The Parallax View

Directed by: Alan J. Pakula

Written by: David Giler, Lorenzo Semple Jr.

Novel by: Loren Singer

I'm not sure what inspired me to put this film on my list of movies to watch, but eventually it made its way to the top of the list. Though I was reluctant at first, I figured that I couldn't go wrong if Warren Beatty were in it. Plus, I need to beef up my knowledge of movies from the 1970's.

The movie begins with a political assassination at a campaign fundraiser (eerily reminiscent of RFK's death). As the opening credits roll, a bureaucratic committee concludes that the murder was the work of a lone shooter (eerily reminiscent of JFK's murder and the Warren Commission). But when everyone at the event starts turning up dead, dubious journalist Joseph Frady (Beatty) begins investigating. What he uncovers is the Parallax Corporation, which may or may not be behind basically all the world's major events. Frady tries to infiltrate the organization. But the question is: is he setting them up, or is he setting them up?

For a movie called "The Parallax View," I find it ironic to admit that I have a parallax view of the movie myself. In some moods, I feel like the movie is great - unhindered by the typical styles of film storytelling. In other moods, I feel like the movie failed to live up to its potential.

In the "the movie was great" corner, I contend: the political thriller plot was amazing.

In the "the movie was poor" corner, I contend that the movie took too long to move forward and that the plot was basically strung together from point-to-point.

The climax is the perfect example of my parallax interpretation of the film. On the one hand, it is an incredibly intense sequence with a surprising twist! On the other hand, it plays so incredibly slowly that it tested my patience - even after the twist was revealed.

I'd recommend this movie to those who enjoy political thrillers, but only those who have some time on their hands that can't be used in any other productive way.

The Dark Crystal

Directed by: Jim Henson, Frank Oz

Written by: Jim Henson (story), David Odell (screenplay)

Every once in a while, a movie comes along that takes a different direction than any other film that came before it. The film, then, is revolutionary not because it changes the way movies are made, but because it shows that a different way of making movies is possible. "The Dark Crystal" is that kind of film.

As the film begins, the evil Skeksis have ruled for a thousand years, having exiled the gentle Mystics and nearly wiped out the race of Gelflings. But Jen, the last surviving Gelfling, is on a mission to fulfill the prophecy that will end the reign of the Skeksis. Along the way, he encounters various creatures, including the mysterious Aughra and Kira (another Gelfling). But will Jen be able to replace the crystal shard and restore the Dark Crystal before it's too late?

What sets apart "The Dark Crystal" from any other film is that it contains no actors despite the fact that it is a live-action film. Puppets designed by Jim Henson - and not his floppy, if fun, Muppets - populate the world of this film. This has the effect of heightening the fantasy element of the film without drawing from cartoonish effects.

"The Dark Crystal" has its flaws. It's plot is slow in unwinding itself, and a large chunk of the film is spent in necessary exposition. Many of the scenes feel episodic and disconnected. The puppets are also limited in their movements and expressions - although this is made in comparison to modern CGI effects.

Of course, it's hard to compare "The Dark Crystal" to anything else because there is nothing else quite like it. It can only be seen and appreciated on its own.

I like to think of "The Dark Crystal" like an experimental album. Beyond rating it as good and bad, it is simply different. And that difference makes it meaningful.

Horrible Bosses

Directed by: Seth Gordon

Written by: Michael Markowitz, John Frances Daley, Jonathan M. Goldstein

"Horrible Bosses" isn't horribly funny. It isn't horrible, but it isn't horribly good either. (Enough with the horrible gag now.)

Three friends (Bateman, Day, Sudeikis) commiserate on their crazy bosses. One boss (Aniston) is sexually aggressive, one boss (Farrell) is a cocaine addict, and one (Spacey) is just plain rotten. With a little help from Jamie Foxx's character, the buddies conspire to kill each others' bosses. Things quickly fall apart, though, and things go awry, leaving the friends running for the lives.

This movie was weak, all around. It felt like everyone - from the director on down - just decided to go through the motions. Even Jason Bateman - usually very funny - never broke from his typical character.

This is unfortunate, considering the material could have been molded into something great. The premise itself was funny in an absurd way, and it just needed to be fleshed out accordingly.

As with most comedies, the plot was a problem. In this case, frankly, there was too much of it. Too much time was spent getting to know the characters and establishing their backgrounds. It takes the story too long to get to the point where they decide to kill their bosses, considering that it's the basis of the action and was revealed in the trailer.

There were a few good points, though. Jennifer Aniston played her role well - which is to say she didn't play the usual Jennifer Aniston role. Although his role wasn't necessarily demanding from a technical aspect, Kevin Spacey really played his nasty, smarmy character well. Jamie Foxx stole the few scenes he was in, though I'm glad that his scenes were limited - he could have easily been overexposed.

"Horrible Bosses" earns a "not very good" review. I can't say that it's awful (unlike "Bad Teacher), but it definitely failed to reach its potential.

Iron Man 2

Directed by: Jon Favreau

Written by: Justin Theroux

To say that the original "Iron Man" knocked me off my socks off would be an understatement. It was as near to a perfect comic book movie as has ever been made. For the sequel, director Jon Favreau returned and brought most of the stellar cast back with him. (Except for the strange case of replacing Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle, which has been well documented and debated elsewhere.)

This film picks up a little while after the original left off. Tony Stark's Iron Man (Downy) persona is causing a bit of consternation in Congress by avoiding government regulation. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, Ivan Vanko (Rourke) finds out that some of his father's inventions may have been stolen by Stark's father - and so, of course, he vows revenge. Taking the form of the villain Whiplash, Vanko reveals to the world the dangers of relying on Iron Man alone to protect them. Stark's rival Justin Hammer (Rockwell) attempts to take advantage of Stark's weakened business position by hiring Vanko to develop technology to rival the Iron Man suit. As all these rivalries, vendettas, and machinery collide, danger and explosions ensue.

Similar to the first film, the strengths of "Iron Man 2" lie in amazing visual effects and action sequences and the powerful ensemble cast. The action in this film is basically non-stop from beginning to end. There are only a handful of moments in which the audience can catch their breath. The action is incredibly gripping, though, and manages to push the plot forward without becoming tedious. The action is also pretty well mixed - the scenes of CGI machines fighting it out are balanced well with a some sequences involving live actors (if still digitally enhanced).

The supporting cast is another strong point for the film, including Paltrow and Favreau. A few new characters - such as Justin Hammer and Black Widow (Johansson) - also add to the mix. If anything, the supporting cast could have used a little more screen time. I've never seen a comic book movie in which the secondary characters are so successful at being simultaneously believable (without being overly dramatic) and light (without hamming it up).

This film falls short of the original, though. Mainly, it was missing the heart that fueled the original. The first film had a sense of wonder and awe while remaining fun. The sequel, though, had a darker tone and the fun was replaced by much more destructive action sequences. Pound for pound, the original was better - though what makes it superior is completely intangible.

Still, I enjoyed this movie, and recommend it if you enjoyed the first.

Bad Teacher

Directed by: Jake Kasdan

Written by: Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg

Put simply, "Bad Teacher" is bad. Awful. But more on that later.

Basically, the movie follows a school year (or so) in the life (or low-life) of teacher Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz), as she slogs through teaching until she can find a way to make more money. When she finds out that one of the substitute teachers (Timberlake) is heir to a massive fortune, she sets her sights on him only to be foiled by another young teacher (Punch). When Halsey finds out that there is a bonus paid to the teacher with the highest scores in the district, she sets a plan in motion both to get the bonus and win back the wealthy heir. And everything seems to be going along fine, except for her nagging conscience in the voice of the PE teacher (Segel).

This movie was terrible. The plot was paper thin, which is fine for a comedy - comedies don't need to have complex story lines. But comedies do need to be funny. And when it doesn't have a plot and it isn't funny, it's hard to classify it as anything but bad.

Beyond being bad, the film failed to capitalize on the good features that it did have. Namely, the supporting cast. Justin Timberlake's character was basically a one-gag player, but he received a massive amount of screen time to continue repeating the same ditzy antics. Meanwhile, Jason Segel, probably the funniest actor cast in the film, was wasted by being relegated to a largely unfunny background role. The same goes for Phyllis Smith - who has shown her humor chops on "The Office - and John Michael Higgins. Both were very funny, but only given a few lines in scattered scenes. Meanwhile, Cameron Diaz, who has known to be funny from time to time, basically phoned this role in.

Of course, the real flaw in the film starts with the title. For a movie called "Bad Teacher," there is surprisingly little material having to do with teachers, teaching, or schools in general. The word "teacher" could have been replaced by just about any other profession, and the film would have been exactly the same. This is unfortunate because as "The Simpsons" and "South Park" have shown, year after year, schools can be great sources of incredibly funny material. But the number of scenes that actually relied on the school setting or the characters being teachers were so small as to be insignificant.

Now, I'm not the type of person to demand money back after seeing a movie. I go in to the theater fully aware of what I'm getting into, for better or for worse, and commit myself to watching.

But I pretty much want my money back.

Living on the Black

Two Pitchers, Two Teams, One Season to Remember

Summer. Baseball. They ultimate American duo. On that premise, I've read at least one baseball book each summer for the past few years.

This summer I chose John Feinstein's "Living on the Black." The book's premise is simple enough: follow two pitchers, day-by-day, through a full baseball season in order to document life as a Major League pitcher. It chronicles the emotional and physical roller coaster that is the grueling 162 game baseball season, as told through the lens of Tom Glavine of the New York Mets and Mike Mussina of the New York Yankees.

To sweeten the narrative, as the 2007 season begins, both pitchers are on the cusp of major moments in their career. Tom Glavine is rapidly approaching 300 wins - one of the most elite records in baseball. Mike Mussina is nearing 250 wins - the mark of a great pitcher.

The book is good, if incredibly uneven. There are some very interesting parts, but also some incredibly tedious parts. For every moment that explains exactly what a pitcher does in a "bullpen session," (interesting), there are also several pages explaining what a pitcher eats for breakfast during spring training (boring).

Considering how much information is included in the book, it was surprising how many things were conspicuously missing. Too often, the pitchers feelings were reduced to the types bland platitudes found in the sports sections - devoid of any meaning or content. Aside from a few points, the book failed to provide much insight into any of the pitchers' relationships, whether between family or teammates. Much of the book was consumed by inning-by-inning (in some cases, pitch-by-pitch) accounts of each pitcher's starts.

Ultimately, reading "Living on the Black" reminded me of panning for gold: There were a few pieces of gold, but you've got to sift through the sludge to find it.

Escape from New York

Directed by: John Carpenter

Written by: John Carpenter, Nick Castle

Hollywood has always had an obsession with the dystopian stories near-future with features of a post-apocalyptic society. One of the problems with these movies, though, is that the "near-future" becomes the "present" and eventually "the past."

"Escape from New York" takes place in an alternate universe 1997 in which the island of Manhattan has been turned into an unescapable prison society. When the President of the United States (Pleasance) crashes in the middle of the prison, the warden (Van Cleef) can think of only one rescue option. He decides to send Snake (Russell), a former special forces trooper who has been sentenced to life on Manhattan, to rescue the president in exchange for a pardon from his crimes. (He also plants a bomb in Snake's neck that will automatically detonate in twenty-four hours, just to make sure that saving the president is a priority.) Snake encounters the seedy underworld of Manhattan, including a crazy taxi driver (Borgnine), the smartest man on the island (Stanton), and dubious Duke of the island (Hayes) as he navigates the decaying city.

For some reason - and not only the fact that the movie is set in a "futuristic" 1997 - this movie has not held up over time. None of the effects, costumes, or sets aged very well. The only way this movie can be appreciated is with a retro/camp lens, and even that is somewhat of a stretch.

Part of the problem was that the film's plot is far too flimsy to hold up over the full ninety-plus minutes, which leads to random plot tangents - such as the need for the president to recover some kind of cassette tape (yes, cassette tape!) which will somehow prevent World War III - and filler scenes - like the no-holds barred fight-to-the-death in a wrestling wring for no real reason. None of which added to the movie in any meaningful way.

Speaking of filler: I'm not sure what Ernest Bornine was doing in this movie except to appear and disappear when it was convenient for the story. The same with the character of Harry Dean Stanton's girlfriend, who simply accompanies Stanton through the film. Even Lee Van Cleef, usually one of the strongest presences in his films, falls flat.

Russell manages to shine in an obviously campy role, rasping grunting his way through his lines and grimacing at every opportunity. Maybe the eyepatch helped him see past all the other flaws?

On my recent John Carpenter kick, this one has been a serious disappointment. I guess they can't all be "The Thing."

This movie is a bit of a cult classic, but I'm afraid I won't be joining this cult with much enthusiasm. Maybe if I get a chance to see it on the big screen...

Song of Susannah

The Dark Tower: Book VI

Finally, the players are in play and the stories are moving forward! The ka-tet is separated as they travel through the Unfound Doo, so the novel follows three separate storylines.

In the central story line, Susannah's body has been hijacked by the Mia personality, who is ready to give birth. Mia has dragged them to New York City, where she has made a deal to hand over the baby to the the Man in Black, who will then use the baby to destroy the Dark Tower once and for all.

At the same time, in a parallel universe, Roland and Eddie need to save the property where the rose is growing, but are confronted with the same mafia hunchmen they've already killed. They escape and eventually convince Calvin Tower to hand the property with the rose over to them. Not sure what to do next, they follow the path of the beam to find the alcoholic author Stephen King who has been writing their story, but stopped out of fear for his life. Roland and Eddie convince him to start again before leaving.

Father Callahan and Jake (and Oy) get the least page time in this novel. They basically follow Susannah's trail around New York City until they come across the place where Mia is having her baby surrounded by the forces of evil. The novel ends with them storming the building, guns drawn, prepared to die if necessary. (There's also a brief postscript in which the reader finds out that Stephen King has died before finishing Roland's story.)

Alright, enough plot summary for now.

This book definitely moved forward, in terms of plot, more than any of the other books. (Sure, "Wolves of the Calla" had a lot of action, but the ka-tet only inched towards their goal in the end.) The fractured narrative - jumping between the three groups - helped break up the monotony that sometimes dragged the other novels down. Before the reader could be bored with one story line, the book jumped to the next story.

As usual with Stephen King, there was a lot of description and internal monologue that could have been cut down to make the novel more efficient. At several points, Susannah thinks to herself about how awful her situation is - as if the readers couldn't already figure that out. There were also whole scenes describing things that could have been resolved in a paragraph or so. For example, I'm not sure why Calvin Tower needed to argue with Roland for fifty pages (exaggerated only slightly) about handing over the property, but eventually Roland got what he wanted and that hiccup did not effect the plot in any way.

I'm not sure where the series is going from here. This book ended on a major cliffhanger, but the next book looks so massive as to be intimidating. I'm glad this segment ended where it did, though. It stopped just before it became intolerable.

I'll be taking a deep breath before diving into the final novel. At this point, I'm hooked, and I can't wait to find out where the Path of the Beam leads Roland and his ka-tet in the end.

The Big Lebowski

Directed by: Joel Coen

Written by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

The Coen brothers are known for making comedies which are both dark and surreal. It's films like "The Big Lebowski" - following up "Fargo" - which helped them to earn this reputation.

When Jeffrey Lebowski, aka The Dude (Bridges) is the ultimate lowlife who spends his time drinking White Russians, bowling with his buddies, and wearing a robe. When the wife of multimillionaire businessman Jeffrey Lebowski goes missing, The Dude is brought in to solve the case. Through the meddling of his friend Walter (Goodman) and his "ladyfriend" (Moore), The Dude gets drawn deeper and deeper in a case that goes far beyond a kidnapping.

The plot, loosely based on the old noir mysteries of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett, simply serves as a backdrop for the incredibly interesting characters. Without going too over-the-top, the characters come off as both surreal and hyper-real. For example, we all know someone like Walter, who is just a hair away from totally crazy, and we all know someone like Donny (Buscemi), who never seems to fit in - even as a misfit. Yet, nobody in real life is quite as off-base as any of the characters. Overall, it's the performances - especially the supporting cast - which bring this film to life.

Although the movie was whimsical and abstract with randomness as a premium, I still felt like there was a lot of fat that could have been trimmed, or at least tweaked. For example, I totally enjoyed Julianne Moore's character, but many of her scenes failed to add anything meaningful to the film beyond giving The Dude something to do. Sam Elliot's appearance as The Stranger is a perfect example of a character who, without being central to the story, was made into an essential feature of the movie.

Over the years, "The Big Lebowski" has become a cult classic, and it's easy to see why. It's not a typical plot or action driven movie. The main character would struggle to even be an anti-hero. And there are random dream and dance sequences. But put them all together, and there's a charming synergy which appeals to the Big Lebowski in all of us.

Super 8

Written and Directed by: J. J. Abrams

In the great tradition of slightly-supernatural adolescent adventure movies, J. J. Abrams presents a slightly better version of his previous monster movie "Cloverfield." This film follows in the footsteps of classics such as "E.T." and "The Goonies" - both of which, interestingly enough, were produced by Steven Spielberg who also produced this film.

Joe (Joel Courtney) and his friends enjoy making movies on their Super 8 camera. One night they sneak out with the local bad-girl Alice (Elle Fanning) to film a scene for their movie at a local train station, but end up accidentally filming a horrific train crash. And from the wreckage, something unearthly arises. Over the next days, strange things start happening around town, and the military (embodied, menacingly enough by Noel Emmerich) begins secret operations. As civil society starts to fall apart, Joe and his friends try to unravel the mystery and stop whatever it is that escaped from the train wreck.

There were many successful features in this film. Most notably, the train wreck sequence was an incredibly stunning scene from a visual-effects standpoint. I'm not sure if it will hold up on the small-screen, but in the theater it was quite impressive. Abrams also did a great job of keeping the monster off-screen, allowing for some great "jump" moments and terrifying scenes without diluting the magic of the film with gore.

Especially impressive was how well written the adolescent characters were. Most films - even films theoretically about children and adolescents - tend to treat them in one of two ways: mature adults in younger bodies, or merely 0ne-dimensional. "Super 8" though managed to capture the social dynamics of youth groups for what they are - rich, complex, and constantly changing. Even though some of the moments were used as gags, the interactions between the boys is incredibly accurate. Overall, the teenagers in the movie actually seemed like, well, teenagers. (Not to mention that the whole film could be a metaphor for the tumultuous, sometimes scary, changes going on during adolescence.)

By the way: It's totally worth it to stay through the credits to see the "movie within a movie" the boys were making.

This film follows well in the genealogy of "E.T." and "The Goonies." Unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere beyond what had already set forth in previous movies of the genre. It left a slightly empty feeling at the end that nothing new had really been done, that no new precedent had been set by the movie, and that Abrams hadn't taken the opportunity to carve out his own landmark. Instead, the movie felt like a derivative of the other films (though with more modern effects). In the end, it seemed more like an exercise in genre film making - an attempt to make a movie "like those other movies" - rather than in making a whole new film and taking it in a different direction.

I also have to note - and I'll let you know now that there are spoilers in this paragraph - that the movie ended in the way that I hate most movies to end. We see the monster. And, frankly, we see too much of the monster. And, even more frankly, the monster isn't that scary looking and was much more terrifying when it was just "that shadowy thing making a lot of noise just outside our field of vision." Too often we see the monster, it's motives are explained, and some kind of moral lesson is taught. To me, the movie would have been much more interesting if the monster had simply gone "home" without ever knowing what it really was.

One more thing: This movie had a lot of "fat" that could have been trimmed. The whole subplot with the biology teacher was too long and completely unnecessary - it didn't add to the movie in any real way except to serve as a deus ex machina explanation of a few things. The same goes for several other minor characters who get names and have backgrounds but serve no major purpose except to advance the plot quickly at points. A little more tightening up of the story would have streamlined it a bit and made the film more efficient.

"Super 8" simply is what it is - no more, no less. It was entertaining and told a fun story, but did not go beyond being an imitation (granted, a solid imitation) of other similar films. It's worth seeing on the big screen for some of the visuals, but don't drop eight bucks on it if there's something else you'd rather see.

A Canticle for Liebowitz

Growing up, I had a passion for science fiction. I powered through everything Ray Bradbury had written, devoured the "Dune" novels, and touched through Robert Heinlein, Issac Asimov, Philip K. Dick and Orson Scott Card. All in all, there wasn't much science fiction out there that I hadn't read, much less heard of. So, when I heard about a supposably classic sci-fi book that I hadn't heard of - "A Canticle for Liebowitz."

The book, divided into three major sections, takes place across several centuries after a nuclear war that has wiped out most of humanity. After the war, there was a cultural backlash against all intellectualism, leading to the destruction of almost all human knowledge. Only the monks of the Order of Liebowitz attempted to preserve the knowledge of humanity's past, through both the hiding and memorization of whatever remaining books they can find.

The first section takes place in the early rebuilding of civilization and tells the story of Brother Francis, who, after encountering a nomad while on his Lenten fast in the desert, discovers a fallout shelter containing potential relics of Liebowitz - the founder of his order. Over the next few decades, Brother Francis participates in the canonization process of Liebowitz, with his relics helping the cause. Eventually, he is invited to New Rome, but is killed on the way back, only to be buried by the same nomad who had led him to the relics in the first place.

The second section takes place several centuries later, at the beginning of a technological renaissance. This story focuses on the tension between Abbott Dom Paulo (of the Liebowitz abbey) and Thon Thaddeo, who argue whether or not the monks or secular academics should be in charge of the preservation and development of human knowledge. Abbott Dom Paulo refuses to allow the historical documents the monks have preserved to ever be removed from the abbey, even though it is clear that they abbey has been pegged as a potential military base for a developing war. There is also a subplot about hermit who lives near the abbey who may be the last Jew on earth and carries the history of his entire religion within himself.

The last section takes place many centuries later, with nuclear weapons having been re-developed, and the colonization of space possible. As tensions rise between two major nations, it becomes clear to Abbott Zerchi that nuclear war is very likely, so he sends one of his monks to New Rome to be a part of a plan to continue the Church on another planet. The abbey becomes a refugee camp for victims of a nuclear strike, leading to a discussion on the nature of euthanasia. Eventually, all-out nuclear war arrives and Abbott Zerchi is killed by the collapsing abbey - but not before he is given his last eucharist by a mutant who he had earlier refused to baptize.

The biggest flaw in this novel is that it was actually written as three separate novellas, which were then re-written and woven together. At times, the connections and symbols between the three parts felt stretched and strained and rather forced - such as the vultures who pop up at the end of every section to pick the bones of humanity's mistakes. I would have been much more satisfied without some of these added details, considering the strong thematic connections that tie the book together.

My biggest concern going into this book was its central use of the Catholic faith. Typically, science-fiction prides itself on being rationally based and religion (in general) and Catholicism (to be specific) are often discussed contemptuously and with distain. In this case, though, I felt that the Catholic Church and its traditions were treated with respect. The church is actually presented in the role that it once held - the preservers of knowledge. Abbott Zerchi's strict stance against euthanasia is completely in-line with the Church's stance on the issue.

Overall, it's a strong novel with some deep thematic and philosophical elements. The relationship between the religious and secular groups was clearly and influence on later novels - especially "Dune." The novel is especially powerful in balancing both the hopefulness and hopelessness of humanity. People are simultaneously doomed to repeat their mistakes while also destined to rebuild themselves and to become better.

Midnight in Paris

Written and Directed by: Woody Allen

To many critics, Woody Allen has lost his touch recently. To those critics, Woody Allen throws this film straight back in their face.

Gil (Owen Wilson) is a writer, on vacation in Paris with his fiance, who has a nostalgia for the creative renaissance that took place in the 1920s. On a late night walk, he somehow stumbles into the past, running into such expatriates as F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston) and Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll). He falls in love with a French muse in the 1920s - who, herself, is in love with a different past - and strains to maintain a life in both time periods Eventually, he has to make a choice...

The film itself is not very long, but that is a testament to Allen's crisp and efficient filmmaking. There is nothing irrelevant in the movie and it doesn't try to be any more than it actually is. It is a simple story of a man trying to live in the present while also idealizing the past. Granted there are some surreal factors which need to be accepted to advance the story and the historical figures are generally reduced to caricatures, but the interactions between the contemporary characters is spot-on realistic without being dramatic.

To classify this film as a comedy is to reduce it to the simplest factor. It has dramatic moments, and the central inter-character conflict is between Gil and his romanticism against his fiance and her desire for something more. Exaggeration aside, the story is almost Shakespearean as a comedy - there's a serious central conflict, moments of humor, and nobody dies at the end. In most Shakespearean comedies, the characters must exit the city and head "into the woods" - a surreal distortion of society - to learn about themselves, and in this film Owen Wilson leaves the present and moves into his idealized distortion of the past. All exaggeration aside, the film is Shakespearean in its style.

The performances of the actors are all spot-on. Owen Wilson manages to portray the typical "Woody Allen" character well without falling into cheap imitation. He exudes all the mannerisms and eccentricities while also making the character his own. The actor who stole the show, though, was Corey Stoll as Hemingway. He spoke like Hemingway's prose and not-so-subtly showed the manly-man Hemingway persona. His speech about "making love to a good woman" is one of the best monologues in quite a while.

I highly recommend this movie. It's sweet, fun, romantic, and light, while also being an example of great filmmaking.