The Adjustment Bureau

“The Adjustment Bureau” is silly and light but thrives on its chemistry between Matt Damon and Emily Blunt… and fedoras.

The argumentative fallacy known as insufficient cause asserts the distance between a given cause and effect in a situation. This logic can be applied in “The Adjustment Bureau,” as in, because Matt Damon did not spill coffee on his shirt one morning, he may have prevented a third golden age in civilization.

There is considerable distance between that cause and effect, but man, Matt Damon looks good in a fedora.

“The Adjustment Bureau” hinges on that balance between a plot that ranges from odd to preposterous and the unfettered silliness of it all, not to mention the charming chemistry between Damon and co-star Emily Blunt.

Damon as an actor can range from stoic action badass in the Bourne movies to suave comic foil in everything from “Ocean’s 11,” “The Informant!” and “30 Rock.” Director and screenwriter George Nolfi has written for Damon in both “The Bourne Ultimatum” and “Ocean’s 12,” and he gives Damon free range to act, sticking him in 90 percent of the scenes and encouraging him to casually roll with the screenplay’s absurd punches. Thankfully, Damon capitalizes on every minute, and throughout “The Adjustment Bureau,” his David Norris remains a likable and confident leading man.

At the beginning of the film, David is a 24-year-old senate candidate for New York, famous as a youthful, yet authentic and loose cannon of a politician. Following a scandal at his college reunion, Norris loses the election but meets Elise (Blunt) in of all places, the men’s room as he rehearses his concession speech. The pair hit it off perfectly, notably from the performers and less the script, and that connection carries us throughout the rest of the film.

Thank goodness, because it is at this point that things get weird and silly. Continue reading “The Adjustment Bureau”

Psycho (1960)

If “North By Northwest” has not aged well, it is because Alfred Hitchcock’s large scale, big budget chases are not and were never his strongest suit. Hitchcock made “Psycho” a year later in black and white with a fraction of “North By Northwest’s” budget and no special effects or extravagant chases to think of. Yet “Psycho” has not aged one bit.

“Psycho” is a masterpiece. It is one of the greatest films ever made and beyond that, one of the most influential. I could spend a thousand words discussing the film’s legacy and place in cinema history and never actually talk about the film or the masterful craft that went into it.

But the reason “Psycho” has not aged a day whereas “North by Northwest,” one of his most popular and well known films has, is because “Psycho” is Hitchcock’s expression of “pure cinema,” a term countless critics, and Hitch himself, have thrown around when talking about the film. To make the film, he ditched the crew he used for “Northwest” and enlisted the one that produced his television show “Alfred Hitchcock Presents.” They built the set of the Bates Motel on the still standing soundstage at Universal Studios and did not use any on location shooting. Their budget was a grand total of $800,000. Cary Grant received over $400,000 alone for shooting “North by Northwest.” Continue reading “Psycho (1960)”

Source Code

Certain films beg comparison of others. “Source Code” screams out to be a hybrid of “12 Monkeys,” “Vantage Point,” “Eternal Sunshine,” “Unstoppable” and of all things, “Groundhog Day.” But Duncan Jones directs the film with such flair and vigor that it supersedes all comparisons.

On paper, the story begins to show its flaws, and the science of the Source Code apparatus that governs the events of the film fails to indicate how complex first time screenwriter Ben Ripley’s work is. Continue reading “Source Code”

TV and movies living in the past still make mark on the future

Leave it to the blogosphere to blow yet another writer’s attention grabbing conversation starter of an article way out of proportion.

Matt Zoller Seitz of Salon wrote a fairly well reasoned piece entitled “Will future generations understand ‘The Simpsons’?” and many writers that he later quoted in a follow-up post made equally valid arguments that he was either correct with an asterisk or simply wrong.

Most people were particularly shocked that he chose to target such a legacy show like “The Simpsons” and an episode of the show, “Krusty Gets Kancelled,” known to be one of their finest (it made my list of 20 last week). But he picked a single joke and failed in analyzing its immense level of pop cultural depth to his young child, which prompted him to question how anyone under 25 could possibly appreciate how in-tuned with the time period the episode was.

One of Zoller Seitz’s bullet points included that it is impossible to re-live certain moments in pop culture history, like to know how big a deal it was to see Johnny Carson leaving, or how it is whenever someone mentions Charlie Sheen now.

And while some of Zoller Seitz’s critics were a bit snarky at his initial column, their arguments were just as pointed. For instance, “The Simpsons” and many other shows are not for kids like the one he was watching with, comedies should not all strive to be timeless at the risk of sacrificing comedy now, absolutely everything begins to date itself, the best pop culture gags have something else going for them, and most obscure references can be understood with Google anyway.

There are only so many TV shows dated enough to test this theory (“Seinfeld” and a lack of the Internet, smart phones and text messaging is a fantastic example though). But movies as it turns out can be just as much relics of popular culture that found their prime in their day but hold up just as well today.

Movies may not share the super timely quality of scripted TV, nor the serial programming that can enough create footnote television across episodes and seasons, but they capture moments in history just as well.

If only Zoller Sietz was writing back when the Marx Brothers were around. A number of Groucho’s one-liners are an exercise in obscurity. In “A Night at the Opera” during the famous contract scene, the dialogue between Groucho and Chico goes, “Don’t you know what duplicates are? Sure, those five kids in Canada.” Type that line into Google and you’ll get the page for the Dionne quintuplets, a group of babies once famous in 1934 but no longer. But the line of dialogue still works because the Marx Brothers deliver it with such perfect timing and charm.

There’s also Cary Grant thinking the character Bruce in “His Girl Friday” looks a lot like Ralph Bellamy, Preston Sturges parodying all of Hollywood in “Sullivan’s Travels,” Woody Allen trotting out Marshall Mcluhan from behind that stand-up in “Annie Hall,” the religious pamphlet distributors in “Airplane,” the entire ‘80s music landscape in “This is Spinal Tap” and Paul Rudd calling Seth Rogen gay for liking Coldplay in “The 40 Year Old Virgin.”

I don’t intend to harp on Zoller Seitz’s very strong points about “The Simpsons” any more than any other writer, but it’s a scary thought believing that the shows and movies we love today may fly over the heads of future generations.

With any luck, some 2011 parody video will show people 20 years from now exactly how much we hate Rebecca Black today.

Rapid Response: The Inglorious Bastards

Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film bares nothing in common to “The Inglorious Bastards” except it’s similarly spelled title, but this is still a movie worth watching if nothing else.

Watching the film, it’s easy to see why QT would respond so highly to it. Like the Spaghetti Westerns of which he is such a fan, “The Inglorious Bastards” is a “macaroni combat” film. It has an entirely American (or also German) cast and yet an Italian director and writing team.

It’s also a very well made B-movie cult film, loaded with violent, yet PG-13 rated action and very little overarching plot. Four American soldiers set to be court marshaled, a renegade lieutenant and a stranded German soldier all try and make their way to the Switzerland border before they are enlisted for a secret mission after killing the original team responsible for the mission.

Watching it, I was impressed by just how good the action scenes were. Sparing are the shot/reverse shot action scenes that dominate so many war movies, instead replaced by combat that is constantly in full view, and what’s more is often stealthy and creative rather than just macho and violent.

And yet the film is ridiculous enough to be a barrel of fun. One character is the trouble-making thief and forger, and when another soldier asks him how long he’s been in military jail, he takes off his helmet to reveal hair going down to his shoulders. And that’s later topped when a group of naked German women bathing and playing in a river end up grabbing machine guns and shooting at the Bastards when they see the black guy in their team.

No, it’s not “killin’ natzees,” but it is just good old killing nazis.


There is no market in the movie theater for short animated films today. That market has moved online, only to be discovered in viral form. Such short films are hardly rigid in their aim to “amuse” the way modern animated kids movies are, yet they are experimental, revolutionary and captivating in their own ways. Like those classic shorts, segments of “Rango” exist purely irreverently, in a trippy void of comedy and drama that doesn’t cease to challenge. Continue reading “Rango”