Reviews

The Informant! is a comedy about a price-fixing investigation in the feed additives industry. Yes, that sounds impossible. But it works -- brilliantly.

Matt Damon stars as Mark Whitacre, a senior executive at Archers Daniels Midland (ADM), who becomes an FBI informant in connection with investigations into ADM's business practices in the early to mid-1990's. Whitacre believes that if he blows the whistle against the bad guys at his company, it will help his career. Needless to say, things don't go exactly as he planned.

Damon's superb acting truly makes the film. As a stocky Midwesterner with a cheesy moustache, Whitacre is, physically, the exact opposite of Damon's action hero Jason Bourne. Rather, Whitacre is square and nerdy, an intense player on the corporate battlefield, and prone to lying to almost everyone. There is something terribly wrong with this dude, but we are not sure what it is.

The real-life Whitacre has actually praised the film, and has even accepted the fact that his ordeals at ADM were turned into a comedy. He acknowledges that his conduct during that time was basically ridiculous, therefore, conducive to being portrayed in a comic light.

In addition to Matt Damon's brilliance, The Informant! also features smaller roles from comedians such as Tom Papa and Patton Oswalt. However, it should be made clear that the comedy is extremely subtle. I am sure that many viewers won't even recognize it as "funny". However, I personally savored the deliciously uncomfortable feelings of almost every scene, as this quietly manic executive gets himself in deeper and deeper trouble.

The only thing I question about this film are the music and titles, which evoke a cheesy 1970's feel. Sure, the goofy music helps turn a potentially boring anti-trust investigation into a light-hearted and wacky affair, however it comes across as anachronistic, considering the events took place in the 1990's. But this is a very minor complaint, outweighed by the amazing writing, acting and directing of this exceptionally intelligent film.

Greenberg is the story of two hipster / artist / nerds who find each other in LA. The title character (played by Ben Stiller) is 40 and his lover Florence (played by Greta Gerwig) is in her mid-20's. Normally, I recoil at how Hollywood pairs up wrinkly old guys with cute young girls. Speaking as a 41-year old, I can vouch for how unrealistic this is, how 40-somethings and 20-somethings share virtually nothing in common, and how the lack of romantic interest is (more or less) mutual. However, in this film, the relationship actually works.

Greenberg and Florence are both quirky outcasts. Both are involved in music – Greenberg had a semi-successful band in the 1990's, and Florence sings at hipster bars in Silver Lake. Most importantly, Greenberg's mental outlook seems frozen in time – he seems unable to move beyond the day that he ruined the band's chances at a major label record deal, and the band fell apart. It's as if he, too, is still in his 20's in terms of trying to achieve stability and find himself. (However, he is also extremely curmudgeonly for a guy who is emotionally still in his 20's).

The main point of the film is that, since the break-up of the band, Greenberg's life has gone nowhere. His former band-mates and other old friends have moved on, raising families and developing careers outside of music. As Ivan, the former guitarist (now a tech consultant), says: "I learned to embrace the life that I didn't choose". Greenberg hasn't figured out how to do this.

Some IMDb reviewers complain that Stiller's grumpy character is unlikeable (which is true to a certain extent) and that the film is "boring". These reviewers are probably too young or too shallow to appreciate the twists and turns of adult life – how to cope with the fact that you may not realize your childhood dreams, and the challenge of finding new dreams to sustain you as you grow into maturity.

These reviewers probably don't catch the subtle humor and nuances in the film's conversations. In one part of the film, Florence tells Greenberg that "Hurt people hurt people". Later, Greenberg tells her that someone once told him "Hurt people hurt people". He apologizes that this statement might be a little "trite" but he concedes that it's "stuck with me for some reason." He then suddenly realizes that Florence was the one who told him this -- and that it was only a few days ago! His embarrassing faux pas is a result of his relentless focus on himself. He wants to move beyond his own pain, and wants to care about other people. But he is constantly hobbled by his own self-inflicted hurt. By the end of the film we hope that he might someday learn to cope, and learn to embrace the life he didn't choose.

I recently stumbled across the name Varian Fry, and was intrigued by the fact that he is one of only 3 Americans to be named "Righteous Among The Nations" by Israel -- which is an award given to non-Jews who saved Jews during the Holocaust. (Such as Oskar Schindler).

When I saw that a movie had been done about his experiences, I decided to rent it, even though it was made-for-TV.

Unfortunately, I don't think this film did justice to the emotional intensity of this period of history, or Fry's remarkable achievements. Fry's real-life story seems like it would be really juicy, but is portrayed in this film without much of the juice.

Right off the bat, I sensed that this was a cheap production. I noticed an extra who was walking in one scene, and then is seated in a wheelchair in another scene. I noticed the same prop (a photo with Joseph Kennedy) used in the background in 2 different offices. Of course, these minor goofs are not important, but they give you a sense of the low-budget flavor.

Ultimately, I give Varian's War a rating of 5 because it is hard to totally destroy this interesting tale, and because there are at least a few decent scenes and moments of genuine emotion. But overall, it lacks the charm, excitement and thrills that I am sure accompanied Varian Fry's actual adventures in France.

By the end of the film, my thirst for knowledge about this heroic American had not been quenched.

Watching Harvard Beats Yale 29-29 is like watching the greatest college football game you could ever imagine, and getting to know the players as it's happening. Even if you already know the final score, the process of getting there is spell-binding for anyone who enjoys watching sports (or has a pulse).

But it's much more than just an amazing football game. Through interviews with the players - now older and wiser - the film evokes the background of the times - 1968, perhaps the most tumultuous year in modern American history.

The players represented both sides of the political spectrum. Like other young people, many were war-protesters. Yet other players despised the protests - at least one was a proud Vietnam vet, who came to the Ivy Leagues after experiencing Khe Sanh.

But on a cold November day, the players and the fans throughout New England put aside these political differences to celebrate the drama of The Game. Through the interviews, we learn that Yale was very heavily favored (thus a tie was considered a "win" for Harvard). We learn about the different personalities - which Yale players knew George W. Bush, which Harvard guy roomed with Al Gore, who dated Meryl Streep, who was the inspiration for the football-player character in Doonesbury, etc.

But as the film progresses, these interviews slowly give way to a closer focus on the game itself. It's now late in the 4th quarter with the seconds ticking away. Harvard is still down by 16 points, and you are on the edge of your seat wondering how they are going to pull off this inspirational "victory", making everyone forget - at least for a brief moment - the darker battles then raging in America.

I respect Bill Maher, and got quite a few laughs out of this film. The ridiculous side of religion is captured well here, just by letting the cameras roll, and letting these brain-dead zombies speak their minds in defense of their fundamentalist beliefs. And I generally agree with Maher's main message - i.e., that we "don't know" - and that having a false certainty (that your religion is the truth and the rest of the world should change, die or go to hell) is extremely dangerous.

However, these people - extremists and fundamentalists - are easy targets. Anyone who believes the Biblical stories are literal, as opposed to metaphorical, just doesn't get it - and is easy to make fun of.

I would have liked to see a somewhat deeper film where he interviews more sophisticated believers. Maher did not address the question - why do so many sensible people (not the nut-jobs that he interviews) want spirituality or religion in their lives? The closest we get to this is the chat with the Vatican priest who cheerfully rejects the literal interpretation of the Bible. I wish Maher had asked the priest what the Bible and Jesus mean to him, then? Why is he a priest? If we strip away the nonsense, superstition and hate from organized religion, is there anything good left over? This question is not asked.

I watched Fear and Trembling mainly because I like Sylvie Testud, and also because I am studying French and wanted to watch a French-language film. It turns out most of the movie is in Japanese -- other than the main character's internal monologue (which is in French, of course).

The plot involves a Belgian woman (Amelie) who loves Japan (having spent her early childhood there) and who obtains employment at a huge corporation in Tokyo. Through various cultural misunderstandings, she continually gets demoted until her job mainly involves cleaning toilets.

The film depicts late 80's / early 90's Japanese corporate culture as unbelievably hierarchical, brutal, inefficient and de-humanizing. I suspect this was exaggerated, for comic and dramatic effect. And, for the sake of the Japanese people, I hope so.

My only two complaints about Fear and Trembling are (i) the over-use of the voice-over narration to tell the story, and (ii) the fact that we do not get any hint of Amalie's life (or anyone else's life) outside the office.

With respect to the latter point, another commenter noted "In the novel Amelie Nothomb writes : this could be leading to think I had no life outside the office, which is wrong. but for a schizophrenic reason, when I was at job in the 44th floor toilets of the yumimoto company I couldn't think of myself as the same person respected and loved by friends outside."

Overall, it was entertaining, thought-provoking, and by the end, strangely moving. Both my wife and I got a bit misty-eyed at the end - I was a bit surprised that the movie drew such sudden emotion out of me. Definitely worth seeing.

I did not see the original, so I can't compare, but I found The Thomas Crown Affair to be slick, formulaic and, overall, rather entertaining. 5 stars out of 10.

I won't complain about the numerous plot holes where the viewer is required to suspend disbelief (other reviewers have pointed them out, in detail). Suffice it to say that there are many scenes where you go "but that would never happen!" Still, most of the ridiculous events in this film can actually be explained away if you try hard enough.

Therefore, if you can manage to suspend disbelief and go along for the ride, it's a decent yarn – it held my attention from start to finish.

Yes, it's way too slick, and way too Hollywood. The background music is awful (at times), the product placements are shameless, the characters are a bit cartoonish. But it's also decent entertainment.

As another reviewer put it, American Graffiti is "a retrospect of the good times that people had when everything was innocent". And that summarizes my problem with this film - I dispute this commonly accepted vision of that time period.

I recognize that American Graffiti was considered ground-breaking, and that it is very clearly captures the view that America in 1962 was, metaphorically, a teenager on the verge of growing up and losing its innocence, just like the kids in the movie (which introduced many talented young actors). In the 11 short years from 1962 to 1973, when the film was made, America had changed in ways that are hard to even comprehend.

Lucas utilized dozens of pop songs from the period of 1955-1962 to evoke that by-gone era, vividly capturing how much the culture had changed. The old-time rock 'n roll style had essentially vanished by 1973, after The Beatles, the British invasion in general, psychedelic rock, heavy metal and other diverse musical styles came on the scene. By comparison, if a movie was made now (2008) and tried to evoke a time period 11 years ago, would 1990's music (Nirvana, Green Day, Backstreet Boys) sound so starkly different from today's music that it would sonically conjure up an entirely different Epoch? I don't think so.

Thus, the use of 50's pop music aptly serves to illustrate the point. However, Lucas also beats us over the head with this music. Everywhere in this film, a car radio is on in the background, reminding us (over and over and over and over) about the "good times, great oldies" of the 50's. Since I don't particularly love this music, the incessant nature of it drove me nuts.

But my biggest complaint with this film is the myth that America in 1962 was a time of innocence which was destroyed by the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, and the emergence of the hippie counterculture. I think this Boomer-generation myth only tells THEIR part of the American story. Sure, the 1950's may have been an idyllic time of innocence for white suburban kids driving around in their big gas-guzzling Chevrolets. But what was it like for Blacks suffering from Jim Crow, gays and lesbians who were forced to hide in the closet, non-conformists of any kind, political victims of McCarthyism, etc. Was it "Happy Days" for these people? When I listen to 1950's music, I think about how pop and rock music improved so dramatically in the mid-to-late 1960's (thank you, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, James Brown), and, similarly, I think America itself improved during those tumultuous years.

Therefore, while I acknowledge that Lucas captures his PERSONAL vision of this by-gone era very well, I don't accept the Boomer myth that this was an innocent time, or the so-called "good old days". Rather, 1962 seems dull, insular, small-minded, stifling in its conformity, and all-around LAME. Likewise, American Graffiti is quite boring.

Although if listless boredom is the point of it, then it was extremely well-done.

I saw this movie on TV when I was a kid in the 70s and became fascinated with Houdini (I was especially fascinated by the scene where he is trapped under the ice-covered Detroit River).

However, having read the excellent biography by Kenneth Silverman, and seeing the movie again, I realize that it is only very, very loosely based on Houdini's actual life. Very few of the events that are depicted in the movie actually occurred.

Examples (from my memory of the biography) - Houdini did not meet his wife Bess while playing a "Wild Man" in a freak show, he did not take some time off from performing magic to work in a lock manufacturing plant, there was no mystical German magician who Houdini sought out in his European travels, he never had a German personal assistant, and he did not die on stage performing a trick that Bess had asked him not to perform. In addition it does not cover a number of other topics, such as the fact that Houdini was a pioneer aviator.

On the other hand, it gets some basic details right: his close relationship with his mother, his efforts to contact her after death through psychic mediums, and his efforts to expose fraudulent psychics.

On balance, I generally like what they did in terms of weaving a few factual details into an otherwise fictionalized account of Houdini. However anyone seeking to separate myth and fact about Houdini should check out the Silverman biography.