I’m writing this review – or set of reviews in the hope of encouraging other iBrattleboro users to do the same. I would like to know what others thought of these movies and others that I didn’t see that are up for Oscars this year. I’m not a critic, I don’t have any background in writing reviews. However, I love to talk about the movies I see – I hope somebody else will join in with their own views and we can go back and forth about them.

The Hurt Locker is one of the movies receiving buzz and nominations that I have seen. The movie has taken in a paltry $16 million since its release in June 2009 yet has enjoyed a lot of buzz lately. I suspect this has more to do with Hollywood politics than the fact that Hurt Locker is a very good movie.

And it is a good movie. The feverishly beating heart of Hurt locker lies in the realm of the action/suspense genre. I think the movie got mistakenly tagged as an “Iraq war movie” (joining such other beautiful losers as The Valley of Elah) and that has cost it an audience that would otherwise flock to it. H.L. belongs more in the Bourne/Bond category of hyper testosterone fueled, jittery camera, nerve tingling action/suspense.

Sergeant First Class William James as played by Jeremy Renner is one of the great reckless/fearless-in-the-face-of-death, adrenaline junkie roles of all time. Renner plays James without a hint of swagger or macho heightening the suspense. He’s a must-see.

Personally I identified more with the Anthony Mackie’s Sgt. JT Sanborn – the mother hen trying to keep his and his buddies feet on the ground in the riptide of battle. Mackie’s Sanborn gives H.L. an emotional focus and keeps James’ emotionlessness somewhat tethered.

As mentioned I don’t see this as an “Iraq war movie”. Everything thing I know about the U.S. in Iraq is missing. Even the phrase “stop loss” is missing. There are no American contractors (Ralph Fiennes shows up briefly as a Brit soldier of Fortune who quickly gets dispatched), the political mess does not appear, soldiers killed by faulty wiring, bad water, food etc. H.L. focuses narrowly on these 3 soldiers and their bomb diffusing missions.

Video of the NY Times’ reviewer talking to Anthony Mackie:
http://video.nytimes.com/#
Wikipedia page for H.L.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Locker


UP

This is another hit for Pixar/Disney (the film grossed $723 mill. worldwide). I think this movie is getting enough accolades (deserved, in my opinion) that it doesn’t need anymore from me.

I’ve now seen Finding Nemo, Walle, Ratatouille, The Incredibles and Monsters Inc. they’re all good, in fact with the exception of Monsters, I’d say they’re all great. The next Pixar/Disney movie that comes out I’ll go see.

Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(2009_film)

Up in the Air

George Clooney being George Clooney.

I’m tempted to leave it at that, but there are the real people being fired here, or so I am told. It’s not really what I go to the movie theater for – to have my economic anxieties amped up – and I don’t even work in a corporation where this type of scenario might play out.

If you don’t know, George Clooney’s Ryan Bingham is a man who lives out of a suitcase. He loves the anonymity of airport travel and accumulating miles and perks.

His company hires him out as a sort of hitman to fire people when the boss is too timid to do the deed himself. Bingham has his spiel and is good at it.

Along comes brash young Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) fresh out of college with a plan to stream line the business and have the process done from a remote call center. The ensuing clash between Bingham’s face to face approach and Keener’s digital one helps give this otherwise plotless Clooney vehicle some direction. Vera Farmiga as Alex Goran, the love interest gives Up in the Air a momentary lift, but she becomes baggage after a while as well.

There’s one verry interesting moment when the two women compare what they’re looking for in a mate. Kendrick’s Keener has a list so precise she knows what kind Jeep she wants him to be driving. The love hardened Goran has much more limited hopes – her face expresses more than her words – it seems to be saying I just want someone who won’t hurt me.

That’s a reasonable hope for us all in these times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_in_the_Air_(film)

Invictus

As a sports movie Invictus is OK.

As a political movie it succeeds, barely.

I went to a Johannesburg newspaper to see what the locals thought of Hollywood’s incursion onto their turf. They weren’t overly wowed.

The Mail & Guardian in Johannesburg:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-12-11-buy-a-ticket-get-free-mandela

This review focuses on how hard it is for Freeman to sell himself as Mandela when they all know Mandela so well (Freeman tended to slouch while Mandela was always ramrod straight). Overall the South Africans seemed to be glad someone had told the tale but wished it had been a South African.

Briefly, Invictus is the (just) post apartheid story of Mandela overriding the wishes of many in his own party to keep the nation’s rugby team under the same colors and with the same name.

To the blacks of S.A. this was not an easy sell, as those colors and the name represented oppression.
However, Mandela was focused on the fear of white South African’s that his rule meant the end of everything they trusted and that if they came to oppose him it could mean the end of the country, or at least make the road harder for South Africa going forward. He seized on the Springboks as one thing he could give them as their own.

As it happened the international rugby cup was held in S.A. that year and the Springboks won. In comments I have seen, this is now seen as a temporary drug that made them feel good for a while but didn’t fix anything. Apparently, the tensions are still there, so any tendency for the movie to suggest that all was good after the win, is bunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invictus_(film)