A SERIOUS MAN

Joel and Ethan Coen returned to make their 14th feature film, “A Serious Man,” with a budget of $7 million – less than half of their past two films’ budgets and their lowest since “Raising Arizona” in 1987.

It’s doubtful the Coen brothers were forced to operate on a limited budget. More likely, they wanted to return to their independent filmmaking roots by producing a film with no distinguishable, big-name actors or flashy gimmicks.

The result: a bare-bones example of storytelling at its finest.

However, audiences should be forewarned that this film strays further from mainstream cinema conventions than the Coen brothers’ past few films have – meaning it is slower-paced, relies on smarter humor and lacks action or violence.

Still, “A Serious Man” is indubitably among the Coen brothers’ best films and is, at the very least, a statement to the film community that they have not and will not sell out.

The film details the life of Larry Gopnik, a middle-aged, Jewish professor of physics, as he struggles to find peace in a suburban community when his home life begins to fall apart. On the surface, the film is purely a dark comedy, but with further inspection, more substantive aspects appear, including Larry’s role as a tragic hero and the the represented familial values of a ’60s Jewish community.

What makes this film great is the complexity of the plot. It gradually intertwines multiple problems within Larry’s life and then concludes in a final scene that will produce one of two results within audience members: utter confusion at what just happened or amazement at how balls-y the Coen brothers really are.

VERDICT: For anyone who appreciates independent cinema, dark humor or period-set drama, “A Serious Man” will definitely resound as one of the best films to be released so far this year.

- Matt Evans

2012

Genre films have formulas – and director Roland Emmerich refuses yet again to deviate from these limitations in his new Armageddon thriller “2012.”

It’s all there: a divorced Joe the Plumber (John Cusack) escaping death by fractions of a second to be reunited with his family; scientists persuading politicians; iconic destruction of landmarks; and a cheesy, character-driven plot offset by apocalyptic eye candy, which, of course, always takes priority.

The critiques here are not for the individual film but for the genre as a whole, and once you get past those annoyances, “2012″ is a relatively good movie. In relation to other films with the same “save the world from annihilation” mentality, “2012″ ranks top on the list.

Understanding the controversial Mayan philosophy takes a back seat to action sequences, which probably works to the film’s favor. When an unsuccessful author takes his estranged wife’s children to Yellowstone, an eccentric loon (played wonderfully by Woody Harrelson) preaches government conspiracy and tells Cusack the recurring California earthquakes are evidence of the earth’s crust destabilizing – a phenomenon resulting in the end of the world.

The rest of the plot is a suburban family’s quest to find government spaceships built only for the Stephen Hawkings and billionaires of the world. Along the way they encounter oddball characters, such as a stout Russian entrepreneur with a thick, deep accent. He serves only to deliver lines of comedic relief.

Unfortunately, “2012″ lacks the humor that made “Independence Day” jump-start Will Smith’s movie career. Emmerich is still forgiven because the woo factor is just too great to dismiss.

VERDICT: In the end, you have a movie with the best visual effects in the history of cinema and a touching tale of human survival. It might not win an Oscar, but it will win your approval.

- Michael Prochaska