As is true of many selections, I had no idea what to expect from this movie except that while standing in front of the red box machine, I checked out its rating on Rotten Tomatoes and when it checked out at over 70%, I gave it a go. Rave reviews of Rachel Weisz’s performance were about the only thing clouding my mind as I pressed play.

The movie begins in Eastern Europe, then to Nebraska, then back to Eastern Europe when Kathryn (Weisz) gets a job for a peacekeeping contractor for the UN. Kathryn’s life is confused and cluttered at best, so when a transfer to be nearer to her children doesn’t go through for her cop job, she decides to take a mysterious job that pays 100k a year in Bosnia. Through her “call to duty” she discovers a prostitution/human trafficking scandal within the private corporation Democra, and strives to bring the men associated with it to justice.

The film has many women’s rights undertones and the obvious topics of human rights/imperialism sort of weasel their way in as well.

BROAD vs. NICHE- though this movie is marketed as a suspenseful thriller, it’s a bit more of an expose, highlighting writer/directer Larysa Kondracki’s purpose as more informational/educational than some kind of art film or something.

WATCHABILITY- There are only a few slow spots, and they’re really not noticeable. Overall, there’s almost too much happening in Kathy’s life to really digest one thing before the next event happens onscreen.

STATUS REPORT- I enjoyed this movie late-night with an old friend. We paused it halfway through to make cider. Watch this with someone you aren’t worried about impressing and have watched movies with before. Don’t be afraid to ask each other questions and turn the subtitles on so you catch some of the accents.

my house, redbox, wednesday, action, suspense, movie, rachel weisz, larysa kondracki

I really liked The Guard. I knew very little about it, and police comedies somehow never amuse me on paper, but about 10 minutes in, I’m glued. After checking its rating on Rotten Tomatoes, its easy to see why nearly everyone I’ve talked to knows about this movie. First of all, I LOVE Brendan Glesson, for his roles in both the Harry Potter series and In Bruges. The man is strikingly comedic and has excellent line delivery in everything I’ve seen.

The film, which also stars Don Cheadle as an FBI agent on investigation in rural Ireland, is a touch slow at times, but I wouldn’t say that it became bothersome. The plot won’t amaze you, but the antics of Gleeson’s eccentric character, “Gerry Boyle” will definitely entertain. Watch it with subtitles, maybe, it’s common knowledge that rural Irish accents are tough to wade through. 

[STATUS REPORT]

BROAD vs. NICHE- I’d say it’s a bit of both! I feel like a large portion of the humor is a little off, maybe culturally specific and doesn’t appeal to all audiences. At the same time, the plot isn’t anything new, save a few funny happenings.

WATCHABILITY- I can’t say I was 100% focused on it, drinking coffee and chatting a touch, but I think that was the beauty of the movie. It allowed me to do that without feeling left out.

WHEN TO WATCH- Go ahead and watch this on a weeknight after you’ve made some sort of easy meal, or gotten take-away with your significant other. 

I sat down to watch this movie on a particular slow night, not knowing what to expect from a performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, and an intriguing title, which, to my surprise, was mentioned in a line from the movie.

First of all, it’s made very clear that neither of the main characters are in what one would call a “good place” in life. Brothers Andy (Played by PSH) and Hank (Hawke) are separately terrible with money, their women, and to some extent, their jobs. As both need money to solve more than one of these issues, Andy resolves that they rob their parents’ jewelry store in the suburbs of New York. Ethan Hawke plays a perfectly scattered falls-short, separated dad, failing to support his teenage daughter, and impress her mother with any sign of maturity.

The brothers’ relationship is delicately crafted by the writers/directors, and it becomes apparent that Andy has a history of taking advantage of his little brother. Timelines and perspectives intertwine to create an emotional investment in the viewer, whether it be bummed out for Hank’s habitual lies or filled with hatred for Andy’s manipulation of those around him. The bottom line is: The characters are real, they’re messed up, and they work.

Not unlike “The High Cost of Living,” this film really eats at the ethics of human decision-making, defining “necessity” and “desire,” as well as familial ties, grudges, and roles in relation to one another.

I won’t quite give the plot away, so just pay attention to the…

[STATUS REPORT]

BROAD VS. NICHE- Philip Seymour Hoffman has an emotional breakdown in his car with his wife as the passenger, an unleashing of feelings towards his father that highlights PSH’s true acting talent and ability to invest himself in the characters he plays. It is this high-caliber acting, along with a tight plot and depth that give this a NICHE stamp from me.

WATCHABILITY- Though a bit slower in one or two parts, the tension created by the ebb and flow, but mostly flow, really kept me in anticipation for the next revelation. FIVE stars for sure.

WHEN TO WATCH- With friends, when you have some time to talk about it afterwards. Movie night with food is fine, but it does lay a bit heavy if you like your parents.

I could say that I don’t have enough time to fully review this movie, which I chose because of it’s Netflix recommend with similarities to “The Puffy Chair,” but it’s really because I don’t want to type more than a couple paragraphs about it. 

The premise is essentially that the main character (Eleonore) is so bohemian and infatuated with petty thievery, that nothing holds her attention for long. It is not, as the IMDB description paints it, a film where strangers are left indebted by Eleonore’s presence in their lives, thanking her for the “gift” of kleptomania she has bestowed upon them. 

There’s really nothing exciting about her stealing purses, car keys and grapes, and it’s actually less riveting when she steals a car simply by guessing which one fits the key from a purse. I did cringe a bit when she repeatedly hit the car behind her while trying to escape a parallel park, which was the height of my seat-edging for the duration of the film.

It seems to me that Eleonore’s life, and by association, the film, is a string of unnecessary thefts that don’t really give much insight to her character, except that it’s fleeting, and don’t do much for story, as all her interactions sort of putter out at any hint of pinnacle. There exists, for a brief period, a romantic interest, which is far too heavily invested in by the filmmakers, to only end in desertion. 

Least Meaningful Moment Award:

After a half-assed driving lesson in a stolen Volvo wagon (don’t worry, it’s post 1995, so no street cred there) from her bump-into love interest, she takes him home to BOSTON, of all places. He was in New York, riding a bike, and goes home to Boston, Massachusetts. The next morning she wakes up and promptly drives back.

 Last Ten Minutes “Spice It Up” award:

One out of the ordinary thing does happen in “The Pleasure of Being Robbed”; Eleonor has just been arrested for refusing to cease rummaging through a mother’s purse at a playground, and the cops get another call. They head to the zoo, where Eleonor somehow convinces the policeman in charge of keeping watch that she deserves to go to the zoo for 10 minutes. There, she escapes her handcuffs in a dream where she is canoodling a very fake polar bear, and watches a zookeeper toss a penguin off a waterfall. 4 minutes later, the movie ends with her unwrapping a DVD in the store and replacing it with the CD from her Walkman.

Overall, some of the craft is there. Decent camerawork, intelligent interactions, but no real depth or character development to keep me going, even for the 70-minute duration of the movie. I just don’t understand how anything that happens during the movie is supposed to excite me, or how I’m supposed to know what exactly what is happening when she is magically transported inside the polar bear habitat, when no inkling of dream-world had been previously mentioned.

[STATUS REPORT]

BROAD VS. ORIGINAL - It’s broad in the sense that it shares the same handheld style as many of the festival entries that appear every year, but original in the sense that I don’t think anyone’s ever just made a story about a flighty kleptomaniac that makes as little sense as this one.

WATCHABILITY - I was trying to get excited about this, after seeing the fun little emblems on the cover, and it does maybe make sense that a thoughtful, generous indie critic would give a little more credit to this film. Alas, I’m not that guy, and this isn’t any sort of thing that I can back due to its true lack of focus and depth in any direction.

STATUS REPORT - Don’t watch it, unless you want to be constantly asking the question “Is something important going to happen?” and not in a good way. It’s by only luck that I was eating rice pilaf during this, otherwise I’d be REAL bored. For fans of Cannes/Sundance official selections, I suppose you might be more thrilled, but the general consensus is: 1 star.

“Beginners” is a movie that I did not expect to see. To be honest, I hadn’t heard of it until redbox.com’s ‘New Arrivals’ section planted it’s mildly intriguing over in my browser’s window. I made the decision to get the film, over watching “Super 8,” also a new redbox arrival, and though it showed available at my grocery store, I was dismayed to find it had been checked out. I decided not to let that stop me from pursuing the sights of Ewan McGregor and Christopher Plummer (at the time I did not know Melanie Laurent plays opposite McGregor), and rode my bicycle to 7-11 where I was sure it would be available.

As a quick synopsis, Oliver Fields is trying to figure out how he should feel. His mother passed away 5 years prior, an event which finally led his father to announce his homosexuality now, and for the 44 years they were married. The film time travels at various points to Oliver’s childhood, interactions with his parents, and reactions to his father Hal’s (Christopher Plummer) new gay life-style at the age of 70. He unexpectedly meets French actress Anna at a costumer party, which, of course, throws in the classic element of love.

Some call me a sap for indulging in films of romantic nature, or ones more focused on emotion than on hilarity/action/cinematography, or anything else that fills today’s movies, but I think “Beginners” proves my point when I say that situational and character depth is something that just plain makes for good viewing. As previously mentioned on the review of “The Puffy Chair,” character depth is what independent movies rely on for substance and momentum, a detail that is not overlooked here.

Through the quirky dog-conversations Oliver (McGregor) has with his deceased father’s dog, the obviously indie gestures of abstract-feeling narration, artist lifestyles and vintage Mercedes Benz’s, Beginners is a film that makes me feel. I felt nearly as anxious as in a Guy Ritchie film, tapping my foot on the coffee table, wondering which sentimental conclusion/movement Oliver will come to next.  

Oliver’s apparent necessity to have knowledge of the past is portrayed by snapshots of life in various decades of importance to the story, narrated by himself, and is actually one of the greatest peepholes to his character that I got from the film. He exists as someone who is trying to figure out how he must feel, and to do that, he has so many elements to inspect, decades to cover, and instances to retrace. It’s his realization that he has controlled his past falling outs with romance that leads him to his ending thoughts, and our movie’s title, “beginners.” The themes of family, history, gayness, reservation, and renewal are all executed by Writer/Director Mike Mills’ confident approach and what I believe is a very flexible, poignant role for McGregor.

[STATUS REPORT]

Broad vs. Original - Well, kinda both? As I said, it’s probably easy for this to get lumped in with genre-pioneer “Garden State,” but the issues it deals with are done properly and with natural “duty” if you will. It’s quirks aren’t forced, they’re part of character, and Mills’ screenplay deals with historical/cultural norms in a way that’s relevant for multiple generations.

Watchability - I had already been sucked in by the first few opening scenes, a conversation between Oliver and a Jack Russell Terrier named “Arthur” and some of the aforementioned historical narrations, so it wasn’t difficult for me to sit through some of the slower moments, because I was already interested in what they’d bring to the big picture.

Status Report - Though this review seems glowing because of my softie nature, I can’t recommend this to everyone. 3/3 people I started this movie with fell asleep or went to bed, and one of them is the co-writer of this blog. “Beginners” can fall into the category of so many other indie flicks dealing with the loss of loved ones, the acquisition of new ones, and the answer to the question “life, how does it work?”