Movie Review: Morning Glory

“Morning Glory” is a delight

***/**** (3 stars out of 4)

“Morning Glory” is about as charming as they come.

Like most good comedies, the humor arises out of the characters and their action. However, that is not enough to explain why this movie succeeds; there is something to the parts that make the whole work.

When hard-working TV producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) is fired from a local news program, her career begins to look as bleak as her hapless love life. Stumbling into a job at "Daybreak" (the last-place national morning news show), Becky decides to revitalize the show by bringing on legendary TV anchor Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford).

Unfortunately, Pomeroy refuses to cover morning show staples like celebrity gossip, weather, fashion and crafts, let alone work with his new co-host, Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), a former beauty queen and longtime morning show personality, who is more than happy covering morning "news."

As Mike and Colleen clash, first behind the scenes and then on the air, Becky's blossoming love affair with fellow producer, Adam Bennett (Patrick Wilson) begins to unravel. And soon Becky is struggling to save her relationship, her reputation, her job and ultimately, the show itself.

This struggle to keep everything together is the driving force behind the comedy. It makes the humor come alive because it shows us that the characters are grounded in something real. I do not think that this movie would work if, at any point, these characters seemed to be larger than life. If good comedy is to arise from characters, the audience needs to buy in completely.

Rachel McAdams gives a good performance here. She brings it every scene, which is very important for giving the film a consistent emotional barometer. It is also important because she has to go toe-to-toe with Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford.

Harrison Ford is the one anomaly in this movie, though not necessarily in a bad way. I would not say Harrison Ford has an acting range, but there is an expectation that most of us have when we watch him. But this is a different kind of Harrison Ford in “Morning Glory,” one that I am not so sure if I have seen before. (His impersonation of Christian Bale/Batman from “The Dark Knight,” however unintentional it may be, is spot-on.)

McAdams and Ford are at their best in the film’s second half, and not surprisingly, this is where the film really takes off.

It is not just the back-and-forth between McAdams and Ford that helps catapults the film. The other actors, including Matt Malloy as the resident weatherman, all come alive. This is because the script tightens after the first act.

Early on, the movie was very uneven. It was not immediately clear just what type of movie I’d be seeing. The tone was very somber early on, but maybe this was an attempt to up the stakes, so that the later payoff would leave the audience more than satisfied. I will have to say that if this was the case, then it worked perfectly.

This movie is not perfect. I was really excited to see this movie, and the first act was confounding in its unevenness. But the remainder of the movie is wonderful. (In particular, one roller coaster scene sent the audience into some of the loudest laughter I’ve ever heard at the movies.)

Look past Paramount’s attempt to bill it as a romantic comedy, and you will see the film as it really is: a film that is both good comedy and good drama. Thankfully, the characters give rise to both; this is what makes “Morning Glory” one of the better films of the year.

Running Time: 102 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Bottom Line: Although not perfect, the story flows from its characters; as a result, we get one of the most charming films of the year.

Movie Review: Hereafter

“Hereafter” the latest triumph for Eastwood

3 ½ stars out of 4

Clint Eastwood the director has nothing to prove to audiences anymore. Even when his latest film is in unfamiliar territory for both him and his audience, I never once felt the insecurity that would most likely accompany the same material in the hands of less experienced directors.

“Hereafter” is being described as Eastwood’s “French film,” but I am not so quick to deem it as such. Instead, this may be best described as Eastwood’s most “adult” film, if only because of its laconic style. This characteristic combined with the subject matter further reinforces this claim.

To be clear, this film requires the patience of our attention-deficient culture. Some may argue that this is a weakness that ultimately brings down the film, despite its visual strengths and the wonderful acting. To those people I charge the following: you are missing the point.

This film consists of three tightly woven narratives. One involves George (Matt Damon), a man who appears to be an actual psychic, although he has given up this practice. Despite this “retirement,” he is constantly called upon by both strangers and those close to him to do readings. Throughout the film, George maintains that this connection with the dead is a curse, and it is not too hard to see why: it impacts his ability to foster new relationships.

The other two threads involve French television journalist Marie and a young English boy named Marcus. Marie, while abroad, becomes a victim of a destructive tsunami. She appears to be slipping into death, only to be resuscitated. This near-death experience, which Eastwood leaves ambiguous, consumes Marie upon her return to her life as usual.

Marcus has a twin brother, Jason, who is killed trying to escape a violent group of bullies. Marcus is sent to foster care, because the children’s mother is a heroin addict and an alcoholic. The two people he most loves are taken away from him, and Marcus struggles to cope with the reality of his new circumstances.

Although these three narratives are concerned with themes of death, the movie is about life. It deals with life’s possible connection with the spiritual. It also shows how life can connect us all, even through death. Through the roles that death plays in these characters’ lives, we are brought to the singular moment where their lives are intertwined. And this is precisely why I claim that critics of the film are missing the point.

This movie is all about the emotional journey of these characters. In turn, these emotions lead them to make choices that will ultimately bring them and the film to their ultimate yet seemingly inevitable conclusion, despite how coincidental things may seem. (How fitting it is, then, that George’s literary hero is Charles Dickens.)

Maybe it is these coincidences that are our connection to whatever concept, notion, or reality of the hereafter exists in this film. The subway sequence involving Marcus and his hat and the final scene of the movie suggest that I am not too far off in my understanding.

The payoff of this movie depends upon the tedious setup, and that is why I dismiss the aforementioned critical response to the film’s pacing and length. I think any cuts in the film weaken the emotional threads of the movie. And for the conclusion to work (as in any movie), these threads must remain intact.

If my above analysis sounds hokey or confusing, it is because the film is dealing with something so uncertain and divisive; after all, consideration of the idea of an afterlife is no picnic. Despite all of this, skeptics of the hereafter or life after death will find this movie satisfying. This film connects itself to possible “spirituality” and the afterlife without being overtly spiritual.

It is a moving story, regardless of one’s belief about the subject matter. This universality, besides echoing the themes of the movie, is what makes it such a wonderful film. If I am wrong about this, though, at least we are all left believing in one thing at the end: the status of Clint Eastwood as one of America’s finest filmmakers of all time.

Running Time: 129 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

My Rating: 3 ½ stars (***1/2)

Bottom Line: Although the story will tax the patience of an attention-deficient culture, it is a moving story that will satisfy regardless of your belief in the hereafter.

Bond franchise should be shaken, not stirred

James Bond’s license to thrill has been revoked, at least for the time being.

Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson announced back in April that the franchise was being shelved until the financial problems of studio MGM could be resolved. It is thought that the studio is behind on about $3.7 billion in debt.

There is much uncertainty surrounding a timetable for the franchise and the next film itself. There are conflicting reports as to whether production for the next film has been cancelled or merely postponed. There have even been reports that Sam Mendes, who was attached to direct the next film and then dropped out, has had second thoughts about his second thoughts and is still back in the mix to direct the next film.

(Yes, an Oscar-winning director is attached to the franchise.)

Despite the uncertainty, the only thing that is clear to me is that the reboot of the franchise has proven to be hit-or-miss for most people. It seems that the wildly popular “Casino Royale” is everyone’s new favorite, while “Quantum of Solace” left most moviegoers feeling incomplete.

This inconsistency seems to stem from the fact that the reboot was designed to get Bond back to basics, eliminating the increasingly outlandish use of gadgets and various other fantasy elements that were a staple of the early franchise (with the Roger Moore films being the worst offenders). This rebooted Bond is thought to be more in line with the Bond from Ian Fleming’s original novels.

This new, darker Bond was quite a treat for audiences in “Casino Royale,” but after seeing “Quantum of Solace” (which I liked), I couldn’t help but get the feeling I was seeing an extension of the Jason Bourne series. Although that probably has more to do with the story of “Quantum,” the new direction of the rebooted franchise also has its share of the blame.

There are a few elements I believe that are worth bringing back, if only to give some sort of continuity or familiarity with the new films. Still present are the title sequences, the exotic locales, the unique super-villains, and the various vehicles and sports cars. But there are two I would like to see make a return.

First, the franchise needs to see the return of a central nemesis, much like the criminal organization SPECTRE and its Number One Ernst Stavro Blofeld from the earlier movies. Whether there should be an archenemy like Blofeld is less important than an identifiable organization.

Although this may seem out of place with the rebooted franchise, it is entirely consistent with both “Casino” and “Quantum.” At the heart of both films are characters from a mysterious group called Quantum, which seems to function as a new sort of SPECTRE. I can only hope that Quantum continues to make its presence known going forward, given that is has proven to be quite the adversary to Bond in the last two films.

A second thing I would like to see for the future of the franchise is the return of familiar characters that were staples of past movies. Although the reboots have featured characters like M (played by the incomparable Judi Dench) and Felix Leiter, missing is Bond’s relationship with Q and Miss Moneypenny.

I know their relationships in past movies fell into a kind of contrived rhythm but having them around is not the issue. Some of the best moments from the past films included Desmond Llewelyn’s performance as the go-to gadget guy. If the writers can find ways of introducing them and keeping them around in fresh, original ways, then the franchise would be better for it.

Don't tell me you don't miss this guy.

Part of what makes “Casino Royale” such a great Bond movie is the fact that the reboot has put an emphasis on Bond as an emotional character, which was absent from pretty much every film prior to “Casino.” (The most notable exception is “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.) When the plot of a movie is actually driven by characters, then we get a good movie. However, after “Quantum of Solace,” the franchise seems headed for a dark place, probably due to the fact that Bond himself was going down a dark road.

Bond has always had its appeal in escapist fantasy, and reintroducing some of these old elements would help balance the gravitas of the direction the reboot has taken. And, this would only help Bond return to its rightful place as the most successful and enduring film franchise of all time.

Second-Guessing the Oscars

“And the Oscar goes to…” This five-word phrase is all it takes to catapult a movie to the forefront of the film industry. That same phrase is also responsible for one of two things: cementing a film’s legacy among the greats of cinema or leaving a film branded as overrated.

A film’s reputation is affected by one aspect of films that is not immediately clear or measurable: how well a movie stands the test of time. I am not so sure that voters are too concerned with this aspect. However, having the benefit of hindsight, assessing the merits of past winners has become an interesting practice.

One such assessment that is often made is the lament of many who think that “Shakespeare in Love” should never have beaten “Saving Private Ryan” for Best Picture of 1998. Since I hesitate to make that claim so definitely, I will present a few other moments from Oscar history that left me scratching my head.

Let us start with the 2008 Best Picture race. “Slumdog Millionaire” may be the “worst” (think least deserving) Best Picture winner of the past decade. It is not that “Slumdog” is a flat-out horrible movie. It is just that I have found only a handful of people (both professional critics and average filmgoers) who believe “Slumdog” to be a better movie than “Milk,” “The Dark Knight,” “Gran Torino,” “WALL-E,” and “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.”

I could just be making a hasty generalization, but even without my bias toward “Slumdog” as Best Picture, it sure seems as if the Academy dropped the ball for 2008.

1994 is another interesting year. Unlike 2008, the controversy surrounding that year is a result of what has been previously mentioned: the test of time. “Forrest Gump” was the favorite to win the award for Best Picture, which it did. However, time has elevated the status of fellow nominees “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Pulp Fiction” to two of the greatest films of all time. (Although, I’m partial to a fourth nominee, “Quiz Show.”)

In this case, the Academy’s decision did not seem so bad at first. The popularity of both “Shawshank” and “Pulp Fiction” soared after their theatrical runs (although “Pulp Fiction” became one of the highest grossing “indie” films of all time). Only years later did the general public jump onboard with the critical praise that met both films upon their release. Plus, “Forrest Gump” is a very endearing movie that seems to elicit much more merit from audiences than say a “Slumdog.”

It is just a little astonishing, looking back on things, that “Forrest Gump” is the one that carry the tile Best Picture for the year 1994. In a year that brought about two or three of the best films of the past quarter century, “Forrest Gump” has the unfortunate pleasure of being the film that is second-guessed.

A list of grievances could go on and on. “Braveheart” over “Sense and Sensibility” and “Apollo 13” in 1995? “Raging Bull” and “Goodfellas” losing to “Ordinary People” and “Dances with Wolves,” respectively? Let’s not even get started on all the technical and acting categories. How “Citizen Kane” does not sweep the list of technical awards it is up for (Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Art Direction, etc.) is beyond me.

But for me, the biggest snub of all was Ingrid Bergman’s work on “Casablanca.” She was nominated for an Oscar, but the nomination was for another movie, “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Although Bergman herself considers other performances to be her best, in a 2007 biography she was quoted as saying:

"I feel about ‘Casablanca’ that it has a life of its own. There is something mystical about it. It seems to have filled a need, a need that was there before the film, a need that the film filled.” The same could be said of her performance.

To say hindsight is 20/20 for the Oscars is a little misleading. Voting is a subjective process, people’s opinions change, and my own objections are merely opinion. Over time, though, the Academy’s choices do face a type of scrutiny that is unavoidable whenever awards are concerned. However, it is this dialogue that is indispensable for the arts, particularly movies.

Movie Review: Inception

**** of **** (4 stars out of 4)

What is the best way to approach a film? It is a question that has been asked for a long time, with no clear answer provided. Some suggest that a visceral approach is the way to go, while others insist that films should have great intellectual appeal.

Fortunately for us viewers, “Inception” has decided to avoid such debate by giving us the best of both worlds. It is a film that engages the mind and captures the heart.

“Inception” is no more about dreams and corporate espionage than it is about one man’s struggle to escape the prison created for him by his past.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief, the best in the dangerous art of extraction: stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state when the mind is at its most vulnerable.

Cobb’s rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved, including his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) and two children. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible—inception.

Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, and Dileep Rao) are hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to pull off the reverse; their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But lurking deep in these dreams is an enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming.

Pardon the cliché but to say more would do the movie injustice. Like most good films, the payoff is most fully experienced after taking the journey. And for “Inception,” this journey is like no other I can recall.

Director Christopher Nolan leads us on this journey with great skill and grace. But this is to be expected for someone who has been working on the script for ten years.

His skill and grace are best demonstrated by the fact that despite the constantly shifting nature of the story, the thread between Cobb and Mal provides an emotional anchor of sorts for the audience. Acting as a constant for Cobb, their relationship is the linchpin of the story.

Since this movie works because of this thread, much credit is due to both DiCaprio and Cotillard. Their work magnetizes the viewer, drawing us deeper and deeper into their story. The dynamic between the two is about as real as anything I have seen on film.

With these efforts from Nolan, DiCaprio, and Cotillard combined, this may be their finest hour yet. But combined with the terrific work of the other actors (most notably, Tom Hardy), composer Hans Zimmer, cinematographer Wally Pfister, production designer Guy Dyas, etc., “Inception” is truly something special.

Despite this praise, I do not think the film offers profound insight into the nature of reality and dreams, nor does it try to. Trying to tackle such subjects in a 148 min. movie would most likely lead to unsatisfying results.

Instead, this movie offers us a wonderful portrait of a man struggling with the separation of his dreams and memories from his reality. And this struggle is what allows for the film to have both its visceral appeal and its intellectual appeal.

Since I have longed for the day when I would discover a film that tugs equally at my mind and my heart, “Inception” is a dream come true.

The heart of the film.

The 3-D Gimmick

Sorry in advance for no pretty picture. This will also serve as my first column for the new year (or under the new regime) of the CW (the Crimson White), the UA student newspaper. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject...

Hollywood is at it again. It has introduced yet another technology in hopes of enhancing audiences’ experience.

Like sound and color before it, 3-D is being met with the usual schism that accompanies such technological advancements. This division is usually along the line of which part of “show business” should be emphasized.

For studio heads, 3-D represents a wonderful business opportunity. Like the film advancements that came before it, 3-D offers moviegoers something innovative. It is not something that has emerged in too many homes—well, for now. The allure of 3-D is great way to draw in audiences.

However, filmmakers (the “show”) and studio heads (the “business”) clash over whether this desire to increase profit will hurt the quality and the future of movies. If studios decide that 3-D is the exclusive path they should take for movies, then filmmakers become limited in having the freedom to makes movies as they desire. It is this lack of freedom that could put a damper on the film industry.

Opponents of 3-D offer many of the same, although valid, reasons. Viewers can experience headaches or nausea. It adds little or nothing to the experience. In addition to these, an excessive surcharge is added to ticket prices.

I must confess I am sympathetic to the 2-D cause. 3-D has its place in the entertainment business. But I am convinced that it should remain a secondary option instead of becoming the sole future of movies.

I do not think it would be fair to omit that “Avatar” is a great example of how 3-D movies can be an astonishing visual ride. (James Cameron has proven that he is a great choice to lead the 3-D movement.) But 3-D adds nothing more than that, and the story does not become enhanced in any way.

What does 3-D do for movies like “An Education” or “Sideways?” Nothing. One could say that the color palette is improved, but this is not so. Images in 3-D are dimmer than those in 2-D.

An advocate of 3-D may claim that those films are obvious examples of films that do not benefit from the technology. So let us examine a movie that is a little less obvious: “The Hurt Locker.”

“The Hurt Locker” is a war film with its fair share of action. The cinematography essentially gives the audience a rat’s eye view. Increased depth could really give a whole new dimension to war films.

However, when I think of “The Hurt Locker,” the phrase “palpable tension” comes to mind. This movie, for better or for worse, decided that it would stake itself upon a premise of suspended tension. The payoff is rarely the explosion or lack thereof; it is a film that winds up showing just what it is that makes some soldiers addicted to war. In other words, the payoff is the wait.

So, the movie has some moments of action. But since the core of the film is staked upon a premise that is really not enhanced by 3-D technology, it seems as if 3-D should look elsewhere.

The worst offenders are the numerous movies (“Clash of the Titans” and the planned rerelease of Cameron’s “Titanic”) filmed in 2-D that are converted to 3-D. For “Clash,” it was apparent something got lost on the way to the theatre.

One of the biggest problems with my argument is there is no way to quantify whether or not 3D adds to the experience. It differs for everyone, and even then, different people may like it in some instances and not others. All we know is what we like, feel, know, etc. Opponents cannot prove that 3D does not add to their experience, just like 3-D supporters cannot prove it adds to their experience. We are just stuck with what we know to be true for us.

I do think most people would agree that 3-D does not enrich certain films or genres. I just cannot help but think that their number is so great as not to warrant the wide-scale expansion to 3-D as the dominant medium for motion pictures.

Cinephilosophy?

Well, as my little info box reveals, I am a huge cinephile who happens to study philosophy. Often times, it's hard for me to ignore some great philosophical topics that I run across in film. As a hopeful law school attendee, the legal philosophical questions that certain movies ask are definitely some of the most intriguing.

Here are three films that you should see because they are great films. They just happen to offer up some great food-for-thought. (I will not give my personal opinion of the topics brought up. I just want to mention them, so you'll know what kind of fascinating dialogue is out there, waiting to be discussed.)

M (1931)

M is the first sound film from German Expressionist Fritz Lang. It details the search for a child serial killer (played by the great Peter Lorre). In the film, both the police and the criminals of the city begin separate manhunts for the killer (with the criminals using the city's beggars as their eyes). And while that dynamic between the two sides is very interesting, the roles and justification of roles each side plays are not the most fascinating questions to ponder.

Instead, that distinction belongs to the last twenty minutes of the movie. During this time, two ideas are presented: 1) To what extent does the justice system fail in terms of punishment? 2) Are there times when criminals can not be held responsible or accountable, and if so, should this fully acquit them of the supposed wrongs they've committed.

The film does an excellent job of showing how 1) and 2) are connected, meaning that any answer you think is correct to one or the other might have unforeseen consequences you may not want for the other.

Rashomon (1950)

Akira Kurosawa is considered one of the world's greatest filmmakers of all-time, and Rashomon is considered one of his masterpieces. Rashomon tells the story of a rape and murder trial. Told through flashbacks, the film presents four versions of the events from different witnesses, each contradicting the other.

At the heart of this story are questions about honesty. How vital is it that the testimony our courts rely upon be accurate? What kinds of ramifications might dishonesty have? Are these acceptable in certain instances?

Broader questions include the morality of being completely honest. What's worst: our actions or lying about them? Who's best equipped to tell the truth? What do we have to gain or lose through lying?

Now, some of this may seem pretty cut-and-dried. However, the film does an excellent job of showing why the answers to this question are not as easy as they appear. Can one be on morally higher ground by admitting to a murder than admitting to other actual actions?

12 Angry Men (1957)

Probably my favorite of the three films. 12 Angry Men simply shows a jury deliberation in a murder trial. I say simply because although this plot may be the simplest of the three films, the questions brought up are just as compelling.

(Before I continue, this film has an all-star cast of Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, Jack Warden, and Jack Klugman and is directed by the incredibly talented Sidney Lumet.)

Some of the issues brought up by 12 Angry Men include: is reasonable doubt a good basis for the criminal law? Should juries have to reach a unanimous verdict? Why or why not? What responsibility do jurors have to the accused? The victims and their families? What, if any, kind of compromise is acceptable in jury deliberation, given the stakes? Do the positives of a jury-based legal system outweigh the negatives?

I challenge you to see these films because they really are great films, folks. These films make us think critically about the questions/issues above, presenting them in a way that takes the black-and-white nature out of many of the assumptions we have about legal philosophy.

The End

Namaste...

LOST comes to an end tonight.

Not really saddened by this news. The creative forces asked for it to end because they knew what story they wanted to tell. This tells me that the show has always been in good hands and will probably end in a very fulfilling manner. I'm keeping all expectations out of the experience, however.

This show has given viewers a journey unlike anything we've ever seen, and I'm ready to see our characters' story get their finale. The characters have always been at the heart of the show for me. The "mythology" aspects are entertaining and do serve their purpose in helping the story along. But this show is the best show on TV (aka, restored my faith in television) because of the characters and their story.

The laughs and tears along the way have come from them. The heartbreak, sorrow, jubilation, and joy are owed to them.

I don't know what my reaction will be. Frankly, I don't care (provided it's not "That's it!?"). I've always placed faith in the writers, never seriously questioning a single decision they've made. Some say this is my biggest fault in watching this show. That may turn out to be true, but I've always maintained that until it's done and we have the big picture, I'm not in a position to judge/question. Yes, I have both positive and negative emotional reactions to the events in the show. The emotional journey is unparalleled. But I have never interjected a personal vision into the show.

So, with that in mind, I enter the finale with great anticipation but no expectations. I look forward to the last Dharma van ride, accompanied with some Three Dog Night, along this journey. It's been incredible so far. Now let's see what the last 2.5 hours hold...

NOTE: I will be watching the finale tomorrow (for personal reasons), so I will be going "silent" or "off-the-grid" with respect to all forms of communication and electronics. I can and will address it when I've seen it.

In the Loop - An Instant Classic

For those that don't know, I adhere to a strict 24-hour rule when it comes to watching movies. That is, I refuse to form an official opinion regarding the film, given the emotions that result from the immediacy of a viewing. Yes, films are designed to make us feel something, and I'm not saying I'm trying to lose those feelings. I just want to see if they are rather fleeting.

There is something to be said for how we feel immediately after a movie. Some might argue those feelings are more profound and can never be matched. Others argue that the more profound feelings are those we have days, weeks, or even years after we've seen a movie (for the first time).

I don't want to argue the above disagreement. Instead, I was simply explaining a sort of "litmus test" I have for cinema. (Although, that's not really the best description; neither is "barometer," so we'll just move on.)

Well, every so often, a film comes along that doesn't need the 24-hour rule. These films are rarely the terrible ones. (Yes, Tommy, I am talking to you.) To use a borrowed moniker, these are the "instant classics." The Dark Knight was one such film for me. However, since that time in 2008, I haven't really had any films that really didn't require the 24-hour rule. I may have said that about certain films, but I think I was getting carried away with my feelings.

Consider In the Loop (2009) the latest such film. I just recently saw this movie, and it was a riot. I haven't laughed that hard or frequently in quite some time, if ever. I am tempted to say it's the funniest movie I've seen, but I'll grant that that claim should not be definitively spoken/written for some time.

But I do know that this film is a masterpiece, regardless of where it ranks on a list of comedies. It is a British comedy film, satirizing 21st-century politics. More specifically, U.S. and British build-up to a war in the Middle East (think the 2nd Gulf War, aka the Iraq War).

Don't be alarmed by the political themes. It is great comedy in itself and as someone who refuses to come down on either side of the fence regarding the war, I did not ever feel that whatever political message there may be was never in the way of my enjoyment of terrific writing and acting and some of the best one-lines I've ever heard. Comedy came first, as it should. (Feel free to disagree with that last claim, as it is a strong one.)

The only thing one could possibly be alarmed with is the "language." (I hate that term. What makes certain words "language" while the rest are just language?) I never thought it was an issue, probably because I was laughing nonstop. But, if you do have a problem with that, be warned here and now.

I won't speak much to the plot, as there is a fair amount of intrigue, especially near the end. Just know that this is one of the few films to which I will stake my reputation. To quote A.O. Scott (critic at The New York Times, with whom I have my fair share of disagreements):

"The audience, meanwhile, is likely to die laughing. While “In the Loop” is a highly disciplined inquiry into a very serious subject, it is also, line by filthy line, scene by chaotic scene, by far the funniest big-screen satire in recent memory."

Directed by Armando Iannucci; written by Mr. Iannucci, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell and Tony Roche; released by IFC Films. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes. This film is not rated.

WITH: Anna Chlumsky (Liza), Chris Addison (Toby), David Rasche (Linton), Gina McKee (Judy), James Gandolfini (General Miller), Mimi Kennedy (Karen), Olivia Poulet (Suzy), Peter Capaldi (Malcolm Tucker), Steve Coogan (Paul Michaelson), Tom Hollander (Simon Foster) and Zach Woods (Chad).

P.S. Here is an excellent clip, although it is very representative of the aforementioned "language" issue.

The Sixteen Year Gap or: The Western Revival

"People are always asking me why they don't make Westerns like they used to."

- Roy Rogers

Heck, I even find myself asking this very question about the past decade or so. For a while, the last great Western was Unforgiven (1992). Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994) are very good films that tried to correct this, but they just do not have the staying power that Eastwood's masterpiece has.

Thankfully, though, the second half of this past decade saw a resurgence of Westerns that are probably some of the best since the early 90s. The year 2007 was especially kind in this regard. That year saw the release of three Westerns that have to be considered amongst this resurgence, mostly due to the fact that they offer a breath of fresh air, some spark of originality.

The three from 2007 that I am referring to are The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Seraphim Falls, and 3:10 to Yuma. These three films have unique visual styles. They have stories that are not only fresh in terms of cinema as a whole but even in their Western genre. (Yes, I took into account that 3:10 to Yuma is a remake.)

These three films also have tremendous casts. The level of acting in Westerns has changed considerably since Leone's "Spaghetti Westerns," and these three films are great illustrations of how it has changed for the better. Plus, Russell Crowe and Liam Neeson are two of my favorite actors, so their presence in any film is bound to elevate the level of the cast in my eyes.

There are many types of Westerns, and two of the most popular types are the Outlaw and the Revisionist Westerns. Jesse James and 3:10 are your Outlaw Westerns. Seraphim Falls has the distinction of being what some call a Revisionist Western, in that the romanticism of the the Traditional Western is bucked for a darker tone that favors elements of realism. (Actually, Jesse James is probably a mix of Outlaw and Revisionist.)

Another Western of the Outlaw/Revisionist mix is Australia's The Proposition (2005). I hate to sound repetitive, but this film stands out for the same reasons as the previous three: a strong cast, a fresh story, and a unique visual style. The Proposition is probably edgier, grittier, and more intense that the above three, which is saying something considering just how violent and rough the previous three are.

Although the Space Western is normally considered more science fiction than western, 2005's Space Western entry Serenity (a continuation of the Fox series Firefly) has always felt more like a Western. Of course, enjoyment of this movie is 5x better if you are familiar with the TV series and 10x better if you have seen Firefly in its entirety (not too difficult considering Fox made one of the worst decisions in television history by canceling it and leaving us with only 14 episodes). Malcolm Reynolds is one of the most enduring characters of all-time, due in large part to terrific writing and the incredible acting of Nathan Fillion. Without a doubt, Serenity joins the other four films as part of the resurgence of good Westerns.

The final film I will mention is also the only Traditional Western of the bunch: Appaloosa (2008). Because it is based on Robert B. Parker's novel of the same name, it is a foregone conclusion that whatever weaknesses the film has are not a result of the writing. It turns out, though, that this film's only weakness is just one cast member (Renee Zellweger). Outside of that, the film tells a story that never loosens its grip on the audience. The dialogue is fantastic, but the more impressive is just how no-frills the story is. The characters are actually at the heart of this story.

Another example of its realistic, no-frills story is that one very important shootout in the movie is over before you even have time to process what has happened. Instead of some elaborate, drawn-out sequence, the story paints a picture of how things like that most likely went down. I was amazed at the power of its brevity, considering the amount of tension that was a part of the set-up. I had never seen anything like that before in any movie, especially a Western.

In my opinion, Appaloosa is one of the new great westerns (despite its previously mentioned flaw). The other five are very good films that have also been a part of the recent resurgence of good, fresh Westerns. Now, why there was a fifteen-year hiatus of good westerns is a mystery to me and a matter of debate between myself and other moviegoers. But at least it isn't a problem we are dealing with currently.

P.S.

v.

On which side of the great debate do you find yourself?

A Toaster with Pictures?

"Television is just another appliance. It's just a toaster with pictures."

- Mark S. Fowler, former FCC Chairman

You mean this thing?

You see, I prefer this guy.

Sure thing, Mark. Whatever you say.

Wait, what's that Billy?

"It used to be that we in films were the lowest form of art. Now we have something to look down on."

- Billy Wilder (supposedly)

"Television is called a medium because it is neither rare or well done."

Ooo, big talk from Mr. Anony Mous.

These three people have one thing common: they fail at life.

In all seriousness, I'm afraid these guys must have missed out on quality television. I say this because television has become a player in my life. This has only happened recently, though.

Before 2004, outside of reruns of certain childhood staples like "Home Improvement" and certain Nickelodeon shows like "Legends of the Hidden Temple" and "Are You Afraid of the Dark?," television had no value for me. Considering we were/are in the age of the sitcoms, it was hard to find shows that separated themselves from the rest of the pack by offering something to us viewers. ("Seinfeld" reurns, you are excused.)

That all changed when I saw a TV spot for some show that looked like Cast Away on steroids and with an actual cast.

Of course, I'm referring to "Lost."

According to Leibniz, the "best of all possible" shows.

This show is solely responsible for my current television-watching habits. It restored my faith in television. It also helped pave the way for shows that abandoned the sitcom genre. (To be fair, these kinds of shows were already prevalent on certain pay-for-TV channels like HBO, Showtime, etc.) For all of this, I'm very grateful.

Probably because I now find myself closely following many shows. I've invested a lot of time and emotions into these. Because doing anything less completely undermines why someone would chose to be entertained by a story-telling medium.

So, in order to share my excitement and enjoyment of these shows,--and so maybe you can learn a little bit more about me--I've decided to highlight some of my favorites.

This is not a comprehensive list. And these are only shows that are currently on TV. (Not currently airing, necessarily.) If a show is not on this list, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. I can name about 15 shows that I thoroughly enjoy. These are just some of the ones that I enjoy more. (Heck, let's not forget that it might be the case that I haven't even seen a particular show.)

For example:

"The Office" has left me crying from laughter. I can't even begin to recount the number of times I've probably woken up surrounding rooms with a hardy guffaw. But I'm not including it on this list.

"FlashForward" has a very interesting premise that probably has more philosophical implications than any other show I watch. (Yes, that includes "Lost.") But I'm not listing it.

Simply put, these are the shows that permeate my thoughts more than the others. Their episodes have stayed with me for weeks, months, and even years after the initial viewing.

So, without further ado, some of my favorite shows currently on TV (in alphabetical order, except the last one for the most obvious reason):

[Well, let me stop here and go ahead and say this: all of these shows are fantastic for many reasons. At the heart of them is fantabulous writing. So, I will try to avoid repetition by giving general props to the writers. I'll try to mention certain aspects of the writing for each show. (Also, I'm avoiding synopses because those are easily accessible.)]

"Castle"

"Castle" is a rare breed of show. The show is not a straight-up comedy or drama. It's leads, Stana Katic and Nathan Fillion, are dazzling in their performances. Their chemistry is rarely seen on television, film or stage. This on top of the fact that it features some of the best writing/dialogue I've seen since "Gilmore Girls."

Now, to be honest, I have often times tuned out during certain cases, simply because I'm so caught up in the actors and their characters. "But Jordan, doesn't that mean that the writing can't be all that good since it doesn't command your attention?"

No, I don't believe it does. The cases themselves are always a treat, since they are very original/creative. And the cases do lead to a character growth over the season. It's just that Fillion and Katic, along with Jon Huertas and Seamus Dever, are always doing so much in a scene, I will focus on the little nuances and gems in their performance.

The set-up/payoff in this show is great. For example, Episode 2.13 "Sucker Punch" may be one of the best hours of television I have ever seen. Ever. Why? Because the show had been building to a point, and this episode gave us that while opening up a related can of worms. It gave us so much, yet the mystery lingered/lingers on. (I might also add it's the only episode of "Castle" that has moved me to tears. That episode was so good, my friends, so good.)

Bottom Line: If you are a fan of clever but fun television, this show delivers because of characters that are wonderfully written and acted. The chemistry of the leads is enough to make this one of the best shows currently on television.

"Glee"

Let's be clear: this show, like any other, has its faults. But more people are less willing to forgive the ones of "Glee" for some unknown reason. I'll be honest: these people either are way too critical (especially given the current state of television) or they have no joy in their life.

But "Glee" is simply that: 43 minutes of joy.

I was very frustrated at first, because all these characters had to do in the first part of Season 1 was simply tell the truth. Their problems were easily avoidable, so I had a hard time caring about their struggles.

But then two things happened. 1) I realized every show I watch has its characters suffering from a lack of honest and forthcoming behavior. Every.Single.One. 2) The show got better/matured/became more honest with itself.

That has been the key. Take for instance the latest episode, 1.16 or "Home." For the longest time, the characters have been so selfish. Not a bad thing if the writing were not as sympathetic to that as it had been earlier in the season. Finally, though, the show called out this selfishness: Burt Hummel became the voice of reason. (Who woulda thunk it!?)

I could compliment the writers for wonderful characters and the lines they utter, the actors who do a great job bringing these characters to life, the wonderful soundtrack that features wonderful music, voices, arrangements, covers, etc. But that should be obvious.

So should the aspect I am gonna compliment instead. But she's so terrific, I had to give Jane Lynch props. Now, she benefits from the show's best lines/writing, but Jane Lynch does a masterful job nonetheless. Sue is without a doubt the only person I root for unconditionally, despite her terrible nature.

Bottom Line: Deftly balancing a unique combination of humor, drama and music, "Glee" is able to lift the soul. Because it does the best job of that out the shows on this list, it is one of the best shows currently on television.

"Lie to Me"

This show is probably going to be cancelled. A real shame, considering this show is very well crafted.

At the heart of LtM is one of my favorite sciences: interpreting microexpressions, through the Facial Action Coding System, and body language. (Thanks Wiki!) This show doesn't get bogged down by the science, though. That's probably because Tim Roth (Dr. Cal Lightman, the main character) is the man.

Of all these shows, he's probably the strongest lead. It's a real treat that he is getting a wider range of exposure because he is most definitely in the exclusive group of exceptional actors.

During the first season, the show kinda hit the "procedural" routine. However, because of the talent behind this show, it's one of the few that can keep it fresh. Plus, all shows have a story arc that spans the entirety of the series, one that spans the entirety of its seasons, and one that spans only the length of its episodes.

I think one reason this show works so well is that even the episode story arcs are not wasted because unlike a "Law and Order," our characters' other arcs are influenced.

Bottom Line: Even though this show is the least publicized of these six, it's one of the most interesting and, as a result, one of best shows currently on television.

"Mad Men"

MM is outstanding. The biggest reason I'm a fan is because it captures the psychology and sociology of a by-gone era. (Maybe "era" isn't the best word since Season 1 takes place right as the 1960s are just beginning.) After reading "Revolutionary Road" and seeing how well Richard Yates gave that time a distinct feel, it's great to see MM do that with equal, if not more, success.

The feel of that time is captured through the dialogue, the sets, the costumes, the makeup/hair, etc. No attention to detail seems to be spared. Heck, I know the word "swell" has fallen off the map now, but I find myself using it just as frequently as these characters do.

Because of how much emotion I invest in shows (especially the ones I really enjoy, and especially these six), I find that this show is the most difficult to watch. It's definitely the darkest of these six, but "dark" is not the best word. Neither is "tragic." Wait, "melancholic" is it. Yup, "melancholic." This doesn't make the show unbearable as I may have suggested earlier. Just that this show takes a heavier emotional toll on me.

Jon Hamm is excellent as Don Draper, one of the most compelling characters of any story. Add to him a very solid cast and writing that takes hold of you (and never lets go) and the results are highly successful.

Bottom Line: A show with little to no faults, "Mad Men" has taken story-telling to a new level. Because of this and how well it acts as a case study or time capsule of a by-gone time, "Mad Men" is one of the best shows currently on television.

"Modern Family"

This may be the only 21-minute show on the list, but it definitely has the most comedic bang for the buck. The beauty of this show is that it captures the true essence of the family dynamic. If great comedy is simply great observation, then this show has figured it out. These things are funny in and of themselves, but what puts it over the top is that the comedy has an uncanny ability to resemble the truth of it all.

Great comedic ensemble performance from the cast. In a cast that includes Julie Bowen, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet, and Ed O'Neill, Ty Burrell is definitely the one with the best individual performance. He has his character down so well, I wanna call him Phil Dunphy anytime I see him in a performance outside MF. Just cracks me up seeing him on-screen.

The show has great rhythm. Probably the best of the list. I mean, MF is comedy, which tends to depend on excellent rhythm and timing.

Bottom Line: This show is an absolute riot. Given that this show procures more laughter than any other show airing, it's one of the best shows currently on television.

"Lost"

For me to say why this show is on this list is really difficult, given that this is the best show on television and the one that brought me back to TV (is)land.

This show is criticized for its slowly realized sci-fi theme. Too bad, it's always been about the characters. Yes, the island mythology is absorbing and fascinating. But for me, it has always been about the characters. And even when the show is done, it will continue to be about the characters. Forget getting caught up in the otherwise trivial mysteries. (Which, I admit, can be fun.)

I don't even know how to describe the emotions that begin to swell when I think about the characters and their story. I'm not sure what'll happen when the show is over, but my emotions will be high. Even if it is simple contentment, it will be an overwhelming feeling of being content/satisfied.

I have slowly realized that Michael Giacchino may be my favorite movie/television composer. He has offered us numerous scores that are great. It was only a matter of time he was recognized, and thanks to "Up," he got his recognition. But his work on "Lost" is his best. And--I realize this may sound ludicrous--I am slowly warming to the idea that his work on "Lost" may be my favorite score all-time, television or movie.

"Lost" has the best acting of any show, from the top to the bottom of the cast. Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson play my favorite characters. They also happen to be the best actors of the bunch. Coincidence? Maybe... probably, actually.

I am leaving out a ton of stuff that should be mentioned, but succinctly putting my feelings of "Lost" into words is rather difficult to begin with. So, I'll just let what incoherent mess I've left above stand by itself.

Bottom Line: A show with no faults. Excellent in every way. Any positive aspects of a TV show or the making of a television show you can think of, "Lost" has. But the characters and their story alone make this the best show currently on television.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Now your turn: what are your thoughts? Agree or disagree? Why? Maybe you have further questions about a show?

***But most importantly: what am I missing here? What belongs? Which shows are must-sees?***