True Grit

One of the Coen Brother's biggest success tales was with veteran actor Jeff Bridges, when they teamed up to make the now classic The Big Lebowski. The team is back for another go around in a remake of the classic John Wayne western True Grit.

The film stars newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, a teenager looking to hire a bounty hunter to track down her fathers killer, a man named Tom Chaney, played by Josh Brolin. She asks around town, and the one answer she seems to get is that US Marshall Rooster Cogburn is her man, but Cogburn (played with every ounce of crotchitiness Bridges can muster) isn't interested in this little girl's problems, until she throws some money into the mix, that is. Offering him a hundred dollars (a considerable wage for the 1800's), he agrees to take on the task of tracking down Chaney. Along the way, though, a Texas Ranger named LaBeouf (played by Matt Damon), who is also hunting Chaney joins in on the search. The problem with finding Chaney, though, is that he has gotten in with a gang of dangerous men, and finding him also means having to deal with them.

The performances in this film are rock solid. Bridges doesn't even have to try to master a roll anymore. Damon plays LaBeouf with every bit of swagger, self righteousness, and self importance you would expect a law man from Texas to have, and Steinfeld gives Mattie Ross a sense of determination that one can't question. Barry Pepper is also a welcomes site as Lucky Ned, the leader of the gang Chaney has fallen into.

So, with all of these great performances, great cinematography by frequent collaborator Roger Deakins, and a solid story based on a best selling book is this movie not everything I had hoped it would be? Don't get me wrong, it was enjoyable, and I liked it, but I was expecting to love it. The Coen's previous "Neo-Western" No Country For Old Men was a revelation, a personal best for almost everyone involved. So how is it that True Grit turned out to be a minor let down? I don't know... I'm glad I saw it, don't get me wrong, I just didn't have that sense of excitement and amazement that I usually get out of having seen something truly incredible, which is something I know the Coen's are capable of.

Wall Street 2 - Money Never Sleeps

Sequels that are made just for money often times end up being slap dash and horrible. Fortunately, at least in my opinion, Wall Street 2 - Money Never Sleeps, was not made for money, but rather to continue the same themes but put into the context of the current financial climate. The first film was about pure greed and the way that it was affecting normal people. This film is about the same kinds of greed, except, instead of affecting the employees of a small airline company, this Wall Street disaster effects the entire economy of the United States, as well as the lives of its protagonist's, soon to be married Jake and Winnie (played by Shia LeBouf and Carrie Mulligan).

Gordon Gecko (Michael Douglas reprising his role from the first film) has just gotten out of prison and is looking to rebuild his empire. When Jake Moore, a hungry, but successful Wall Street wiz kid's firm begins to meltdown during the housing crisis of 2008, he looks to Gecko to be a mentor and tries to reunite Winnie, who just so happens to be Gecko's daughter, with Gordon, in exchange for the chance to be Gecko's right hand. Gecko, however, always has a few tricks up his sleeve, and, while he loves Winnie, he knows that gaining her forgiveness and trust back is almost impossible. Money, however, even in times of panic and insolvency, can always be made. You just have to know who's backs to step on.

I'm not an Oliver Stone fan. I don't care for most of his work, but I did love the original Wall Street. I had high hopes for this one, and, while it didn't quite hit the same mark as the original, it was still a great film. Douglas is as slimy as ever, and LeBouf finally found a great fit in the fast talking, fast thinking Jake. Carrie Mulligan feels criminally underused in this film. I would really liked to have seen more with her, but, you get what you get. Josh Brolin, as a take no prisoners banking executive, brought on the pain, and played the type of role he's best at - the relentless bully. The film will leave you thinking about the current financial climate (at least, as of 2010), and will hopefully, in coming years, leave audiences to think about, and question, the way that they do business with banks and investment firms, and making sure that they are really paying attention to what they are doing with their money and with their signatures.

Milk

Gus Van Sant has been one of the most consistently good filmmakers of the last twenty plus years. From his breakout film Drugstore Cowboy, to his Oscar winner Good Will Hunting, to his critically acclaimed trilogy about death (Gerry, Elephant,  and Last Days), Van Sant has made a lot of great films on a small, independent scale. Milk is probably the closest he's ever really gotten to making a mainstream movie, and may be the closest he will ever get.

Milk is the story of Harvey Milk, San Francisco's first openly gay city official. It picks up Harvey's story on the night of his fortieth birthday in New York City, when he meets Scott Smith(played by James Franco), the man who will, effectively, become the great love of Harvey's life. Harvey and Scott eventually migrate to San Francisco to be a part of a more gay-friendly environment, and settle in the Castro district. As time goes on, Harvey see's so many things about his environment that he wants to change, but, in order to do so, he must gain the power to do so. In order to do this, he runs for a city supervisor position and loses. Every few years he runs again and again, and loses again and again. By this time, he has become famous in his community, but when he decides to run one more time, he loses Scott, who walks out on him, sick of having to deal with Harvey giving all of himself to politics. It is then that Harvey wins the position. When he takes his seat, he meets, and tries to allign with another newly elected supervisor - Dan White(played by Josh Brolin). Harvey tries to support Dan, but eventually begins to become more and more famous, and more and more adamant about changing the city's laws and treatment towards the homosexual population. This causes friction between Dan and Harvey, and eventually, after losing his job, Dan comes back to City Hall for Harvey, with a gun.

Milk is an interesting film from a historical perspective. It made me realize that the homosexual population, especially in America, have there own history, their own hero's and villian's. All of the actor's did an exceptional job, though sometimes it feels like Sean Penn's Harvey Milk seemed to be schizophrenically flamboyant. One moment he would be the serious politician looking to change things, and the next he came off as almost a Hollywood stereotype (though I do stand by the fact that stereotypes are born out of truth, and therefore there may have been truth to Penn's flamboyance). Ultimately, though, the film suffered the fate of many recent biopics - it was just kind of boring. I mean, Van Sant did all the right things - used period news reel footage, included the most interesting and relevant parts, and gave us characters we could cheer for but, still, something was just missing. I think that, ultimately, the biopic (in general) suffers from the fact that, ultimately, you know what the outcome is. It's so hard to find a story to tell that someone either doesn't know the outcome of, or couldn't hit up wikipedia or google to find every last ounce of relevant information to. Milk is a good film, and certainly a good addition to Van Sant's resume, but I found myself, at the end, saying "Alright", getting out of my seat, walking out of the theater and not caring about anything I saw for the last two hours just like I have with almost every biopic I've seen in the last couple of years.