Best Movie Posters of the Decade

Since I'm nowhere near ready to post my list of the decade's best films (still lots of re-watching left to do) I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon and reveal my picks for the decade's ten best movie posters. As many readers know already, I reveal my choices for the year's best posters every December but this time the stakes have been raised considerably higher to encompass the entire '00's. It was tough narrowing it down to just ten but these are my absolute favorites, along with a runners-up list. Those interested in checking out two other recent best poster lists to compare and contrast can click on these:

Roger Ebert's Great Movie Poster's of the Decade (No offense meant to Roger but I actually think many of his choices are underwhelming and a few, like Juno, would more likely appear on my worst list)

theauteurs.com-Adrian Curry's Movie Posters of the Decade (I like this one a lot better and not just because we agree on the #1 pick)

I'm actually going to dispense with the commentaries this time since I've already weighed in on many of these already and nothing more needs to be spelled out or said about the great artwork below. All these images speak for themselves (click to enlarge).



10. The Dark Knight (2008)





9. Lord of War (2005)




8. Wonderland (2003)





7. Walk The Line (2005)





6. Moon (2009)





5. The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)





4. Hard Candy (2006)




3. The Cooler (2003)




2. The Kid Stays in the Picture (2002)





1. Funny Games (2008)




Runners-Up (Alphabetically)



Adaptation (2002)



The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)




The Bank Job (2008)




Bobby (2006)




Brick (2006)





The Brothers Bloom (2009)




The Brown Bunny (2004)





Captivity (2008)





Children of Men (2006)





Cloverfield (2008)





Control (2007)




The Dark Knight (2008)





The Descent (2006)





Die Another Day (2002)




Donnie Darko (2001)





Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)





The Fountain (2006)




 
The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

The Good Shepherd (2006)

Gran Torino (2008)



Hell Ride (2008)




High Fidelity (2000)





Hot Rod (2007)





I'm Not There (2007)





The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)





In Bruges (2008)





Inland Empire (2006)





Little Children (2006)





The Manchurian Candidate (2004)





Michael Clayton (2007)





Moon (2009)





My Blueberry Nights (2008)





No Country For Old Men (2007)





Order of Chaos (2009)





Premonition (2007)




The Proposition (2006)




Rambo (2008)





The Rules of Attraction (2002)





Savages (2007)





Synecdoche, New York (2008)





Thank You For Smoking (2006)





Taking Woodstock (2009)





V For Vendetta (2006)





We Own The Night (2007)





The Wrestler (2008)

Precious

Director: Lee Daniels
Starring: Gabourey Sidibe, Mo'Nique, Paula Patton, Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz
Running Time: 110 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Precious, or if you feel more comfortable adding its clunky subtitle, Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire, is the emotional equivalent of being beaten with a sledgehammer for two hours straight. In attempting to explore the painful gap between what people are and who they wish to be, and the internal and external factors preventing that, director Lee Daniels' film really piles it on. Poverty, obesity, incest, rape, domestic violence, illiteracy, Down Syndrome, HIV, homosexuality and racism. There's no arguing that all these topics and issues have existed and do still very much exist today. I can even buy that all of them could be present in the life of one person. What I can't completely get on board with is anyone having a burning desire to see them explored in such a brutal and unsettling way.

The movie isn't offensive or exploitive as I feared it could be going in, and it does seem to be made with the purest of intentions, but there's no escaping the fact that it's still depressing and slightly manipulative. the very definition of a viewing you wouldn't want to repeat. But despite knowing all the right buttons to push to trigger the desired emotional response (often using distracting narrative devices to do it), the film's saving graces are the gritty, no-nonsense approach to the material and the uniformly excellent performances. A couple of them really are Oscar worthy, even if the film's awards merits as a whole are somewhat questionable.

Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry are credited as producers but I'm guessing they had little to do with the development and instead saw an opportunity to attach their valued names to a project they believed in and thought would generate cash flow. If it gained some awards attention in the process then that's even better for them. But I'd be curious to know what Oprah finds the slightest bit "inspiring" about it since from where I sat the film felt like more of an ordeal than anything else. Nonetheless, it succeeds in tackling difficult subject matter that we're used to seeing botched by most other mainstream releases.

It's 1987 Harlem and Clareece Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) is an overweight, illiterate 16-year-old African American girl pregnant with her second child as a result of being raped by her father. She waits on her lazy, abusive monster of a mother, Mary (Mo'Nique) whose days are spent on the couch watching game shows and collecting welfare checks. Despite being an excellent math student, Precious is kicked out of school when they find out about her pregnancy and must enroll in an alternative one. The only glimmer of hope in her life comes from her new teacher, Ms. Rain (Paula Patton) who inspires her to learn to read in the face of her mother's objections and Ms. Weiss, a social worker (Mariah Carey) determined to get to the bottom of the cycle of abuse.

The method with which Daniels tells this story can best be described in three words: IN YOUR FACE. He at least deserves credit for having the courage of his convictions and going all the way with this, refusing to sugarcoat anything. Given its subject matter, this is the kind of film bound (and you could argue constructed) to provoke passionate responses in audiences at either extreme, yet I strangely found myself stuck in the middle with it. I appreciated its dedication to unflinching realism and brutal honesty but took exception to some of the over-the-top editorializing Daniels engaged in.

Dream sequences in which Precious imagines herself as a skinny white girl or a famous celebrity with a light-skinned black boyfriend and montages inter-cutting rape with eggs frying were a bit much, as was the overabundance of voice-over narration. There's hardly a scene in the entire movie where Precious' "thoughts" aren't talking over everything that happens, often just needlessly reinforcing points already being made by the action or Sidibe's performance. Even under ideal circumstances it's a method that should be used sparingly, but this is a good example of what happens when this narrative approach is abused and its presence spirals out of control. The decision seems a strange fit in a movie taking the same cold, hard documentary-style approach The Wrestler did last year, a film that told its similarly uncompromising story more effectively without having to resort to those techniques.

The real truth here lies in its depiction of the everyday hell this girl goes through and the performances, none of which hit a false note. Anchoring it all in the title role is newcomer Gabriel Sibde who literally becomes this girl, although you have to wonder just how much her sheer physical onscreen presence contributes to to our perception of the performance. As Mary, comedian Mo'Nique absolutely tears through every scene she's given, delivering work every bit as impressive as you've heard. She takes a character that on paper could easily be stereotypical and even in moments of pure rage fleshes her out as an actual human being, albeit a monstrous one. She has a scene very late in the film in the social worker's office that just bursts with uncomfortable raw emotion as we realize that while there may be an explanation for her behavior, she's ultimately beyond any kind of redemption and knows it. Regardless of my reservations about the overwrought material, there's no question she delivers an award-worthy turn.

Paula Patton is given the most thankless role an actress can be saddled with (and one of the silliest character names) as the inspiring teacher, but somehow makes those scenes more bearable than they had any right being by wisely not overplaying them. Even with her best efforts though, this aspect is probably the weakest and most familiar in the picture since it can't help but recall middling dramas like Freedom Writers and Dangerous Minds. A big deal has been made about Mariah Carey leaving painful memories of Glitter behind and appearing in the film without makeup. What a traumatizing ordeal it must have been for her to look like an average person for 15 minutes. Charlize Theron in Monster this isn't. That said, she does a solid job in the role of a concerned social worker and her casting isn't distracting at all. Rocker Lenny Kravitz makes his feature acting debut as a caring nurse but it's essentially a throwaway part that adds nothing to the story.

The character of Precious is really no better off at the end of the film than when it starts. But there's some hope. I appreciated that Daniels and screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher didn't cop out and play it safe, opting for a neat finale that ties everything up and reassures us everything will be fine. It won't be fine. This isn't inspirational and it shouldn't be. Watching the movie can best be described as cinematic rubbernecking in that many scenes have a car crash quality to them, yet it's impossible to look away. Mostly, the right approach was taken with the material because there are many ways this could have been far worse had the filmmaker decided to wimp out. At least it didn't insult our intelligence or water down the issues to attract a larger audience. My main problem with it is that we don't go to the movies to have experiences like this and audiences shouldn't be leaving the theater wanting to slit their wrists.

Every year around Christmas time Oscar contending films are released dealing with serious social issues and anointed dozens of nominations on the basis of the hot-button causes they navigate rather than any spectacular achievement in filmmaking That was my issue with Milk last year, which was even guiltier of that offense than this. I'm also not sure this leaves you thinking about or discussing these issues in depth long after you've seen it, at least beyond how uncompromisingly they're presented . While movies should reflect what's going on in the world, they should also be obligated to provide some escape from it. Precious is worth a look for its performances and honesty, even if you're left wondering why it's a necessity to see it.

Star Trek

Director: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood
Running Time: 127 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

Of all the crazy ideas to come along in recent years for remakes, sequels, prequels, reboots and re-imaginings the one that always seemed to make the most sense was Star Trek. As someone relatively unfamiliar with the franchise, even I could tell it's been on life support for a while now, if the plug hadn't been pulled already. Boasting one of the worst reputations for what's generally thought of as a pop culture institution, it's been dismissed for decades as a poor man's Star Wars and its fans have been mocked as geeks and cult members. For years, just telling someone you're a fan was an open invitation for eye-rolling and giggles. If there ever there was a franchise in desperate need for a complete overhaul, it was this.

Answering the call was Lost creator J.J. Abrams and the plan was to make Star Trek "cool," for the first time. To make a movie that would placate the diehards, but also be equally accessible to non-fans like me, who have never watched a single incarnation of the show or any of the feature films. In that respect, he kind of succeeds, to an extent. But why did I feel like I was still missing something? You don't have to be a die-hard fan to appreciate what's going on in the picture but it sure would help. For everyone else, there's enough excitement thrown in that they don't feel completely left out. While I can't go as far as to call it a Michael Bay movie in space, it disappointingly comes very close to being just that, with a messy, over-complicated story and a silly villain. Long suffering fans of the crippled franchise can finally rejoice at being given a reboot of passable quality, but the end result amounts to only slightly more than any other random Hollywood action spectacle.

The plot (of which you'll probably need an instruction manual to follow) centers around the emergence of the brilliant but rebellious Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) who's reluctant to carry on the legacy of his late father (Chris Hemsworth). Through an opening flashback we find out he was killed while temporarily commandeering the U.S.S. Kelvin when it fell under attack by a tattooed, time traveling Romulan named Nero (an unrecognizable Eric Bana). Now, 25 years later, Kirk is recruited into Starfleet Academy by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and called to step aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise under the command of First Officer Spock (Heroes' Zachary Quinto). Joining them is Doctor Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban), Communications Officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Navigators Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin). They'll all have to band together to defeat the vengeful Nero, who's returned from the past to finish what he started.

The only thing that sets this film apart, and what likely tricked the majority of moviegoers into thinking they were watching something of genuine substance, is that from a technical standpoint it's a definite step-up from your regular blockbuster fare. The computer generated effects are more impressive than we're used to and the action moves at breakneck speed, which I've heard is in stark contrast to the original, more methodically paced Star Trek films of the past. It's easy to be fooled into thinking this is some kind of gigantic achievement, if not for the fact that the screenplay (which in a cruel irony was scripted by Transformers: ROTF co-writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman) doesn't have a brain in its head. It wouldn't be accurate to call this a time travel movie because while that element is presented the actual IDEA of it is never really explored in a meaningful way.

Supposedly, time travel has always been a key ingredient in the franchise's mythology throughout the years, but it's scary to entertain the possibility that it could have ever been executed as clumsily as here. It just isn't engaging, feels like recycled material and unless you're a longtime fan you won't have any stake in wanting the characters to succeed. Granted, much of that has to do with the film featuring one of the most laughable villains I've seen in a summer blockbuster in years. Tattooed like Mike Tyson, a scenery chomping Eric Bana turns this into even more of a joke than it needs to be. Tyson himself probably would have made a more believable villain. Some action-oriented movies don't need a strong story or multi-layered characterizations to work, but Star Trek really does and while I wasn't expecting some kind of cerebral think piece, I at least thought more effort would be put into the story than this. What does work well is the rivalry between Kirk and Spock, which we slowly start to see develop into a relationship of begrudging mutual respect. Again though, this is much more likely to play better for those with previous knowledge of the characters' history together. As one of the uninitiated, I couldn't help but feel that Abrams was condescendingly asking me to care because they're "Kirk" and "Spock" and, you know, they're supposed to be a big deal. Even though elaborate, reasonably well presented backstories are cooked up for both early on, it's still somewhat difficult to shake that feeling.

Similarly, your perception of the performances (aside from Bana's which is dreadful by any standard) mostly hinges on your familiarity, or lack thereof, of the original actors who inhabited the roles. With little to go on, I can only say the biggest surprise was Chris Pine as Kirk, who I really expected to be bland going into this. But he makes Kirk the perfect anti-hero, cocky enough to slightly piss you off, yet still likable and competent enough to root for. Regardless of what William Shatner (who was controversially left out of the film) did or didn't do before him, Pine makes this part his own for this movie, and considering the entire story revolves around him, that goes a long way. I found Spock to be a mostly passive, wooden character which from my understanding is how he's always been presented but it doesn't do Zachary Quinto any favors. He's a real stiff throughout much of this, even if his resemblance to the young Leonard Nimoy is frightening.

Fans will have to correct me if I'm wrong but it sure seemed as if Karl Urban gave the most faithful interpretation as McCoy, capturing in appearance and mannerisms what DeForest Kelley originated on the series. Zoe Saldana was obviously cast as Uhura not only for the physical resemblance, but in an obvious attempt to present a "sexier" Star Trek, which is fine since she also does a nice job with the role despite being given little to work with. A romance with her and another major character seems thrown in for shock value even though someone in the studio didn't get the memo that it isn't all that shocking. Unless the Enterprise plans on stopping at White Castle, the casting of John Cho (assuming the Sulu role George Takei made famous) is distracting while Anton Yelchin's laughable attempt at a Russian accent as Chekov seems to be added as comic relief, but I couldn't be sure. On the other hand, Simon Pegg's engineer, "Scotty" is definitely intended for comic relief, which proves to be a problem since he isn't very funny. Appearing briefly are a latex-aged Winona Ryder (as Spock's mother) and, rather pointlessly, Tyler Perry as the head of Starfleet Academy. Ads and promotional materials have wisely kept it on the down low, but Nimoy's function in the picture (as "future" Spock) is significantly larger and more important than you'd expect. It's far from just a cameo. As for his performance, it's fine. I guess. His work is just another element of the film that can't be appreciated out of context for non-fans, no matter how thrilling it is for everyone else.

Earlier this year, the somewhat messy Watchmen (which seems worse the further removed I am from it) was accused of being too slavishly devoted to the source material, but at least that took a stand and committed to it. Those who never the graphic novel wouldn't feel lost and previous knowledge of the characters wasn't integral to your enjoyment of the picture, even if the decision hurt the adaptation in other ways. Despite my unfamiliarity with the series, I harbored no prejudices toward this project and went in as open-minded as could possibly be. In fact, it's been a while since I was so looking forward to a movie I generally had little interest in (if that makes any sense). My anticipation was only bolstered by rumors that Abrams would be freeing the franchise from previous "continuity constraints" in an effort to entice newbies like myself. But he didn't completely free himself from those constraints. Instead, he walked on eggshells with the story out of fear of upsetting the hardcore fans and dumbed down everything else. The result is a movie that weirdly exists in the middle, accomplishing neither goal to its fullest. And by wanting to have his cake and it eat it too, J.J. Abrams end up not so boldly taking Star Trek where many other action movies have gone before.

Frequently Asked Movie Reviewing Questions

I'm approaching my fourth year reviewing, which is, well, kind of weird, and I'm still not quite sure what to even think about that. But I do know I have my readers to thank for hanging with me for so long. In honor of that I've decided to do something a little different and pull back the curtain. With the decade in movies coming to a close this seemed as good a time as any to take a breather and talk about my approach and feelings on reviewing. I tried to answer the following questions as honestly as I could, which wasn't too hard since I came up with all of them myself, but hopefully you'll be surprised by at least some of the answers.

When and why did you start reviewing movies?
I always loved writing and enjoyed watching movies but it never really occurred to me to combine the two. While on vacation in '06 I was stuck in a hotel room with a cold and while watching a couple of movies got the idea to just scribble down a couple of reviews on a piece of paper out of pure boredom. Then I started posting online. What's so funny is I never had any intention or desire to write reviews. I'm still not exactly sure how it happened and part of me thinks I'm doing it just because I'm addicted. But there's that other part that thinks I'm lucky to have a hobby I actually enjoy.

Ever think about stopping?
I always think every review is my last, and treat it like it is. And after 2008 I really thought I was done because that was just a miserable year for movies that sucked nearly everything out of me. But the great thing is whenever I seem to lose interest some movie always seems to comes along or I read something on movies that completely reignites my passion for doing it.

How do you choose which movies to review?
More selectively than I did in the past that's for sure. Before, I tried to review as much as I could regardless of whether I wanted to see it or not. That was problematic for a number of reasons, chief of which it drained my enthusiasm. Now I realize quality is more important than quantity and I review movies I want to see or I think will make an interesting review. As you can tell though, I try to hit all the major releases releases and stay clear of movies no one's ever heard of (with a few exceptions). I do this primarily for me, but make no mistake about it, I care a lot about whether people and read and enjoy the reviews. If I didn't, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

Does reviewing the movies sometimes hurt your enjoyment as a fan?
Absolutely it can, but that really depends on the film. I like to think there's a "Critic" mode and a "Fan" mode and I can shut either on or off at will, but the reality is they often uncomfortably overlap.

Are you against reading other reviews before you watch or review a film?
No, not at all. The only reason I'd ever stay clear from a review before I see a film is if it gives away key plot details I don't want to know about or for some reason I want to go in fresh. Most of the time though I find it just further informs my review to read others' takes on it and think it's a joke that anyone would think I'm just reacting to others' reactions of the movie.

I think the public's response to a movie is INCREDIBLY RELEVANT, especially if it forces you to look closer at certain aspects of the film. How could I possibly talk about Juno without bringing up the backlash against it? Or review Knowing without analyzing how Roger Ebert could have given it four stars? I could, but there would be a giant pink elephant in the room and the reviews wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I'm of the belief that reading and considering other viewpoints, whether to agree or shoot them down, can only make the piece more interesting.

Which critics (if any) do you read?
Roger Ebert is a big one and while many have accused him of slipping in recent years I still think his passion and insight is unmatched. Kim Morgan, who's actually more of an essayist, which isn't to say she's not an awesome critic and probably one of the most knowledgeable and passionate writers out there. I also read James Berardinelli, whose opinions I almost always disagree with and name I always misspell, but I appreciate his no-nonsense, analytical approach. I read too many bloggers to name without forgetting anyone, many of whom are better than the "professionals." Those are my favorites but usually I try to read as many reviews on a film as I can if I'm interested in it.

How do you feel about print criticism being essentially left for dead?
I feel bad for people who work at magazines and newspapers losing their jobs. The bottom line is that times have changed and film criticism in general just isn't as relevant to the public as it once was, which is a shame. Anyone can go online and write something, which sucks for people who made their living doing that. Then again, on the bright side...anyone can go online and write something.

How do you feel about Facebook, MySpace and Twitter?
I started reviewing movies on MySpace in 2006 and then when all the action moved to Facebook I followed it because it was the smart thing to do. It's still growing on me but I'm at least grateful it's brought (slightly) more traffic to the site. I actually like the concept of Twitter much more because it enables you to follow things, people and topics that interest you at a relatively quick pace.

What are your favorite movie genres?
Longtime readers and probably even more newer ones already know the answer to this one. My favorites are sci-fi, coming-of-age films, mystery/suspense, bio-pics, romantic comedies (surprisingly) and even though it's more of a sub-genre, dysfunctional suburban dramas (like The Ice Storm or American Beauty) People tend to think I'm a huge fan of horror but that's not completely true as I can usually only take it in small doses and find that the genre is full of too much junk to be ranked as a favorite of mine. I probably like analyzing those films more than actually watching them, which could be said of the superhero genre as well. That said, both have really grown on me since I've started doing this.

Least Favorite Genres?
Genres I'm less inclined to like are mob/gangster pictures, war/espionage films, musicals, fantasy films (with wizards, goblins, elves and such) and sports movies. That's not saying it's impossible for me to like any of those films or I intentionally avoid them, just that they have a much rougher road to travel to gain my favor. I find when reviewing it's better to honestly embrace my predisposed bias or personal preference and just work with it. We all have them. I like to think that I'm very fair and if a movie's good enough it should have no problem overcoming the odds. Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Karate Kid and more recently, but to lesser extent, The Hurt Locker, We Are Marshall and Across The Universe were all able to. I couldn't have been any less interested in seeing Atonement but was surprised just how much I liked it.

Which movie(s) did you most enjoy reviewing?
Southland Tales would really have to be up there. A perfect storm converged with that one. My favorite genre, a dream cast and an opportunity to passionately defend a movie I thought was unfairly maligned. It's rare when the experience of watching a film and reviewing it become one in the same but that's what happened there. I also enjoyed reviewing The Dark Knight probably more than I enjoyed watching it. I'm Not There was a blast to write on as well since it was a biopic (if you could even call it that) on a subject I was actually deeply interested in. Not to mention it was completely insane so it was even more up my alley. And even though it's a TV series, I loved writing about Veronica Mars. It's unusual that I dip into TV for a review so that I did for that (and all three seasons to boot) should give you an idea how much I enjoyed it. I'd put it up there in quality with the best in any medium, be it film or television. With all of these I felt as if the review was finished in my mind before I even touched the keyboard.

Which movie(s) did you hate reviewing?
The Good Shepherd While I did find it a chore to sit through, I didn't despise the movie and even gave it a near-miss score of two and a half stars. The real torture was when I had to sit down and write a review of a three hour movie I had nothing to say about. I stared at a blank screen for so long I thought my eyes would start bleeding.

Which movie disappointed you most?
As strange as this sounds, probably The Dark Knight. I do think it's more a testament to all the hype than the movie's actual quality, but the fact remains that it fell short of expectations, as out of control as they may have been. And it was still the best film of '08 and maybe one of the best of the decade so it's frightening to think how good it COULD HAVE BEEN.

How do you feel about star ratings?
I hate them. I wish I were confident enough in my own writing to abandon it and believe people would still read the reviews but I'm not. My concern is always that the number of stars will inform the review when it should always be the other way around. But as someone who reads a lot of reviews I have to admit most of the time I like seeing some kind of a quantitative assessment attached. But many reviewers don't use it, nor do they need them. It really all depends on personal preference I guess. There was only one case where I refused to assign one. The whole idea of it is damaging, but I can never bring myself to abandon it.

In retrospect, ever feel like you've given any movies the wrong star ratings?
When haven't I? Not to keep beating the same drum on 2008, but I felt I gave many, many movies released that year the wrong star rating. When this happens I usually have to force myself not to adjust it later by remembering:

a) The star rating MEANS nothing in the broad scheme of things.
b) It reflected my thoughts AT THE TIME.
c) It's the actual review that counts
d) It takes two viewings to really SEE a movie.

Usually when I do my year-end list all my thoughts get ironed out and the problem takes care of itself. The good news is that I never felt I gave something the WRONG REVIEW entirely. I can barely recall more than three instances I underrated a movie but can name dozens of times where I felt I overpraised one. I like to think the star rating problem keeps lessens over time because the more movies I watch the more sure I seem to become of my opinions.

How much does a theater experience effect your opinion of the film?
Greatly, as The Dark Knight proved. That was one of the worst theater experiences I've ever had where an unpleasant environment magnified that movie's weaknesses while hiding its strengths. Repeated DVD viewings have been much, much kinder to it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Australia was really a complete mess of a movie but the theater experience was so memorably bizarre and the crowd so insane that it probably made the movie play better than it actually was. It was fun watching their energy level slowly drain as the movie just kept going...and going...and going. I'm convinced those people are still in there right now watching it. I know I'm committing a film critic sin by saying this but I actually far prefer watching movies on DVD at home than in a theater. It's cheaper, more comfortable, I can go to the bathroom or get a snack without missing anything. There are just less distractions.

How long does a review take?
I've never actually timed it but I can tell you I never do it in one sit-in. I'm the kind of person who always has to be moving around and have difficulties staying in front of the computer too long. So I might write part of it and then go back to it later or the next day depending on my mood. Unfortunately most of it is written really late at night though so sleep is lost and I sometimes wake up the next morning having not recognized what I wrote (which might be a good thing).

What's your least favorite part of writing a review?
Recapping the plot...by far. It's a pain. I wish I could just skip it and get right to what I liked and didn't.

How much do you weigh blogs views in choosing what films or topics you choose to write about?
I look at them that's for sure. I do primarily write for me but if I come up with a piece that's just not connecting with readers at all and I put a lot into it I can pretty much guarantee you won't see anything like it again. The best (worst) example of this was when I did the "Fantasy Casting" pieces. I thought it was a great idea and loved doing it. But it was like a tree falling in the forest as far as its reception and blog views. One of the worst ever. So I can't justify doing it again.The same thing tends to happen when I review older films. Those do very poorly, but when they're are incorporated into a list of some sort it always does well. I tend not to solicit too much feedback on this issue because I find people to be understandably reluctant to tell me that an idea sucks. Blog views can't lie.

Which review of yours got the harshest response?
I remember everyone unanimously, and rather passionately, disagreed with my take on Death Sentence. I couldn't believe how worked up everyone got over it and was so thrilled that no one held back in letting me know it. Sometimes it can be boring when everyone agrees with you all the time. That's a movie that will have strong reactions either way but I just thought it was two hours of gratuitous violence masquerading as grief exploration with Kevin Bacon killing everyone in sight. And this coming from someone whose all-time favorite films include A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club.

Any movie(s) you think you may have gone too hard on?
Miami Vice, Superman Returns and Birth. Especially that last one. This rarely happens so it's a big compliment to those three that, despite what I considered to be their failings, they still stuck with me enough that I'd be open to going back and giving them another look.

Do you have a review or reviews you're most proud of?
This is going to sound awful but it would be tough to name something specifically. I might have a fleeting moment where I'm really proud of something I've written but then I'm quickly brought back down to Earth after I go to reread it and find about 50 things I didn't like about it. Then I might go and read other reviews and that just about kills it for me right there. Plus I'm usually so focused on the next review that I don't like to look back. But the best answer to this question is to look above at the ones I enjoyed reviewing the most. Those are the ones I feel best about.

What bad reviewing habits do you think you have or try to avoid?
Trying to say more in fewer words than with many. Whenever I edit a review it's always to take things out and never add, which is a good sign I guess. The key to good editing is to change enough so it's more readable but not so much that it changes the message. I try to stay away from using the same adjectives or phrases over and over again, not only in a single review, but throughout all of them. I also try to steer clear of comparing the movie I'm reviewing to other other ones unless it's completely relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Ever get writer's bl0ck?
No, never. Kidding. All the time. What I usually do is just leave the computer. If I'm not feeling it, I'm not feeling it. There's no sense just sitting there frustrated when most writing is done in your head when you're away from the keyboard anyway. When I'm stuck I do find it helpful to remind myself of Ebert's advice:

"Did you like the movie? Why or why not?"

It sounds so dumb and simple but you'd be surprised how well it works. Most of the time writers block stems from just thinking too hard or over-analyzing. I find that question helps with the problem.

Ever think of doing more with the site or more to get your reviews out there?
I have but I'm not exactly the most web savvy person in the world and am far more consumed with focusing on the actual work. Believe me I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than a needle in a haystack online. That said, I should be doing much more in that area and plan to. Of course, I've said that before and haven't done anything.

How many movies do you see a week?
Usually only one or two. No more than your average, everyday moviegoer with the difference being I've written reviews on them. I think the max I've ever seen in a week was three or four, but that rarely happens. I only REALLY started getting into movies when I started doing this and am willing to bet a lot of my readers probably have me beat on classic film knowledge still feel like I'm learning as I go along.

What's your DVD collection look like?
Embarrassingly small. I never counted but it's barely two shelves worth. I think that's a testament to just how few movies hold up on repeated viewings or are worth owning for me. Most of the movies I have bought have been used and a lot of the time I resell or exchange them. As far as what I review, aside from theatrical releases, this whole time I've basically just been renting them for a dollar from a Redbox or DVD Xpress kiosk system in the supermarket. The amount of money I've saved on buying DVDs in the past few years is probably more than five times the salary of any paid reviewer.

Do you use NetFlix?
Not right now. About a year ago I tried it briefly and didn't like it. I found the wait for new releases to be unbearably long and by the time it came I practically lost interest in watching them. I also found updating and keeping track of movies in the queue to be a thankless task. I'm giving it another chance soon (probably by the time you read this) since the titles in the dollar machines are now pretty much exclusively Direct-to-DVD junk due to legal trouble with the studios who are losing money on it. There also tons of of older movie titles I want to see as well as seasons of TV series' I can't get because I lost HBO and Showtime. There's really no choice at this point.

Have a Blu-Ray Player?
Nope. I realize I must be coming off as the cheapest movie critic on Earth right now but I just don't see the point in investing in something that could disappear in a couple of years. I learned my lesson with laserdisc years ago and considering I don't purchase many DVDs it just isn't worth it for me when my player suits me just fine for my purposes. The only thing that really bothers me is that the Blu-Ray discs contain special features the regular DVDs don't. Knowing me I'll probably cave eventually but for right now I'm fine.

How long do you let a movie sit in your head before reviewing it?
It depends on the film. Obviously some require more time for thought and reflection than others. I usually write the first couple of paragraphs right after though, while it's still fresh in my mind. The other details take a little longer to come into focus and with some it can really take a while. You don't want to jump the gun, yet you can't wait so long that you don't care anymore.

What do you think it takes to review movies?
1. A genuine passion for movies
2. The ability to express that in writing
3. Being sure of your opinion, but admitting when you're not.
4. Having a knowledge of a wide variety of topics and reading and keeping up with what's going on in the world so you can incorporate that insight into the reviews (my weakest area but I'm improving).

Have any desire to write or direct?
I know no one's gonna believe me when I say this, but no. I did take a screenwriting course years ago and found I was more interested in analyzing the study films and talking about what goes into writing a good screenplay than actually writing one. When it came to sit down at the keyboard, I discovered I had no ear when it came to dialogue. I didn't enjoy the experience and wanted to just keep analyzing the study films instead. As far as directing, no way. The technical aspects that go into making a film doesn't play to my strengths and there are too many elements that could spiral out of control. And I can't stand not being in control. It looks like a big headache that could potentially kill me from stress. Of course this should be taken with a grain of salt since I've never tried it, but I can't envision that I ever would.

While I feel writing and directing are out of my grasp, I do think I'd make a better producer, casting director or agent than many of these studio executives being paid to tell us what we want. You may have noticed during my reviews I often pause and examine how a movie was (mis) marketed or what steps could have been taken in the production stages to make it better. But I'm certainly not "paying my dues" in an industry where I feel most of the decision makers are clueless or hold views that clash entirely with mine. I love movies and want to keep it that way.

How much does personal experience effect how you view a movie?
It's everything. I think we all see a different movie because of the experiences we bring into it. I recently re-watched a film for consideration on my decade-end list and it personally spoke to me like it never did before. It couldn't have carried the impact it did now even just a few years ago just because of where I was at in my life. Sounds silly, but it's totally true.

Would you ever judge someone by which movies they like or don't like (be honest)?
No. They're still just movies. Having said that, I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think a person's list of their all-time favorite films told me at least something about them. And if it didn't, it's likely not a list I'd be interested in reading.

Greatest director of all-time?
Kubrick. There's no other name I would mention as even coming close even though I know some would say Hitchcock, but he only worked in one genre. I don't think for a second he could do what Kubrick did whereas I have no doubt that Kubrick could not only step in and direct one of Hitch's films, but probably make it even more interesting. Spielberg is great, but I don't think he belongs in the discussion.

Favorite Director(s) working now?
No surprises here. My three favorites are David Fincher, Richard Kelly and Paul Thomas Anderson. Right now, they're making the types of movies I enjoy watching most.

Most overrated director?
Spike Lee. Never got with him at all.

Favorite Actors/Actresses
Too many to list but here are the big ones. As far as actors I'm a fan of Michael Douglas, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ben Foster, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn, DiCaprio, Bill Murray, Jeff Bridges, Brad Pitt, Ed Norton, Josh Brolin and Patrick Wilson. Surprisingly, also Tom Cruise, who I think has always been underrated as an acting talent. As far as actresses, you can sign me up anytime Jennifer Connelly, Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman (possibly my favorite), Naomi Watts, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Kristen Bell or Zooey Deschanel are in anything. Clooney and Jolie are two actors I was previously never a fan of but lately they've really been earning their stripes and I've come around.

Least Favorite Actors/Actresses?
Almost Famous notwithstanding, Kate Hudson has given one awful performance after another in some dreadful films. But I only complain about her so much because I know she's capable of better. Don't care for Dane Cooke or Jessica Alba as actors, but that almost seems too easy. I've completely given up on Kate Beckinsale who would be the blandest, most wooden actress working today if Jennifer Aniston weren't around. Everyone else would just fit into the "overrated" category for me. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson have surprisingly little to show for themselves despite being surrounded by a ton of hype and I never understood all the praise for Johnny Depp, who hasn't proven to me yet he can effectively play anything other than misfits and freaks.

Actors/Actresses you're most disappointed in?
Hudson obviously tops the list, followed closely by Nicolas Cage. I'd say Sandra Bullock also but after The Blind Side I guess the joke's on me. She's probably busy rolling around in a giant pile of cash right now.

What famous classic or famous movies would people be surprised you haven't seen?
I still haven't made it all the way through Gone With the Wind (not a knock on the film, just time constraints always got in the way). Haven't seen the Godfather Parts II and III, although I hear I'm not missing much with that last one. Never saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day either, or the Harry Potter films and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, both of which I have very little interest in (see "least favorite genres"). I've also never seen any of the Bourne films.

Any movies you refuse to see?
The Blind Side. Just kidding (kind of). "Refuse" is a little strong but...the Twilight "saga." This is actually a much bigger insult than it seems because, despite preferring certain types of movies, I'm usually willing to see ANYTHING.

What trends in the movie industry today do you hate?
Every movie released these days being aimed at the tween demographic (see above). Inflated ticket prices. Double and triple dipping on DVD releases. Movies being advertised as something they're not [i.e. Slumdog Millionaire as a Bollywood Musical, (500) Days of Summer as a whimsical "date movie"]. Certain films being shoved down my throat by the media. Movies with political agendas. Only movies released in the last month of the year getting Academy Award consideration. That last one pisses me off the most. Besides being criminally unfair, I actually think that's the major reason no one bothers watching the Oscars.

Worst Oscar snub in history?
It's impossible to pick just one and this will seem completely random but for some reason two that really stick out for me are A Christmas Story (1984) and Back to the Future (1985) being overlooked for Best Picture nominations. If I could give any two "correction" Oscars out it would be to those two films which, over time, have proven just how worthy they are. There just so few pictures released that families can enjoy together through the decades regardless of age and also be effective as perfect mainstream entertainment. When I think of the template for the perfect nominee or winner I immediately get an image of those two movies in my head. The Academy has gotten it wrong many times, but that they snubbed those two make me sick to my stomach.

Do you read the novel before seeing the film?
No. Never. Shamefully, I don't read as much as I'd like in general. I really do feel guilty about that because I know it would make me a better writer but between watching and reviewing movies and other stuff I just don't have the time. But I don't like to read a novel before watching the movie it's based on (especially if it's something I know I'll be reviewing) because I find it taints the experience and don't want to turn into one of those people whining about how "the book was better." And usually, if I've seen the movie first and like it enough to read the novel, I tend not to because I felt the movie got the job done for me.

The Box

Director: Richard Kelly
Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, Sam Oz Stone, Holmes Osborne
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

"Your house is a box which you live in. The car you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box...to rest under the soil and earth."

Was there ever any doubt critics and audiences would hate The Box? Seriously, any doubt at all? Burdened by belonging to a genre that doesn't get any respect, made by a director few want to see work again, and starring a polarizing A-list actress, minds were already made up. This never stood a chance. And if that wasn't enough, how many times have we heard the phrase, "It's like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone" as a supposed insult aimed at high-concept sci-fi or mystery/suspense thrillers? There's no doubt critics' mouths were watering at just the thought of bashing a movie THAT ACTUALLY IS based on an episode of The Twilight Zone.

The nerve of some filmmakers today, using one of the best written shows in television history as a template for their movie. But it turns out writer/director Richard Kelly's third feature can in no way be described as merely an extended version of anything.  There are movies being made right now that are genuine garbage, and worse, seem to lack ideas and passion. This film isn't for everyone but it's not fair to say it isn't for anyone or the person who made it doesn't deserve to make movies anymore because it confused you. It confused me too. It also frustrated me. But not just for the sake of doing it. It takes an incredibly creative person to craft a film like this, then actually have the guts to follow through and make it. I'd never imply it's over anyone's head or they "didn't get it," but I would advise anyone who isn't a hardcore fan of sci-fi to stay as far away as possible.

For most, this just won't be their thing, which is fine. And even those who were big fans of either of Richard Kelly's previous masterworks, the cult classic Donnie Darko and/or the unjustly maligned Southland Tales, can still easily find themselves hating this. With a relatively straightforward premise, the presence of A-List talent and one huge box office flop behind him you'd be forgiven for thinking Kelly was ready to concede defeat and start playing by the studios' rules for a change. But really, we should have known better.

Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden) Lewis are a married couple living above their means but barely making ends meet in Langley, Virginia circa 1976. Arthur works as an engineer at NASA, where he's just been rejected from the astronaut program after failing the psychological exam, while Norma is a high school English teacher whose job might now be in jeopardy due to cuts in the tenure program. A potential cure to their financial ills come in the form of a small wooden box with a red button delivered by a facially disfigured stranger named Arlington Steward (a creepy Frank Langella). His offer is simple: Press the button and they'll be handed a payment of one million dollars... tax free. The catch is that someone somewhere in the world whom THEY DON'T KNOW will die. They have 24 hours to make a decision or it's off the table. Should they choose not to press the button, Steward will just move on and make the offer to someone else THEY DON'T KNOW. I'm not spoiling anything by telling you that Norma presses the button. It's what happens after that where things get blurry.

The film is loosely based on acclaimed science fiction writer Richard Matheson's 1970 short story, "Button, Button," and was later adapted into a 1986 episode of the The Twilight Zone, which the movie's first 30 minutes don't stray very far from. Until the button is pressed we're being set up for a conventional, high concept thriller, but after that the rug is completely pulled out from under us. Interested in doing much more than simply expanding the source material, Kelly presents an existential parable on the human race featuring:

-The Mars Viking Lander program
-Amputated toes
-Nosebleeds
-Space and time teleportation
-Water portals
-Government conspiracies
-Murder
-Holmes Osborne
-Usher Syndrome
-Handy reference manuals (like in Darko)
-Cackling demonic waiters

And that doesn't even begin to cover all the craziness. In what has unsurprisingly caused frustration for audiences, this concept was put in the hands of a director actually interested in exploring the philosophical implications of Steward's offer...on the largest scale possible. Those who have seen the film are probably scratching their heads wondering how I could say anything is explored at all. But it is.

In his recent assessment of the film, Roger Ebert made an interesting point about the "test" Steward seems to be conducting, comparing it to 1961's famous Milgram Experiment in which subjects administered lethal shocks to strangers in another room just simply because they were told to. I remember seeing that gripping video years ago, wondering in the back of my mind the result if that idea was ever fully fleshed out in feature film form. Now it has, but with more far-reaching scope than could have possibly been anticipated. A moral dilemma presented to husband and wife morphs into the ultimate test for humanity's salvation, where our ultimate destroyer is us. In a film packed with overt religious and literary symbolism, an early classroom scene with Norma teaching her class Sartre's 1944 existentialist play "No Exit" hints at this idea and can be seen, at least in purpose, as mirroring Drew Barrymore's lecture on "The Destructors" that took place at the start of Donnie Darko.

With NASA and the Mars landing playing such a huge role in the story you're almost sure the film is going in an extraterrestrial direction but Kelly's too smart for that. Or at least he's too smart to come right out and tell us. And while the scattered clues don't necessarily confirm or deny that suspicion, enough is left open-ended to drive audiences crazy and generate wild theories. We find out a lot about Arlington Steward in terms of his past and motives for the "experiment", but again, much of that is implied and similarly open for interpretation. Key information is given, but not too much, requiring the viewer to fill in the gaps however they choose. Five viewings probably aren't enough, but many will have problems just making it through one.

The Box is an achievement in mood and atmosphere, deliberately paced but never boring. Set in the 1970's (the ugly wallpaper gives it away) it could easily pass itself off as being made in the time it's set, mimicking the look and feel of psychological horror thrillers of that era. Arcade Fire's menacing musical score sounds like a cross between Bernard Hermann's for Psycho and Jonny Greenwood's for There Will Be Blood, only enhancing the terror level, while the party scenes play like something straight out of Kubrick's The Shining. If Southland Tales was Kelly's Dr. Strangelove then this is his 2001: A Space Odyssey. The ideas in the latter heavily influence this, but since neither film is the most accessible, many won't lose sleep pondering the similarities.

For whatever reason Cameron Diaz tends to really rise to the occasion when given insane, trippy material (think Being John Malkovich and Vanilla Sky) to work with and this is the best example yet of that. James Marsden, who's been showing real promise in some thankless supporting roles for the past few years, nails his first leading dramatic one and proves here he's got all the necessary acting chops to stick around for a while. Even more importantly, both share great chemistry and are completely believable as a married couple in crisis.

Frank Langella just might have the most difficult part because he has to rise above what could have just been a hokey gimmick of "death" traveling door-to-door that in the wrong hands could have easily come off as a Final Destination rip-off. But the brilliance of his work is how he subtly conveys that he's carrying out a higher purpose and doesn't necessarily want to do this, but has to. He plays him as twisted and determined, not evil, and you can tell he kind of likes the Lewis'. More than anyone, he doesn't want to see them hit that button but this entire situation is bigger than all of them. He delivers that depressing quote above (so depressing that someone in the film even remarks just how depressing it is), but does it in such a way that you believe no one is more saddened by its possibilities than him.

Since Kelly grew up in Virginia during the 1970's and his dad worked for NASA it's been called the director's most personal project yet. But to categorize it as that requires a deeper understanding of what the word "PERSONAL" probably means to a filmmaker as unique as Richard Kelly-- Uncompromisingly making this movie the way he wants, regardless of the fallout. Recently, the market research firm CinemaScore gave The Box an "F," with its President declaring it a "real stinker," specifically singling out the ending as a major bone of contention (which I figured would have been the only thing audiences liked). Since CinemaScore polls "average moviegoers" it's generally thought of as one of the more accurate measures of a film's quality. Of course, these are the same "average moviegoers" who pushed Transformers: ROTF past 90 billion dollars this summer and just made The Twilight Saga: New Moon one of the highest grossing films of all-time, so you can take that statistic for what it's worth. Its results are especially irrelevant when it comes to a film like this, which was never made to court public acceptance anyway. But by refusing to offer up easy answers and provoking real thought, The Box becomes every bit as chilling as the classic science fiction that inspired it.

Whatever Works

Director: Woody Allen
Starring: Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood, Patricia Clarkson, Ed Begley, Jr., Henry Cavill, Michael McKean
Running Time: 92 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Could there possibly be a better idea than having Larry David star in a Woody Allen movie? He does a better Woody Allen than Woody Allen. The only idea I can think of that comes close is casting Evan Rachel Wood as his wife. Your level of appreciation for Allen's latest New York-set comedy, Whatever Works is entirely dependent on how you feel about David as a comedian. If you love the brand of self-loathing comedy he dishes out on Curb Your Enthusiasm, this movie is your dream come true. If not, then you'll hate it. It's that simple. Me? I think he's a comic genius and was counting down the days until he was given an opportunity to finally star in a feature film. The teaming of these two comic minds doesn't disappoint. But what's even more hilarious than anything that happens in it is Allen actually thinking he would attempt to give a real performance. He had to know that his star would just make fun of the material.

As David would be more than willingly admit, he isn't necessarily a good actor, but he's perfect for the role and the entire reason the film succeeds. This is an unproduced script Allen dusted off from the 1970's and it really feels (and even looks) like it, with dated humor and references that when delivered/mocked by David all of the sudden become a lot less dated and much funnier. We can congratulate Allen for not only realizing he was too old to play the role himself, but casting a youngster who does a better job than he ever could in not just hiding the flaws in the script, but making them work in the movie's favor.

The primary appeal of the film is that David seems as befuddled as we are that he's starring in a Woody Allen movie. As Boris Yelnikoff, an eccentric chess teacher from Greenwich Village who "almost" won the Nobel Prize for physics, he even pauses to break the fourth wall and tell us how befuddled he is in the opening minutes. When he's not complaining about life, he's berating kids, dumping chessboards on their heads and insulting their mothers. A cynical misanthrope prone to panic attacks, his most memorable one caused him to jump out of his apartment window and shatter his leg after his wife told him she was leaving him. He now walks with a limp, which David hilariously overplays.

Boris' world of rigid routine and order is disrupted when a runaway from Mississippi named Melodie St. Ann Celestine (Wood) shows up outside of his apartment looking for a place to crash. After some coaxing he agrees and discovers the bubbly, airheaded beauty pageant contestant is just about the only person he's ever met not just willing to put up with his neurotic behavior, but loves it. Naive and unaffected by everything around her, she views his petulant diatribes as brilliant nuggets of wisdom and develops a serious crush. Just the thought of that is hilarious in itself, but how Boris' handles the information is even more priceless. They get married with Melodie becoming more his caregiver than wife. With the arrival of Melodie's estranged parents Marietta (Patricia Clarkson) and John (Ed Begley Jr.), the film goes from being funny to being so stupid that it's funny.

The introduction of all these supporting characters relatively late in the game (including a potential love interest for Melodie played by Henry Cavil) does kind of throw everything off balance, but in sort of a good way. That's because David is there to mock them and Allen's attempt to tie life lessons up in a bow before the final credits roll. There's this underlying feeling running through the third act that Allen, who's completely stuck in an Annie Hall time warp, thought he was making an enormously important picture about the transforming energy of New York and that in the face of self-doubt and chaos everyone has to find their place in the world and do "whatever works" best for them. But what's so funny about that is Allen's seemingly silly message becomes digestable and almost strangely profound because of David's performance...as himself. Or rather a slightly nastier version of the "himself" he plays on Curb Your Enthusiasm. He makes it okay for us to go along for the ride because he never takes anything seriously. Wood, more known for playing sullen teenagers, tackles a type of role we've never seen her in and perfectly compliments David's neurotic insanity. She plays it completely sweet and sincere and it's a surprise to discover she's this good at comedy.

It also helps that Patricia Clarkson is such a lively presence as Melodie's uptight, religious mother and, as usual, the underrated Ed Begley, Jr. steals the few scenes he's in as the ultra-conservative but clueless dad. Both their sub-plots are ludicrous, but they sell it like pros and David's sarcastic reaction to their arrivals helps a lot. Ironically, the end result seems close to what Allen must have been aiming for and it could be considered his most enjoyable comedy in years, ending a string of lackluster efforts interrupted only by the drama Match Point in 2005. All he had to do was dust off one of his old scripts and insert Larry David. Maybe we should just insert David into every movie from now on. At least we'd be guaranteed to laugh, if nothing else. Hardly a minute went by when David was onscreen that I didn't. Insults are just funnier when delivered in his dry, deadpan style.

Not surprisingly, public response to the film has been unfairly harsh and it's fun to imagine how much worse a review David would give it and himself than the critics who trashed it. They missed the point. He doesn't have to be a good actor. He just has to be himself. A big monologue comes at the end with Boris telling us what he's learned. Yeah, right. It's Larry David. We know he never learns anything. But thanks to him, Whatever Works works.