Midnight in Paris - 2011

"Midnight in Paris" - 2011
Dir. by Woody Allen - 1 hr. 34 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

When I saw the trailer for this film, it didn't really register.  I wasn't really aware that Woody Allen had directed it (and that wouldn't have necessarily been a selling point for me), and I don't really remember the central idea of the film coming across, either.  Could be that I wasn't paying attention, but there wasn't anything that made me jazzed to see this film until I had a bunch of friends tell me separately that it was really good.  Thank goodness they were right!

Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez (Rachel McAdams) are an engaged couple, vacationing in Paris.  For Gil, a screenwriter who is working on his first book, there's no place else on Earth he'd rather be.  He's smitten with Paris, but he's the only one.  Inez and her family pretty much hate it there, and constantly get annoyed whenever Gil likes anything at all.  A couple of Inez's friends are there as well, Paul (Michael Sheen) and Carol (Nina Arianda), but they're too interested in themselves to provide anything more than eye-rolling companionship.  One night after a wine-tasting party, Gil over-indulges and gets lost.  Eventually, a car stops, and invites him along for a drink.  The car takes him to a party, where things are slightly odd.

The central idea of the film - a guy getting to explore what he considers his "golden age" - is a good one, but the execution and exploration of the idea is fantastic.  For one thing, it shows Gil's enthusiasm isn't dependent on a given situation.  He's genuinely excited about things in general, and wants to explore.  In the present time, it seems literally all of the characters are acting at cross-purposes to Gil's best interests, if they're taking them into consideration at all.  It's easy to see why a guy like Gil would romanticize another era, if only to escape the relentless negativity surrounding him.  And when he falls in with his artistic heroes, it's easy to see the appeal of that: being around people who are really into what they're doing is an energizing experience.

Beyond that, all of the performances are fantastic.  Not knowing how this cast of historical figures really were doesn't matter: they all function as fictional characters.  Hemingway (Corey Stoll) is almost laughably intense, Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) is focused on making art the best that it can be, Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody) is a lovable dingbat, Scott (Tom Hiddleston) and Zelda (Alison Pill) are a train-wreck of drama, and on down the line.  It's a bizarre cast of characters, but it all adds up to the literary Disney theme-park ride that you could only dream of.  The characters interact in a delightful manner, and if you know anything about their respective careers, you'll realize how clever this film actually is.

Not just for Gil, but for the viewer, this is like an entire vacation in an hour and a half.  Paris is beautiful, day or night, sun or rain. The conversation is captivating and witty, the company is great, there's a nearly-endless parade of beautiful people and ideas on display.  When Gil comes to his big realization, he (and I) is ready to face the future, make the most of his time, and do something great.  That's a beautiful feeling, and "Midnight in Paris" is a beautiful movie.

4.5 / 5 - Blu-Ray

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - 2011

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" - 2011
Dir. by Guy Ritchie - 2 hrs. 9 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There's something to be said for a well-done, fun franchise movie.  You can do so much worse at the multiplex to go see a couple of big stars do a big budget period movie.  As long as each installment delivers enough to have you smiling on your way out of the theatre, it doesn't need to be revolutionary or ground-breaking.  Every couple of years, you get to visit a character that you like again.  That's a fair bargain.

I don't really need to get into who Sherlock Holmes is, unless you're some kind of genius, Sherlock.  The characters are essentially the same as last time around, except Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is on the verge of getting married.  Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) doesn't look very positively on that development, but he's willing to stand by his friend.  Before that, Holmes interjects into a criminal plot being executed by Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), at the behest of Moriarty (Jared Harris).  Irene is quickly written out of the film, and Moriarty refuses Holmes' request to leave Watson out of whatever mischief might pass between the two.  There is a stag party for Watson, shoddily organised by Holmes, where we are introduced to Mycroft (Stephen Fry), Sherlock's older brother.  Later, Holmes is forced to interject during Watson's honeymoon, as Moriarty proves that he's not interested in leaving Watson out of the equation.  From there, the larger mystery is a battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarty, sometimes literally, sometimes via physical confrontation, sometimes metaphorically.

I'm of two minds about Guy Ritchie's stamp on the Sherlock Holmes movies.  It's easy to see his visual flair and the trademark of his smaller budget films' story-lines: twisting heist plots with a large cast of real men who show a penchant for oneupmanship.  Even if it's coached in turn of the 20th century British language and mannerisms, Ritchie's Holmes is swaggering alpha male driven to success almost maniacally, and fueled by exotic substances to keep his motor running.  It's different than "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or "RocknRolla" only on the surface.  But as much fun as those movies are, he seems very comfortable making this sort of big-time franchise film.  I wouldn't doom a director to make low-budget swear-a-thons for his entire career, so I suppose as much fun as those early films are, they'll always be available to go back and watch while Ritchie continues on this path.  Besides, it's not as if the Sherlock films are bad or anything.

I have some sympathy for people who worship the source material; a lifetime of reading comic books has put me in that category for more than my share of films.  I've never read a Sherlock Holmes novel, which is probably the best way to go into any given movie.  I couldn't tell you whether this was based on anything in particular, and I don't care to find out.  When someone is setting out to make any movie, the goal should be to make the best film possible.  So while I have no idea if there was a book partially set in a munitions factory, what shows up on screen is an excellent action sequence that goes from a violent direct, face-to-face confrontation between Holmes and Moriarty to a batch of rebels fleeing what seems like an army with that same munitions factory at disposal.  The actual fleeing is captured by very good editing and camera-work, and special effects that really do heighten the tension of the scene.  For a couple of minutes, we're taken from a crime version of a chess game into a war film, and it works.

And in a general sense, the film works.  It's better than the initial "Sherlock" film; it's still fun watching Downey, Jr. simultaneously border insanity and outsmart everyone, there's plenty of cleverness to the proceedings, and what's not clever can be pretty funny.  There's even a gag near the end that almost demands a repeat viewing (I, for one, am going to have to re-watch that scene at the minimum to see if there are shortcuts or if it's a matter of misdirection leading the viewer to not catch on earlier).  I'd have a hard time imagining that this will be anyone's favorite movie, but it's not supposed to be.  It's fun, it's a good sequel, and I'd show up for a third installment, should it come.

3 / 5 - Theatre