Short Takes: "50/50" and "Habemus Papam".

Let's get one thing out of the way: disliking a movie where someone has cancer isn't the same as supporting cancer (whatever that would entail...), with that said 50/50 isn't really a great or outstanding movie, what it does - and it does it efficiently- is deliver a story about beating the odds without extreme corniness.

Movies about terminal patients can be done beautifully and with just the right amount of feeling (Terms of Endearment for example, which is even mentioned here) or they can be ludicrous weepfests that aim to move you even if you know the creative team could do better.

50/50, despite being based on real events, feels like another Judd Apatow-lite movie in which men-children grow up because life pretty much forces them to. Here it's Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Kyle (Seth Rogen) whose lives turn upside down when the former is diagnosed with stage three cancer. Even if the sick one should be the most "important" character in the film, most of the attention is divided into how Kyle deals with the disease. He uses it to his advantage and convinces women to have sex with him because he's sad. Perhaps this film would've resulted a bit more interesting if the casting had been more creative. Aren't you sick of Rogen always playing the adorable man-child who learns his lesson in the end? Aren't you tired of Gordon-Levitt always playing the sensitive young man who gets his ass kicked by life? To continue its lazy, stereotypical casting the movie has Bryce Dallas Howard play Adam's bitchy, control freak girlfriend and Anna Kendrick as his cool-but-way-too-eager shrink. The only one who dazzles in the cast is Anjelica Huston who could give Shirley MacLaine a run for her money in the "imposing mamas with sick children" department. She makes all of her scenes thrive with the kind of life nothing else in the movie has. 

All the imagery, rituals and traditions of Catholicism should result fascinating even to non-believers (or people of different faiths) which is why Nanni Moretti's Habemus Papam hooks you from its opening scene. We see a group of cardinals walking towards a room where they will vote for who is to become the next Pope. As the old men in red cassocks go towards their room, reporters shout at them trying to get an interview. This moment, perhaps because of its strange mix of realism and postmodernism, hints at the delicious way in which Fellini dealt with the church. When a Pope is finally elected (after a hilarious scene in which we realize all of them are praying not to be chosen) he has a problem: he doesn't think he's ready to do this job.

Therefore elected Pope, Cardinal Melville (Michel Piccoli) is set to receive help from a psychiatrist (Moretti) until he decides it's better to escape and see what he's missing in the outer world. The movie then becomes a severely existentialist version of Roman Holiday as the old man meets new people, goes to therapy (Margherita Buy plays his chosen shrink) and relives one of his youth dreams improvising Chekhov in a hotel lobby.

Even if the ending feels a bit too facile and Moretti doesn't dig too deep into Melville's motivations or tries to deliver a political or spiritual punch, the film is the perfect mix of clever comedy and melancholic drama, with some scenes that are absolutely haunting (a setpiece accompanied by Mercedes Sosa's "Todo Cambia" results absolutely breathtaking).

Best in show might be Piccoli's performance filled with lovely nuances. His ability to evoke deep nostalgia with nothing but a sigh makes for quite a treat and the way in which he delivers his speeches will break your heart. Moretti might have the last laugh but Piccoli delivers the soul.

Grades: 50/50 **
Habemus Papam ***

Inception **

Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy
Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cillian Murphy
Tom Berenger, Pete Postlethwaite, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine

Inception gets wrong everything that film noir got right. Perhaps, because in its attempt to create something groundbreaking and original, while obviously referential, it forgot that complexity and depth are often found within simplicity.
Nolan alludes to some of his idols like Stanley Kubrick and Michael Mann to come up with an ambitious facade that reveals deep inside there wasn't much to be said after all.
To put it in a blunt analogy, the movie is the equivalent of receiving a beautifully wrapped package for your birthday only to realize it contains socks.
Inception takes place in a future where corporate espionage has moved to the next level. Instead of sending spies into the companies; ideas and thoughts are stolen directly from the minds of its creators.
Using a machine and a series of sedatives, these dream thieves are able to navigate the minds of people and access hidden information. They create entire dreams, populate them with characters and other tricks to invade the person's subconscious.
But these dreams are made out of different levels and contain all kinds of rules that make this much harder than one would think.
This process is called "extraction" and Dom Cobb (DiCaprio) is the go-to-man for these kind of jobs. Of course he has a dark past that led him to this line of work; in his case it's his tempestuous relationship with his wife Mal (Cotillard) and the fact that he's a fugitive who's been trying to make it back home for a while.
One day Dom receives a unique request from powerful businessman Saito (Watanabe), he doesn't need information, he needs "inception", to implant an idea inside his main competitor's (Murphy) mind.
Inception is some sort of urban myth, few people think it can be done, and Cobb reluctantly takes on the job after Saito promises he will clear his charges and make sure he gets back home safe.
To proceed with the heist, Cobb recruits Arthur (Levitt), his main partner and logistics man, Eames (Hardy) a clever impersonator capable of taking on anyone's personality in dreams, Yusuf (Rao), an experienced chemist who provides the sedatives and Ariadne (Page) an architect meant to design the various levels of the dreams.
The plot then moves like your regular heist movie and just like one, pulls cards out of its sleeves to make every twist and turn feel like the ultimate thrill. The thing about Inception is that it's so in love with its own grandiosity that it forgets to have any fun.
By providing certain rules that regulate the dream world (and are sure to become part of geek boy lexicon like the dialogue in Fight Club) the screenplay tries to conceal the fact that Nolan isn't capable of handling different levels of existence in the way Robert Altman did (without the fantastic sci-fi aid mind you).
One of the major elements about the dream world is that as the characters go down one level, time changes. This gives Nolan the opportunity to push slow motion to the limit and come up with some nice looking photographic tricks that make less obvious the fact that Nolan's eyes were bigger than his creative stomach. He tries to inject complexity into pausing action.
Because honestly nothing really happens during these time swifts which usually require the characters to fall asleep in order to work.
The whole movie actually functions on a paradoxical premise: we get the rules but they don't make much sense.
Sure, one could say that sci-fi allows its creators to bend reality and push the imagination but what are we supposed to think about a movie in which the characters are so faithful to the regulations of the world they inhabit, when the screenplay is constantly telling us to take a "leap of faith". Is this leap meant to make us ignore the plot holes in Nolan's writing?
How then, one might wonder, is it possible for the characters to keep secret from each other when invading someone else's mind?
If they are all in one person's subconscious and get to travel together from mind to mind, wouldn't it make sense that they all knew what the other was thinking? To go into these kinds of questions would make the movie fall like a house made out of playing cards and perhaps it's better to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt.
Yet even if it wasn't for the lackluster writing, Inception is doomed by its exhaustive and exhausting attempt to seem clever.
Nolan draws from film noir to come up with the whole plot. We have the "last job", the "man without a past", the femme fatale and other basic elements that made up the film style.
However noir was effective because it took place in a universe where dreams didn't exist, where people became archetypes trying to rediscover humanity.
In films like The Maltese Falcon ("the stuff which dreams are made of") and Out of the Past we saw human decay being explored in such a unique way that we saw the stories take place in locations that seemed real but we knew were representations of larger themes.
These movies about detectives, prostitutes and disloyal crooks were actually studies of the pathologies found in society and explorations of the implications popular culture was beginning to have on the collective psyche.
Yet talking about them, it's hard at first to see them for more than what they are. Inception on the other side, takes these stories into the location they were actually taking place in (the human mind) and by overexplaining them ironically robs them of their entire oneiric qualities.
Film noir is dream-like, Inception somehow is not.
Added to this, we have to wonder about the reality suggested in the world where Inception takes place. Nolan never bothers in suggesting there are any sort of ethical implications to what the dream thieves are doing.
We have to wonder if more people in this world are aware that this exists. Without this it's almost impossible for this technique to feel menacing. How can someone fear what they can't fathom possible?
The movie lacks a feeling of threat that goes beyond what the characters are going through. As personal as the subconscious they're invading might be, there is still a body that owns it and is presumably regulated by things like the law and societal rules.
Why then does the movie forgo all this and tries to trick us by making it seem as if it's only these characters who exist in the world (even taking into account some plot twists, it would still be rather limited to stick to such a facile theory).
It would be easy to dispute almost any element about the film's structure but the one thing nobody can deny is the lack of coherence in the dichotomy between mind and emotion.
We are constantly reminded by the characters that as logical as dreams may seem, they are ruled and commanded by feelings.
It's even one of the main points in planning the heist.
When it comes to executing this though, the movie falls apart disastrously even if a lot of the characters are constantly talking about emotions.
"What do you feel?" asks Mal, in what should've been the movie's emotional center. Instead of making the audience shed a tear, this scene just proves how disconnected the movie is from its own speech.
As if Nolan too chose to forget a truth he once knew...or maybe just lacks the directorial skills to aim at both mind and heart.
Not that there's anything wrong with it, in fact Kubrick made a career out of the purely cerebral, Nolan perhaps should also stick to what he knows best.
Sadly because the movie doesn't have the emotional core it refers to so much, we are denied the opportunity of watching either an entertaining heist flick or a tragic romance.
But not everything about the movie disappoints. The action sequences are interesting although their reminiscence to the Batman flicks and Insomnia make it seem like all these characters dream of are Christopher Nolan movies. It would've been interesting to see him play with these landscapes in a more surrealistic way, perhaps not pushing it all the way into whimsical territory like Hitchcock and Dalí did but at least toying a bit more with all the fuss about how in dreams you can build whatever you want.
Then there's Marion Cotillard who not only gets the film's most interesting "character" but also makes Mal so rich and complex that an eventual plot twist will leave us scratching our heads in awe. Watching her walk with the elegance of Marlene Dietrich while the world, literally, falls apart around her is watching an actress at the height of her powers. There is nothing she can't do.
The same can not be said about the movie, which proves that the more you talk about ideas doesn't mean you are particularly enlightened.

Golden Globe Predictions.

If the Hollywood Foreign Press Association serves a purpose it's to deliver the wackiest awards show on the planet. This year, more than any other, they might just go ahead and also have one of their most surprising ceremonies, with several film categories literally up in the air.

People don't give the HFPA the credit they deserve and forget that unlike the Academy they aren't afraid to go for the edgiest choices from time to time and as much starfucking as they do, they actually deliver the acting awards to the best performances.
This year they will give their prestigious Cecil B. de Mille Award to the incomparable Martin Scorsese (who just last year handed it out to Steven Spielberg), let's keep in mind that the HFPA gave Marty their Best Director award twice and before the Academy.
So maybe they're not all about champagne, crassness and cursing. Maybe they're on to something.

Best Motion Picture (Drama)

Will win: "Avatar"
Should win: "The Hurt Locker"

"Up in the Air" might be the movie going in with the most nominations, but "Avatar" is all the rage right now. The Globes were one of the first to reward "Titanic" twelve years ago when "L.A. Confidential" was sweeping everything and whenever they have the opportunity to reward something epic, over something small they will usually choose that road.
It would be incredible to see them give their top award to "The Hurt Locker", but after last year's love for the slumdog, they might want to get back to being all Hollywood.

Best Motion Picture (Comedy or Musical)

Will win: "Nine"

Should win: "(500) Days of Summer"

Truth be told, their lineup in this category isn't so good. It's filled with average to good movies without a single truly outstanding thing in the mix. Sure "Julie & Julia" was fun, but is it really Best Picture material?
"Nine" stands as the second most nominated film this year and the HFPA loves musicals and stars, but the real shame here is that they went AMPAS' way and threw all the animated films to their own category. If they hadn't sent them to the ghetto, "Up" would've had this one in the bag and with reason, it's among the best films of the decade.

Best Director Motion Picture

Will win: Kathryn Bigelow "The Hurt Locker"
Should win: Kathryn Bigelow "The Hurt Locker"

The Globes already rewarded a woman in this category, so they have that whole "let's make history" thing out of their minds. So here they will perhaps establish one of those splits awards have become so fond of. Bigelow's film was the most taut thriller of the year and the best movie about the Iraq invasion released so far. James Cameron will have to sit down and applaud as his ex-wife begins her steady march towards Oscar.
Oh and that nomination for Clint Eastwood is a joke.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture (Drama)

Will win: Jeff Bridges "Crazy Heart"
Should win: N/A

As much as the Globes love George Clooney, they will not resist rewarding a man who epitomized cool decades before Clooney came to notoriety. The fact that they nominated Tobey Maguire for "Brothers" should be enough for them to make up by giving the award to someone who actually has been mastering the craft for decades.
If not for all of this, maybe they will realize that Clooney having two acting Globes already is way too much already...

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture (Drama)

Will win: Carey Mulligan "An Education"
Should win: Carey Mulligan "An Education"

Maybe I'm just trying to convince myself that Sandra Bullock's bizarre win in the Critics Choice Awards was a freaky accident that had Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe split each other's votes or maybe the HFPA will choose the best performance in the category.
If Mulligan has an advantage is that she doesn't have to compete with Meryl Streep here and that the Globes love the British ingenue more than the rest (last year's win for Sally Hawkins was extraordinary!) and again that she's the best in the category (I love Emily Blunt but I'll never understand what she's doing here over Abbie Cornish, yes I will bring up Cornish in everything Best Actress related this season).
Oh boy, but what if Mulligan and Sidibe split their votes all over and Bullock emerges winner?

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture (Musical or Comedy)
Will win: Joseph Gordon-Levitt "(500) Days of Summer"
Should win: Joseph Gordon-Levitt "(500) Days of Summer"

It's been settled that everyone pretty much hates "Nine", so a win for Daniel Day Lewis here would be strange (especially because critics pretty much think he's the weakest link in the movie). A hunch tells me they might want to reward Matt Damon in "The Informant!" just so that he won't go home empty handed (he won't win Supporting...) but if something the Globes love more than the rest are the pretty boys delivering superb performances.
If Jonathan Rhys Meyers and James Franco are Golden Globe winners, how can they not love Joseph Gordon-Levitt's delightful turn in "(500) Days of Summer"?
I expect him to be the kind of slight shocker Colin Farrell was last year, even if his win totally makes sense.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture (Musical or Comedy)
Will win: Meryl Streep "Julie & Julia"
Should win: Meryl Streep "Julie & Julia"

Come on they probably engraved her name in the award the day after the movie came out.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Will win: Christoph Waltz "Inglourious Basterds"
Should win: Christoph Waltz "Inglourious Basterds"

It's a shame that poor Christopher Plummer is getting nominated for awards for the first time in his entire career because he has almost no chance to win any facing the juggernaut that is Waltz. The HFPA won't merely be following in the footsteps of Cannes and the critics' awards, they will also be reminding people that they are above all an international committee seeking to reward the best from wherever in the world they are.
And yes, Waltz was brilliant.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Will win: Mo'Nique "Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire"
Should win: Mo'Nique "Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire"

I will never understand what everyone sees in those "Up in the Air" female performances and as much as I would love for Penélope Cruz to finally win a Globe if she lost for what have been her two greatest performances she won't be winning for "Nine" (HFPA unlike AMPAS doesn't really go for the whole "should've won last year so let's reward them now" policy).
Mo'nique delivered a stunner of a performance and she has a pretty clear path up til Oscar. The only question that remains is will she show up or not.

Best Animated Feature Film
Will win: "Up"
Should win: "Up"

It's ironic that the animated feature film lineup makes for a much more satisfying array of nominees than that whole Best Picture Comedy or Musical category.

Best Foreign Language Film
Will win: "The White Ribbon"
Should win: A case could be made for all the nominees.

HFPA has shown they love gritty in this category and a win for "A Prophet" wouldn't be a complete shocker. They have proved they love their legendary auteurs which is why Michael Haneke's stunning "The White Ribbon" seems like it could get it.
They adore Almodóvar, but maybe he's won too many times and "Broken Embraces" didn't have the appeal his previous films did awards wise.
And Chile's "The Maid" was such a surprising picture that they could want to reward it for the freshness factor.
I say Haneke's film wins here by a very slight margin.

Best Screenplay Motion Picture
Will win: Quentin Tarantino "Inglourious Basterds"
Should win: Quentin Tarantino "Inglourious Basterds"

Best Original Score Motion Picture
Will win: Michael Giacchino "Up"
Should win: Michael Giacchino "Up"

Best Original Song Motion Picture
Will win: "The Weary Kind (Theme From Crazy Heart)" – "Crazy Heart"
Music & Lyrics By: Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett
Should win: N/A

Over at the TV side I'm predicting "Mad Men" and "Glee" to get the series awards (they love fresh but "30 Rock" should definitely be winning again) and Alec Baldwin, Toni Collette, Jon Hamm and Glenn close to get the lead acting awards.
"Grey Gardens" will obviously win the Made for TV Movie/Miniseries awards but I'll go on a limb here and predict Jessica Lange loses Best Actress to Drew Barrymore who will no doubt deliver the night's cutest speech.
I also say Jane Lynch wins Supporting Actress for "Glee" and Neil Patrick Harris gets the one Emmy stole from him.

The Golden Globes air Sunday Jan. 17 on NBC.

(500) Days of Summer ***

Director: Marc Webb
Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel
Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz, Matthew Gray Gubler, Clark Gregg

When the movie starts we are warned "this is a story of boy meets girl. But you should know up front, this is not a love story."
The movie doesn't mean this out of a selfconscious attempt to re-invent the romantic comedy or be ironic, it says so because the actual dilemma at its center is that it doesn't really know what love is.
If you're not sure what something really is how can you talk about it?
The next ninety minutes are spent presenting two opposite views of what this abstract concept is.
We have Tom (a charismatic, revelatory Gordon-Levitt), a greeting card writer who is a firm believer in fate, romance and love at first sight. Then there's Summer (the lovely Deschanel) a cynical girl who's into being "casual".
Tom of course falls for her the minute they meet and despite her warning of not wanting anything serious they begin "something"...or not.
The plot then travels backwards and forwards during the title five hundred days as we see their relationship go from "friends only" to "hot shower sex" to pure hate and drinking binges.
Shaped from the delightful screenplay by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, the film often falls for conventional indie flick elements (quirkiness and retro band references abound) but it finds a personality of its own in the familiar.
It becomes a postmodernist dissection of relationships for this generation and the way it stares at us with a blank look upon its figurative face is, ironically, what makes it so sincere.
And it's clear that Webb and the writers might not have a clue about the way to define romantic love, but the whole movie is clearly infatuated with cinema.
From references to the New Wave, Fellini, "The Graduate" and a particularly cute Bergman tribute, this is terrific filmmaking.
Also, because like the relationship at its center it defies our preconceptions of how to define a movie. You can read it both ways.
It's fair of you to hate Summer and like Tom decide she's "an evil, emotionless, miserable human being, or... she's a robot". But also couldn't she just be straightforward?
In the same way, we can see Tom as a breathtaking romantic hero we all would be lucky to be loved by, but sometimes he comes looking off like a spoiled, immature brat and something of a psycho too...
"(500) Days of Summer" asks us why have we remained limited by the parameters that have jailed the romantic comedy for decades now.
Sure, it often commits some of its mistakes, but most of the time it's trying to open up its own path.
And how can you not fall for that?

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra **

Director: Stephen Sommers
Cast: Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, Sienna Miller
Rachel Nichols, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Lee Byung-hun
Saïd Taghmaoui, Ray Park, Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Jonathan Pryce, Dennis Quaid, Christopher Eccleston

Not since the Bat nipples appeared on George Clooney more than a decade ago has a comic book/cartoon/toy inspired movie had such fetishist potential.
Inspired by the famous Hasbro action figures and the animated series about a group of elite soldiers from all over the world-fighting the evil M.A.R.S corporation-this film features a cast mostly comprised of models and exotically handsome men and women in tight fitting suits.
There isn't much of a plot, at least not one that matters. all you have to know is that the Joes are good and the Cobras-from M.A.R.S-are not.
M.A.R.S is led by James McCullen (Eccleston) a Scottish weapon mogul holding a three hundred year old grudge towards the French and somehow the entire world by default.
His company devices microscopic robots called nano-mites which can destroy people and world monuments and he plans to use them on several capitols to gain who knows what...
His team features a mad scientist called The Doctor (Gordon-Levitt in full Gollum mode), crazy ninja Storm Shadow (Byung-hun) and the Baroness (Miller) a former American socialite married to a French royal, who spends her free time killing people and stealing wmd-s.
That she has history with G.I. Joe Duke (Tatum) only adds to whatever little drama the film wants to introduce. Duke is the newest member of the Joes along with Ripcord (Wayans), the good guys also feature Heavy Duty (Akinnuoye-Abgaje), Breaker (Taghmaoui), silent ninja Snake Eyes (Park), Scarlett (Nichols) and team leader General Hawk (Quaid).
During 118 minutes members from each team fight each other in the midst of enormous action sequences, explosions and surprising weapons that appear out of nowhere.
They also have flashbacks-which are laughable-and constant hints at what the sequel will be about and even if it feels ethically incorrect to say so, it's slightly obvious that nobody comes to such movies seeking enlightenment.
Or do they?
With the state of summer blockbusters which now more than ever are requesting you leave your brain at home, is it then too much to ask for their kind of dumb entertainment to at least be actually entertaining?
If we have come to reduce movies to fulfill such primitive needs then "G.I. Joe" gets the job done. Absolutely nothing in the film makes sense, but most of it is fun.
Sommers' film takes place in the not so distant future where the USA actually cares for Russia and France and terrorism only comes in the shape of utterly deranged beings.
This sort of male fantasia will make sense to those who loved playing with the action figures (in the same way the first "Transformers" movie did).
This is the sort of movie where the heroes claim to be a secret unit, but have no problem destroying half of Paris in broad daylight. Someone else will clean this mess for them...like moms picking up their kids' toys.
In a postmodernist nod Sommers is also able to give the movie a postmodernist feel by structuring it like a cartoon; the cinematography is cheap to say the least, the effects never look or feel real and the quotes are epitomize cheese.
Now the question is, does anyone actually want to see a live version of the cartoon? Luckily by the time you start formulating questions like these you'll be going home and in the process of forgetting this average Joe.

Stop-Loss *

Director: Kimberly Peirce
Cast: Ryan Phillippe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum
Abbie Cornish, Ciarán Hinds, Tymothy Olyphant, Mamie Gummer

It took almost a decade for Kimberly Peirce to realize that boys do cry...a lot apparently.
Her sophomore film takes on the Iraq war with the same intentions films like "The Deer Hunter" (even casting Gummer who despite family ties is sadly no Meryl Streep) and "The Best Years of Our Lives" did for their respective time periods in the past.
And the one sad truth that can be extracted from her film is precisely the fact that war, not just the one in Iraq but the concept itself, has been going on for too long already.
The rest feels like "Dawson's Creek" goes to war as we see a bunch of pretty guys return to their Texas hometown and try to re-insert themselves into society.
Phillippe plays Brandon King, the leader of the group who is stop-lossed (some sort of contractual army thing that deems you can be called back to service despite your leave). This challenges all his notions on what he thought life would be and forces him to wonder if the war was worth fighting for.
Then again is there somewhere in the planet who thinks so? "Stop-Loss" never really says anything new and instead infuses its lack of purpose with melodramatic twists that make the story feel forced and redundant.
Arriving under the MTV Films banner, the movie tries its best to attract young people by relying on hunky men, quick edits and hard rock montages that only serve in alienating the heart the film so much wants to reveal.
The cast does a satisfying job, especially Tatum as the rebel of the group who shows promising range and Cornish (looking like a hybrid of Drew Barrymore and Charlize Theron) who gives the film its only moments of grace.
But the screenplay uses the characters indiscriminately as examples and archetypes instead of building interesting stories through which we can connect to them.
They often refer to events in Iraq as "this war", as if it was something completely external to them. Which somehow is considering this is a movie and the people are fictitious, but we need to believe they aren't!
Peirce's film comes at a moment where the world has become infected with apathy and her unaffecting characters never touch any sentiments in the audience.
One of the film's montages features a title card that reads "we will remember", the same can not be said of this film.