“Good. [Pause] Because you’d make a terrible one.”

That was meant in the nicest way possible...and I couldn’t agree more. I never wanted to be a reporter (if I do go into Journalism, I’d be much happier commentating from the side…preferably about movies, books, and TV!), but, man, I would never have the guts for what Russell Crowe does here. If I worked with him, I’d just be the worst possible partner—I’d nicely ask people for interviews, make jokes all the time, take “no” for an answer…and then Crowe would come along and rightfully beat me up (maybe he’ll even scream, “Are you not entertained?!” while doing that).

But that’s one of the reasons I loved State of Play—it was a fascinating glimpse into the lives of reporters—something I know very little about, despite wanting to be in that world. We see the tolls to your personal life that accumulate through the years, the consequences of publishing the truth about the people you care about, and just the choices these guys face on a daily basis, especially in the name of a good story. It’s not the main focus of the movie, but these details add life to the material, and raise it above what could have been just a standard mystery movie.

State of Play is a very strong film—the kind of well-thought-out story where lots of people with different agendas come together, the secrets come out, twists and turns happen at every possible moment, and loyalties and friendships are tested. This is smart entertainment—very well-acted, tightly plotted, and, despite little action in the traditional sense, it’s more exciting than what usually passes for “thrillers”. And it’s headlined by some of our best actors—all working in top-form, and giving us one of the best ensembles of the year.

I won’t get into too much of the story, since watching it unravel is a big part of the fun. So, here’s the basic set-up: Russell Crowe is seasoned Washington D.C. reporter, Cal McAffrey, and he stumbles on a strange shooting case. Meanwhile, his old college roommate, Congressman Collins (Ben Affleck), comes under fire for a possible affair, a story that falls to Rachel McAdams’s newbie blogger, Della Frye (and believing Crowe and Affleck as roommates is the only real stretch in the movie). As the twists pile up, Cal and Della start working together to unlock what might just be a wide-spanning conspiracy.


Once the main mystery kicks in, the story moves at a clip, tossing out rewarding plot twists left and right (especially one near the end, which viewers might figure out if they pay close attention). But I really want to give the filmmakers credit for making the movie as much about character as the overarching conspiracy. Crowe, especially, seems to be relishing playing Cal McAffrey—sure, he’s the never-back-down type when it comes to an important story, but the script (and Crowe) makes him a genuinely good guy—one who believes in the power of the truth, that newspapers could (and should) do more than entertain, even at the expense of making a profit. I also like that Crowe’s carrying a little extra weight here—he’s not in Maximus shape, and I think he uses that to his advantage. Cal’s a bit pudgy, loves to eat some second helpings of chili dogs (the mischievous smile on his face when he orders that is priceless), and that’s all a natural part of his character—he’s not the kind of guy who commands the attention of the Colosseum, but more the type who sneaks in on you with charm, his sense of humor, and his unthreatening, always-messy locks of hair. Crowe’s one of my favorite actors, and I like his lighter, playful roles (A Good Year, 3:10 to Yuma had glimpses of this too) just as much as the powerhouse-actor ones (like A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, etc). He’s got a Robin Hood movie coming out next year, from Gladiator director, Ridley Scott, and I can’t wait to see what he does with that.

Rachel McAdams does lovely work here as well—in fact, it’s the relationship between her and Crowe that really makes the movie for me. Her Della Frye is a good writer, but a completely inexperienced reporter. Still, she’s got spark and tons of determination (she would have made a terrific Lois Lane), and Crowe’s character takes her under his wing—it’s a sweet notion, and how Cal pushes to bring out her inner-great-reporter are some of the movie’s nicest touches. There’s also a scene with the two of them near the end, playing off a running joke in the movie, and it’s just a treat to watch—just two fine actors breathing life and energy to some great writing. McAdams is one of our most talented young actresses, so kudos to her for continuing to pick quality projects like this one.

I also want to single out Ben Affleck as Congressman Collins—Affleck’s another one of my favorites, and it’s especially nice to see him put in such strong character work (I also hear his hippie stoner in Extract steals that whole movie). After all the Giglis and Surviving Christmases, I know his name has become a bit of a joke, but Affleck has been on a major roll since his “comeback” with Hollywoodland (which should have gotten him a Best Supporting Actor nomination). Watching his interviews, he’s definitely a clever and talented guy, and one with a wicked sense of humor about himself (really, listen to some of his DVD commentaries—no one makes fun of his own films like him)—he would be the first to admit that he made awful film choices in the past, but he’s well on his way to correcting that. This is a tricky role, and casting the likeable Affleck is a smart, extra layer to an already interesting character—see what I mean when you watch the film—it’s easily his best work since Hollywoodland.

The supporting cast is also excellent, including Robin Wright Penn (The Princess Bride), a deliciously smarmy Jason Bateman (the very missed Arrested Development), and Oscar-winner Helen Mirren (The Queen, National Treasure 2) as the tough-as-nails editor of Crowe’s newspaper (if anyone could stand toe-to-toe with Crowe…and intimidate him, it’s her). Some great writers pitched in to the script, most notably Tony Gilroy (the Bourne trilogy) and Billy Ray (Shattered Glass, the best movie about journalists, in my opinion…and proof that Hayden Christensen can actually act!), and it’s all confidently directed by Kevin McDonald (The Last King of Scotland).

The movie also comments on the current newspaper woes—mainly, the slow death of print and the domination of online material. I’m not too knowledgeable on that, but I thought the movie handled the issue with subtlety and quite a positive, intelligent outlook. I actually feel the same way about books, with the steadily building argument that Kindles and portable electronics will one day replace them. That may be the case…but, for now, I think people will still flock to read a good book in print, exactly the way it was intended (Harry Potter and Dan Brown’s new book—which I’ll do an “On the Bookshelf” for in a few days—are perfect examples of that).

If I had any quibbles, it’s that the pacing lags a bit toward the end (although you forgive it on second viewing, since it’s vital for the final twist). There’s also one confrontation with Affleck and Crowe that feels too overwritten—the forced, “I thought you were my friend!”-type of outburst, where Affleck has to scream out exactly what the Conflict is for the audience—it’s one of the very few false notes this movie hits. Like I said, these are minor quibbles—little things like that could have been taken out, but their presence didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie.

Overall, along with Adventureland, this is my favorite film that I got to review here, so this is a very easy recommendation. Great suspense, an interesting story, and some fantastic acting…and you learn a little about journalists (which I found very cool)—I think there’s a little something for everyone here. And, let me just add: for a rental, it’ll be cheaper and a whole lot better than some of the films currently in theaters.

…and here are some fun facts to close this off:

Fun Fact 1: This movie was originally set to star Brad Pitt and Edward Norton (as Cal and Congressman Collins, respectively) in their first, legitimate post-Fight Club reunion (they co-produced a documentary since that movie), but that fell through as the script underwent some changes. Great actors, both of them, and the resulting film would have been just as interesting…if totally different.

Fun Fact 2: This movie’s based on a BBC miniseries starring James McAvoy (who was also in director McDonald’s The Last King of Scotland) and Bill Nighy (Davy Jones in the last two Pirates of the Caribbean movies)—I love both McAvoy and Nighy (man, I have way too many favorites), so I’ll be sure to check it out and let you guys know how it compares. The filmmakers here did an admirable job condensing 6 episodes worth of story into 2 hours, but if anyone’s curious, I’m sure a more-detailed version of this could be pretty interesting to see.


Images courtesty of Universal Pictures, Working Title Films, and BBC
Read more!

Late Lunches: "Adventureland"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: “Adventureland”

My rating: 4 bites [out of 5]

A nice, nerdy Jewish boy (with a killer Jew fro!)? Who wants to be a real writer? Who's even thinking of doing Journalism in Grad School (all annoying money issues aside)? Nope, I just can't relate to this movie at all...

This is a very good movie that (kind of unfairly) came and went quickly in theaters. It’s from Greg Mottola, the director of “Superbad,” and it was sold as something in that vein: an 80’s-set, raunchy “Superbad” clone, with a new nerdy hero and some amusement-park high jinks. And that’s pretty disappointing—this is a funny film, and, yes, it’s got a virginal, geeky leading man, but it’s a much different beast than “Superbad.” It’s a quiet, subtle little film, with shades of John Hughes and Cameron Crowe more so than the stamp of Judd Apatow.

And, for a good chunk of it, it’s actually quite sad. It does follow the people who work in a crappy amusement park, but all that stuff is much less wacky than just painfully, awkwardly true. We come across people like that every now and then—good people who just get stuck in their lives (it’s actually one of my biggest fears as well), and this film deals with that nicely—with a real eye for honesty and sympathy over cheap laughs. What does happen when we stop taking chances? When we just play it safe, coasting by on lost dreams and abandoned hopes?

I know, the way I’m painting it, it sounds like a downer of a movie …but it’s not. It’s hopeful, moving, and very funny at times—a heartfelt snapshot of one life-changing summer, and not some standard, predictable narrative, and that’s one of the things I liked best about it.

The plot’s pretty straightforward: it’s the summer of 1987 (my birth year!), and college grad James Brennan (the very good Jesse Eisenberg) finds his family in money troubles. He can’t go on a trip to Europe with his friends (where he was hoping to finally, uh, sow a few wild oats), so he’s stuck taking a dead-end job at the Adventureland theme park. However, in another honest detail, while James hates his "Games" job (which involves mostly commentating over fake horse races), he finds himself enjoying his time there because of the people he meets, especially Joel (Martin Starr, fantastic here) as a droll Russian Lit-major, and Em, his romantic interest (Kristen Stewart, proving that, yes, she’s a talented young actress, but we shouldn’t judge that from “Twilight”). That rings very true to me—I never had a job as bad as being an Adventureland “Games” person, but I worked in a terribly boring place a few years ago. I hated it at first, thinking it was beneath me (I'm really a pompous bastard when I get the chance, huh?)…but I started liking my time there as soon as I made some friends and fellow sufferers. And it helped that one of my favorite people (and future roommate) took the job too, and commiserated with me on our shifts. Jobs may come and go, but I think the relationships you form are the things that truly last and resonate.

True, not too much happens in this movie, but, then again, not much has to. At its heart, it’s an affectionate, pretty touching story of first love and, more so, growing up and moving forward. Greg Mottola wrote the script for this as well, and you could tell it’s a personal story for him. I listened to his commentary on the DVD, and, most likely, he was James (or someone very much like him)—the weird, loveable guy so full of ambitions, if not much sense of how to accomplish them. The movie feels intimate like that—it’s a close, unhampered look at young people on the brink of something—just whatever that “something” is, it’s completely up to them. I’m kind of at that point right now—I need to make some major decisions soon about jobs and Grad School—all stuff that I’m dreading, but have to face up to. This movie’s basic principle is right: it’s all about the choices you make, all about whether or not you try. There are a number of characters here that had so much potential, but they let excuses, some temporary problems, or a lack of courage hold them back, and they’ve regretted it ever since. I have no idea what’s going to happen for me in the next few months, but I'll do my best to keep trying—it’s a lofty, very noble-sounding ambition (incredibly ridiculous too, if anyone knows my patented lazy-and-tons-of-excuses approach to making decisions), but I do mean that, and the movie really spoke to me on that front.

The movie’s got quite the cast, too—a good combination of young talent at the center, and dependable stars in the supporting wings. Jesse Eisenberg has gotten some Michael Cera comparisons, but he’s working a totally different awkward energy. His James is the guy who’s immensely bright, but may be a bit too smart for his own good. He keeps talking, in a mile-a-minute, super-articulate fashion, even when it would really help him to shut up—he means so well, but he just doesn’t have the experience to tell him to slow down and stop revealing EVERYTHING. The role feels tailor-made for Eisenberg—a character like this could have been too awkward, or one that eventually got on our nerves, but he makes him a real, flawed person—a smart, kind-of-passive guy who learns to take chances and fight for what he wants. By the time we reach the ending, the choices James makes feel earned, and very believable considering what he’s been through. (And if I ever become an actor, Jesse Eisenberg has to play my brother—it'll be like dream casting for the Quirky Jewish Family!)

Eiseneberg is backed up by some great people too: the already-mentioned Martin Starr (a favorite of mine since “Freaks and geeks”), Kristen Stewart, who actually has the most complex character and she handles it with an impressive maturity, and Ryan Reynolds, in a very smart bit of casting (I can’t reveal much, but you’ll see what I mean when you watch the film—there's a reason someone as charismatic as Reynolds is playing that part). We also have the perpetual movie-scene-stealers, SNL-ers Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, as the park owners. They pop in and out to provide some laughs, but I wouldn’t have minded a little more of them.

Actually, “a little more” could apply to the whole movie for me. I liked all of these people, and I’m glad I got to drop in on their lives for a while, however short that was. But it seems there’s a little more story to tell—a few more moments with some of these guys that could have enriched the whole experience. Joel, especially, seems missing one or two key scenes—he’s so interesting and well-acted by Starr, I just would’ve loved more glimpses into his world. Same with James’ parents, who sort of come and go with their problems, but leave with too little resolution.

That aside, the movie is still very much worth your time - I think it will find a lot of new fans on DVD. For people who liked the quiet, angsty feel of “Garden State,” this movie tackles similar territory …and, in my mind, is a much better movie overall. It’s the kind of story that stays with you, simple as it is, and while it doesn’t reach the heights of a beautiful coming-of-age tale like “Almost Famous”, I think it’ll be around and talked about for quite some time.

Images courtesy of Miramax Films.
Read more!

Late Lunches: The Crazy Russian Tackles (of all things) "Step Up 2"

-Posted by Rusty

Review: “Step Up 2: The Streets”

My Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

“Why the hell am I watching this? And…wait, did I just kind of enjoy that?”

Both good questions. Both ran through my mind as I spent a lazy day home from work. This was on STARZ, and I turned it on right for the first dance sequence. Right on time for my good man, Channing Tatum (actually quite funny and likeable here), in a dance-off with new lead, Briana Evigan (who I really think could be a star one day).

And you know what? It wasn’t bad at all.

Channing Tatum had like 10 minutes of screen time at best, coming back as the character from the original movie to give our new heroine, the sassy, talented Andie, a nudge in the right direction. The plot kicks into gear when Andie, a “street dancer” (as a snooty dance instructor says it — you think he’ll change his mind?), gets a chance to go to the Maryland School of the Arts. Slowly but surely, she finds some kindred spirits aside from the preppy “clones”, and they band together to compete at a legendary dance competition called “The Streets.”

Evigan is a new face to me, but she’s got a ton of fire and charm. Her Andie is sharp, pretty witty, and can stand toe-to-toe with any guy. It also helps that she’s really pretty…but, in a cute, punk-ish, rebellious way—I like that she’s a bit different, that she gives off an edgy, don’t-mess-with-me vibe. Evigan is about to star in two horror movies (“Sorority Row” and an untitled one where she runs away from a cougar intent on eating her—I swear, that’s the actual plot description), but I think we'll see her in many more (and better) movies soon. I was very pleasantly surprised by how comfortably she held her own here; she’s a natural on screen, and she shows some real talent (not to mention amazing dancing chops).

Actually, I was pleasantly surprised by the whole movie. I totally expected to hate it, but — minus the last act, which is pretty predictable, and a subplot that’s unintentionally funny — for the most part, I think the film works. It’s a straight-down-the-line movie — almost good, but not really all that bad. Take this as a half-hearted recommendation, and just catch it on TV for a pleasant hour and a half.

While the film’s many rehearsal montages are pretty cool to watch, the parts of the movie that work the best are the dialogue and romance scenes (yeah, seriously). All the cast members, particularly Adam G. Sevani as Moose (who’s like a younger, slightly dorkier, but very loveable Shia LaBoeuf), have nice chemistry together, and, for some bonus points, they interact like actual teenagers. There’s a fun, unexpectedly loose rhythm to the dialogue — it’s somewhat jokey, but feels pretty authentic — it actually captures the way friends gently make fun of each other, and that’s pretty rare in teen films. Moreover, even the romances don’t seem tacky. There are two in the movie, and both are rather sweet—the couples never get cutesy, and the awkwardness, banter, and attraction all feel quite genuine. And, by the way, this might sound like a stupid achievement, but kudos to the “Step Up” filmmakers for having a handsome male lead who’s actually pretty smart. Chase (Robert Hoffman) could’ve been a bland, dopey “dream guy,” but in a good combination of performance and writing, Andie’s love interest is just an intelligent, talented, well-liked dude—they do exist in the real world…good to see one in the movies for a change (I’d almost compare him to Paul Rudd in “Clueless” if the movie was a little better).

But there are some missteps. Actually some major ones. I could’ve lived with the corny plotline of the Professor-Who-Just-Can’t-See-Andie’s-True-Talent-Until-the-End, but we also have an incredibly unnecessary rivalry with Andie’s old dance crew. Andie was forced to leave the crew because she joined MSU (how dare she go to a fine institution!), but then her old cohorts just can’t leave it alone. They taunt here, graffiti her school’s studio, and, well, just leer at her with lots of attitude whenever she comes by. They’re led by Tuck, who, throughout the movie, is literally some sort of dancing psychopath. At one point, he even drives up to Chase as he’s walking home, and asks, as toughly as possible, “So, I heard you were dancing it up in there?” How is “dancing it up” even remotely offensive? And Chase is a dancer — what else was he supposed to do?!

Oh, and then he beats Chase up because he doesn’t want him competing at “The Streets”. Why? I don't really know...but it sure is a sensitive issue for him.

I wish I could let that part of the movie slide, but Tuck (who also squeezes in lots of violent temper tantrums in between dancing) is too cartoonish to take seriously, and his moronic shenanigans take up way too much time. It’s funny stuff after a while, but I'm sure that’s not what the filmmakers were going for. And that’s too bad — there’s a charming movie in here that, with a quick snip of that entire subplot, would’ve been instantly better.

Still, the dancing (and, really, the rest of the movie) mostly makes up for Tuck’s ridiculous posse. Simply put, I thought the dancing was pretty incredible — most impressive of all was that final sequence in the rain (you might’ve seen glimpses of it in the trailer). I also liked that all the actors did their own dancing (to the extent we can see), but they seem to be actors first, and that helps immeasurably for the chunks of the movie that can’t rely on cool moves.

Overall, just a pretty enjoyable movie, if not exactly a good one. In real life, I have a weird relationship with dancing — I never properly learned (unacceptable for a Russian!), but I scraped by for years on just being able to slow-dance. So, movies like this are kind of a peek into things that are a bit beyond me. (Really, I don’t think my body could even contort like these guys without some serious damage.) It was a given that I’d at least like the dancing parts…but it really surprised me that I honestly cared for this quirky bunch of people.

There’s actually another “Step Up” movie coming soon (yep, “Step Up 3-D”), and while I probably won't see that one in theaters…it will be a most definite guilty-pleasure rental when it hits DVD. Or a random watch on STARZ on a day off from work, of course.

Image courtesy of Summit Entertainment and Touchstone Pictures.
Read more!