Review of "Gone Baby Gone"

Gone Baby Gone is one of those few movies that I had the pleasure of watching with no prior knowledge of. It was recommended to me by a reliable source, so I was able to confidently take the time to see it without the need to spoil anything with a trailer. Naturally I was surprised during the film's opening, when I saw the credits written and directed by Ben Affleck. "This," I thought, "should be very interesting."

It turns out that it was.

I'll start by addressing the directing style. Affleck does a pretty admirable job, considering this is his debut directing a feature film. I was most impressed by was how authentic the city of Boston and many of it's inhabitants felt. There are a few exceptions to this, however, which I feel distracted from this vision. A few of the film's minor villains seem overly exaggerated, and almost cartoony in nature. The fact that they are so obviously being portrayed as villains is likely what gives them this feel. They stand in stark contrast to the character Cheese, who manages to feel menacing and vulnerable at the same time. On the other end of the spectrum, the Hollywood actors that portray the film's "good guys" are so obviously prettier than the people around them that it's actually jarring. Unlike the cartoony villains however, this actually ends up working for the movie, rather than against it, which is an example of the odd nature of the film.

Gone Baby Gone is the best example I've yet seen of a film that is greater than the sum of its parts. This is oddly the film's greatest triumph and weakness. It's characters and plot are interesting enough to hold the audience's attention as the film rolls along, but they aren't revealed to be truly fascinating until the film's final moments. More than once during the viewing, I thought to myself, "where the hell is this going?" It is certainly is in the movie's defense that where it went was a marvelously well crafted analysis on the ambiguity of right and wrong. The film may have been a better representation about the difficulty of choosing between idealism and realism than any I have ever seen. Looking back, it's clear that almost all the moments in the film were carefully orchestrated to make the film's fantastic final moments possible, but it does deter a bit on the whole that the ride there seemed a bit uneven.

I was impressed by Casey Affleck's portrayal of private investigator Patrick Kenzie. Like many aspects of the film Kenzie seemed purposefully out of place. Affleck managed to seem capable, yet in over his head. He's likable and his character's motivations are the only ones in the film that are easy to follow. It helped as an audience member, to know that the protagonist seemed just as baffled by the other characters' motivations as I was.

The most frustrating example of this was Angie Gennaro, played by Michelle Monaghan. Her character has plenty of screen time, and an important role to play in the film, but is given almost no dialogue. To say that Monaghan's performance seemed lacking would be unfair, because she really didn't get the chance to do much but make half self righteous, half pouty faces for the majority of the film, despite the fact that she is both Kenzie's partner and love interest. (Two roles for the price of half of one!) The audience's inability to truly connect with her character is the film's most glaring flaw.

Morgan Freeman (Jack Doyle) and Ed Harris (Remy Bressant) turn in solid yet predictable performances. Really, they were both smart picks for their roles. Freeman is to the young Affleck what Doyle is to Kenzie. You believe it when the elder police officer gives the young PI a look that says, "Watch yourself kid. You may think you're hot $#!*, but I played an African-American Presient before it was cool, Batman's buddy, and God." Freeman's few scenes are well set up and hard hitting. Harris' character Bressant is a decent but uncompromising pseudo role-model for Kenzie, but sadly the film doesn't have much time to examine the relationship just when it starts getting really interesting.

The soundtrack by Harry Gregson-Williams is one that does it's job suitably without drawing much attention to itself. It is beautiful in it's simplicity and supports the movie well, but its a bit more difficult to recommend as a complete standalone purchase. I rate the film's soundtrack a 7 out of 10.

Gone Baby Gone was a pleasant surprise. It approaches greatness. It doesn't quite reach it, but it approaches it. So it turns out Ben Affleck is a bit of an auteur, and not a bad one at that. I hope to see him return to the directing chair in the future. I'm also glad to know that Good Will Hunting wasn't a fluke. Casey Affleck was fun to see in a starring role, and I hope to see him thrive as an actor. He seems to have a lot to offer, although there is a good possibility that, like his older brother, his charm could diminish the further he drifts from his roots.

Gone Baby Gone is a poignant and masterfully presented example of the gray areas of morality. It succeeds as The Dark Knight did, in showing it's audience that standing for an ideal costs much and does not always end with a clear cut victory. Though some parts are uneven, and the film doesn't truly shine until it's ending, it succeeds in examining one of life's most difficult issues, and leaves any thinking audience member reevaluating the nature of right and wrong. This, as well as the film's beautiful portrayal of the underbelly of Boston, lifts the film above any standard detective fare, and earns my rating of 9 out of 10.

Review of Pixar's "UP"

Ladies, Gentlemen… the bar has been set. I do believe that Pixar Studios contains the most remarkably consistently phenomenal set of filmmakers that I have ever witnessed. And they seem to be a nice bunch of people to boot, which renews my faith in the idea that you can be a decent, well rounded, human being, and still be a fantastic artist.

After my second viewing of Up, I realized something that somewhat shocked me: it was now my favorite animated film, beating out even 99’s stellar, The Iron Giant in my heart. I’ll try to describe why in as orderly a fashion as possible.

First and foremost, Up explores the human condition more intimately, beautifully, and simply than any film I’ve seen in recent history. The worlds of the elderly Carl Fredricksen and his young sidekick Russel are ones that most folks ignore. They are the forgotten members of our society, ignored because they are inconvenient. The film doesn’t over-glorify its heroes. Carl is a perfectly flawed old man. He is grouchy and rude, but like any well thought out character, his condition stems from something deeper. Carl’s issues stem from his terrible loneliness. This condition is established throughout the film as beautifully and sadly as anything I’ve ever witnessed in cinematic history. I can’t remember another time I’ve been brought to the verge of tears so many times in a single film, but never once did my emotions feel manipulated or forced. Carl, a computer generated cartoon of a 78-year-old man, is as relatable a character as any I’ve ever seen, and a successful protagonist at that. Russell, is just as simultaneously obnoxious and hysterical as any eager 8-year-old boy, and provides a wonderful foil to his elder. Russell is Carl’s younger mirror, and interestingly, his early disdain of the boy quietly demonstrates Carl’s own self loathing. Russell’s naïve excitement over their adventure is a constant reminder to Carl of the journey he will never be able to take with his departed wife, Ellie.

Up’s supporting characters work well, for the most part. Doug is amusing and loveable. I was particularly impressed with the fact that Pixar was able to work talking dogs into a film without it seeming contrived. The dogs’ speech patterns are hysterical, mostly because they seem so accurate to what a dog would say if it actually could talk. They even manage to sneak an honestly funny high pitched voice gag into the movie without the use of the film’s ridiculously abundant helium. Kevin the “snipe,” while obviously cartoony, is still somehow believable. Leave it to Pixar to put a hysterically dumb bird in a film and make you feel empathy for it. The only weak link in the film is its antagonist. Charles Muntz, Carl’s childhood hero, also provides an interesting foil, but ultimately turns out to be a bit more two-dimensional than the film’s heroes, (or the film itself, if you see it in 3-D). Muntz is the only character whose motivations feel forced, going from an all-around nice guy to murderous psychopath in moments. It’s obvious that Muntz has pain in his own life, but ultimately he just comes across as crazy and evil. I actually felt like the silent and cold-faced businessman that prompts Carl’s journey was a more believable and terrifying villain.

Up is not only a human drama, however. There’s also adventure to be had, and the film succeeds on this level too. From the beginning of Carl’s journey, there is plenty of excitement and beauty. It doesn’t hurt that the excellent animation makes the environments feel real. Simple touches, like the rainbow of light that Carl’s balloons cast on his environment, give the landscape of this adventure an original flair. Also, the South American landscape near the fictional Paradise Falls is breathtaking. I’m tempted to tour South America myself, just to see if the animators were over-exaggerating the beauty of the region. The action in the film is used sparingly, but well. Most is either closely tied to humor or the drama of Carl’s decisions. The beginning of the film’s climax does a good job at reminding us just how much Carl has to give up to do the right thing, and it makes his transformation from victim to hero all the more impactful in the following scenes. Pay attention Hollywood! This is the way that action should be done. No amount of pretty explosions or carefully choreographed kung fu will suffice if there isn’t a deep human need giving it importance.

As a huge fan of movie soundtracks, I would be remiss not to mention the film’s score, by Michael Giacchino. It is beautiful and its old-timey nature fits the film perfectly. My only complaint is that, although there are many well thought out variations of the main theme, there are few deviations from it. That said, the theme does its job well, and one of the most exciting moments of the film is bolstered greatly by hearing a once sad tune take on an exciting new attitude. I would rate the film’s score an 8 out of 10, and easily recommend a purchase to fans of soundtracks.

Finally, I would like to discuss the use of 3D in the film. I watched Up three times in the theatre: twice in 3D and once in 2D. Up was the first feature film I have ever seen in 3D, though I’ve been exposed to the format in various Disney theme park attractions. So though I have few other films to compare it to, my first viewing of Up left me overwhelmed with excitement. I’ve heard some complaints that the movie didn’t really seem like it was made for 3D, but this is exactly why I enjoyed it. Unlike the aforementioned Disney attractions, Up’s 3D subtly enhanced the movie, without seeming gimmicky or forced. I would liken its use to that of Technicolor. It’s certainly not necessary to tell the story, and the film is beautiful without it, but just like color is used in many films to enhance a theme through mood, 3D adds to the overall experience. The most subtle examples of this were the film’s 2D moments. The film even starts out in 2D, because young Carl is at the theatre, looking at a 2D screen as he admires his hero. The jump between 3D Carl and the 2D, black and white newsreel demonstrates just how phony his view of Charles Muntz is. Even more interesting are the moments when Carl looks to his photographs for guidance, realizing that his memories are only that, and that a real adventure is going on around him as he sulks in the past. It’s a small touch, but it added a layer of depth (pun intended), and made the movie more exciting and beautiful to watch. Speaking of excitement, it’s much more intense seeing characters teetering from the edge of an airship when it appears that they could just fall off into the screen.

As far as any negatives are concerned about the 3D experience, I only found two. First of all, the tecnology was not perfect. In both 3D viewings I noticed a pronounced blurring of two images along a cliff’s edge in the same part of the movie. I don’t know if this was because of my eyes (I wear glasses), or if the Real-D technology simply couldn’t recreate the depth of the moment properly. That being said, it was the only moment that I noticed any issues at all with the 3D effect. I’ve heard some people say that Real-D mutes picture colors, and argue that this does a disservice to such a colorful movie. I personally didn’t notice any difference, and I’m a huge image quality snob. (I’m one of those few guys who actually cares about the difference between 1080 and 720 video.) On my second 3D viewing of the film, I noticed that I had a hard time focusing during the 3D trailers, most notably the one for G-Force. I’m not sure if it was because of the rapid fire editing of the trailer, or the fact that stuff kept flying out of the screen, but the images were a bit overwhelming and hard to focus on. My mother was checking to see if she could take her glasses off and watch the movie in 2D before it even began. Perhaps this will be the stumbling block that prevents 3D from ever becoming mainstream. Most normal people can only handle so much visual stimulation. I imagine films like The Bourne Supremacy would be impossible to watch in 3D. A good chunk of the audience couldn’t enjoy even it in 2D film with cuts often changing three times per second. I’m crossing my fingers that moviemakers will take this into consideration, because I feel that 3D has the potential to bolster the film-going experience much more than it hinders it. The only exception being that it is much more difficult to wipe tears away with two pairs of glasses on.

Up is a fine example of everything I love about the movies. It attempts much, and succeeds on nearly every level. It has fantastic characters. It teaches valuable lessons about the human condition without ever once seeming preachy. It is funny, and exciting, and touching. For a movie to succeed on any of these levels is noteworthy. A film that can successfully balance and accomplish all these goals is a true work of art. It is for this reason that I happily give Up my highest reccomendation: 10 out of 10.

Greetings, from the Halfmaster

I suppose I should begin this all with something of an introduction. I am the Halfmaster.

What? Why?

Sigh... Well, it's a long story, but here's the short version.

1. I decided I wanted to be a filmmaker in high school.
2. I worked very hard through college to get into a great, graduate-level film program.
3. I got mono halfway through, and had to drop out.

So I was only able to earn half my masters. Fortunately, this hasn't dampened my spirit... much. I'm soon moving to California and plan to put my knowledge to good use.

One of the most important things I learned in film school was this: it's important to know your art, and to have an opinion about it. This blog is my attempt to motivate myself to keep up on the ins and out of film and the film industry, and to develop a well formed and intelligent opinion about my art form.

In order to do this, I plan to write reviews. The format of these review is likely to vary. I may write about a current movie one week or an older film the next. I may give a star rating when all is said in done, or just do a comparison between two films, or two edits of the same film.

If nothing else, the process should be... educational.

Comments are most welcome, as long as they add to the ongoing discussion of film, and are constructive in nature. Perhaps eventually, this venue will be a place that more people than just myself will get something out of.

In any event, welcome, and I hope you'll enjoy The Halfmaster's Review.