The Boys Are Back (2009)

Nicholas McAnulty and Clive Owen

To prove that we are a couple of sensitive guys in touch with our feelings, we watched The Boys Are Back starring Clive Owen. It is rated PG-13 for some dirty/foul language "thematic elements", which is loosely interpreted as emotions created and aimed toward grown-ups instead of children.

Mark -
This is a difficult review for me to write simply because the best way that I can describe my feelings for the movie would be indifferent. I can’t think of any other movie I’ve seen where I simply felt that the movie was neither good or bad, but that it simply just is.

The film tells the story of successful sports writer who suddenly finds himself looking for answers after the loss of his second wife to cancer. The main character Joe (Clive Owen) decides the best approach to his own life and the role of raising his six year old son, Artie, is simply to answer yes. Joe’s life becomes even more complicated as it shows his relationship with his older son, Harry, from his first marriage. The film goes on to portray the difficulties of a father and his sons in dealing with different types of losses, and learning to move forward with each others help.

For me the most compelling character of this film was Harry. Although he has the smallest role of "the boys", his character is the one that adds some depth and perception into the struggles that exists between all of their lives. It is very clear that Joe cares about his sons, but he is so lost inside of himself that it feels as if he isn’t genuinely interacting with the other characters at times. Artie is six, and thus a six year old does what a six year old does.

For those who enjoy happy ending, you will enjoy this movie. I didn’t have any real expectations for this film, but if you are going to have any, they shouldn’t be more than to simply expect a feel good film. 2 ½ out of 5 *’s.

My Random Thought For The Boys Are Back: The more I think about it, I’m convinced that Artie must have been a hellion even when his mother was alive, and that his behavior was not limited to Joe’s parenting alone.

Dan -
Here is another movie that you probably missed, let alone may not have even heard of, until now. I was optimistic going into this because I enjoy a good drama that tugs at the old heartstrings from time to time. This movie made me think about getting choked up at least twice. I don't think I actually cried, but maybe one of my eyes welled up. But don't tell Mark. I was discreet and any possibility of a tear was shed out of the corner of my eye farthest from my co-critic. After all, I do have some credibility to uphold around him (however little it may be).

I knew what this movie was about going into it (widower tries to raise children on his own), and wasn't sure how much I would like it. A little background on myself seems appropriate here. My own mother passed away from cancer when I was a young teenager, so I know what it's like to lose a parent and how confusing and frustrating it is trying to deal with and understand the emotions that go with that. I am also now the father of two boys, so seeing this solidified even further that I never want to be in a situation even remotely like that. So please, dear wife of mine, don't ever die on me! I count on you too much to fill in the (large) gaps I leave in our lives. Anyway, this movie seemed to hit a little closer to home now than when I first heard about it almost 2 years ago.

This becomes difficult to write because I kind of agree with Mark. This movie just is. There was no real plot to it. It is one of those "slice of life" movies where it shows people living their lives. Unfortunately these people are not very interesting. Sure, there are a couple of interesting events to try and mix things up, but overall nothing happens. The most compelling element of the movie was Clive Owen's relationship with his older son. His uneasiness of trying to make sense of a new situation brought back memories of my own childhood. Don't worry, I'm not getting all mushy and personal again. I only want to say that I felt like I could identify with him and some of the emotions he experienced.

The more I think about this movie, the more I don't like it as much as I did right after watching it. This was another of those movies where I may have liked it more had I watched it in one sitting. Taking breaks really tore me away from any emotion that was slowly building as the movie went on. I had to get back in the mindset each time I sat down to watch it (this one took 3 lunch breaks).

To its credit, and probably my favorite thing about this movie, were the conversations Joe has with his late wife. He imagines seeing her from time to time and talks with her. I likened it to seeing something that reminds me of a loved one that is lost. And then perhaps talking briefly with that person about what is going through my head. Just small moments that make sure you never truly forget that person.

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. It probably would have received a higher rating had I watched it in one sitting, but then it wouldn't have appeared on this blog as a lunch movie.

Gosford Park (2001)

The entire cast of Gosford Park

Here we have the Oscar winner for best original screenplay from 2001: Gosford Park. It is rated R for a few F-bombs and a very brief sex scene (there are racier sex scenes in some PG-13 movies). Honestly though, if it was released today it may only have been rated PG-13. Neither of us could understand why it was rated R. Maybe we're too desensitized.

Dan- 
So this movie was directed by Robert Altman, most famous for directing a bunch of movies that are beloved by critics and elitists such as MASH, Kansas City, and Nashville, none of which I have seen. But having now seen this movie and a couple of his others (Cookie's Fortune and A Prairie Home Companion) I have noticed two things are common throughout them. One: The dialogue will almost always overlap in order to necessitate multiple viewings for a full appreciation of what is happening, and Two: There are a LOT of characters in his movies who are connected in unlikely ways. Imagine if all of the people in the picture above have dialogue (which they do) and are referenced by name throughout (which they are) and you will have some idea about how much one needs to pay attention. And I still don't know who half of them are! I did find it easy to remember some characters as I had seen them in other movies and they just stood out better, like Clive Owen, Ryan Phillippe, Kelly MacDonald (the Scottish girl) and Maggie Smith.

But that's not to say the movie isn't well-made. It is. And the screenplay is fairly brilliant. I'm just not smart enough to catch everything or fully appreciate how witty and clever this movie is after just one viewing. Hint: turn on the subtitles. Movies like this are designed for repeat viewing, which is both good and bad. Good because it can make a good movie into a great one, like Shawshank Redemption. And bad because it can just get taxing if you don't like the movie and with each subsequent viewing you stretch further into boredom, like Gangs of New York.

This could almost be considered a comedy, but the last 15 minutes of the movie shift the tone toward more of a drama. I'm calling it a dramedy because there was so much humor in it (See: Stephen Fry's bumbling inspector who reminded me of Inspector Clouseau from Pink Panther fame). I was appreciative of my oldest brother who lived in London for several years and gave me some instruction in the art of British humor. People behave in odd or terrible ways and the stuffy Brits just ignore it as if nothing is wrong, because to acknowledge it would be to encourage it (See: Maggie Smith in just about every scene she's in, deserving that Oscar nomination for supporting actress).

I would like to see this movie again to see how much more I can catch and follow, but it won't be anytime soon. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, this is a movie that is about characters and the situations they are each in as opposed to a structured plot. The difficult part is that there are so many characters that you don't seem to get to any of them well enough to care about what happens to them. And the ones you do get to know turn out to be not what they seemed.

I feel like I want to, and should, give this movie another chance but it won't be anytime soon. I probably would like it more upon repeat viewings. I'm giving this movie 3½ out of 5 stars, with an option left open to increase the rating upon subsequent viewings.

Side Note: I would suggest watching it all at once so it becomes easier to keep track of everyone. As you all may be aware, each movie we watch is in 1 hour or less increments so as to fit into our lunch break at work.

Mark-
Let’s just start by letting you know that in my opinion this film was very over-hyped and didn’t live up to its expectations. The tagline for this movie is "Tea at four. Dinner at eight. Murder at midnight.", and sadly if you were to consider this film in terms of being 24 hours long, entertainment wise nothing really happens until just before the 24^th hour. If you were simply to go off of the tagline for this movie you would most likely feel deceived at the movie; I know I did. I would have preferred much more of the focus to have been on the murder, and much less on the tea and dinner.

This film takes place in the 1930s in an English countryside manor, and details the lives, relationships, and interactions of two distinct groups of individuals. The first group is upstairs individuals, which comprises friends and family of a well-off estate holder. The upstairs group seem mostly lost without someone else there to do everything for them, and thus we have their interactions with the downstairs individuals. This second group is comprised of the cooks, butlers, maids, menservants, and drivers.

My biggest criticism for this film is that it simply lacks a sense of flow to it. The first 3/4 of this film takes so long to set up the last 20-30 minutes, that it caused me to lose interest and miss some of the very important points I was supposed to be paying attention to.

I will give a lot of credit to the actors and actresses in this movie. It no doubt helped that there are a lot of very well known and respected actors in this film, and each of the characters did an excellent job at portraying the role they were assigned. The interactions between the two groups is interesting to view, although I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as to call it entertaining. I love how they are able to bring everything together at the end, but it would have been nice to have a little more of the characters backgrounds during the first part of the movie, and not have to try to make sense of so many convoluted messes at the end.

Last of all would be a little suggestion for anyone considering watching this movie. Dan and I turned the subtitles on while we watched this film and it helped immensely. It was difficult to follow the dialog at times due to accents and the numerous conversations which have everyone speaking over one another. 2 ½ * out of 5

My Random Thought For Gosford Park: I can’t think of another movie where all of the characters play such balanced supporting roles, and no one in particular has a starring role.

Michael Clayton (2007)

Tom Wilkinson and George Clooney

Now here is a movie that you probably have heard of: Michael Clayton. It stars George Clooney and was nominated for 7 Oscars, with Tilda Swinton winning for Best Supporting Actress. It is rated R for some coarse language and some brief violence.

Mark -
This is a movie that I have been meaning to watch since shortly after it was released on DVD but have just now gotten to. George Clooney plays the lead character of Michael Clayton, an attorney in a large New York law firm, who’s role is to be "the fixer". Basically the easiest and simplest way to describe his role would be that if someone else screws up, its Clayton’s responsibility to make things right. The main focus of the movie involves a multibillion dollar personal injury/wrongful death lawsuit in which the firm is representing the defendant. As lead counsel, Arthur Eders (Tom Wilkinson), has a relapse of manic-depressive behavior during the middle of a deposition, Clayton is called in to work his magic in stabilizing both Eders and the unsettling incident which Eders created. Clayton does his best to mitigate the damage from the situation, but little does he know that the firms client has decided that they also need to take matters into their own hands. Events turn dangerous for all involved.

Wilkinson gives a great performance and is more than worthy of the best supporting actor nomination he received. Clooney also gives a great performance, but to show how good of an actor he has become, his role as Michael Clayton doesn’t seem to be all that different from many other roles which he has played. The film does a nice job of showing the ethical and moral dilemmas attorneys sometimes face, and how paths of good and bad are chosen by different attorneys.

The film received a lot of praise and deservingly so, however it is far from a perfect movie in my view. To begin with, I hated the ending. The film engrosses you so much into the role and life of Clayton, and unfortunately delivers nothing but speculation and questions in the end. My other major criticism is that I actually feel like there were too many minor characters thrown into the movie. The minor characters and minor subplots in many ways create more confusion and distraction than contribution to the movie.

Having said that I still thought this was a very good movie and would recommend it for anyone who has not seen it. 4 * out of 5

My Random Thought For Michael Clayton: Tilda Swinton won the Oscar for best supporting actress for her role in the film, and all I can really say to that is that is this goes to show how weak the performances really were that year.

Dan -
I don't know what it is about movies that involve the legal system, but they are made on a regular basis and a lot of them are really good. I am puzzled by this because from what I know about the legal system, which is more than the average guy but less than a lawyer, legal battles and such are extremely boring. Especially court hearings. Side note: In reality, there are no surprises in the legal system due to the rule of disclosure. Hollywood allows such things to make a movie more exciting, and really, can you blame them?

Back to the movie at hand. Mark explained the plot in his review, so read the summary above. All I will say is that what gets this movie going is one man's reaction to the answer of this question: What happens when the client you are representing, who has generated literally tens of millions of dollars in revenue, turns out to be the enemy? This movie isn't about the legal battle itself or the courtroom drama and there isn't any of the latter. This billion dollar lawsuit is on the verge of settling when Clooney comes in to fix problems created by the lead counsel on the case.

Performances: Tilda Swinton was weak. How she actually won the Oscar can only be chalked up to a year of weak performances in this category overall. I could still hear her Scottish accent peeking through some of her lines. It simply was not a remarkable performance to me. But who knows, maybe I missed the point, and the genius behind her performance is that I would expect a woman in her position to have a strong dose of confidence and she chose to play it a little apprehensive. Maybe her strength is conveying the fear and uncertainty of an experienced attorney who ends up (mild spoiler alert!) crossing the line. Her most fascinating scene is where she is crouched in the bathroom, drenched in sweat, and agonizing over the decision she has just made. That helps to suck you right in to her character, so credit is given where credit is due. And Tom Wilkinson was brilliant. Of all the nominees in Supporting Actor that year, he could have easily been given the Oscar among his fellow nominees (Javier Bardem actually won for his creepy killer in No Country For Old Men). He gives a crazy character some unexpected depth. And every scene he's in with Clooney is simply terrific. Two experienced actors playing well off each other with great dialogue.

Speaking of dialogue, this is really a great script that could really have been confusing, but Tony Gilroy (who wrote the Bourne movies) did a superb job at not spelling everything out and leaving things up to the audience to figure out and/or interpret for themselves. If I have one complaint, it's that I was slightly sidetracked by a couple of subplots that involved Clooney. One was his relationship with his son, and the other is that he is trying to square away a large debt he incurred while trying to open a bar. At least the overall point of the latter ties into the main plot easier than the former.

Here is one of the best movies released in 2007, although I do know of other people who did not like it as much as me, like the lady who gave me her DVD that she bought at my recommendation, and Mark (see above). It made my top ten of 2007, coming in at #4 and I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars.

Fallen (1998)

John Goodman and Denzel Washington

Going back to a Denzel Washington movie for this one. It was made by Gregory Hoblit, who has directed some pretty decent movies like Frequency and Primal Fear. Fallen is rated R for language and violence.

Dan -
This is another movie that has been sitting in my Netflix queue for more than a couple of years as it gradually made its way to the top. I worked at a movie theater when this movie was originally released and had seen the last 2 minutes of it more than I can count, but I have never watched it from the beginning. So the bad thing is that I knew how the movie ended, but the good thing was that I still liked the rest of it even when I knew how it ended.

I'll let Mark deal with the plot explanations except to say that Denzel Washington is a detective who has caught, convicted, and seen through the execution serial killer Edgar Reese. The intrigue starts after the execution and he investigates several murders that mimic Reese's crimes.

Be warned that this is a movie filled with supernatural elements. That being said, if you aren't interested in stuff like that which deals with themes of faith, God, evil spirits, etc. you may want to skip this movie. It is well made with some clever cinematography and the fantastic use of The Rolling Stones' music. I can almost guarantee that you will be humming one of their songs when the movie's over. And the last song in particular strikes me as funny especially considering the title of it. Look it up when the movie's over.

This becomes a tough movie to review because you as a reader most likely have not seen this movie, and may not have even heard of it. Adding to that is the fact that I don't want to give anything away. I will only say that there is a lot of point-of-view shots that are distorted to give clues as to what is happening. I am not trying to hype this up as a fantastic movie, so don't get me wrong about that. But I thought it got better as it went along and I had half a smile at how it ended.

I give this movie 3 stars out of 5. Honestly, it's probably a one-timer. If it's on TV, check it out or DVR it. You won't miss anything if it's edited anyway.

Mark -
I have to admit that I’m really not sure yet how I actually feel about this movie. It kept me entertained and I wanted to know what happened next, but at the same time it seemed that as the movie progressed it also digressed. This is the first time I’ve seen this movie, and to be honest I didn’t know anything about it. I love it when I get the opportunity to see a movie I don’t know anything about, but it seems rare that such things happen, because how can you know that you want to watch something if you don’t know that it even exists?

The movie focuses on Detective John Hobbes, played by Denzel Washington. Hobbes has put away an infamous serial killer named Edgar Reese, and witnesses Reese’s execution by lethal injection. The same night as the execution of Reese, Hobbes begins to have reoccurrences of ways that Reese would torment him. Hobbes begins to receive phone calls in the middle of the night in which no one speaks on the other end of the line, and he also begins to hear people singing the same song that Hobbes did right before his execution. As a number of murders begin to pile up around town, it is thought that possibly a copycat murderer is doing the killing. As more and more strange phenomena take place, it seems unlikely that a copycat would be able to have all of the inside information to be able to pull off such accuracy of impersonation. Things start to go from bad to worse for Hobbes as it starts to look like he may be the one committing the murders.

I don’t really want to give away everything in this movie so I’m going to stop my summary part of the movie at that point. I really enjoyed the mystery side of this movie, but there is also a supernatural side of events that somewhat turned me off. I thought the first half of the movie was much better than the second half. I will give it credit for at least having an ending that is an ending, unlike a lot of movies. 3 ½ * out of 5

My Random Thought For Fallen: Hobbes partner, Jonesy, is played by John Goodman and has some great one liners in this movie including, "If it wasn't for pizza and other fine Italian foods, there would be no happiness."

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio

Here for your reading pleasure is our take on Catch Me If You Can. It is rated PG-13 for language, including 1 F-bomb (the delivery of which is hilarious), and some sexual situations/content.

Mark -
This is one of those movies that I actually seem to enjoy the more times I watch it. Obviously any movie that Steven Spielberg directs is a big deal, and when you have his reputation you can be selective in what you want your name tied to. Seeing that every movie begins with the script, it would seem fairly obvious to assume that many people thought this project had a lot of promise.
Not all big movies with major actors are a success, but it definitely helps to have the odds in your favor by having a number of stars appearing in the same film. Any filmmaker would love to have either Leonardo DiCaprio or Tom Hanks as the star in their movie, and to have both in the same movie must have been a dream come true. Add in the appearances of Christopher Walken, and Martin Sheen and the cast keeps getting easier and easier to work with it must seem. Its fun to watch this movie and see the likes of relatively unknown actresses, at the time, Amy Adams, Elizabeth Banks, and Jennifer Garner (granted she had received some notoriety before this film thanks to Alias).
The film focuses on the life of Frank Abagnale Jr (DiCaprio), and his early crime spree life. Abagnale Jr is considered to be one of the youngest and most clever criminals in our history. Starting in his late teens Abagnale Jr discovers the simplicity of passing fraudulent checks and impersonates a pilot, doctor, and attorney. The second focus of the film is that of Detective Carl Hanratty (Hanks) attempting to catch Abagnale Jr. Hanratty seems to be a great agent behind a desk, but in his attempts to catch Abagnale Jr it seems he becomes completely oblivious to the most obvious of circumstances.
This film is fun to watch as you see Abagnale Jr take on these different identities, and wonder how he could pull off the credibility to perform such skilled professions. It is equally fun to watch Hanratty and his agents' attempts to track down Abagnale Jr, and the realization of what moves are being taken to always keep Abagnale Jr one step ahead.
Last of all is the fact that I love the music from this movie. John Williams did an amazing job with the score for the film and is something that will stay in your head for hours at a time. The score truly brings to mind the thoughts of a criminal sneaking around and avoiding capture.
While the whole movie seems so far fetched, you are always wondering how someone could possibly pull off all the schemes that Abagnale Jr does. A large part of the fun of this movie is in wondering how much of it truly did happen. 4 stars out of 5.
My Random Thought For Catch Me If You Can: I wonder how many people have told Carl Hanratty's knock knock joke from this movie.


The real Frank Abagnale, Jr.

Dan-
Who knew that check fraud could be this interesting and entertaining? Having worked at two different banks and now in the legal system, I have some basis to say that check fraud is extremely boring and tedious. So a big pat on the back to the screenwriter Jeff Nathanson and director Steven Spielberg for cutting out all the boring day to day stuff and sticking to the exciting stuff. I'm hoping this review does not come across as biased, but I'll be up front in saying that I am a Steven Spielberg fan.

This movie is first and foremost about characters. I know, I know, there are characters in every movie, but not every movie is about characters. Sometimes they just facilitate the story or the action taking place. This movie was about people. Yes some of the circumstances were outrageous and hard to believe, but I always knew the motivations behind their choices. And it didn't have to be spelled to me either. I saw it in a lingering camera shot or facial expression. DiCaprio's entire motivation for his actions is because he is trying to run away from the problem that his parent's divorce will create for him.

When you have good actors, it makes watching the movie that much better. It seems like a dream cast now to see Hanks, DiCaprio, Christopher Walken, Amy Adams, and Jennifer Garner (no matter how brief her role is here) together for one movie. I think DiCaprio was slightly miscast, but only because he of his boyish looks. Based on the above picture the real Frank looked much older than he was, which probably made it easier to pass off as a doctor, lawyer, and pilot, but DiCaprio more than makes up for it with his acting. I know some of the credit goes to the screenwriter, but simple reactions to the new situations effectively convey the age of the character. The take-off of his first flight comes to mind, as does his first date.

The relationship between the two Franks (DiCaprio and Walken) is possibly the strongest thing this movie has going for it, and where I think the realy heart of the movie is. Walken deserved to be nominated for an Oscar for this subtle performance. I love the scene where father and son meet up at a fancy restaurant and Frank Jr. only wants to impress his father. Frank Sr. sees through the facade that his son has put up, but is still moved by the gesture. They come across as like father, like son in their behaviors. I saw in one of the special features on the DVD that this scene was fabricated and that once Frank Jr. ran away from home he never saw his father again. I know that Hollywood has a strong tendency to stretch the truth when it comes to "based on a true story", but the scene still worked well and resonated with me.

This movie made my top ten list of 2002, and overall I'd give this movie 4½ stars out of five.