Rocket Science (8.9/10)

So maybe I like this movie more because of a personal relationship it has with my adolescence — a stuttering high school debater who wasn’t very good at it.

The high school protagonist of “Rocket Science” is a bright-eyed anti-socialite who has the right ideas, but never has the words to express them. He knows the answers in class but can’t bring himself to raise his hand. After being convinced into joining the debate team by the seemingly popular Ginny, Hal learns to overcome his fears of public speaking, angst toward the opposite sex and the unknown. And the troubles of life at home and everyday teenage problems.

“Rocket Science” isn’t about policy debate or high school, but the overall message is that this phase of maturation can be over-bearing. As Chicago Sun-Times columnist stated:

The high school hero of “Rocket Science” stutters, but all high school kids stutter. It’s just that most of them don’t do it with their voices. They stutter in the way they don’t know how to present themselves, what to say next, how to talk their way out of embarrassment, when to make an approach to someone they have a crush on or how to perform in class when everybody’s looking at them.

Probably my favorite part of “Rocket Science” is its use of dark humor. There aren’t too many laugh-out-loud one-liners (my favorite one actually isn’t even in the I.M.D.B. listing), but most of the laughs come from creepy characters or silly gags.

Then again, I could’ve been the only one laughing.

Juno (9.9/10)

Upon reading that Roger Ebert listed it as the No. 1 movies of the year in his Top Ten Movies of 2007, I was skeptical “Juno” was going to fall under the ill fate of being overly hyped. I’m sure it was going to be good, but better than “No Country for Old Men”? Better than “Into the Wild”?

After coming from theater, I reread Ebert’s reasoning:

Because of all the year’s films I responded to it most strongly. I tried out other titles in the No. 1 position, but my heart told me I had to be honest: This was my true love, and I could not be unfaithful. It is so hard to make a great comedy at all, and harder still to make one that is intelligent, quick, charming, moving and yes, very, very funny. Seeing “Juno” with an audience was to be reminded of unforgettable communal moviegoing experiences, when strangers are united in delight. It was light on its feet, involving the audience in love and care for its characters.

I’m not entirely yet in agreement that it’s the year’s best film; “Juno” goes above all preconceived expectations I had going to the cinema. “Juno” fits perfectly into the indie mold, but don’t let the references to bands no one has heard of or the ostracized protagonist steer you from enjoying it. The audience reaction to this movie was as absorbed and attentive as any I’ve been in since I went a field trip to go see “Titantic” in the 7th grade and the hormone-crazed boys got to see nudity on the big screen for the first time. (It was awesome.)

“Juno” is centered around a 16-year-old girl named Juno, not like the capital of Alaska, who becomes pregnant with an awkward stiff who goes to their Minnesotan high school. She decides she’s not the kind of person to abort a baby and attempts to deliver the baby but hand it off to a couple in need of a child.

As simple as the premise is, both main and supporting characters are as deep and genuine as are seen in comedies. It boasts a cast that’s stacked full of great actors and actresses, much more than your average indie flick. One of my favorite actresses, Ellen Page (“Hard Candy,” “X-Men: The Last Stand”), plays the lead role. Two actors — Michael Cera and Jason Bateman — from my favorite TV comedy of all-time (Arrested Development) star in it as well. Jennifer Garner (Alias), Allison Janney (West Wing), J.K. Simmons (“Spider Man”) and Rainn Wilson (The Office (U.S.)) are all well-known coming into this film.

“Juno” remains consistently funny throughout the film, yet it doesn’t sacrifice the plot and flow of the film. One of the reasons I feel most comedies fall flat on their faces is that they are funny for the first two-thirds, until the director and screenwriters realize they need to play catch-up and finish the plot so they make sense. (Which they don’t). This, in turn, yields vast portions of humorless dialogue. “Juno” doesn’t lose direction of its comedic value, and it shows well.

The other way most of today’s comedies fail, besides being unfunny or insufferably clichéd, is that the punch lines are written before the story takes form. This is why I couldn’t stand pregnancy-themed “Knocked Up” and “Superbad.” Most of the jokes aren’t inherent to the plot. For example, in “Superbad,” there is a scene where the fat kid confesses that when he was younger he had a habit of drawing penises. It adds nothing to the flow of the story, nor does it have to do with anything other than the vile writers thinking to themselves, “Ya know what’s funny? Penises. Chuckle. Chuckle. Chuckle.” I’d like to think that, for a change, “Juno” steers clear from this trend.

I agree it’s distasteful to knock other movies in a review and provide film criticism. My point is that everything good in “Juno” shows why nearly every true comedy in the past five years faltered.

Ellen Page is deserving of recognition for her role as Juno. She never goes past the point of being over the top. Yet she plays the part as if it were drama rather than a comedy.

The soundtrack is one thing to be rewarded. Comedies  are generally filled with songs that sound good in the moment. Instead, “Juno” uses them as a motif, of sorts. They are used transitionally and are soft-sounding.

Is it worthy of the high rating I gave it when there are others that have more cinematic value that I’d normally rate lower? Perhaps not. But it’s the first comedy that left such a strong lasting impression in a long time. In comparison, it is deserving.

Charlie Wilson’s War (8.8/10)

The tagline reads “Based on a true story. You think we could make this up?”

That’s funny because had I showed up late for the movie and missed the “Based on a true story” screen before the film — like I had for “The Great Debaters” – I would thought “Charlie Wilson’s War” was an overblown attempt at rewriting history. Because we all thought that former President Ronald Reagan put an kibosh on the Soviet Union, heyna? Not so much.

The movie centers around reckless Rep. Charlie Wilson of Texas, played by Tom Hanks, and his quest to bring an end to the Soviet’s rule in Afghanistan. With the help of a C.I.A. operative (Phillip Seymour-Hoffman), Pakistan and his philanthropist f.w.b. (Julia Roberts), Charlie attempts to bring weapons to Afghans to take down Soviet helicopters without the U.S. media and congress ever knowing.

Obviously, Charlie Wilson’s War brought out the big guns with a stunning cast. Tom Hanks in the lead role is like having Jake Peavy pitching on the mound in the first game of the playoffs. It’s a lock, regardless of the fact that he plays a crooked politician. Phillip Seymour-Hoffman and Julia Roberts as the film’s supporting actor/actress is equal to having Derek Jeter batting ahead of Ryan Howard. Even the nine-hitter, Pam from The Office (U.S), isn’t to shabby. Throw in writer Aaron Sorkin (West Wing) and director Mike Nichols (The Graduate) and you basically have Joe Torre coaching and Billy Beane managing the team. Basically, we have a lineup that could take on the Big Red Machine. (Pun intended).

The film’s strong points definitely reside in its writing. Unless it gets upset by an indie flic, Sorkin should take home the Oscar for best screenplay. The dialogue is funny, concise and fast-paced — basically everything great that I remember from the early seasons of the West Wing.

Its direction doesn’t hit the viewer square in the face like other Golden Globe-nominated films did this year. However, it isn’t choppy and you forget about it. I liked Nichols’ choice to use grainy videos of the Soviets. I thought it was interesting that Nichols chose only to show the Afghans’ oppression from either third-party American media coverage or from the eyes of Charlie. I feel it gives us a closer connection with Charlie as he has a change of heart, seeing images that actually make him care about something for once in his political life. It ended up being beneficial in the end, since it would probably be too much, given that Afghanistan-centered “The Kite Runner” is also being shown in theaters.

It did come off as though, once Wilson conjures up this plan and gets the wheels moving, events begin happening too quickly. While I’m gracious of the movie ending well short of two hours, I’m left wondering if I’m missing something in the story. Were the missing parts intentional or just happenstance?

Overall, I felt Charlie Wilson’s War was lively and witty when it could easily have been drab and too far-fetching. It tells an unmentioned story of importance in American history, one that goes untold because of ignorance or naïveté.

We fucked up the endgame.