I’m a fan of country music. Real country music. Not the fake plastic stuff you hear on most “country” stations these days. Music that tells stories of life on the road, stories about trains, stories about love and loss. Music sung by men and women who have spent their lives travelling the country, collecting tales for their songs and living life to the fullest. Music that’s soaked in whiskey, steeped in blues, and drenched in heartbreak.

So it stands to reason that I would enjoy a movie that follows an old country musician while he plays out his career in tiny bars, in remote places, to dwindling crowds. And I did. A lot.

Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, a country legend whose star has faded and fanbase has aged. He’s been married four times. He drives a beat up old pickup truck. He’s an alcoholic. In other words, he’s a living country music cliche. His agent books him a tour of the Southwest, playing dive bars and bowling alleys. He’s eeking out a living, doing the only thing he knows how. Something he once loved, and maybe still does, but something he doesn’t seem fully engaged in anymore.

Since Crazy Heart is a modern independent movie, it’s safe to assume there is some grand epiphany and some major changes in his life. Both happen, but neither is handled in a trite way. The story is solid, the acting good, and the characters well-sketched. But, for me, what made the movie was the music.

Jeff Bridges and Colin Ferrel do an admirable job singing and playing guitar, but what really impressed me was the songs. T Bone Burnett and Ryan Bingham wrote original songs for the film, and they are universally good. “The Weary Kind” won the Oscar for Best Original Song, and it is certainly deserving, but my favorite was “Fallin and Flyin”. The opening line of the chorus, “It’s funny how fallin’ feels like flyin’ for a little while”, sounds like something Hank Williams, Sr might have written. The songs are simple, straightforward, and everything that’s good about country music.

At one point in the film a reporter asks Bad Blake what current artists are “real country”. He dodges the question, but the implication is clear: Bad Blake is real country in way not many current artists are. And that’s a real good thing.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Some movies are art. They exist to enrich culture, to inspire thought, and influence their viewers. Zombieland is not one of those movies. It’s about two things: making you laugh and making you go “OOOOOOHHHHH!”. And it does both of them. Very well.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

My anticipation for Where the Wild Things Are wasn’t based on my love for the classic book. While I’m sure my mom read it to me as a child, I don’t have any specific memories of it. It wasn’t based on the prospect of a well-crafted fantasy world. That, by itself, isn’t enough to get me excited about a movie. It wasn’t based on the special effects. Those are rarely a reason for me to want to see a film. It wasn’t any of these things that piqued my curiosity about this movie; it was what director Spike Jonze could do with all of them. Jonze has guaranteed my interest in his project with his unique and creative vision in Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and scores of classic music videos. But would his quirky sensibilities work with a children’s story? Would he be able to capture the wonder within Sendak’s book? Or would he end up making it something that inspires awe in adults, but children can’t appreciate? Or, even worse, would the film simply be uninteresting to all parties?

It’s been a long time since I’ve been to a movie with a little kid, so I don’t think I’m qualified to say whether they would get anything out of Where the Wild Things Are. But I am an adult who feels like a kid, and I think this movie was brilliant for anyone that falls into that category. Its opening scenes, grounded in reality, eloquently convey a sense of loneliness, awkwardness, and fear that I could relate to from childhood. Once the film moves to Max’s fantasy world the emotions change, but the effectiveness of their delivery and their resonance does not.

What makes Where the Wild Things Are so effective? A few things. The writing for one. It’s poignant without being melodramatic. The performances are solid across the board, particularly Max Records, the boy who plays Max. He is remarkably good, able to portray a shaky confidence in his role as King of the Wild Things. The visuals are nothing short of spectacular, though not through special effects. It’s good old-fashioned cinematography that makes this film a treat to watch.

In all, Jonze proves once again that when he’s attached to a project it will be handled with creativity and care. He managed to make me, someone who regularly feels like a kid, notice how much I felt like a kid, which is no small feat.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

Tarantino has been known for bringing iconic characters to the screen. From Jules Winnfield to The Bride, he’s crafted characters that are strong, unique, and impossible to ignore. He adds to that canon with a duo of opposing powerhouses: Lt. Aldo “The Apache” Raine and Nazi Col. Hans Landa.

Brad Pitt’s Raines is the leader of The Basterds. He’s a smartass country boy, intent on inflicting as much terror as possible on the Nazis. He’s funny, he’s brutal, and he commands respect. He’s a memorable character, but he’s no match for Hans Landa.

Landa is possibly the most interesting, complex, and fully-realized character Tarantino has ever written. He’s the epitome of the charming villain. Played impeccably by German Austrian actor Christolph Waltz, Landa is charming, polite, and, at times, amiable. But underneath that facade he is a ruthless, opportunistic killer. Somehow Waltz manages to get both sides of this character across with his powerful, yet subtle performance. How good of a villain is Landa? In a movie that features Hitler, there’s no doubt that Landa is the real villain.

Call me a Tarantino fanboy if you want, but I loved Inglourious Basterds. So much so that I think it’s my favorite Tarantino movie.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s seen Punch Drunk Love, but Adam Sandler can actually act. And not just act like a fool. Don’t get me wrong, Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison are great movies. But they feature Adam Sandler The Clown. In the last few years he’s been breaking away from that role with films like Spanglish, Reign Over Me, and the aforementioned Punch Drunk Love. Funny People continues his progression, allowing him to mix The Clown with The Serious Actor.

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone that’s seen Knocked Up that Judd Apatow can make an effective comedic drama. He manages to take a story that’s grounded in real, dramatic situations and infuse it with funny. Funny People works equally well as a comedy AND a drama, a tough feat to pull off.

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone that hasn’t lived in a cave for the last few years that Seth Rogan is in a lot of movies these days. So many, in fact, that you could see how people would be getting sick of him. Sure, he’s funny, but he tends to be kind of the same in all of his movies. Here he benefits from playing second fiddle. The relationship between his character and Sandler’s is believable, awkward at times, and funny. His standup bits range from painful to hilarious, which is perfect for the role. It seems like not having the weight of the movie on his shoulders freed him to play a more complete character, not just Seth Rogan as a pot-smoking slacker.

If you’ve been reading it won’t come as a surprise that I liked Funny People. Quite a bit. It’s not perfect, but it’s damn good.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Sometimes you go to the movies expecting to be entertained. Sometimes you go expecting to be challenged, moved, or have your perspective on something changed. Rarely do you expect all of these things to happen. But that’s exactly what happened to me with director Marc Webb’s (500) Days of Summer. The story begins by telling you what is going to happen: it’s a boy-meets-girl story, but it’s not a love story. So rather than the story hinging on what happens, it focuses on why and how it happens. By freeing itself from the conventional structure of a romantic comedy the film is able to delve into psychological and emotional depths rarely seen in modern cinema. And the result is breathtaking.

Now, I should add a disclaimer to temper all of this ebullience. The film stars Zooey Deschanel, and I would probably give a 90 minute film of her reading the phone book 3 stars. She’s just captivating to watch on screen. That being said, she’s not the only thing that makes this movie great. The real star here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who portrays the modern everyman with tremendous aplomb. Anyone who has ever been excited, confused, and crushed by a relationship should be able to relate to the range of emotions he portrays. He’s truly great in this film, but that’s partially because of the material he’s given to work with.

Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber’s script captures perfectly the trials and tribulations that a relationship entails, the mix of elation, confusion, bitterness, and pain that they bring. Add to this Webb’s willingness to pay homage to other film genres, while simultaneously crafting a unique style, and you have an incredibly fresh-feeling, effective film.

(500) Days of Summer is in limited release, in just a few cities. But if it’s playing anywhere near you, do yourself a favor and go see it. You won’t be disappointed. For me it’s easily the best movie of the year so far.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

There are a number of technical issues that prevent Public Enemies from being the great movie it could have been. Mann employed a mixture of digital and film cameras for the shoot, and the transition between scenes shot in digital and scenes shot on film is jarring. So jarring that it kept pulling me out of the movie. In addition to the transitions being clunky, the overall look of the digital shots doesn’t fit the gangster genre. The film shots have grain, texture, and depth, while the digital one are crisp and clean. Gangster movies shouldn’t be clean. Unfortunately the camera work isn’t the movie’s only problem.

Marion Cotillard is an amazing actress. Her performance in La Vie en Rose was fantastic and worthy of her Oscar win. That film was in her native French, so she didn’t have to worry about an accent. In Public Enemies she did, and from her performance I can only assume that her character was born in Montreal, raised in the Deep South, and currently resides in the Midwest. Her accent morphs constantly, sometimes from word to word in a single sentence. It’s bad. Really, really bad.

In spite of the technical challenges and Cotillard’s struggles, Public Enemies manages to be an entertaining movie. Johnny Depp and Christian Bale are great, and Stephen Graham is amazing as Baby Face Nelson. Unfortunately with my high expectations, these performances weren’t enough to completely satisfy me.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

1. I haven’t really enjoyed anything I’ve seen of it since I was about 10 years old
2. The whole mythology doesn’t really interest me
3. I don’t like most of the people I’ve met who really enjoy it

So it took a little coaxing to get me to see J.J. Abrams’ addition to the Trek canon (which explains why the movie has been out for over a month and I just saw it…). Fortunately for me, Abrams’ makes sure that even people who aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of Vulcan/Romulan relations can have a good time with the movie. It’s good summer escapist fun. There are laughs, explosions, and suspense. The two hour run time goes by incredibly quickly. And while the plot is a little convoluted and contrived, there’s enough other stuff going on to make it seem like it’s not that big of a deal. Basically, if you’re looking to be entertained for a couple of hours, you could do far worse.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars