North Country

I hate spoilers. I don’t want to know anything about any tv show, book, movie or sporting event until I’m watching it unfold before my eyes. This has proved to be one of the only downsides to owning Tivo. By the way, if you don’t own Tivo, you might as well just throw a brick through your TV and put yourself out of your misery. And I’m not talking about a “dvr” I’m talking about Tivo. There is no substitute. I will not argue about this. Just accept it.

Anyway, now I watch almost nothing “live” on TV. The only problem with that is that sometimes I fall behind on a popular show like 24 or Lost and then have to constantly guard against anyone who might talk or write about what happened in some episode I haven’t seen yet. My brothers and wife openly mock how turbo I am about this, but in my mind, as with most things, I’m right and they’re the crazy ones.

I admit it, I am hung up about spoilers more than most, but I’m not alone here by any means. Why then, do movie critics write movie reviews that are almost entirely made up of a description of what happens in the movie? (and don’t get me started about previews…I feel another post coming on) To be sure, explaining why you thought a movie was good or bad requires some discussion of the plot points or story, but most reviews these days are two sentences up front glowing about or trashing the movie followed by 10 paragraphs of what happens in the movie and ended with a single line saying the movie was either great or not. How is that helpful to we the people?

It’s not, of course, but it also requires precious little thought, making it a very appealing formula. I will strive to avoid that when reviewing movies here. I’m not going to give anything away and won’t spend any more time than necessary reporting on what happened in the movie. I’m also going to try to follow the template you see below so that I can make sure to discuss the various aspects I find important about movie watching. Maybe I will add or subtract from this list and maybe I will see how long it makes the reviews and get rid of it, but for now I will stick with it. Since this post is the introduction of the template, I will take time to explain each item as needed.

With that in mind, on to the review:

North Country

Spoiler-free plot synopsis: As noted above, I don’t want to give stuff away, but I will spend a bit of time explaining what the movie is basically about so you can determine if subject matter alone might leave you wanting or not wanting to watch this movie and so you can understand the rest of the review.

Charlize Theron plays the daughter of a miner who takes a job at a local mine and ends up in a living hell dealing with the worst imaginable kinds of sexual harassment. In fact the word “harassment” is way to light a word. More like gender-based torture. Theron, who, in the opinion of this author, is rather nice looking, has followed Brad Pitt’s lead and tried to take roles that downplay her beauty and play up her acting chops. In a way that makes her the perfect person to play this role. She has to fight against the way the world sees her to succeed in real life and in the movie. Of course, that’s where the similarities between she and her character end.

The movie is a harsh portrayal of life for a woman in this mine and claims to be based on a true story. The movie follows how she starts at the mine, the suffering for her and her fellow female workers, and then the lawsuit that follows, which is based on an actual suit that set some important precedents for sexual harassment cases nationwide.

Advertising/Expectations: In this section I will tell you a little about what I expected going in as I think that greatly influences whether you end up liking a movie. If you think it is going to be like Godfather II and it ends up like Godfather III, then an otherwise good movie becomes a great disappointment. I will also say a bit, when applicable about the advertising for the movie and whether it properly prepares you for what you get when you get to the theater/living room.

I’m a fan of Theron, so when I saw she was in it, especially when I saw she wasn’t playing a super glam role, I was interested. Throw in my interest in this area of the law and some good reviews and I was even more interested. The fact, however, that it was going to deal with the legal side of things also lowered my expectations as I have become all to used to Hollywood botching legal movies.

Tangent Alert, Alert, Alert.

There are not very many good “legal” movies, loosely defined as movies that deal with lawyers and/or the courtroom. As many of my friends and former Business Law students know, I believe the finest legal movie ever made is “My Cousin Vinny.” You can learn all you need to know about how to handle a court room from that movie, plus the wardrobe is faaaaaantastic. …ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Storytelling: A movie has to have a good story, but then it also has to tell it well. Here is where I will talk about how the movie made use of the scenes and actors to get across the story and whether the story was worth telling in the first place.

Some good and bad here. It does a good job of painting the picture of desperation. You get some good character development with Charlize and her son. It does a good job of showing the pain her father feels not knowing whether to cut her off or stand up for her. Very few wasted scenes. All of them advance the overall point of showing how hard it would have been to stand up for herself the way she did. However, the lawsuit aspect became more of a distraction than a benefit to the story. At first it was a useful device to provide a context for the rest of the story, but then it was like the writers realized, “hey wait, how do we show what happened in a few scenes, keep the drama and still wrap this up in less time than it would take to give an opening statement if this were a real case?” Unfortunately, they didn’t have the answer. Woody from Cheers is fairly unbelievable as an attorney. The court room cross-exam of one of the main predators was painful it was so fake. And I’m not just poo-pooing this stuff because I’m a lawyer and “that’s not really how it is”. It was just bad cinema. The writing was bad, it didn’t even resemble an actual legal hearing and worst of all it didn’t significantly add to the story.

Acting/Casting: Acting is crucial. Haden Christianson’s groundbreaking performance as a young Darth Vader in the newest Star Wars movies would have ruined those movies all by himself if Lucas hadn’t so badly wanted to get in on the act with his nearly as bad writing and directing. Truly the worst performance by an actor I have ever seen given the circumstances. But casting is almost as important so I will sometimes discuss that here as well. The LOTR trilogy was next level good because everyone in it matched what was described in the books so well. Likewise, sometimes great actors can hurt a movie by being miscast, like Jack Black in King Kong.

Charlize was great. She was believably pretty but not too pretty and was the right mix of tough, charming, feminine, and sympathetic. No complaints there. Her father and son also turned in top-notch performances. I have to really give props, though, to Frances McDormant (sp?). She’s the pregnant sheriff from Fargo. She was outstanding. The subtle twitch of pain when she is swallowing her pride in the face of disgusting jokes aimed at her, the defiance coping with…well, to avoid a minor spoiler, let’s just say coping. She made you buy that she was tough, but also showed you that being tough doesn’t mean you don’t feel the pain, it just means you deal with it.

Writing: When it comes down to it, this is the most important factor in most movies. The words have to ring true. They have to be dramatic without being hokey. They have to be familiar enough to draw us in and different enough to keep us interested. The Cohens are masters. Fargo, Raising Arizona, The Big Libowski…great, great stuff. I am a harsh critic of the writing because there is so little that is good and it carries or destroys most movies. If you find yourself asking “why would he have said that” or laughing at a line meant to be serious, that one thing can kill some movies.

The writing in North Country was fairly mediocre. The dialogue rang mostly true, though there was nothing special about it. Not like I expect the people of this mining town to suddenly be speaking in flowery poetry, but some choice and quotable turns of phrase would have been nice. As mentioned above, the court room scenes were nearly unwatchable because of how bad the writing was. Woody’s bit about being yellow was brutal.

Directing: In some ways the Director is really ultimately responsible for everything, but I’m going to limit this section to how well the scenes worked, whether the actors were allowed to do their jobs, how the movie was edited or put together and comments about the general art of movie making.

Good work here. The movie moved at the right pace and had the right mix of tough scenes to watch broken up by touching scenes of happiness and then the completely different look of the court room. I like that it showed the various “types” of women that would work in a place like that without spiraling completely into caricatures. It was honest with the violence without just going for shock value. The use of flashbacks in certain places worked well as they were few and to the point. It took time to show you the look of the town and the mine which really added to the whole feel of the movie. Well done here.

Visuals: This is all about the look and feel and will include special effects, sets, stunts, locations, camera angles, etc.

As mentioned above, there were good shots of the town and the setting as well as the mine. The scope of the mine and the general grayness of everything contributed to the sense of depression and despair that underlie the whole movie. It was Paul Simon’s brilliant “My Little Town” come to life on the big screen: “and after it rains, there’s a rainbow and all of the colors are black. It’s not that the colors aren’t there. It’s just imagination they lack. Everything’s the same back, in my little town.” For a movie that lacked special effects or vivid sets and costumes, this movie’s look really stands out and contributed greatly to what was good about this movie.

Sound: This is both “track” and “effects.” The music and the noise. If you like movies and watch them at home you owe it to yourself and your poor needy family to get yourself a decent sound system and then turn it up until the sub-woofer shakes the whole house, then turn it up again until you have been visited by law enforcement at least twice.

Actually, I don’t even remember about the sound in North Country. I think there were a couple good ‘80s tunes, but I don’t think it was a major factor either way.

Need for Screen: This section is how important it is that you see a movie on the big screen. After kids, the theater was more of a rare treat than a regular date, so in case you find yourself in the same situation, I’ll try to help you decide when it is worth springing for the world’s most valuable corn and when you can safely wait for video.

The big screen helps in this movie. Wide shots of the mine and areas around town really jump out at you. It’s gone from the theaters, but if you have a friend with a big screen, make an excuse to watch this at their place.

Gut feel: This is how a movie makes you feel when you first finish watching. Before you have a chance to really think about it or break it down, how did it make you feel? Sometimes, bad movies still leave you feeling good like Independence Day and sometimes good movies leave you feeling violated, like Monster’s Ball.

I felt disappointed after this one. I think the court side of the story just ended so abruptly and for me so dissatisfactory, that it tainted my feeling about the whole movie. The other overwhelming feeling was shame about how my gender behaves at times. If you are a man and don’t want to take a few of these “good old boys” out behind the woodshed for a little “re-education”, then I’m not sure we can be friends.

Who you should bring: Who you watch a movie with can sometimes be the single biggest factor in determining whether you like a movie. Imagine watching “There’s Something About Mary” with your father or mother-in-law. Would you have still thought it was hilarious when you were having to feign disgust at every sketchy scene? This factor is especially true for comedies. If you watch with other people who think the movie is funny, you are going to enjoy that movie a lot more. This is a much underrated movie watching factor. Choose your movie-mates very carefully if possible.

For this movie though, it doesn’t matter a whole lot. I guess the one thing I would say, is watch it with adults. The scenes and subject matter are fairly graphic and very adult. Not in a pornographic way or anything, but there are some images you don’t want to share with children. Also, the movie moves slowly. This is actually a good thing for this particular movie, but many Gen Xers and younger demand a quicker pace in their movie watching and this one is likely to make them irritated, which will likely make them irritating and you won’t enjoy the movie.

1-10 Score: 7 – My whole number scale and what it means is in a previous post, so you should check it out if you haven’t already or go back and remind yourself. Basically a 7 means it was worth watching, but had some fairly significant flaws.

This movie was a perfect 7.