Far from Hollywood

We've Moved!

2011-04-11T18:49:00.001-07:00

Hello all...

Just a heads up that we've migrated to a new site. You can now find reviews at

http://chrisicisms.wordpress.com

Enjoy!

Movie Review: "Paul"

2011-03-18T16:23:00.000-07:00

Is this the year of Spielberg nostalgia?

In June, children of the '80s will flock to J.J. Abrams' "Super 8," whose trailer suggests that it will resonate strongly with fans of the Amblin brand.

Until then, we have "Paul," an extraterrestrial comedy starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and littered with homages to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "E.T." and "Jaws."

Of course, I don't remember E.T. smoking pot or saying the f-word every five minutes. Maybe I haven't seen the special edition.

Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost) are two British nerds visiting the U.S. for a comic book convention, followed by a road trip across famous alien landing sites, such as Area 51. During their travels, a little green man named Paul encounters the duo and asks for their help escaping the government clutches. Sane people would normally run away if an extraterrestrial approached their RV, but as Paul is a laid back, stoner alien voiced by Seth Rogen, the two geeks don't mind a little extra adventure. Along the way they pick up a fundamentalist Christian named Ruth (Kristen Wiig) and run afoul of a government agent (Jason Bateman) out to track Paul down.

A film so full of film references is nothing new to Pegg and Frost, who co-starred in the classic genre mash-ups "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz." Like those two films, "Paul" is written by Pegg and Frost. Yet the film lacks the energy, wit and fun of those classics, settling for lazy gags and crass banter. It's "E.T." by way of Kevin Smith, although even Smith would find the "Star Wars" shout outs a bit too obvious.

Pegg and Frost really have nothing to do here. "Shaun" and "Fuzz" may not be deep films, but they gave the two actors actual characters to play. Despite its zombie film roots, "Shaun's" humor came from the idea of a slacker having to man up and rise to the occasion; "Hot Fuzz's" biggest laughs came from placing an action movie super cop in a tiny English hamlet.

Here, we're not given much more information other than the fact that Graeme and Clive are nerds who like "Star Wars." Clive is supposedly a writer, but nothing comes of that until the end credits. Graeme has a romance with Ruth, but it's mostly obligatory - there's nothing really for Pegg to sink his teeth into.

What's left is a collection of obvious and homophobic jokes (the hotel only has one bed, ha!) or movie references that start out clever and then are delivered with no subtlety. For instance, it's funny when Graeme and Clive buy "Five Tones" fireworks to signal Paul's alien companions - movie fans would get the "Close Encounters" reference. It's not funny to have them remark about how fitting the reference is.

But the majority of the film's gags are of this variety. A few are clever - listen closely to the music in a Western bar, for instance. Some, such as Paul's contribution to 1980s movies, start funny and then go on too long for the joke to work. And others - a character shooting a CB and saying "boring conversation anyway" - just lack conviction and fall flat.

You might notice I haven't even mentioned Paul yet. The truth is, he kind of gets lost in the shuffle. I understand the thinking in bringing Rogen in to voice the alien as a laidback everyschlub. But there's really nothing very interesting or funny about Paul, except that he talks like Seth Rogen. Maybe I'm still recovering from "The Green Hornet," but that didn't help my enjoyment of the film.

As for Wiig, the "Saturday Night Live" star who has been hit-or-miss in feature films, she's given the thankless task of playing a stereotypical and offensive caricature of fundamentalist Christians. There's an intriguing concept in having a character begin to question their faith by encountering something beyond their grasp, but the film plays it for cheap laughs about religion and abandons any attempt at character in exchange for having Ruth be so excited about being "free" of dogma so that she can now smoke and swear all she wants. It's a mean-spirited and unfunny characterization.

When it becomes clear that the road trip can only meander so long before getting stale, the film packs itself full of characters. In addition to Bateman's agent, we have Bill Hader as a psychotic cop, John Carroll Lynch as Ruth's fundamentalist father, Sigourney Weaver as the government head behind the conspiracy and Blythe Danner as one of Paul's oldest earth friends. None of these people are particularly bad - I laughed quite a bit at Bateman's deadpan delivery, Weaver's over-the-top menace and Hader's bizarre antics. But by the time the film gets to the third act, it becomes so stuffed with superfluous characters that it spins off the rails.

The problem is that I've loved Frost and Pegg before. I hold "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" up as two of the last decade's greatest comedies. The two have a wonderful chemistry together, and that does result in some scattered laughs here and there in "Paul." But with its genre mixings and the duo at the forefront, the film obviously wants to evoke the same sense of fun as their previous collaborations, but simply lacks the wit and energy.

The problem may be director Greg Mottola, who has successfully handled buddy comedies ("Superbad") and nostalgia ("Adventureland") before. But Mottola lacks the finesse to seamlessly integrate the lifts from other films with the same flair as "Shaun" director Edgar Wright, who used homage as a way to tell a story; here, the parody feels clunky and obvious, delivered with a shout instead of a sly whisper.

It's disappointing that a cast and crew that has made me laugh very hard before is unable to get more than a few chuckles out of me this time out. But their previous successes give me confidence that they'll return to form in the future; hopefully, "Paul" is just an alien experience to them.

Originally published here.

Movie Review: "Rango"

2011-03-04T14:37:00.000-08:00

A witty and exciting mashup of Westerns, film noir and whatever else passes through director Gore Verbinski's brain, "Rango" is easily the most original non-Pixar animated film in years. Don't let the Nickelodeon label and talking animals fool you: This is far from standard kiddie fare.

Johnny Depp voices the titular character, a chameleon left stranded in the desert when his aquarium topples from the family car. Following advice from an unfortunate armadillo (Alfred Molina), the lizard seeks shelter in the ramshackle town of Dirt, where he quickly impresses the locals with far-fetched tales of bravery, assumes the name Rango and is appointed sheriff. Although he'd much rather be acting, Rango quickly takes to his new role of protecting the town's lizards, possums and other assorted creatures, and guarding the village's diminishing water supply.

On paper, this sounds like just another fish-out-of-water tale, a popular staple with animated films. But John Logan's script, coupled with Verbinski's outrageous visual style and Depp's love for everything off-kilter, make this something far better.

Rather than parody Western tropes, "Rango" presents itself as a true genre tale, complete with shoot-outs in the town square, a thrilling chase through the desert and a saloon full of shady drunks. There's the shifty town mayor, a dastardly rattlesnake villain and a pretty little lizard to save. "Rango" is not a spoof, but a true Western comedy, respectful of the genre and finding laughs not by poking fun at its cliches but celebrating them and mixing its humor in with the story.

"Rango" could easily be a child's gateway for great movies. In addition to its Western roots, the plot also borrows heavily from "Chinatown," pays homage to "Apocalypse Now" and even makes a nod to Depp's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." The film's full of witty references and sly in-jokes that will delight cinephiles, and I imagine adults will get a good chuckle when Rango visits the Spirit of the West, who looks fairly familiar.

The references will likely go over children's heads - I doubt many preteens have watched "Chinatown" recently. But unlike so many recent animated films, which rely almost entirely on pop culture-centric gags, "Rango" will enthrall kids with its nonstop arsenal of gags and action sequences. It should be noted, however, that the adventure gets a bit intense in some parts and parents may be surprised at some of the language flying out of the toons' mouths; it's nothing that violates "Rango's" PG-rating, but hearing cartoon characters say "hell" and "damn" make take some parents off guard.

A visual marvel, "Rango" is beautifully animated, with a bright and diverse pallet for Verbinski to play with. Sometimes the colors pop off the screen, as with Rango, his Hawaiian shirts and lush playscape in the aquarium. Other times, Verbinski bathes the characters in shadows and takes advantage of the film's Western background to have his characters charge through the dust and grime of the Old West. As he proved with his "Pirates of the Caribbean" films, Verbinski loves bizarre visuals, and Rango's adventures in the dessert give him room to play with some delightfully weird images, like a wind-up goldfish or headless Barbie doll. It's "High Noon" by way of Terry Gilliam.

Delightful and exciting as "Rango" often is, the film sometimes feels ready to topple over. Depp is doing a variation on the eccentric, panicked hero he often plays, but sometimes his jokes fizzle and his character falls flat. The film is so packed with ideas that, at times, it's rather unwieldy and overstuffed. The film also resorts to bathroom humor several times, which should delight kids but will have adults rolling their eyes.

Originally published in the Advisor & Source newspapers.

But how often do we have that problem with animated films these days? Most the time, anything without the Pixar label is struggling to get out a steady stream of easy gags and dated pop culture references. "Rango" is a true original that works more often than not. And those times it fails, it deserves quite a bit of credit for trying something different.

Movie Review: "The Adjustment Bureau"

2011-03-04T14:32:00.000-08:00

An intriguing, smart and often silly rumination on fate, destiny and love, "The Adjustment Bureau" is a film that works in spite of itself.

When Congressman David Norris (Matt Damon) suffers a crushing defeat during election season, he's ready to throw in the towel. But a chance encounter in the men's bathroom with beguiling beauty Elise (Emily Blunt) reenergizes David and leaves him smitten. When he bumps into the woman on the bus months later, David tries to pursue her, but is surprised to stumble upon a gang of fedora-wearing men stopping his path.

These men, we quickly learn, are the Adjustment Bureau - a team of professionals working for the Chairman (aka Fate) to make sure people don't step out of line with their destiny. David is never supposed to see Elise again and warned about the consequences if he does - and the Adjustment Bureau has supernatural abilities to change minds, cause car accidents and do just about anything to ensure David and Elise are kept apart. But David, so sure of his feelings for this mysterious stranger, feels that the Bureau is wrong, and that he and Elise are supposed to be together.

The concept, based on a short story by Phillip K. Dick, is interesting. Who among us hasn't wondered whether a different decision in our life - a new route to work, a talk with a stranger - would have completely altered where we ended up? The issue of free will vs. determinism has fueled many films, some of them good and some of them bad.

"The Adjustment Bureau" leans a little more to the former, even as it struggles under the weight of its own silliness. The trouble with a film that so literally deals with issues of fate is that it risks sounding corny and self-serious. Lines like "if he kisses her ... a real kiss ... everything changes" may produce snickers from the audience, and the villains' bumbling throughout the film's first half may be intended to be humorous but comes across a bit clumsy.

The film works much better when it takes the time to go beyond its science fiction trappings and focus on the love story between David and Elise. Damon is one of this generation's most likeable male leads and he brings a real charisma to his role as a politician with a troubled past. He and Blunt have a terrific chemistry together, and their shared scenes are sweet, funny and romantic. The thing that makes the film work, despite some of the plot's clumsiness, is that the actors make the audience want to see the characters together.

Director George Nolfi finds a surer footing for the sci-fi elements in the film's second half, when Terrence Stamp is brought in as an agent assigned to finally shut David down. Stamp brings a sense of intimidation and menace to the film, raising the film's stakes from the earlier moments when David could easily outwit his pursuers. Anthony Mackie also has an interesting role as an agent who finds himself sympathizing with David's plight.

Despite its inherent silliness, "The Adjustment Bureau" is a mostly enjoyable thriller driven by an effective romance. It provokes questions - albeit surface ones - about matters of fate, destiny and sacrifice. It's not particularly deep, but it has a bit more to chew on that, say, the latest Jason Statham thrill ride. Only in its final act, when it devolves into a series of chase sequences and arrives at a limp denouement, does it begin to fly off the rails.

Dick's work has been the basis for a number of films, some great ("Blade Runner"), some good ("Minority Report") and some unspeakable bad ("Paycheck"). "The Adjustment Bureau" falls closer to the middle category - it's not a waste of time, but I wouldn't say it's your destiny to see it, either.

Article originally published in the Advisor and Source Newspapers.

Movie Review: "Hall Pass"

2011-02-25T18:01:00.000-08:00

The latest comedy from Peter and Bobby Farrelly ("There's Something About Mary"), "Hall Pass" has an intriguing premise, a likable cast, a few funny moments and an ending that makes you feel as if the characters have learned something. But as the credits rolled, everything felt a bit flat, bland and false. Its surface charms disguise the fact that the film has nothing at its center for audiences to invest in; it's not a movie, it's a doughnut.

Certainly the idea is ripe for comedy. Two 30-year-old buddies, Fred (Jason Sudeikis) and Rick (Owen Wilson), are happily married yet find themselves constantly ogling women and reminiscing about their glorious single days. Fed up with their horndog spouses, their wives (Christina Applegate and Jenna Fischer) issue the two men a "hall pass": one week away from the restrictions of married life where they're free to do whatever they want.

Not only does the idea have merit, but the Farrelly brothers are working with a cast that should be able to nail this material in their sleep. Wilson is the straight man but brings leftover goodwill from his work in "Wedding Crashers" as weary family man Rick, and Sudeikis - one of "Saturday Night Live's" most consistent current players - is born to play the out-of-touch cad who thinks he still has moves. Applegate is one of the most underrated comedic actresses working, while Fischer doesn't have to do too much more than play the same lovable character she portrays each week on "The Office." A supporting cast including Stephen Merchant ("Extras") and J.B. Smoove ("Curb Your Enthusiasm") is also promising.

Yet the movie falls curiously flat. Rick and Fred hit the town, ready to get drunk and pick up loose women, and the film immediately feels stale and predictable, with many of the jokes landing with a thud. The film's one-liners are uninspired, with lame attempts to pump up the humor with four-letter words going over like lead balloons. The "Hall Pass" week begins with an inspired joke about the guys trying to find women at Applebees, but the film goes nowhere from there - just recycled jokes about how old and unprepared Frank and Rick are for the single lifestyle. The Farrellys, who delivered one of the funniest movie moments of the past 20 years with "There's Something About Mary's" zipper scene, seem to have lost the ability or desire to properly pace a sequence; their major set pieces feel rushed and obligatory, like the brothers are suddenly embarrassed of the immaturity that's been their hallmark for so long.

Sudeikis and Wilson do what they can with the material. I particularly enjoyed Fred's pickup lines at the bar and the way the two offend some rich friends when they pay them a visit. But just as the plot kicks into high gear, all momentum is lost, with big set pieces feeling oddly paced. An unfortunate trip to a fitness center for Rick, and Fred's scandalous visit to a massage parlor feel rushed, with no build up, ending in awkward punch lines or raunchy sight gags.

There have been many adult-themed comedies lately that have bungled the big gags but coasted on the interplay between the two main characters. I'm thinking of films like "I Love You Man" or "Knocked Up." But those films had characters whose depths and interests extended beyond the confines of the plot. Here, all we know is that Fred sells insurance, Rick is a real estate agent and both men think about sex constantly. Without any more depth to their friendship, there's nothing else for the film to coast on but sex gags that fall flat.

There's good material here for a smart, witty and even heartfelt commentary on marriage and relationships, and it would have been interesting to see how else they could find humor in the restrictions Fred and Rick feel in their marriages. Did they have dreams they can't pursue now? Do they have things they'd love to spend their money on but are crushed by budgeting? There's a great wealth of material that could be mined for humor here, but all we're given is the immature, R-rated joke that men are pigs who think about sex all the time. Maybe there's some truth to that, but since the film falls flat on all its sex gags, there's nothing else to string it along, save for Richard Jenkins' small role as a womanizing middle-ager.

I'd be curious to see what the same material would have been like in the hands of someone like a Judd Apatow, who could easily combine wit, crassness and an emotional commentary on the differences between men and women. Instead, we get scenes of Owen Wilson staring at oversized male genitals and Sudeikis having a tryst with an old woman.

The problem further compounds when the Farrellys try to bring the film to a semi-serious and romantic close in the final act. By the time Rick and Fred realize the error of their ways and rush back to their wives, the film wants us to think they've learned something, but the characters are so one-dimensional that we haven't seen a real change, just an obligatory and manipulative resolution. That would be fine if this were a "Dumb and Dumber"-esque comedy, but the scene is staged so that the directors want us to see this as a sweet finale. Even the climax's comedic complications are staged ham-handedly and feel more chaotic than inspired.

To get a glimpse of what this movie could have been, just take a look at the subplot featuring Applegate and Fischer, who begin to experience the pros and cons of their own hall pass. The scenes, sadly truncated, balance the humor and heart that the Farrellys obviously want the rest of the film to have, and hint at a much more heartfelt film. If it were possible, I'd take a hall pass on Sudeikis and Wilson to spend more time with the ladies. They're in the better movie.

Original article posted here.

Quick Hits

2011-02-20T20:03:00.000-08:00

My initial plan for this three-day President's Day weekend was to load up on some movies I had missed out on in 2010 and have three days of non-stop movie marathons. I decided to be a little more productive and a little less couch potato-ish, but I did manage to see a few movies--some old, some new--this weekend, so I thought I'd write up some brief thoughts on those.

And yes, I'm hoping to get part two of "The Directors" up with my thoughts on "Raising Arizona," but more than likely that feature will gain more speed after I've moved into the new place. Lots of moving and wedding prep going on here.

Anyway, here we go:

Tango and Cash

I know this 1989 Sylvester Stallone/Kurt Russell action-comedy has its fans. But while it has its moments, I have to imagine this was the moment that the wisecracking supercop genre of the late-80s/early-90s hit its breaking point.

Tango (Stallone) and Cash (Russell) are two of LA's top cops. Tango is a sharply-dressed businessman who stays in the cop game "for the action" while Cash has the t-shirt, stubble and haircut of the K-Mart version of Martin Riggs. The two are unorthodox in their methods, playing chicken with a semi truck or crushing a perp's windpipe with a chair to get answers but, somehow, the press heralds them as heroes. It goes without saying that Tango and Cash hate each other. I'll give you five seconds to wonder whether they must overcome their differences and become friends to stay alive.

An LA drug kingpin (Jack Palance) has had enough of the two cops meddling with his "billion dollar business" and pays off the city's legal system to frame the two for murder and put them away in an only-in-the-movies prison where the leaky walls are made of stone and criminals rain flaming rolls of toilet paper down from the ceiling. Tango and Cash not only have to survive in, but escape from, this hell hole and then track down the man who put them away.

The plot is wafer thin--I can't exactly explain how the cops are transferred from their cushy federal prison to this Shawshank-esque nightmare any more than I could tell you how exactly they track down the bad guy to his compound at the end of the film. The script seems to be less concerned with plot mechanics and more about ensuring Tango and Cash have a ready supply of wisecracks at their disposal. There's not a single line in this movie that isn't matched two seconds later with a smart alec remark. Some of these, such as Tango remarking "Rambo was a pussy," are good for a chuckle. Others, such as "I think that with your IQ, you're unarmed and still very dangerous" land with a thud.

This comes down, actually, to the casting of Stallone and Russell, two actors who seem to have very little real chemistry together. Russell seems more at home as the wild card, slovenly detective and the one-liners flow a little easier from him. Stallone, asked to wear fancy glasses and suits, looks out of his league. Whereas Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson were able to deliver one-liners well enough that they felt like extensions of their characters, Stallone's wooden acting here makes it all too apparent the lines were crafted. There's no attitude or panache to the wisecracks; just the feeling that the screenwriters really wanted to have audiences leave the theater with quotes on their tongue. Aside from a funny FUBAR reference, however, it doesn't really work.

The film coasts on some fun action sequences, particularly a brutal "Lethal Weapon"-esque brawl in the prison's laundry room and a very over-the-top, but enjoyable escape from the penitentiary. The flick is definitely part of Warner Brothers' "overkill is underrated" mentality from the late 1980s and indulges in all the excess these films shared. There's a bloody fight in Cash's apartment, the prison is filled with sparking, exploding generators and the bad guy's hideout features monster trucks and halls of mirrors, which the cops destroy with their own pimped-out police RV. It's utterly trashy and ridiculous, but I'm sure every male who ponied up the dough for "The Expendables" last summer probably has a special place in their heart for this flick.

It's definitely a guilty pleasure, and it works much better when focused on the action sequences. Unfortunately, director Andrey Konchalovskiy is convinced he's making an action-comedy, and it's the latter that lands with a thud. The wise cracks hit their mark only about 50-percent of the time. Even worse, though, is the scene where Cash escapes a strip club by dressing in drag or a misunderstanding where Tango thinks Cash is having sex with his sister (Teri Hatcher).

There are slight charms to be had here, as I said. But I've met many who refer to this flick as a bona fide action classic and, I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Stallone and Russell don't have the chemistry to pull of a "Lethal Weapon" buddy comedy and it doesn't have the confidence to be as trashy and guilty as a "Last Boy Scout." It may not be totally FUBAR, but it's far from the best work these guys have done.

The Sunset Limited

I think both Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are fantastic actors who too easily succumb to type-casting. Before waking up this decade and delivering some of his finest work in films like "In the Valley of Elah" and "No Country For Old Men," Jones spent nearly a decade coasting on the Laurels of his no-nonsense character from "The Fugitive," sometimes successfully ("Men In Black") sometimes woefully ("Man of the House.") After Tarantino turned him into the coolest cat in Hollywood, Jackson milked that persona for all its worth, which is how he's turned into a caricature of himself in "Snakes on a Plane" or the current Marvel films.

It's extremely refreshing to see these actors shed their crutches and deliver some of their strongest work in ages in "The Sunset Limited," an HBO adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's two-character play, directed by Jones. Featuring only the two men in one cramped apartment, the film is a powerful acting showcase that delves into some of life's deepest questions, leaving no one with easier answers.

Jones plays White, a professor who attempted to kill himself by hurling himself in front of a train. Jackson is a poor ex-con named Black who saved his life and taken the broken man up to his apartment. Black, an evangelical Christian, feels it's his calling to save White. White, an atheist, not only has no belief in God but no faith in humanity. He reasons that it's not only wrong to assume that we are our brother's keeper, he believes that the very existence of humanity continually proves that people are beyond saving. These beliefs fuel a gripping 90-minute discussion of philosophy, theology, race, culture and the things that keep us going in our darkest moments.

When adapting a one-room play for film, the tendency is to find a way to open up the story to keep the narrative moving and visually appealing. Jones, however, does the opposite and takes advantage of the restrictions McCarthy places upon the story. The apartment is small and constrictive, with outside din often wafting in from out doors. As the two men confront each other and find themselves defending and questioning their own beliefs, the apartment begins to feel smaller, trapping and cornering them so they have nowhere else to look but at the other person. It lends a sense of tension and urgency to the discussions which are, quite literally, life and death discussions.

Jackson has been buried in his cool persona for so long that it's surprising to see him here as a humble, poor ex-con. There's a warmth about Black; he's not portrayed as a lunatic who hears voices but as a man who strongly holds to his convictions and won't be deterred, no matter what you might throw at him. Sometimes he speaks softly and gently. Other times, he mocks and chides White. In one blistering scene, Black launches into a prison story and loses himself in the narrative, Jackson's voice booming and screaming in that way only he can do. It's been so long since he's been this engaged in a performance and it's riveting.

Jones, with his hang-dog face, largely plays the part of a man broken. He has nothing to believe in. He used to believe culture would be his salvation but now he watches it be destroyed by a world that is marching toward oblivion. Jones captures this brokenness perfectly, but also filters in the pride that White feels, the belief that his problems matter more because of the insights his education has offered him. In the film's final moments, he is given a dizzying monologue in which he reveals the reasons for his despair and the strength of his convictions. "The only thing I'll never give up," he says, "Is giving up."

It's a fascinating performance piece, fueled my McCarthy's pitch-perfect dialogue. The writer may be far from his comfort zone of wide vistas and unending Western landscapes in this New York apartment, but his themes of religion, despair, hope and apocalypse are all present here. McCarthy seems fascinated by the way these two belief systems clash against each other and the questions each one presents. Atheists may seem to be the most cultured and intelligent, and yet the end for White is one of cynicism and despair. For believers like Black, their faith has given them hope and a reason for living, a belief that people can be redeemed and the world made better. But faith, by definition, is not always certainty, and the film presents the dilemma of what believers face when their faith is not always rewarded and answers aren't always given to them. "The Sunset Limited" gives us two men with opposing beliefs, neither of whom are willing to back down from their convictions and what happens when those outlooks violently collide.

I found the film riveting, one of the most intelligent and profound looks at faith, unbelief and hope that I've seen in a long time. In some of the strongest work of their storied careers, Jones and Jackson knock this one out of the park.

Unstoppable

Perhaps next to the collaboration between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, the partnership between Tony Scott and Denzel Washington is the most frustrating director-actor team-up in Hollywood.

At times, the two have given us some solid action thrillers, such as "Crimson Tide" or "Man on Fire." Other times, you get "Deja Vu." I don't know what frustrates me more--the tendency that Washington has to coast in these films, playing the same lovable curmudgeon over and over, or Scott's tendency to edit his films like a meth addict.

Their latest collaboration, "Unstoppable" is actually one of the pair's better films. Washington is definitely giving the same performance he's given Scott before, but he's balanced by Chris Pine in a strong co-starring role. Pine is a rookie train conductor tagging along with Washington's engineer on his first day of work. Washington's character has just been given his forced retirement notice and is understandably irked at having to show this young upstart the ropes.

While the two are out bickering on their route, a series of mishaps has caused a train elsewhere in Pennsylvania to start barreling down the tracks without a conductor. This train, the size of the Chrysler Building, is carrying eight cars' worth of toxic, highly combustible chemicals. And, of yeah, if it hits the bridge in the town where Pine lives, it's likely to fly off the rails and eradicate everyone there.

When I first saw the previews, I assumed it had to be a parody. After all, how much can you do with a train? It goes one direction. I actually thought this would be a "Speed 2" descent into self-parody, with ominous shots of the train heading closer and closer to town as people fumbled about what to do.

The final product, though, is actually fairly plausible (although I question of much of this is actually inspired by a true story). Scott fumbles a bit when showing how a lazy conductor loses control of the train, but he gets a great deal of suspense from shots of the train narrowly missing another train full of children or of employees speeding up alongside the locomotive trying to climb aboard. There's a pretty nifty sequence where one worker tries to be helicoptered onto the moving train which, of course, ends in disaster. After all, the train is "Unstoppable."

When he ascertains that the railroad commission intends to derail the train, Washington knows that it won't work. So he decides to catch his locomotive up to the runaway car, hitch onto it and bring it to a stop. It's crazy and dangerous, of course, but this is a Tony Scott movie, so of course it has a good shot at working.

The story moves just fast enough for us to keep from questioning much of it. It's fun, loud and flashy, but Washington and Pine are both likable enough in their roles to keep us invested. Likewise, Rosario Dawson, as a control room manager, keeps things grounded enough for us to maintain our suspension of disbelief. Scott eases up on his editing here and actually delivers some coherent action sequences.

The film relies a bit too much on the perspective of the media covering the train chase; in the film's final hour, I'd say a good 45% of the scenes are shown from the perspective of news cameras. And while I don't disagree that the media would be all over a disaster like this, the omnipresence of news choppers is a bit distracting in many of the action sequences. A romantic subplot between the Pine character and his wife is also a bit cliche.

Still, the people who see this film want to simply see Denzel stop a fast train. They won't be disappointed. "Unstoppable" ain't art, but it does give the people what they want.

Movie Review: "Cedar Rapids"

2011-02-19T07:10:00.000-08:00

Original review published at the Advisor and Source.

"Cedar Rapids" may be the first coming-of-age movie about a 30-year-old man.

Played by Ed Helms with the same joyful naivety that he brought to the "The Hangover" and "The Office," Tim Lippe is a successful insurance agent who's never left the small town he grew up in. He believes in the old-fashioned values his firm touts and thinks his dalliances with his elementary schoolteacher (Sigourney Weaver) are "super awesome."

When the agency's top salesman dies in a compromising situation, Tim is sent to an annual insurance convention in Cedar Rapids to bring home the coveted "Double Diamond Award," bestowed upon agencies that best display the virtues of the association's uptight president. Tim should be a shoo-in for bringing home the gold - his worst curse words are "My foot" and when he saunters up to the bar, he orders a root beer. Tim's boss (Stephen Root) has even taken precautions to team Tim up with an equally straight-laced and mundane roommate (Isaiah Whitlock Jr.) for the weekend.

Obviously, it goes without saying that a housewife looking for an escape (Anne Heche) and a hard-drinking blowhard (John C. Reilly) introduce Tim to the temptations of "big city" life. And you've probably guessed that the once uptight teetotaler gets more than he bargained for as things spiral out of control.

What you may not have predicted, however, is how sweet the entire proceedings are.

Much of that can be attributed to Helms, who can do the wide-eyed nice guy routine better than anyone these days. There's an excitement to Tim's first adventures in the city and Helms captures Tim's eagerness perfectly. He keeps Tim childlike and naive, but never dumb. Tim's too focused on his job to drink, too in love with his teacher girlfriend (who tries telling him they're just "having a good time") to flirt with women and too inexperienced at life outside his little hamlet to know what a local prostitute means when she asks him to "party." But he's good at his job, genuinely loves what he does and firmly believes that insurance agents are heroes fighting for the little guy. It's this enthusiasm that makes Tim a character we enjoy spending 90 minutes with.

A lesser movie would have focused on Tim's competition with Reilly's crass, annoying sales agent. And while Reilly is in full "Step Brothers" mode here, spouting off dirty one-liners and hamming it up for the camera, his character is actually revealed to be a good guy, loyal to his friends and living it up in Cedar Rapids because his home life is in the dumps. It's a fun and raunchy role for Reilly, but it's balanced out by genuine warmth.

That's actually a good way to describe the majority of "Cedar Rapids." There are several big laughs to be had as Tim experiences life outside his comfort zone, but very few of the jokes are at his expense. The cohorts he finds himself surrounded by at the hotel are funny to watch - particularly Whitlock, who has the film's funniest moment when he saves Tim from a fight late in the film - but what stuck with me was the sense of warmth and camaraderie among the cast.

It's rare these days that a genuinely good character can be the hero of a film. Hollywood likes flawed heroes and lately it seems that cads, slackers and cons make up the majority of comedic protagonists. Tim's a good character whose innate niceness pulls broken people into his orbit. In addition to Reilly's character, Anne Heche is surprisingly affective as a bored housewife who looks forward to this weekend as her yearly escape from marriage. These characters do some pretty terrible things during their weekend and, yes, pull Tim down with them on occasion. But what's refreshing is how, through his experiences, Tim sees the hypocrisy that surrounds him and rediscovers not only his own integrity but the bonds formed among problematic people. It's a surprising mature subtext for a raunchy comedy.

I'm not saying "Cedar Rapids" is "The Shawshank Redemption." Director Miguel Artera seems to sacrifice subtlety and wit for big, crass laughs too often, and by the time Tim has to be rescued from a drug-fueled party in the sticks, it's begun to run out of steam. Kurtwood Smith's work as the ultra-moral association president is cliche and derivative of any role that has ever called for a crusty dean or camp counselor.

But maybe that makes sense. With its ribald jokes and spirit of camaraderie, "Cedar Rapids" really might be best described as a summer camp movie for grownups, set inside a hotel. It's a funny, surprisingly warm movie and I wouldn't mind spending some time with these characters again next conventions season.

Catching up: What's up with Docs

2011-02-15T16:48:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the delay in posting. Like I said, with a wedding coming up and some busy times at work, my entries may be a bit sporadic for the near future. But I'm looking forward to really getting back at it this week. In addition to this entry, I'll have a review of the Ed Helms comedy "Cedar Rapids" on Friday and my belated second entry in "The Directors" before Sunday--hopefully I can also get the third entry in to make up for it. Next week I'll be looking at the Farrelly Brothers' latest attempt, "Hall Pass."

Right now, I'm trying to go through my stack of films from 2010 and catch myself up. Over the last few weeks I've been immersing myself in documentaries and then, over the three day President's Day weekend, I'll be going back into more narrative features.

Perhaps it's my journalism background, but documentaries may be my favorite genre of film. I get sucked into a good doc so easily and the best ones often have characters and plots that you would find too outlandish in most fiction films. Films like "Hoop Dreams," "The King of Kong," "Hell House" and "Young @ Heart" are films that have moved me, made me laugh or made me meditate on things much deeper than many scripted films.

So approaching documentaries wasn't really a chore for me. And, with the exception of one, all of these were released in 2010. So here are my short thoughts on a few that I've seen recently.

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010, dir. Banksy)

This funny, fascinating film from notorious street artist Banksy surprised quite a few people when it was nominated for a Best Documentary Oscar over the likes of "Waiting for Superman" and "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work." But the film's sheer cleverness--which left many leaving the theaters to wonder just how real it is--makes it one of the most entertaining docs of the past few years.

To say too much about the journey that Frenchman Thierry Guetta makes in this film would ruin the fun. Guetta, a man with a video camera always in his hands, started documenting street artists around the world many years ago under the guise of creating a documentary. With his exuberant, albeit clumsy and overbearing, nature, many of the artists--including the famous Banksy--allowed him to video tape their work, reasoning that the temporary nature of street art (which is cleaned away by police shortly after it's discovered) could benefit from the permanence of film. Much of "Exit Through the Gift Shop's" first hour is spent watching these artists covertly work at night, guerrilla Rembrandts armed with spray paint and ladders. Guetta meets the jackpot when Banksy--whose work has appeared in London, the West Bank and Los Angeles--agrees to let him videotape him at work, and Guetta captures the moment street art turns into a gold mine for collectors.

If this were all the film was about, it would still be interesting. But a twist in the film's final half hour lends a new level of intrigue as Guetta tries his own hands at street art. It's these final moments that have left many wondering whether the film is as true as it claims to be or if Banksy is pulling one over on the audience. The crew stands buy the film's claims and others have verified that the events of the end actually happened, but I still can't shake the feeling that Banksy quietly pulled the strings on everything Guetta finds himself at the center of, pulling one huge prank on the art and film worlds. But we'll likely never know--the artist is famously reclusive--and that gnawing question gives the film a wonderful jolt of energy.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" is surprisingly funny, particularly watching Guetta stumble around at night with the artists, knocking over paint buckets and falling from ladders. It also shines the spotlight on street art which is so often mistaken simply for graffiti and vandalism but has creators just as serious about their work as anyone whose paintings end up in a gallery. It asks serious questions about the impact of money and fame on an art form that hinges on anarchy and rebellion and, in the final passages, makes us ask questions about whether something that mimics the work of others and demands a profit can truly be considered art...and if not, how do you justify those guidelines in a field that is supposed to have no rules at all?

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" is extremely watchable, particularly for those who usually shy away from documentaries because they find them staid and boring. It feels dangerous in places, hilarious in others and entertains even as it poses questions that won't easily be dismissed when the credits roll.

Restrepo (2010, dir. Tim Hetherington, Sebastian Junger)

Don't let the National Geographic production tag fool you: "Restrepo" is far from a boring, clinical look at war.

Hetherington and Junger (author of "The Perfect Storm") spent a year embedded with a platoon stationed in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley, known as the deadliest place on Earth. Each day, the soldiers face incoming fire and attacks and, throughout the course of the film, they lost several of their own to these firefights. The directors get closer than any other filmmaker I've seen and keep the cameras rolling even when the bullets are flying.

It's a harrowing film and one of the most in-depth looks at soldiers' lives that I've ever seen. From the first minutes when a roadside bomb detonates under a vehicle that the cameraman's traveling in, through a tragic shoot-out in the Afghan mountains, "Restrepo" is unflinching and unafraid to show the reality of war.

The film is apolitical, not interested in the "why" of the fight but in the simple fact that the men profiled have chosen to do a job that could cost them their life. The directors never ask political questions, never cut away to "combat experts" and never lose sight of the fact that the film's subject is not the war, but the men fighting it.

I was amazed by how young the warfighters are here. The oldest can't be a day over 30. And we watch as they make quick decisions under fire, nonchalantly play guitar during down time or muse about the circumstances surrounding their deployment. There's a heartbreaking moment when one soldier breaks down in tears upon learning his compatriot has been killed and an intense recollection from another who was injured in an ambush. But the film also captures the day-to-day work the soldiers conduct in Afghanistan, meeting with local elders about building roads, settling disputes over dead cattle or searching villages for insurgents. One sobering moment shows the soldiers reacting to the knowledge that their strike on a village may have injured innocent civilians.

The fly on the wall perspective Hetherington and Junger bring to "Restrepo" causes it to drag in some moments, but it also allows the directors to stay close when chaos erupts. In the end, you probably won't learn much about the war in Afghanistan, but it's impossible to walk away without a renewed admiration for the men who go to hell to support our country.

Catfish (2010, dir. Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman)

Much like "Exit Through the Gift Shop," "Catfish" was surrounded upon its release by whispers that the documentary was a hoax. I found myself asking many of the same questions while watching the film, wondering just how directors Joost and Schulman were able to capture such a ready-for-cinema story on camera at just the right time. It had to be too good to be true.

But like "Gift Shop," "Catfish's" story has been verified. And looking back on the film, I have to say that even that doesn't surprise me in the end...it has the ring of truth to it, the thought that the events are too bizarre to be the work of fiction.

Of course, that means I can't tell you much about this film, as much of its success comes from watching the events unfold with the surreality and tension of a thriller.

Ariel Schulman is a photographer in New York who discovers that a 9 year-old girl has been making very accomplished paintings of his work. Through Facebook and the telephone, he befriends the young girl, her mother and 19-year-old sister, with whom he begins a cyber relationship. And then...well, you'll have to see for yourself.

Without giving too much away, the film provides a very sobering commentary on a culture where lives can be lived solely through social media. What we choose to reveal about ourselves, the personas we craft for our lives on the Internet...it's all fascinating until other people with real feelings gets involved. "Catfish" may be the first documentary I can remember that depended so closely on Facebook, Instant Messenger, Myspace and other online tools to tell its story.

It's a bit of a slow go at the beginning, particularly because Schulman and his friends are not the most interesting or likable of subjects. Wannabe filmmakers who think a bit too highly for themselves, they come off a bit grating and bland. But the film's mystery slowly draws us in and, by the end, the revelations "Catfish" has in store lead to a finale that is uncomfortable, tragic and yet surprisingly human. Schulman's reaction to the truths he learns is commendable and humane, and the final 20 minutes are both heartbreaking and compassionate.

Even if "Catfish" weren't true, it would make a fascinating mockumentary on the subject of Internet relationships. The fact that it's true makes everything that much more powerful.

The Rock-Afire Explosion (2008, dir. Brett Whitcomb)

I never was a Showbiz Pizza kid. Growing up, we had Chuck E. Cheese and Major Magic's, which were the same concept--your parents would take you to get pizza and you'd spend an afternoon playing video games.

Each of these restaurants had its own rock and roll show with animatronic characters up on stage. I grew up loving Major Magic's All Star Pizza Revue, which featured a Walrus, Crocodile, Lion and and a Fox singing "Charlie Brown," "Little Old Lady from Pasadena" and "I want to Hold Your Hand." I loved going there, waiting for the lights to dim and for the show to start and I truly am sad that the restaurants have closed down and my children won't get to have that experience. But, I grew out of it and moved on.

Others haven't. There's a subset of men and women in their late 20s and early 30s who are obsessed with Showbiz Pizza's animatronic band, The Rock-Afire Explosion, several monkeys and apes who sang and danced on stage while kids munched on their pizza. In the early 2000s, Showbiz Pizza merged with Chuck E. Cheese and the Rock-Afire Explosion was phased out to make way for the mouse and his cronies.

This film chronicles the pursuit of Chris Thrash, a 31-year-old from Alabama, who tracks down the last remaining Rock-Afire animatronics and displays them in his house. It also tracks down Aaron Fechter, the creative genius who made millions supplying the shows to Showbiz Pizza and then lost everything when the business grew too fast.

This is the kind of off-kilter doc I live for, dealing with a certain subset the same way "King of Kong" or "Trekkies" does, although "The Rock-Afire Explosion" leans less on comedy and more on nostalgia. I suppose there's humor to be found in a grown man building his own Showbiz Pizza in his backyard or the low class surroundings Thrash lives in (to this day, he only drinks Mt. Dew). But the film is careful never to laugh at its subjects and instead director Brett Whitcomb lovingly captures a small sect of fandom and its yearning for the things of youth.

Why would a man track down animatronic figures from a defunct pizza chain? It's a bit heartbreaking to hear Thrash muse that those were the happiest days of his life, when "thins were a bit simpler." And while there's an interesting story Fechter tells about the rise and fall of Showbiz and the Rock-Afire explosion, what makes this film truly work is the way it captures a culture that's adrift and discontent, longing to relive their childhood and recapture the thigns they loved in their youth.

We live in the age of remakes, and I've seen many things I've loved from my childhood paraded again on the screen. I'll admit it's very easy to want to revisit my past. I've spent hours watching old cartoon introductions on Youtube or looking at photo galleries of amusement parks I went to as a child. Is it any different for another man to collect animatronic figures from the place that he had the best memories of growing up?

There's definitely a restlessness and refusal to grow up in our culture and I fear that the Internet only feeds that--we no longer have to let go. And "The Rock-Afire Explosion" captures that bittersweet nature of growing up while hanging on to nostalgia. It's a beautiful, if minor and quirky, little documentary that I highly recommend to anyone interested in geek culture.

Babies (2010, dir. Thomas Balmes)

Who says there's no such thing as truth in advertising?

"Babies" delivers just what it promises; nearly 90-minutes worth of just babies. Laughing babies. Crying babies. Babies eating, babies playing, babies looking at things. If they made a sequel to "March of the Penguins," it would be this, which I call "Crawl of the Humans."

The film chronicles four babies born at different ends of the world--Tokyo, Africa, Mongolia and the United States. It follows them throughout their first year of life, and the film is basically scene after scene of the babies marveling at the world around them, discovering their pets, snuggling with their mothers and playing with their siblings. There's no narration, no experts to talk to and no overarching examination of baby life. It's pure observation from beginning to end.

Right about now, there are two camps of people on this movie: those who feel that this is going to be the cutest thing they've ever seen and those who feel they will overdose on sap.

And yet, the film is beautiful and hypnotic, an enjoyable way to pass the time that leaves you a little more in awe of the world in which we live. It's fun to watch the babies discover life, but it's even more remarkable to watch these four from around the world and see just how similar they are despite their extremely different surroundings. It's amazing to watch them discover personalities over the course of the year and to see their curiosity grow as they examine their pets, their parents and the world around them. The cinematography is bright and beautiful to look at and fly-on-the-wall view means it rarely feels manipulative or overly-emotional.

Then again, it's a movie about babies. And who doesn't like babies? You're pretty guaranteed with this one, simply from a cute factor.

The Directors----"Blood Simple" (1984)

2011-02-06T18:01:00.000-08:00

I know that the blogging has been extremely spotty lately. Part of it is that, following the holiday award rush, I probably needed a bit of a break from the movie world. Along with that, I've been buried under some obligations at the office, along with preparing for a wedding and a move.

So, from now until early April, things are still going to be a bit sporadic.

But I did want to start off this month by posting my new series--The Directors.

As I try to broaden my cinematic horizons, I want to take on a project that allows me to catch up with the work of some directors who I find intriguing. I have a list of names that should get me through this first year and my plan is to post one entry a week, on Sunday nights. This allows me not only to see a number of classic films that I have until now neglected to view, but it also provides greater perspective on how certain filmmakers have matured over the years, what common themes they tackle and what they've added to cinema.

First up are The Coen Brothers. That was basically a no-brainer. Each year it seems they have a new film out that enthralls me and shoots directly to my "best of" list. In just the past few years they've given us the perfect "No Country For Old Men," the wonderfully daffy "Burn After Reading," the brilliant "A Serious Man" and this year's Oscar contender "True Grit." That's not to mention classics like "Raising Arizona," "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski."

The Coens are actually a great start for this project, as they've zig-zagged across so many different genres since their 1984 debut that I can't imagine this project feeling boring. So we're going to start today with that 1984 film, the dark and delicious film noir "Blood Simple."

Blood Simple

Murder is never as easy it seems.

During my time as a reporter, I had the opportunity to cover several murder trials and, through my colleagues, hear stories of other grisly cases. One thing that has always left me shaking my head is the thought that murderers always think they can get away with it, that nothing has been left to chance and they're going to be two steps ahead of everyone else.

Of course, it never happens that way. Getting rid of bodies is hard work. Murder is rarely a one-person job and conspiracies easily lead to paranoia, which leads to betrayal. The randomness of life ensures that there is always going to be an unforeseen difficulty to trip up the perpetrator and cast the light of suspicion on them.

That thought occurred to me several times during "Blood Simple," Joel and Ethan Coens pitch-black debut. The title can be read several ways, but I kept coming back to two: an ironic commentary on how murder is never simple, or a description of the way violent crime renders a perfectly normal person totally incompetent.

Certainly Julian Marty (Dan Hedaya) thinks he's about to commit the perfect crime. He suspects his wife Abby (Frances McDormand) is cheating on him with his bartender Ray (John Gertz). When a private investigator (a wonderfully sleazy M. Emmett Walsh) confirms Julian's suspicions, the bar owner decides to hire the PI for another job--kill his wife and her lover.

That's where things get complicated. To say anything about how the plot unfolds would ruin the film's nasty twists and turns, which develops with all the precision of a great thriller and the unpredictability of the best black comedies. There's a betrayal, another murder, the gruesome work of disposing a body. As Roger Ebert observed, there always seems to be one more body than necessary and throughout most of the movie no one has a clear idea of who is killing whom or why.

So many of the marks that define the Coens' later work are already on display with this debut. Their love for language--which is in full bloom in their sophomore feature "Raising Arizona"--is evident from the first frame, in which the PI drawls on off-screen to set the stage and warn us that perfect schemes don't always unfold according to plan. The full first sequence is simply dialogue in a car between Abby and Ray, with the audience eavesdropping from the backseat as we stare at the backs of their heads. In a simple three minute sequence, we learn that Abby is escaping her husband and has an attraction to Ray, but we learn this without anyone explicitly coming out to say it.

The Coens have a love for plots that spiral out of their protagonists' control, and the great twist here is how nobody seems to know what's going on. The plot starts off so simple and streamlined and, by the end, three characters are in a room, all of them with different ideas as to what's been going on. Their wrapped up in a situation where people are dying and everyone thinks they know exactly how things have unfolded--but none of them are right. It's to the brothers' credit that, this early in their careers, they had enough confidence over the narrative to keep the characters in the dark while still being able to keep the audience completely in the loop--the plot may become quite labyrinthine, but it's never confusing.

The themes that later come into play in much of the Coens' work--particularly life's randomness and the the futility of trying to control it--run throughout "Blood Simple," as does their skill at staging set pieces that are suspenseful, horrifying and darkly humorous all at once. A protracted sequence involving a body that will not disappear is fantastically played, as is the famous end set piece, involving a shootout with a villain who manages to be in two rooms at once--it sounds bizarre, and it is, but by the time this character is in this predicament, it all makes perfect sense.

If I have one complaint, it's that this film feels a little too well set in the real world. The Coens' films balance humor and suspense so well because they exist in a totally separate universe than the one we live in--one created solely from books and movies the brothers loved growing up. "Blood Simple's" style definitely carries the noir influences you'd expect, but--aside from Walsh's character--the actors aren't given much to do to craft well-rounded characters. They work well enough to carry the plot, but I think the brothers hadn't yet developed their knack for creating the characters who fit so perfectly in their wonderfully realized worlds. There's not much to like about Abby and Ray, except that Julian is such an obviously bad man. Walsh's PI, with his long drawl and Western getup, is really the only character who sticks in your head after the film's over.

That's not to say the performances are bad. McDormand, Hedaya and Gertz all do what they can with the roles, and the film moves so quickly that I was never really bored. More than anything, this is a fascinating exercise in style, with the Coens' crafting an intricate and tightly-wound thriller that slowly boils to its nerve-wracking climax. I'm just curious to see what the film would be like had the Coens made it later in their career.

Nothing much more to say about "Blood Simple" right now. I dug it quite a bit, and I'm sure I'll revisit it down the road. But I'm sure there's going to be more to write about when I take the time to discuss "Raising Arizona" next weekend.

Movie Review: "The Green Hornet"

2011-01-21T15:38:00.000-08:00

Most superhero movies require a familiarity with the source material. "The Green Hornet" may be the first to demand tolerance for the star.

Those who find Seth Rogen's sarcastic, slacker shtick grating will likely not make it to the end of "The Green Hornet" without wondering whether their headache is from the 3D or his smoker's-cough laugh. Fans of the "Knocked Up" star will fare better, although even they may find themselves wishing he were more like his silent sidekick.

A mashup of "Pineapple Express" and "Batman," but not nearly as cool as that sounds, "The Green Hornet" is entertaining in fits and starts but ultimately disposable, empty fare.

Not that Rogen isn't trying. The formerly rotund comic slimmed down for his role as Britt Reid, immature son of a newspaper magnate (Tom Wilkinson) who spends his days acting out his daddy issues by throwing wild parties and making out in the family garage. The role is basically an amalgam of all of Rogen's previous roles, and if you found him funny in "40-Year-Old Virgin," you'll probably find some chuckles here.

Things get serious, though, when Britt's father dies of a bee sting. Unsure of how to proceed without his dad's domineering shadow over him, Britt refuses to become involved in the newspaper business and fires all of his family's personal staff. When he learns that his morning coffee will no longer be made to his liking, Britt demands to see the man responsible, his father's mechanic, Kato (Jay Chou). Kato's something of a renaissance mechanic, fixing up Britt's father's cars with indestructible armor and weaponry, ably sketching beautiful women and possessing incredible martial arts knowledge. After a night of heavy drinking and ill-advised heroics, the two decide they should team up as superheroes who masquerade as villains. I'm still not really sure why they go that route, except that it allows for several scenes of Rogen being able to fake acting tough around drug lords.

It's not really a secret that Kato was always cooler than the Green Hornet. After all, mostly everyone knows that Kato was played in the 1960s TV show by martial arts icon Bruce Lee; few people are aware who tackled the role of Britt Reid (trivia: it was Van Williams). And while Rogen has notably slimmed down for his first superhero role, it is Chou who does all the heavy kicking and punching. Rogen's just around for the wisecracks.

It may sound like I'm ragging on the funnyman, and that's not my intention. I've been a fan of Rogen's work since "Knocked Up" and think he's funny, likable and surprisingly nuanced, even in films that don't completely work, like "Funny People" or "Observe and Report." There's a lot of humor to be had in "The Green Hornet," particularly because of the chemistry between Rogen and Chou, who rarely speaks, which nicely compliments the movie's star, who never shuts up. Britt's "I don't give a care" attitude is funny in the film's early scenes and there's a fanboy humor to his elation at actually going out and being a superhero.

Were this a straight comedy, like "Pineapple Express," the humor would be fine. But the script by Rogen and his frequent co-writer Evan Goldberg wants us to truly invest in the superhero story at its heart. Rogen is so constantly mugging and cracking jokes that he makes Britt an unlikable jerk throughout much of the movie. When he makes his inevitable turn to the light at the end of the movie, it doesn't register because we never believe Rogen's sincerity for a moment. Again, were this strictly a comedy it might work - but we're supposed to be engaged in the adventure, laughing with, but never at, our hero.

"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" director Michel Gondry is surprisingly adept at the action sequences and brings a nice visual charge to Kato's battles; when the sidekick gets ready to attack, the world slows down and the background elongates - a pretty cool effect, especially in 3D. Gondry delivers a few fun action sequences, including a climax that goes wonderfully over the top, but he fails to hold together the patchwork plot whenever the focus shifts from Britt and Kato, letting both Edward James Olmos and Cameron Diaz flounder in supporting roles that somehow weigh down the story even though the characters are nothing but fluff. Only "Inglourious Basterds'" Christoph Waltz registers some laughs, as a villain who only wants to be feared. Waltz brings a slightly different shade to his low-key villain and garners some entertaining moments, although the film struggles to shoehorn him into its already convoluted plot.

My reaction to "The Green Hornet" is fairly complex. Yes, I laughed quite a bit while watching it, particularly at the chemistry between Rogen and Chou. But even as I headed out to my car I found myself irked and irritated by how weightless and unnecessary the entire affair was. Perhaps were we not in an age where superhero movies are consistently great - or if we went back four years, where Rogen was still fresh and new - I would have laughed more. Here all I can do is ambivalently swat "The Green Hornet" away.

Movie Review: "Best Worst Movie"

2011-01-02T15:17:00.000-08:00

A few years back, a friend and I used to make a habit of having a "bad movie night."

Basically, one of us would pick out a movie that was getting panned by critics and audiences. "Glitter," "Left Behind," "Carman: The Champion." We had a blast looking watching those movies and laughing at their awfulness. Our breaking point, I believe, came with "Gigli," when we realized that some movies' badness just wasn't worth it.

Bad movie connoisseurs know that not just any bad movie is a "good" bad movie. Some films are just plain terrible and better left alone (I'm looking at you, "Last Airbender") while others are just so wrong-headed and made with so much misdirected passion that they spawn a cult following, with people gathering just to revel in their awfulness.

So what is it that makes an awful movie become beloved, and what are the fates of those who dared lend their names to the credits of such infamous flicks? That's what Michael Stephenson's documentary seeks to find out in "Best Worst Movie."

I haven't seen "Troll 2," a horror flick from 1986 that has garnered infamy as the worst movie ever made--accruing a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 0%. I should also probably state that I haven't seen the original "Troll," although I quickly learned that this was a quickie sequel made by an Italian director that has no connection to the original film. "Troll 2" is actually not even about trolls at all--it's about vegetarian goblins, who attempt to turn a family into vegetables so that they can eat them. Just hearing that description was enough to make me add it to my Netflix Instant queue for watching later this week.

As films about vegetarian goblins are wont to do, "Troll 2" took a critical drubbing and failed to make a peep at the box office. Most of the amateur actors involved went back to their day jobs and some didn't even see the movie until they had VHS copies shipped to them. But as the film began to circulate on videotape and in rotation on HBO, it gathered a cult following. People began throwing parties and midnight shows, with some calling it the new generation's "Rocky Horror Picture Show."

As these screenings begin to pop up throughout the country, Stephenson gathers the film's cast to assemble and take a look at the phenomenon they've become a part of. It ends up being a funny and surprising look at pop culture and the weird things people latch onto.

Having seen and cherished my share of low budget, horrible horror movies over the years, I've often wondered what becomes of the cast. Every once in awhile, you'll have a movie star who started in drek, like Jennifer Aniston ("Leprechaun") or Kevin Bacon ("Friday the 13th"). But most of the time, these horrid little flicks are just opportunities for local men and women who wanted to try their hand at being in a real movie.

That's what happened with George Hardy, who commands most of the doc's screen time. A Dentist living in Alabama, Hardy is a friendly and talkative chap who is always smiling or chatting someone up. He readily admits that when he saw the film for the first time, he was immediately aware of how bad the film was and promptly went on with his life of dentistry. When he gets word of "Troll 2's" unexpected popularity and attends a midnight screening, he begins to have a blast with interacting with the crowds, signing autographs and regaling audiences with his classic line, "you can't piss on hospitality."

The film largely follows Hardy as he attends screenings and conventions, trying to assemble as much of the cast as possible. Sometimes this results in getting other people eager to share in the experience--such as the actor who played his son and is game to sit around a recreate scenes for the camera. Other times--such as when the two attempt to recruit the woman who played Hardy's wife--the results are so bizarre that it could only happen in a documentary like this...upon their visit they find a reclusive, cat-obsessed woman whose own shut-in mother seems constantly annoyed at her own child. When they ask her to join them at a screening, they get a bizarre rant about how scary and risky it would be. Also, this woman truly believes "Troll 2" turned out to be a meaningful, magical film.

One thing I've always suspected about these low budget fiascoes is that, despite how horrible the film turned out, the cast had a great experience just being in a movie. Hardy is probably the best type of person to center a film like this around--he's pleased as punch to have the lime light shown on him. And while the cast reminisces about a shoot where they constantly had no idea what kind of movie they were making and were further confused by the crew's language barrier, we get the sense that they all enjoyed their one shot at making a movie. It was fun and, for the most part, they have a fun time talking to the movie's unexpected fan club.

Stephenson is a little less successful at capturing why "Troll 2" has become such a beloved bad movie. He has no trouble in finding large groups of people who gather for viewing parties, midnight shows and Question and Answer session. Some of these people appear to genuinely believe that--despite its bad acting, directing and everything else--"Troll 2" is actually a truly enjoyable and even magical film. Others seem to be content just to admit that they love to laugh at ever terrible line of dialogue. I might have liked to see some more film experts polled on what makes a bad movie a cult hit and maybe a digression further into the works of Ed Wood or some sort of analysis about why people love to laugh at these movies. I would venture to say, at first glance, it's a result of our postmodern culture--but I also then have to remember that generations before me loved to laugh at "Plan 9 From Outer Space."

Of course, I could be expecting a little too much scholarly work from a movie that follows the global impact of "Troll 2."

One fan posits that people flock to bad movies that have been made with sincerity and belief in the product, and I would agree that a good bad movie has to truly believe that it is, in fact, good (which is why "Snakes on a Plan" has its merits, but doesn't hang on as a cult classic--it's too aware of its badness.) But surely, I thought, "Troll 2" would have to be excluded from that--it was a sequel to a little seen horror movie, a cash-in by an Italian film crew.

And then Stephenson brings in Claudio Fragasso, the film's director. Claudio, through a translator, recalls that he made "Troll 2" as a movie about family values with an important comment to make. He still believes that it's an emotionally moving film and sees its new found popularity as a vindication from critics who panned it upon release. He gladly visits the midnight screenings and shakes hands with "fans," even believing that he inspired some to go into the film business.

Claudio, of course, has no concept of irony. And he's baffled when people are laughing not only at the film's humorous moments but--even harder--at the moments intended to be serious. At the end of the film he lashes out at the actors who have all taken part in the joke, calling them "dogs." When someone asks him why there are no actual trolls in "Troll 2," Claudio's only response is "you know nothing." Watching him slowly catch on and react to what people really think about the movie is one of the most entertaining--and awkward--moments of the documentary.

But the film also finds a bit of resonance in Hardy's experience reliving "Troll 2." At first, he seems to take every moment to go to screenings and talk about the film. He talks about it with all his patients--not really understanding that some people just don't think bad films are all that funny. He throws a screening his hometown and even begins to think about quitting his dental career to go back into film. But there's a sadness to scenes set at horror and sci fi conventions, where Hardy and his crew are ignored by fanboys who aren't part of the cult and they see how out of place they are in the world of geeks. "Troll 2" fans, I guess, truly do breathe rare air and aren't found everywhere in the country.

The film never truly gains the momentum or heart to be on par with a "King of Kong," probably the champion of quirky documentaries. But "Best Worst Movie" is enjoyable in its own rights, as a look at the legacy even the worst movie can have and for watching people truly get some enjoyment out of a movie that they thought was long forgotten.

Best Films of 2010

2010-12-29T17:40:00.000-08:00

Backstabbing computer geniuses, arm-hacking survivalists and incinerator-avoiding plastic toys were just a few of the characters movies had in store for us in 2010.

As I initially approached this list, I considered that this was not a particularly great year for movies. But as deciding on the top 10 became a greater challenge the more I hit the theaters, I realized there were quite a few great films out this year. Here's a look at the 10 best:

1. The Social Network: Proving it's more than just "The Facebook Movie," David Fincher's fast-talking drama could very well be this generation's defining film. Powered by Aaron Sorkin's breathless and intelligent script, this is a thrilling look at the personality clashes, betrayals and possible ethics violations that led to the creation of the world's most popular website. Sorkin's dialogue launches off the page, delivered by a pitch-perfect ensemble that includes Jesse Eisenberg, Justin Timberlake and Andrew Garfield. It's a film about a revolution that changed the way we connect with our friends, business partners and families - and it may have all been thought up by a man who was too brilliant to navigate any of that correctly himself. Funny, tense and almost dangerously brilliant, this is far and away the best film of 2010.

2. 127 Hours: Much of this film's publicity centered on the "keep your eyes open" climax, when Aron Ralston - played with wonderful nuance and depth by James Franco - cuts off his own arm with a pocket knife to free himself from death in a narrow gorge. While the scene is one of the year's most visceral, the film is not the extreme experience many have hyped it up to be. Directed with boundless energy by Danny Boyle, "127 Hours" is an exciting, powerful and moving meditation on survival and the things we cling to to keep ourselves alive.

3. Four Lions: Chris Morris' debut film has not opened on Detroit screens yet and I'm not sure when, or if, it will ever get a wide release. This British film follows a group of Islamic suicide bombers as they plot a massive attack - and it's a comedy. Understandably, many aren't ready for a "terrorism comedy" yet, but Morris' film defangs the jihadists by making them a group of bumbling, in-fighting idiots who can barely keep from blowing themselves up during practice runs. Full of surprising wit and insight, while still being explosively funny (pun intended), Morris manages to take the wind out of terrorists' sails by exposing them as hypocritical oafs, but also keeps in mind the dangers that stupidity can cause.

4. The Fighter: David O. Russell's boxing drama embraces and transcends its formula trappings with this tale of Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), a Beantown fighter with a shot at the championship. On the surface, "The Fighter" is the typical underdog story we've seen hundreds of times before. But, like "Rocky," it's elevated to greatness by a cast of diverse, fleshed out characters, most notably Micky's brother Dicky, a one-time contender felled by a crack addiction. Played with manic energy by Christian Bale, Dicky is the unpredictable livewire who could help or hinder Micky's career. Bale finally delivers on the greatness he's been promising for years, and forces Wahlberg, Melissa Leo and Amy Adams to match him with their solid work.

5. The King's Speech: Director Tom Hooper makes history engaging, funny and all too human with this fantastically portrayed look at King George VI's struggle with speech. Colin Firth delivers the best performance of the year as the hot-tempered, easily-frustrated and reluctant monarch. Geoffrey Rush is hilarious and humane as the doctor who befriends and helps the king as he prepares to address the nation in the early days of World War II. By focusing on fears of public speaking, Hooper grabs our attention from the first scene, and Firth and Rush have never been better in this inspiring film. It's "Rocky" with a radio.

6. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: Each year, there's a film that I love unconditionally because it's shown me something I've never seen before. Edgar Wright's adaptation of Brian O' Malley's underground comic is that film for me this year. Michael Cera brings new shades to his awkward young man persona as a self-obsessed indie rocker who must literally fight for the love of a beautiful woman (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). Proving that his phenomenal comedies "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" were just warm-ups, Wright infuses this action-comedy with so much energy, wit, visual flair and joy that it nearly explodes off the screen. I've seen "Scott Pilgrim" three times since its release and each time I discover some new trick Wright throws into the mix. The most fun I had at a theater this year.

7. Get Low: Just as much a pleasure as "Scott Pilgrim," but more deliberately paced, "Get Low" is a funny and touching look at guilt, forgiveness and friendship in a small Depression-era village. Robert Duvall is at his grizzled best as a recluse who comes out of hiding to throw a funeral party for himself and Bill Murray is as wonderfully sardonic as ever as the undertaker looking for ways to exploit the situation. Director Aaron Schneider's film is funny and beautiful to watch, and its final moments reveal a surprising resonance. A wonderful little gem.

8. True Grit: Joel and Ethan Coen may appear to have gone mainstream with this remake of the popular John Wayne film, but a closer look reveals all their quirks are still intact in this enormously entertaining take on the Charles Portis novel. Once again, Roger Deakins delivers breathtaking cinematography. Once again, the Coens' love for language results in dialogue that tickles the ears. Once again, they get a phenomenal performance out of Jeff Bridges and, once again, their film perfectly balances darkness, humor and heart. And so, once again, they've made one of the year's best films.

9. Toy Story 3: There are few greater pleasures each year than watching a new Pixar film. Not content to simply recycle old gags for their third go-round with Buzz, Woody and company, the animation wizards concoct what may be their funniest and most heartfelt adventure yet. Bursting with originality, this prison-break take on the tale has more laughs than the majority of the year's comedies and yet it also manages to deliver some of the year's darkest adventure scenes, mixed with a heart-tugging meditation on loss, mortality and growing older. Anyone with dry eyes in the final scenes has never truly been a child.

10. Inception: How did Christopher Nolan decide to follow up "The Dark Knight's" commercial success? By gambling on an inventive, labyrinthine and visually exhausting action movie that makes his "Memento" look like an episode of "Two and a Half Men." The gamble paid off and, fueled by a phenomenal ensemble and deliriously inventive special effects, "Inception" became the year's most complex, original and enjoyable head trip.

The 2010 Dubbies!

2010-12-24T09:15:00.000-08:00

Alright gang. This time next week I'll be posting my thoughts on the 10 best films of 2010. But every year I decide to do an "alternative" list, where I make not of films I particularly enjoyed that were just did not make my top 10 list.

This year there were plenty of films that were hard to cross off my list in order to make room for the best. But here are some of the films I greatly enjoyed and, in fact, will likely return to more than the ones on my top 10 list for sheer entertainment value. Enjoy!

1. The "Seriously, this was Number 11" award--Winter's Bone: I went back and forth about whether I was going to include this great little thriller on my top 10 list and, sadly, I had to sacrifice it for another film that I loved just a little bit more. But don't let its absence fool you--this is a fascinating little film. Jennifer Lawrence is phenomenal as Ree Dolly, a teenage girl in the Ozarks who must navigate a labyrinthine community of pseudo-related meth cookers and addicts to locate her father's body and save her home. There's a wonderful sense of setting to this film and the town of tightly-related, closely-guarded folk is perfectly realized. John Hawkes should also be recognized for his role as a grizzled hick with a heart of gold. A fantastic little movie.

2. "The Best Non-'Inception' Mind Game of the Year"--Shutter Island: Leonardo DiCaprio fried audiences' collective brains on several occasions this year. And while Inception is the more complex, tightly-wound piece, it's Shutter Island that packs the more emotional punch. Directed with wonderfully tense and disorienting "bump in the night" flair, this dark mystery--set on an island asylum in the 1950s--is twisty and unsettling, getting more dangerous and bleak as its secrets are revealed. DiCaprio, as a US Marshal with some secrets of his own, is perfect and the film's final moments turn Dennis Lehane's original pulp twist into one a harsh, disturbing and unforgettable rumination on guilt and fear.

3. Best Horror of the Year--"Let Me In": Being an ardent fan of the original "Let the Right One In," I wasn't too thrilled when it was announced "Cloverfield" director Matt Reeves was going to helm an American remake. But Reeves' take on the story keeps tale's dark heart alive, in this sad, brooding story about a lonely young boy (Cody Smit-Mcphee) who befriends a girl (Chloe Moretz) who is not what she seems. A haunting and poetic meditation on lost innocence, Reeves gets surprisingly adult performances from McPhee and Moretz and Richard Jenkis turns the young girl's caretaker into a tragic figure. Tense, horrifying and sad, this is a movie that crawls under your skin and haunts you all the way home, but it's also a surprisingly tender story of friendship and young love that equals its Swedish counterpart.

4. Best Mainstream Comedy--"The Other Guys": There's another comedy--one that hasn't gotten wide release yet--that was actually the funniest movie I saw all year. But behind that was this fourth collaboration between Will Ferrell and Adam McKay. Their riff on the buddy cop comedy may have more plot than their previous films, but it's just as bizarre, quotable and hilarious as an "Anchorman" or "Step Brothers." Ferrell creates another great character as a buttoned-down desk jockey and Mark Wahlberg ratchets up his intensity as his action-loving partner. But it might be Michael Keaton, as a cop with a fondness for R&B group TLC, who steals the show. Just remember: pimps don't cry.

5. Best Popcorn Movie--"The A-Team": I'm still not entirely sure why this film did so poorly at the box office. I was well prepared for Joe Carnahan's update of the 1980s TV show to be dark and gritty, getting rid of everything that made the silly, over-the-top program so beloved. Instead, Carnahan pulled together Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Sharlto Copley and Quintin Jackson to create a movie that's just as absurd as the show ever was, with stunts that make over-the-top sound conservative and nods to the franchise that made fans smile. Bonus points for Patrick Wilson, whose villain was so wonderfully daffy that I'd like a spinoff just of him.

6. Best Art House Drama--"Never Let Me Go": What a sad, beautiful little film. This haunting science fiction drama--about boarding house kids with a tragic future planned for them--never goes the conventional route. A rumination on mortality, it starts with a fantastical premise--what if we grew clones to supply us with organs--and then keeps its foot squarely in the side of drama, letting the implications of that reality play out. Carey Mulligan continues to prove she's the real deal as a sad, sympathetic young lady dealing with a destiny to die young. Kiera Knightley shows an anger, passion and range I didn't know she had and Andrew Garfield continues his strong year as the conflicted and angry young man who knows the world regards him as worthless. A beautiful, tragic drama that left me shaken as I left the theater.

7. Best "Non-Inception and Non-Shutter Island" Brain Bender--"Black Swan": What a weird, beautiful, terrifying and disturbing little movie. Natalie Portman may never be better than she is here as a ballerina whose grip on reality begins to shatter as she prepares for the lead roles in "Swan Lake." Mila Kunis is revelatory as a fellow dancer who may be our heroine's competitor/friend/lover. Darren Aronofsky's direction is dizzying and the final 20 minutes are pure delirium. Had the film cared a bit more for its narrative and not been so content to depart from reality in its final act, this would have been on my top 10 list.

8. Best Horror, Part 2--"Frozen": Adam Greene's survivalist/horror story is a chilling addition to the "don't go outdoors, because you will die" genre. Three friends get on a final run at a ski resort and, through a set of surprisingly plausible circumstances, are left stranded above the snow when the resort closes for the week. What unfolds is a taut and grim battle with fear, frostbite and the howling wolves circling below. I'm not a skier; this movie will not change that.

9. Best indie comedy--"Greenberg": As Ben Stiller milks money out of a dead franchise this week with "Little Fockers," it's nice to be reminded he can still do solid work with this little gem by Noah Baumbach. Stiller plays a cynical young man recovering from a mental breakdown at his brother's house who develops a crush on his brother's assistant. Hateful without being hated by us, Stiller captures all of character's sadness and anger. As the girl who begins to heal him, Greta Gerwig steals the show--and there were times I wish the film had been simply about her confused and aimless twentysomething.

10. Best documentary--"Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work": If, like me, you don't care much for Rivers' acerbic humor, this movie won't much change it. You will, however, garner a great respect for this woman's career, as the movie unflinchingly follows her for a year and lets her tell about her struggle with Carson, her husband's suicide and her fears of being left without work. A fascinating look at showbiz.

Movie Review: "The King's Speech"

2010-12-24T07:19:00.000-08:00

Just edging out fear of death, the fear of speaking in public is the world's No. 1 phobia. As Jerry Seinfeld once put it, that means for the majority of people, if they were at a funeral they'd rather be in the coffin than giving the eulogy.

Using that very relatable fear, director Tom Hooper accomplishes a remarkable thing with "The King's Speech": He makes us understand, empathize and share emotions with a man whose life should be far removed from our own understanding.

That man is King George VI (Colin Firth), who took the throne in the early days of World War II after his brother (Guy Pearce) abdicated the throne to marry a twice-divorced American woman. Being king was the farthest thing George, known to his family as "Bertie," ever wanted, even though the film suggests that he was probably the better son for the job. But in this new age, as radio takes the world by storm, kings are expected to be polished, dignified speakers. And Bertie has a problem-he's plagued by a horrible stammer that makes even normal conversation impossible.

We first see this in effect back when Bertie is just Prince Albert, freezing up in mid-speech at a sporting event. Scarred by the event, the young prince turns to a variety of doctors who offer up a number of remedies that don't work - including putting hot marbles in his mouth. Hoping to find any possible help for her husband, Bertie's wife (Helena Bonham Carter) contacts Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a failed Australian actor who helps those with speech defects. Logue at first offends Bertie with his refusal to treat the monarch differently than anyone else - he expects the prince (then king) to meet him at his own quarters and addresses him as friends, by first name. But the two tentatively strike up a professional relationship that turns into one of King George's closest friendships.

While "The King's Speech" is, at heart, a typical "triumph over adversity" tale, what's admirable is how ably Hooper also incorporates a touching study of a friendship and a fascinating look at history, as Germany prepares for war and circumstances maneuver Bertie to the throne. The titular speech does not simply provide a climax, but is the culmination of the various narrative threads that have been weaving in and out of the story. It comes about organically and not simply as an oratory version of the film's "Big Game." I was quite impressed how well Hooper, best known for his work with HBO's "John Adams" miniseries, sucked me in with this personal story and then taught me a thing or two about history in the process.

Most notable, however, is the showcase the film provides for Firth and Rush, who both deliver career-best performances. Portraying a character with a speech defect can be tricky, but Firth makes Bertie's stammer seem natural and creates a sympathetic character - a scared, self-conscious man who can't even read his daughters a bedtime story, let alone inspire a nation. I've never been tempted to cheer because a character completes a sentence, but Firth's climactic scene at the microphone is every bit as inspiring as Rocky's bout with Apollo Creed.

In many ways, Rush has the easier job as the quirky doctor and he does get quite a bit of humor with Lionel's eccentricities, particularly in a scene where he gets the monarch to spit out a stream of curse words to relax his speech. But there's a warmth and empathy Rush brings to the role, making Lionel not simply a good doctor, but a kind one, and a good friend to the king. Carter is also wonderful as a woman deeply concerned for and supportive of her husband.

"The King's Speech" could easily have been stilted, dry and boring. But in the hands of this cast and crew, it is a funny, inspiring and wonderful triumph that climaxes in one of the year's most uplifting endings. It is definitely worth talking about.

I would normally end this by telling you see either "True Grit" or "The King's Speech." But I know how the holidays get and, chances are, four hours away from the family may be a nice escape. So treat yourself to both of these films - they are wonderful year-end gifts.

Movie Review: "True Grit"

2010-12-23T07:05:00.000-08:00

"Mainstream" and "Coen brothers" do not normally go hand in hand.

True, the directorial duo have had their share of hits with "No Country For Old Men," "Fargo" and "O Brother, Where Art Thou." But they remain most notable for their quirky, dark comedies and edgy thrillers like "Blood Simple," "Raising Arizona" and last year's phenomenal "A Serious Man."

The brothers are known for zigging when everyone expects them to zag, which may be why they decided to follow up their intensely personal take on the book of Job with this adaptation of Charles Portis' novel, which was already made into a popular 1969 film famous for winning John Wayne his only Oscar, as hard-drinking Old West bounty hunter Cogburn.

What's not so surprising is that, as they seem to be doing every awards season, the Coen brothers deliver another funny, powerful and highly entertaining movie to close out the year.

Hewing closely to Portis' novel, the film stars newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, a young girl looking to avenge her father's murder. Mattie may be young, but watch the way she deals with a local merchant who tries to scam her out of horses; able to barter with the best of them and unwilling to take "no" for an answer, Mattie is wise beyond her years. This is star-making work by young Steinfeld, who delivers one of the finest child performances I've seen.

Ross recruits Cogburn (Bridges), who she first meets while he's being deposed in court. With a patch on one eye and whisky always in his hand, Cogburn is more interested in getting drunk than in helping out a kid. But he agrees to take on Ross' job, although he's less thrilled about bringing her along. Even worse, he's required to team up with cocky Texas Ranger LaBeouf (Matt Damon), who was tracking Mattie's target in Texas before getting the slip in Arkansas. The three set out to find the man (Josh Brolin) and bring retribution to him.

While the storyline is likely familiar to those who've seen the original film, the Coens make their telling fresh by sticking closely to Portis' prose, with dialogue that flows poetically, as if contractions were a hanging offense. The Coens have always coupled their visual artistry with a love for language, be it the hippy proclamations of "Lebowski's" Dude, the backwoods poetry of "O Brother" or the political double-speak of "Burn After Reading." Like this year's "The Social Network," here is a film I'd be content to sit and listen to with the picture off, although then I would miss Richard Deakins' marvelous cinematography, which turns every shot of the Old West into a scene worthy of framing.

Bridges' grizzled Cogburn is no hammy, one-note creation, but a man who is both humorous to watch and fearsome to behold. He may be full of adventurous stories and able to give Jack Sparrow a run for his rum, but with a gun in his hand he's quite an intimidating figure. Just a week after Bridges played three versions of himself in the "Tron" sequel, he disappears into this character and proves again why he's one of the most consistent actors working.

In a film full of surprising humor, Damon garners the most laughs with LaBeouf, a character a little too proud of his Ranger status. At first unwilling to help Ross because she's a child and not a beautiful grown woman, LaBeouf strikes up a friendship with the duo that has a surprising heart to it. Brolin and Barry Pepper are also particularly good as the outlaws the group encounters, one of whom is a remorseless killer and the other a scoundrel with some manners. Every supporting character is fully drawn and richly created, a rarity at a time when films are filled with ciphers and stereotypes.

The adventure gets a little intense sometimes, but it's possible the Coen brothers have made their first family film. Anchored by Steinfeld's phenomenal performance, here's a movie that features a child as the hero, and has all the adventure, intrigue and romance of the classic Westerns, told with a love for language, an eye for detail and affection for character that seems to have been lost in recent years.

Joel and Ethan Coen are known for being unpredictable. What's fascinating is how their quirks have led them to create one of the most enjoyable and entertaining films of 2010.

Movie Review: "Tron Legacy"

2010-12-19T18:36:00.000-08:00

When I was a high school freshman, my family took me on a trip to Disney World. I haven't had the opportunity to go back since the early 1990s, but I remember it being unlike any other theme park I'd been to before or since. The production design on every ride made it feel like you were zipping through another world. There were stunt shows with fantastic sets, special effects and characters dressed in outlandish clothing. It was like spending the week experiencing the highlights of a movie without having to check out and be bothered by things like plot or character.

I thought about that several times when watching "Tron: Legacy," Disney's sequel to its cult-classic 1982 hit, "Tron." The film is a loud and stylish adventure with incredible special effects, some thrilling set pieces and a pulsing, theater-shaking soundtrack by techno band Daft Punk. Seeing it in Imax 3D has moments that are thrilling and borderline epic...but then the characters start speaking. And they rarely stop.

Full disclosure requires me to state that I haven't seen the original "Tron," in which (according to Wikipedia), Jeff Bridges played computer hacker Kevin Flynn, who was sucked into a digital world where he had to engage in deadly light cycle chases and throw colored discs at his enemies. The film didn't exactly set the box office on fire, but it's groundbreaking use of computer generated special effects captured the attention of nerds and future filmmakers, who made the film into a pop culture staple in recent years.

"Tron: Legacy" takes place a few years after Flynn has disappeared again, leaving behind son Sam (Garett Hedlund). Sam has refused to take up his father's mantle as head of ENCOM, a software company that has grown from making video games to becoming a Microsoft-level corporation, with its future hinged on a young mogul (Cillian Murphy--in a 2-minute sequence that basically just exists to let us know the character will play a major role in a third film). Sam spends his days using his trust fund to hack into ENCOM's system and give away free software--his way of honoring his late father's wishes.

When a mysterious pager message sends Sam to his father's defunct and abandoned arcade, he finds himself zapped into a bizarre cyberspace world where computer programs--who look just like people--are forced to compete in gladitorial races and matches. He meets a mysterious and beautiful program (Olivia Wilde) who takes Sam to meet his father, who has been trapped in the computer world for decades, growing a long beard, speaking in hippy-dippy dialogue and basically turning into a digital Buddha. The cyberworld itself is ruled over by Clu (a digitally made character of Bridges' younger self)--a program created in Flynn's likeness to shape the computer world into perfection, although doing so means some sort of compu-genocide. This all somehow devolves into a standard "beat-the-villain/get-to-the-portal/grab-the-disc" thriller that fuels every big budget adventure.

Having not seen the original film, I find myself without the nostalgia that fuels many fans' desire for this movie. And I find myself pretty baffled about the whole concept--having seen "The Matrix" and "Inception," I am not averse to characters' minds being trapped in fantasy worlds. But I'm a little more curious about "Tron," where it seems an entire physical self is digitized. How does that happen? Is there oxygen in the computer world? We see food that Flynn and Son eat...but how did it get in there as well? Is there a laser at the grocery store that zaps ham and fruit into the cyber realm? Much of the plot concerns evil programs trying to get out into the real world--how does that happen? Why is there water in this cyberworld? I get that the people in the computer are programs and not actual humans...but programs exist to serve a function; do computer programs really have the free time to go watch gladitorial matches?

It's best not to think about this and just accept the world of "Tron" as a fantasy world, not a science fiction one. The problem is that the film keeps grinding to a halt to explain the world's history, rules and the other complications that the characters find themselves facing. In a world so full of amazing visuals and ideas, violating the "show, don't tell" rule is unthinkable--but this film keeps stopping to explain everything time and again, with probably a quarter of the film's run time given over to plodding exposition.

The cast is fine, although Hedlund has a bit of the same problem that I have with Sam Worthington--he strikes a good hero's pose and can angrily spout dialogue, but I don't really see much depth to him that makes me want to see him in another role. Wilde plays innocent and excited very well, and her character has a nice moment at the end that is the film's most human moment. Bridges is fine, spouting hippy dialogue ("you're messing with my Zen thing, man") and does a good job playing both his current age and a soulless younger version of himself; but, truthfully, if you want a good Bridges performance, just check out "True Grit."

Most bizarre is Michael Sheen, who channels his inner Bowie for a role as a flamboyant club owner. Putting aside the fact that I don't know why a computer world would have recreational nightclubs, Sheen struts and preens like some sort of glam rock star in a role that he must have thought would be the flashy, funny centerpiece of "Tron: Legacy." But he dials his character's quirks so high that he drowns everything else, making his moments grating and bizarre instead of humorous.

That said, the film isn't without its merits. The cool black and neon computer world is a sight to behold and the action sequences are flashy, fun and exciting. I particularly liked the multi-level, ever-shifting arena where the disc games are held. Daft Punk's score is propulsive and there are times when the movie can be purely enjoyed as a visual and aural spectacle, kind of an abstract music video/stunt spectacular. In theater-shaking Imax 3D, it has moments that approach epic scope, even though in most epics I care about the characters and their quest.

But there's too much confusion and self importance to make "Tron: Legacy" truly memorable. It's best enjoyed as a sensory experience. When the characters open their mouths, you'll want "game over" to come quickly.

Detroit Film Critics Society announces Best Films of 2010!!

2010-12-17T14:33:00.001-08:00

(Detroit, Michigan – December 16, 2010)…The Detroit Film Critics Society is pleased to announce the BEST OF 2010 nominees and winners in eight categories. The society was founded in Spring 2007 and consists of a group of 20 Michigan film critics who write or broadcast in the Detroit area as well as other major cities within a 150-mile radius of the city including Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Flint, Michigan.

Each critic submitted their top 5 picks in the following categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Ensemble, and Best Breakthrough Performance. From these submissions, each entry was given a point value and the top 5 in each category were put on the final ballot. The final ballots were then given to each critic to rank in order. The results were once again tabulated and the winners were decided.

The group also has decided to add two new categories in 2011: Best Documentary and Best Screenplay.

THE NOMINATIONS AND WINNERS FOR 2010

PICKED BY THE DETROIT FILM CRITICS SOCIETY

( in alphabetical order)

Winners are in red

1. BEST FILM

127 HOURS
INCEPTION
THE KING’S SPEECH
THE SOCIAL NETWORK http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/
WINTER’S BONE

2. BEST DIRECTOR

DANNY BOYLE – 127 HOURS http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000965/
DAVID FINCHER – THE SOCIAL NETWORK
DEBRA GRANIK – WINTER’S BONE
TOM HOOPER –THE KING’S SPEECH
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN – INCEPTION
EDGAR WRIGHT – SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD

3. BEST ACTOR

JEFF BRIDGES – TRUE GRIT
JESSE EISENBERG – THE SOCIAL NETWORK
COLIN FIRTH – THE KING’S SPEECH http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000147/
JAMES FRANCO – 127 HOURS
RYAN GOSLING – BLUE VALENTINE

4. BEST ACTRESS

NICOLE KIDMAN – RABBIT HOLE
JENNIFER LAWRENCE – WINTER’S BONE http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2225369/
CAREY MULLIGAN – NEVER LET ME GO
NATALIE PORTMAN – BLACK SWAN
MICHELLE WILLIAMS – BLUE VALENTINE

5. BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

· CHRISTIAN BALE – THE FIGHTER http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/

· ANDREW GARFIELD – THE SOCIAL NETWORK

· JOHN HAWKES – WINTER’S BONE

· SAM ROCKWELL – CONVICTION

· MARK RUFFALO – THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

· GEOFFREY RUSH – THE KING’S SPEECH

6. BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

AMY ADAMS – THE FIGHTER http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0010736/
HELENA BONHAM CARTER – THE KING’S SPEECH
GRETA GERWIG - GREENBERG
MELISSA LEO – THE FIGHTER
JACKI WEAVER – ANIMAL KINGDOM

7. BEST ENSEMBLE

THE FIGHTER
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
THE KING’S SPEECH
SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD
WINTER’S BONE http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399683/

8. BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE

ANDREW GARFIELD – THE SOCIAL NETWORK/NEVER LET ME GO
GRETA GERWIG - GREENBERG
JENNIFER LAWRENCE – WINTER’S BONE http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2225369/
CHLOE MORETZ – KICK-ASS/LET ME IN
MIA WASIKOWSKA – THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

The Detroit Film Critics Society members for the 2010-2011 season in alphabetical order are Kirk Baird – The Toledo Blade, Jason Buchanan – allmovie.com, Colette Evangelista – Capital Women’s Lifestyle Magazine, Jim Fordyce – www.MIentertainment.biz, Adam Graham – The Detroit News, Corey Hall – The Metro Times, Tom Long – The Detroit News, Jeff Meyers – The Metro Times, Warren Pierce – WJR Radio, Greg Russell – WMYD-TV, James Sanford – The Kalamazoo Gazette, Tom Santilli – Examiner.com, Debbie Schlussel – Sirius Patriot Channel 144’s Mike Church Show, Perry Seibert – allmovieguide.com, John Serba – The Grand Rapids Press, Lee Thomas – Fox 2, Kirk Vanderbeek – Real Detroit Weekly, Greg Walton – WIOG/KRSP, and Stephanie Webb – WZZM, ABC 13, Chris Williams – Advisor & Source Newspapers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

RUTH DANIELS, DETROIT FILM CRITICS SOCIETY

AT (248) 703-0997 OR ruthd@emagine-entertainment.com

More information is available on the website at detroitfilmcritics.com

Movie Review: "The Fighter"

2010-12-17T14:29:00.000-08:00

Full disclosure: When I first saw the trailer for "The Fighter," I groaned and rolled my eyes.

I can hardly be blamed. The boxing genre is not necessarily fresh in Hollywood, pummeled into cliche by one too many Rocky sequels. Since his last critical and commercial hit with "Three Kings" in 1999, director David O. Russell has become mostly known for his tirades on the set of "I Heart Huckabees." Star Mark Wahlberg is fairly inconsistent, following up Oscar-nominated performances in films like "The Departed" with laughable work in drek like "The Happening."

"The Fighter," then, was an underdog in my opinion. So perhaps it's fitting that the film, much like the character at its center, delivers a shocking knockout punch that will leave audiences elated.

The film is the true story of boxer Micky Ward (Wahlberg), who tries to fit in a few fights when he's not paving the roads in his hometown of Lowell, Mass. He's managed by his brash mother (Melissa Leo) and loopy older brother Dicky (Christian Bale), the former "Pride of Lowell," whose claim to fame was knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a professional fight. Followed by an HBO documentary crew, Dicky hopes Micky's success will be the start of his own comeback.

Dicky is Micky's hero, the reason why he's content to take fights that pay peanuts and get jerked around by ESPN. Dicky's the reason why Micky won't pursue offers to train fulltime in Las Vegas. Between Dicky and his mom, Micky is compelled to stay in Lowell, keep tight with his family and pursue a boxing career that looks like it will never get him much farther down the roads he paves each day.

But Micky is also well too aware that Dicky could be his undoing. Charismatic and fun-loving, Dicky's a livewire who is rapidly ruining his life with a crack addiction. Pretty much everyone in town knows this except for Alice, who chooses to believe her boy is doing just fine.

After a bungled fight scars his pride and a pretty girl (Amy Adams) captures his attention, Micky begins to take his career into his own hands. But his attempts at moving forward are hampered by Alice, who seems to see management as her maternal duty, and Dicky, whose personal woes begin to capture the attention of Lowell and drag down Micky's reputation.

"The Fighter" may follow the outline of a typical underdog story, but its success is in the way it fills up the space between the predictable beats. Russell captures the crude, brash tone of Lowell, a small town where everyone knows everyone else and is probably related to them. There's a lot of humor and drama to be found in the gang of Alice's sisters that seem to constantly be at her home. Early in the film, as the HBO crew follows Dicky and Micky around Lowell, we get a sense of just how much Dicky's previous success captured the attention of the town and, when the crew's true intentions are later revealed, we realize just how far Dicky's travails have made him a joke in the town that used to revere him.

Wahlberg is effective as Ward, and the tough guy sensitivity that he brings to the role serves him well as a self-doubting boxer. While some may argue that Micky has no personality of his own, the truth is that Wahlberg is playing a man whose personality has been forged by who his family tells him he is. Micky is informed at one point that he is a "stepping stone" - a boxer who basically helps other fighters advance in their careers. But he's been used as a stepping stone for Dicky, to fuel a comeback that everyone knows will never happen.

Micky is shaped by the women in his life. Leo is wonderfully trashy as Alice, who favors Dicky over Micky, and seems to see boxing as a chance for her boys to bond and for Dicky to get the respect she feels he deserves. It's far from a one-note role; there's a heartbreaking scene between Dicky and Alice where Leo reveals that her character knows more about her son's problems than she's letting on, but she's also a mother who sees the promise and potential in her boy.

Adams has made a name for herself as a perky, optimistic young actress and surprises here by how well she plays a tough-talking Boston girl. Her Charlene is the force Micky needs to show him how his family has held him back and challenges him to fight (literally) for what he deserves. It's a new direction for Adams, who shows just as much skill talking trash as she did for being a princess in "Enchanted."

But "The Fighter" belongs to Bale, who entirely loses himself in his portrayal of Dicky. Wiry thin, eyes bugging and unable to stop moving, Dicky is a mess. He has one success story in his life - and there are hints that even that may not have been as he remembers. He sees his brother's career as his shot at redemption, but he can't bring himself to stop his bad habits, confident that what we see as charisma and charm will get him out of trouble. There's a sobering moment when Dicky finally sees the depth of his problems, and it's to Bale's and Russell's credit that the moment comes honestly, not through manipulation. Bale has never been this loose or unpredictable before, and it's the best role of his career.

It's tempting to say that Dicky may have made the more interesting subject, but by putting him as a supporting character, the film maintains a suspense it would not have had were it a typical addiction story. Those tales can end only one of two ways - redemption or tragedy. With Dicky off to the side, Russell creates a great deal of dramatic tension as we wonder what Dicky's impact will be on Micky's career: Will he reform? Will he screw up? Will he die? Go to jail?

"The Fighter" may follow the broad path of a traditional boxing story - complete with training montage - but it zigs and zags on its way to the Big Fight and, like the original "Rocky," succeeds not because of the action in the ring but because of the drama outside it.

Russell tones down his quirks and visual tics, and delivers a realistic, gritty movie - much the same move that Darren Aronofsky made in moving from "The Fountain" to "The Wrestler" (incidentally, Aronofsky is an executive producer of this film). The boxing in the movie is fine, but the personal stories dominating the film are far more involving, something that is refreshingly rare in this genre.

"The Fighter" is that rare film that tells a traditional, crowd-pleasing story, but does it with enough craft and passion to elevate it beyond formula. Fueled by powerful performances and a gripping true-life story, it is one of 2010's best films.

Originally published in the December 19 version of the Advisor and Source Newspapers.

Movie Review: "Black Swan"

2010-12-11T06:41:00.000-08:00

Natalie Portman finally delivers on the potential she's only previously hinted at in "Black Swan," a delirious and haunting psychological drama set in the competitive world of ballet.

Ever since capturing audiences' attention as a child in 1994's "The Professional," Portman has been on the cusp of delivering a performance to cement her status not only as a movie star, but as a serious actress. Roles in the "Star Wars" trilogy and "V for Vendetta," plus a popular "Saturday Night Live" digital short, kept her popular with the mainstream and, occasionally, performances in films like "Closer" would hint at what she is truly capable of.

Prior to "Black Swan," however, Portman has failed to deliver a performance that lingers after the credits have rolled. While a capable actress, there's always been a woodenness to much of her work, a coldness that keeps her from totally losing herself in a role and going beyond the poise of mere acting to deliver a truly memorable performance.

Much as he did with Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler," director Darren Aronofsky points Portman at a role that forces her out of her comfort zone and pushes her to deliver not only the performance of her career, but one of the very best of 2010.

Nina Sayers, much like Portman herself, is an artist too poised and perfect to be phenomenal. A ballerina in New York, she struggles under a womanizing director (Vincent Cassel) and goes home to a mother (Barbara Hershey) who bitterly reminds Nina of all she's sacrificed to support her dream.

After violently rejecting his sexual advances, the director thinks Nina may be perfect for the lead role in "Swan Lake." His concern, however, is that while the artist is precise and perfect enough for the role of the White Swan, she doesn't have the lust and recklessness needed to take on the role of the Black Swan. As Nina struggles to unlock her passion, reality begins to disintegrate around her, and things get even more disorienting when classmate Lily (Mila Kunis) enters the picture. As the performance nears, Nina is unsure whether this new addition to her life is a teammate, competitor, friend or lover. And what, exactly, is she to make of the scratches, cuts and other afflictions that mysteriously show up on her arms, legs and back?

Madness is not a new subject for Aronofsky, who previously tackled the link between insanity and genius in his debut, "Pi," and further examined the disintegration of reality in the haunting "Requiem for a Dream." One could also find a connection between "The Wrestler" and "Black Swan," as the director returns to a world where people sacrifice themselves for their art.

Unlike "The Wrestler's" gritty reality, however, "Black Swan" is filmed with an operatic sense of style and several tricks designed to unsettle audiences as Nina begins to crack under the pressure. Aronofsky skillfully allows reality to crumble around us, be it through startling in-camera trickery in a shot where Nina enters her mother's art studio, quick flashes of a reflection in a mirror or his use of computer-generated effects in the final dance sequence, as dancers sprout feathers, and reality and fantasy blur together in ways that only an artist can totally understand. Aronofsky skillfully filters everything through Nina's perspective, and if we're unsure of what's real it's only because she is as well.

Aronofsky largely keeps things from getting too confusing, although the narrative begins to slip away from him in the film's final act. There's a fine line between disorientation and confusion, and as the film breaks further from reality, the story loses its tenuous grasp on coherence, until many of the relationships and plot threads we've followed throughout the film are abandoned in favor of delivering a hauntingly beautiful dance sequence for the climax.

The film fares much better when it comes to atmospherics. I've already lauded Aronofsky's ability to shift reality and get audiences into Nina's fragile mind. But "Black Swan" also would be a riveting view if it were just about the world of ballet. Aronofsky is drawn to the way dancers' bodies move in the spotlight, the way the skin and muscles react to movement, and the color and light of the stage. It's one of the most beautifully photographed looks at theater I've seen and the final 30 minutes are among the most breathtakingly filmed of the year.

Sexuality is also a tricky subject to tackle in a film so centered on its characters' burgeoning lust and passions. Many have remarked about a scene in which Portman's and Kunis' characters make love, a scene that could easily have been prurient and gratuitous. Aronofsky's approach to Nina's awakening sexuality is vital to the films themes. While unflinching and heated, the film's approach to Nina's rising passions is handled with taste and power, and fuels the movie's emotional backbone.

The film wouldn't achieve that power, however, without a series of fantastic performances. Hershey is effective in her brief role as Nina's overprotective mother and Cassel nails it as the tough, womanizing director. Kunis ("Forgetting Sarah Marshal") has been slowly turning into a star herself and ably goes toe to toe with Portman, with Lily being the uninhibited dancer Nina wishes she could become.

But it's still Portman, wrenching her body and mind apart as Nina tries to unlock her passion, who commands all attention. She's simply never been this powerful, nuanced and unpredictable. By the time Nina takes the stage in the finale, fully embodying the role of the Black Swan, it's not only the character who has transformed. This role marks the arrival of Portman as a serious actress and I can't wait to see what she does next.

Originally published in the December 12 edition of the Advisor/Source newspaper, www.advisorsource.com

Catching Up...

2010-12-06T19:30:00.000-08:00

It's been awhile since I've posted a proper review, simply because it's been awhile since I've actually sat in a movie theater and watched a film.

The Thanksgiving holiday, naturally, threw a crimp into things. And then, following that, I had some travel for work that took up all of last week and is taking up much of this week--although on Friday I'll have my thoughts on "Black Swan" up for you all.

However, things have been relatively busy on the movie viewing front with some films released early this year that I am just now getting a chance to see. It's the critic's busy time of the year and I'm knee deep in screeners for the Detroit Film Critics Society and trying to see as many movies as I can before having to turn in my article on the 10 Best of 2010. There's a stack of screener DVDs on my table about a foot high--I've made it through a handful, but thankfully there was a lot I'd already seen this year. But rather than write full reviews about movies that have been out for awhile, I figured I'd just post some quick thoughts about what I've seen and, as the list grows, I'll post more of these entries.

So, here goes. . .

I know that most critics fawned all over The Kids Are All Right earlier this year, and it's not hard to see why. The concept--children of lesbian parents seek out their sperm donor father--is fresh and can go in many different directions and when you have a cast with Annette Benning, Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo at the center, it's hard to fail. But this film just never connected with me. Don't get me wrong--the three leads are reliable as always, particularly Moore, who does a fantastic job creating the neglected and self-doubting half of the couple. But the characters struck me as selfish and largely unlikable and the film nearly sweats through the celluloid to be as progressive as possible, constantly pointing out how cool it is that the lesbian parents are just like other parents, that Ruffalo's character is a hipster restaurant owner and that everyone lives in a world where they shop at Whole Foods and drink wine while listening to NPR. It's liberal porn--and this is coming from someone with liberal tendencies. The film tries so hard to impress moviegoers with its new-world attitude that it forgets that the characters are insufferable, immature and unlikable. I'm in the minority on this one, I understand. But this one just didn't do it for me.
On the other hand, I found Winter's Bone to be just as fascinating as I'd been told. Jennifer Lawrence gives one of the year's best performances as a teenager in a backwoods, meth-addled community, searching for her father before their home is repossessed. Director Debra Granik creates a tense and moody film set in a closed off culture of poverty-riddled drug addicts who are nearly all linked by blood and deeply entrenched ideas of gender and loyalty. The film is tense and riveting, boosted by John Hawkes' fantastic portrayal of a grizzled hillbilly with a heart of gold. A wonderful little mystery-thriller that manages to take us into areas of the world movies usually don't show.
I find it hard to believe that in this awards season Get Low has been so seldom mentioned. A wonderfully low-key story about a Tennessee recluse (Robert Duvall) who decides to throw a funeral party for himself before he passes, the movie is a great showcase for the veteran actor. Duvall is as ornery, funny and powerful as ever as Felix Bush and he's matched by Bill Murray who is his usual sardonic self as a funeral parlor honor looking to make some good money off Bush's send-off. The film moves deliberately, but it's never boring--it's funny and touching in equal measure, particularly when Sissy Spacek shows up as Felix's old flame. A charming and surprisingly resonant little movie that didn't get the attention it deserved earlier this year.
I also was surprised to find Stone fade from the spotlight so quickly. Ed Norton gives a solid performance as a prisoner eager to be released and Robert Deniro delivers some of his best work in years as the self-righteous parole officer who is faced with his own inherent sinfulness. The film comes off a bit heavy handed and Milla Jovovich is a little one-note as the seductress willing to do anything to free her husband. But Norton and Deniro elevate the film above its script and director John Curran manages to pose some thought-provoking questions about sin, grace, hypocrisy, redemption and forgiveness.
Similar in theme, Conviction is another prison-set drama, albeit one that's a bit more uplifting. Hilary Swank takes on the role of Betty Anne Waters, an uneducated woman who went back to school to become a lawyer after her brother (Sam Rockwell) was sentenced to life in prison for a murder she doesn't believe he could commit. The film hits all the predictable biopic notes like clockwork and its reliance on formula keeps it from garnering the power the story deserves. But Swank does a fine job portraying Waters as a fierce and loyal sister and Rockwell--continuing to prove he's one of the most intriguing working actors--knocks it out of the park as the convicted brother. Minnie Driver and Juliette Lewis contribute some wonderful supporting work. "Conviction" is a little too pat and manipulative to be a great film, but it's worth a look for the fine performances on display.
Similarly, I found Noah Baumbach's Greenberg to be a charming, funny and sweet little comedy that gives Ben Stiller some of the best work of his career as a misanthrope who house sits for his brother and strikes up a tentative romance with his assistant (Greta Gerwig). Stiller's funny as the caustic, juvenile and bitter Greenberg but it's Gerwig as a young 20-something suffering an identity crisis who really commands the movie--it's a fantastic and wonderfully nuanced performance. My only complaint is that Greenberg spends so much of his time complaining and moping that I found myself wishing the movie had been about Gerwig's character instead, who is easily more intriguing and mysterious. Still, worth a look.
How you feel about Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work will likely depend on how you feel about Joan Rivers herself. The film is a fascinating look at the comedienne's career and it's amazing to see how relentlessly self-promoting she is. No one can deny her work ethic or the dedication she puts into her career. Her many fans will likely find this to be one of the year's best documentaries. Those who aren't big fans will probably admire the movie and acknowledge her workmanship, but I doubt they'll be convinced that she's any less self-centered, bitter or prideful than they did before going in. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on her yet.
And finally: "Four Lions" hasn't opened wide yet, so I can't review it. But trust me--this is one to keep an eye out for. If you're not aware of this one, I'll just give you a hint as to what it's about: it's about suicide bombers. And it's a comedy. If they play their cards right, this is a film that will get people talking--and it should.

Alright. Like I said, Friday we'll have a "Black Swan" review up for you all. I'm still going to be trying to hit the screeners over the next few weeks, so look for more entries like that. Also, in the coming weeks I'll have thoughts on "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader," "Tron: Legacy" and "Little Fockers," as I see them.

-CW

Movie Review: "127 Hours"

2010-11-18T18:10:00.000-08:00

In 2003, hiker Aron Ralston found himself literally trapped between a rock and a hard place.

While hiking in a Utah canyon, a boulder dislodged and pinned Ralston in the gap by his arm. For five days, Ralston fought hunger, thirst and pain before finally using a dull pocket knife to amputate the appendage and escape to safety.

It's a harrowing and intense story, even without any visuals. And much of the early press for Danny Boyle's "127 Hours," which is based on these events, has focused on how audiences have reacted to the climactic amputation sequence, with a few reports of fainting at early screenings. The stories have caused some people I know to say they couldn't bring themselves to see the film.

That's a shame. While a suspense-riddled and intense survival tale, most audience members aren't likely to leave "127 Hours" feeling sick or upset. I suspect exhilaration is a more common experience. Rather than create a dark and graphic "dare you to look" story, Boyle weaves a tale that is just as much a celebration of life and the human spirit as his "Slumdog Millionaire." It's a true-life adventure, wrapped up in a meditation of what keeps pushing humans on when all hope is lost.

James Franco, who seems to flip between drama and comedy, has found a role that will define the rest of his career. As Ralston, he captures the spirit of a man with an insatiable thirst for life and adventure, and a dangerous sense of independence. Ralston's a self-described "hard hero" who helps with survival and rescue missions, but he neglects to tell anyone where he's going on this excursion and doesn't bring along a cell phone or any means of contact.

Aside from a flirtatious meeting with two female hikers early in the film, Franco is the only face on the screen for the majority of the run time. And, trapped in a narrow canyon with his arm pinned to a boulder for the majority of 90-minutes, he brings to life the frustration, fear, determination and intelligence that fueled Ralston during his five-day ordeal. At times he collapses in tears as he realizes his plight; at other times, the comedic sensibilities that served Franco so well in "Pineapple Express" come into play, such as when Ralston airs his feelings on a mock interview show he captures on his video camera. It's a fantastic performance that shows a range to Franco that I was unaware existed prior to this.

Boyle, a director who has helmed everything from junkie dramas ("Trainspotting") to zombie movies ("28 Days Later") to children's films ("Millions"), has his work cut out for him here; it's not easy to helm a movie that takes place in two feet of space featuring a lead character who can't move. Boyle utilizes every trick in the book - pulsing soundtracks, split-screens, switching film stocks - to keep the story moving, from its adrenaline-charged opening sequences to the riveting hallucinations Ralston endures in the canyon. In doing so, he expands the story from a simple tale of survival to a meditation of meaning, our need to depend on others and the triumph of the human spirit. With Franco commanding the screen and Boyle masterfully manipulating everything behind the camera, "127 Hours" is a constantly riveting and powerful experience.

I know some won't be able to stop thinking about the amputation sequence and, yes, it is intense, as Boyle uses sound effects to suggest more than he actually shows. But my hunch is that the scene is so intense not because it's graphic - audiences primed by the "Saw" films have been shown much worse - but because it really happened. Boyle drags us into that moment to share, as much as he can, what Ralston endured in that canyon.

But by sticking with that moment, viewers are rewarded with a life-affirming and triumphant final act that makes all the discomfort and pain worth it. The film's final moments are among the most joyous and victorious I've seen in years and a parting shot of the real Aron Ralston only underscores the story's heroic nature.

Lately, it seems that every "great" film has to feature a tragic ending. While that sometimes is the ending that fits, the truth is I miss being elated as the credits roll. With "127 Hours," Boyle and Franco take us to some dark and dangerous places, but reward us with an ending that reminds us of the heroism of which we're all capable.

This is one of 2010's best films.

Originally posted at advisorsource.com and in the November 21 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--Part I"

2010-11-18T18:04:00.001-08:00

After 10 years, six films and billions of dollars in box office receipts, it's finally time to say goodbye to Harry Potter.

But don't worry honorary Hogwarts students: It's going to be a long farewell.

JK Rowling bid adieu to the beloved wizard in one massive tome, released in 2007. Warner Brothers, astutely realizing that there is still plenty of money to milk from muggle moviegoers, made the decision to split the grand finale into two films, with the conclusion due in theaters July 2011.

Yet what might seem to be another Hollywood money grab is actually the best thing to happen to the franchise, allowing Rowling's characters to finally breathe and grow up without rushing to hit every plot point and wrapping up the story in two hours. The love and care put into this first part of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" almost makes me wish all the other films had been split up this way - at least beginning with "Goblet of Fire," when the stories became darker and more complex.

Director David Yates expects that audiences have avidly followed the other films in the series and picks right up after the events of "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince," without so much as a pre-credit recap. Hogwart's headmaster Dumbledore has been murdered by Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), the Ministry of Magic has been infiltrated and overthrown by Voldemort's Death Eaters, and wizards everywhere are going underground, fearing for their lives. Harry, along with friends Ron and Hermione, set out into the big, dark world to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes - artifacts that hold pieces of Voldemort's soul and can allow him to be defeated once and for all.

If the preceding paragraph makes no sense to you, you're probably better to hit the video store and catch up on the series before buying a ticket for this final ride. "The Deathly Hallows" is less interested with garnering new fans as it is with satisfying those who have grown up with Harry and the gang over the past decade.

As the characters have matured, so has the series, both in print and on film. What started as a whimsical children's tale has grown into a surprisingly complex, dark and imaginative fantasy that rivals the works of Tolkien and Lewis in popularity. Just as with the book, this final chapter is a dark and harrowing adventure, without even the comfort of Hogwarts to reassure the heroes or provide familiarity.

Freed of the stricture of the school-year formula that dominated the previous installments, Yates turns this into the most grown-up film in the franchise so far. The film careens from an opening chase sequence through the city to a mysterious encounter in a small village before spending time in the forest for an extended period. This portion, which tended to drag in the book, actually provides a great opportunity for Yates to let the characters breathe a bit and show some depth that had been lacking in the preceding films.

It's a bit shocking to realize that much of the franchise's core audience has, in fact, grown up right alongside Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Plucked from obscurity 10 years ago to headline a major franchise, it's fascinating to have had the opportunity to watch them grow into adulthood and turn into fine young actors, all of whom have the chance to shine here. Radcliffe has turned Harry from a naive and awestruck young boy to a tortured hero, but still manages to keep a sense of adventure about him. Watson has found a way to blend wit and emotion with the character of Hermione; a heart-breaking moment at the beginning of the film when the character must erase her parents' memories to keep them safe is her strongest moment in the series yet. Grint's Ron Weasley remains the humorous heart of the franchise.

Free of Hogwarts, Yates creates the most beautiful and haunting "Potter" film yet, with stops in the forests, on the Moors and in small hamlets providing bewitching backdrops to the action. He respects Rowling's work and remains faithful, but isn't afraid to deviate when necessary. One such deviation, which finds Harry and Hermione finding some joy in a dance, is one of the most powerful and perfectly crafted quiet moments of the series.

Potter fans will find a lot to love here, as Yates makes sure to incorporate all the humor and excitement of Rowling's stories. In its 2.5-hour running time, he manages to bring back most of the major characters for at least one appearance, allowing some of Britain's top actors - Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Jason Isaacs and Helena Bonham Carter - a chance to shine.

Those who have no interest in the saga will likely not find anything to sway them here. But that's to be expected - after 10 years, this franchise has found its fan base. And as the movie's final moments unspool, promising just one more adventure left for Harry and his friends in eight short months, I suspect those fans will feel a twinge of sadness at having to say goodbye so soon.

But at least Harry knows how to go out in style.

Originally published at advisorsource.com and in the November 21 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "Morning Glory"

2010-11-12T14:11:00.000-08:00

The new comedy “Morning Glory” argues that hard news and fluff can not only coexist, but are both equally important and essential to helping Americans start their days.

As a journalist, I want to resent this idea. But the film’s just too darn cute.

Rachel McAdams finally gets a role tailor-made for her talents as energetic, effervescent and over-caffeinated Becky, a producer at a middling morning show in New Jersey. A go-getter with a Blackberry constantly in her hand and a smile permanently affixed, Becky is defined by her job, as we see in a disastrous first date that opens the film. Not that Becky seems to mind the single life; she loves her job and is so assured that her boss wants to see her about a promotion that she has a shirt prepared saying “I accept.”

Such confidence is rewarded—as it always is in movies—by Becky being fired, not promoted. Desperate to prove her nay-saying mother wrong, Becky scrambles for a job and lands one at a fourth place television network. Her boss (Jeff Goldblum) is initially weary of Becky’s inexperience, but hires her to shepherd “Daybreak,” a morning show that places dead last in the ratings. Eager to save the show, Becky shakes things up by firing the program’s lecherous male anchor (Ty Burrell), goading the weatherman (Matt Malloy) into outrageous stunts and forcing a reclusive reporting legend and news snob (Harrison Ford) to sit alongside the somewhat daffy and cynical female lead (Diane Keaton).

“Morning Glory” makes passing references to the way American news programs have devolved into ratings-starved circuses, trading in investigative journalism and foreign news for cooking segments and celebrity interviews, but it’s not interested in a serious exploration—if anything, it takes the side of the fluff. Rather than make any serious commentary about the state of journalism, “Morning Glory” instead wants to be a wacky workplace comedy, an ensemble piece with larger-than-life characters who butt heads, get on each others’ nerves and ultimately become a family. It’s less “Broadcast News” and more “The Devil Wears Prada” (which is fitting, as the two share a screenwriter in Aline Brosh McKenna).

It’s not a fresh approach, to be sure, but “Morning Glory” overcomes nearly every cliché and formula on the strength of its ensemble and the speed with which director Roger Michell (“Notting Hill”) propels the characters through the craziness. The dialogue is fast and sharp, particularly a frenetically-paced sequence set on Becky’s first day when she’s seemingly overwhelmed by the chaos around her and then barks back orders just as quickly. The newsroom is the typical sitcom blend of wackos and divas, but Michell wisely gives each supporting cast member just enough of the spotlight to elicit chuckles before they wear out their welcome.

McAdams, smiling and talking a million miles a minute, has never been as good as she is here. The actress has been typecast in self-serious romantic dramas ever since “The Notebook” and, while she’s never been unlikable, she’s never really had a role she could tear into like it was her own. Here, rushing around the newsroom and keeping a joyful disposition while the media circus comes to life around her, McAdams shows a true flair for witty repartee and physical comedy. There’s an infectious joy to her performance that she is somehow able to keep from toppling over into annoying. It’s the kind of role Meg Ryan was doing 15 years ago and calls to mind Amy Adams at her most winning.

McAdams is so good that she elevates everyone else’s game, but none more so than Ford. It’s been way too long since Ford has seemed anything less than comatose in a movie that doesn’t require him to wear a fedora, but here his curmudgeonly attitude is the perfect foil to McAdams’ optimism. Ford wisely doesn’t ham it up ala Jack Nicholson, but instead creates a believably serious news anchor who resents what his profession has come to. He’s effortlessly funny in the role, selling a scene with just a glowering look and rumbling delivery. Few will be surprised to learn that the character has a soft spot and wounded heart, but what is surprising is just how subtly Ford reveals it and how his opening up at the end is less of a character revelation and more of an inevitable thaw as the character comes to respect his boss. It’s a great role for Ford, who has been absent from good movies for far too long.

When “Morning Glory” focuses on the workplace, it’s a very funny, extremely enjoyable ensemble comedy. When it detours into Becky’s obligatory romance with a fellow producer (Patrick Wilson), it sputters and feels a bit too formulaic and cliché. I appreciate that Becky needs to come to terms with her own work addiction and learn to turn off the Blackberry, but the whole romance proceeds with a sense of obligation that is at odds with the energetic workplace scenes. It may have been wiser to find another way for Becky to learn her lesson, particularly if it gave more screen time to Keaton, who we don’t see enough of here.

Michell is a pro at this kind of stuff and the film looks beautiful. I wish he had trusted his characters and the setting a little bit more without having to lean so heavy on an unnecessary romance; he also gives in a bit too frequently to his love for montages—there are at least two sequences of McAdams walking or running through New York, set to music. They’re done just about as well as those scenes can be, but they feel out of place. Mostly I just wanted her to stop running and get to the newsroom.

“Morning Glory” is no “Broadcast News,” but it’s not pretending to be. No one here is setting out to make the defining satire about the modern news business—even if, at times, they come frustratingly close. It wants nothing more than to be a fun and fluffy feel-good movie. The fact that the cast exceeds the movie’s reach is a nice little bonus.

This review appeared in the November 14 edition of The Advisor and Source .

Movie Review: "Megamind"

2010-11-05T18:07:00.000-07:00

Just two months after Steve Carell made evil lovable in “Despicable Me,” one can be forgiven for thinking “Megamind” is a case of been there, vanquished that.

But the new take on the life of a supervillain is a refreshing and original tweak on the superhero mythos, delivering smart laughs and capping a banner year for DreamWorks animation, which also released the sublime “How to Train Your Dragon.” If it hadn’t been for the latest “Shrek” debacle, they’d be competing with Pixar in terms of consistency.

Megamind (Will Ferrell) is a blue-skinned, big-brained menace constantly trying to defeat superhero Metro Man (Brad Pitt), guardian of Metro City. The two have had a rivalry going back to infancy, when both were launched from their dying planets to Earth to fulfill their destinies. Metro Man crash-landed onto a wealthy estate where he discovered superpowers, loving parents and the adulation of his peers. Megamind landed in a prison and has a pet fish named Minion (David Cross).

After years of battle and to everyone’s surprise—including his own—Megamind accomplishes the unthinkable: he destroys Metro Man. With his arch nemesis out of the way, the villain can now rule Metro City with an iron fist. But soon, defacing works of art and playing target practice with fire trucks grows old, and Megamind finds himself in an existential funk: what good is being a villain if there’s no hero to challenge? Once you’ve conquered the world, what else is there for you?

A cleverly-skewed and thinly-veiled take on the Superman story, “Megamind” has a great time playing with superhero conventions in much the same manner as the original “Shrek” did with fairy tales. Where “Despicable Me” had fun playing with the idea of making a supervillain sympathetic, “Megamind” cleverly subverts the superhero genre and presents some genuinely intriguing questions about its conventions. When Megamind discovers he has no more heroes to vanquish and sets out to make his own hero (Jonah Hill), he fails to realize that super DNA and a flashy costume alone don’t make a hero and winds up making the situation much worse. There’s also a funny and surprisingly affecting romance between Megamind and his favorite victim, reporter Roxie Ritchie (Tina Fey).

DreamWorks’ animated films have traditionally relied too heavily on comedic personalities, lazily plugging in dated pop culture references and jokes meant only for the parents in the crowd. Like “Dragon” and “Kung Fu Panda,” however, “Megamind” lets the comedians develop full characters—Megamind may be a villain with a bit of a reading problem, but there’s a bit of sadness Ferrell allows to seep into the character as well. He and Fey have a clever rapport with each other and the characters’ romance has the same sweetness that the “Shrek” franchise showed in its best moments. Pitt is clearly having a ball sending up his hunk persona and there are some great laughs to be had at tweaking Metro Man’s Boy Scout image.

Yes, Megamind finds his heart and, yes, everything builds to a happy ending. But the route that “Megamind” takes to get there is full of some clever and frequently hilarious twists and turns. The dialogue is witty, full of Ferrell’s randomness and Fey’s smart alec charm. The action sequences are surprisingly energetic and had me wondering why directors don’t just stop and make the next Superman movie a computer-generated adventure. The use of 3D, seemingly required in every family film these days, is actually quite effective. Kids will love the comic book heroics and adults will get a good laugh at the way the film twists and turns familiar tropes (I was particularly pleased with Ferrell’s nod to Marlon Brando’s work in “Superman.”)

“Megamind” isn’t the first film this year to subvert superhero conventions and, with Rainn Wilson’s “Super” in the pipeline, it’s not the last. But it happens to be one of the most clever and enjoyable yet and definitely saves the day for DreamWorks.

Movie Review: "Due Date"

2010-11-05T18:03:00.000-07:00

Robert Downey Jr. endures cross country mayhem with “The Hangover’s” Zach Galifianakis in this frequently funny, but ultimately disposable frat boy riff on “Planes, Trains and Automobiles.”

Downey is Peter Highman, an uptight father-to-be trying to get from Atlanta to Los Angeles before his wife gives birth. When an altercation with the fey, irritating and impeccably permed Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis) lands the two on the no-fly list, they commandeer a car and begin the cross-country trek. As road movie logic dictates, the tightly-wound Peter quickly has his nerves frayed by Ethan, who lapses into bizarre bouts of stupidity, is fond of asking inane questions, carries a small dog along with his father’s ashes and has an unfortunate way of relaxing himself before bed.

If you thought director Todd Phillips (“The Hangover”) would bypass the genre’s proclivity for car crashes, run-ins with the law and encounters with ill-tempered fellow travelers in favor of nuance and heart, you obviously haven’t been paying attention to the “Old School” director’s resume. Phillips follows the road trip formula to the letter, including the leads’ obligatory fight and reconciliation and the last-minute dash to the delivery room.

But who am I to second-guess the director of “Road Trip”? The formula works because it allows Downey and Galifianakis to let their personalities clash and the ever-moving scenery allows Phillips to distract audiences with a variety of chaotic and sometimes very funny sequences.

Galifianakis worked so well in “The Hangover” because he was used sparingly, an unpredictable and offensive wildcard that scored laughs because of how deranged he came across. Ethan’s a bit cuddlier and more idiotic, dulling some of Galifianakis’ edge. But just when you think the comedian is getting a bit too cute for comfort, he pulls a joke out of his pocket, be it his obliviousness over finding a drug dealer on Craigslist or his impromptu auditions in a rest stop bathroom. Few people are better at playing annoying and offensive better than Galifianakis, who can summon a laugh with just a gasp.

Downey plays the Steve Martin role to Galifianakis’ John Candy but forgets that the film’s uptight straight man needs to have a heart to rediscover. Few do a slow burn, tart response or explosive expletive better than Downey, but he goes a bit too far with the snark and turns Peter into more of a jerk than a harried traveler. Phillips seems to have left most of Michelle Monaghan’s scenes as Peter’s wife on the cutting room floor, taking away much of the reminder of why he’s in such a hurry to get home. As a result, Downey’s character often comes across as quite unlikable.

Phillips long ago proved he’s a master of the big gag and “Due Date” features several very funny moments. Peter’s solution to babysitting for a drug dealer (Juliette Lewis) gets a huge laugh and Phillips has fun with several stops along the way, particularly an unfortunate encounter with Danny McBride at a Western Union. Downey and Galifiankis have a delightful anti-chemistry and some of the film’s finest moments involve them bouncing their particular tics off each other.

Several moments designed to add depth and heart to the film feel oddly truncated, particularly a subplot involving Peter’s old friend (Jamie Foxx). Peter’s fears of impending fatherhood and issues with his own dad are rushed over and even the film’s climax seems a bit too eager to get the audience home on time. Only a stop at the Grand Canyon for Ethan to say a final goodbye to his father has any resonance.

Little missteps like that keep “Due Date” from being ranked with the classic road trip movies. I hate to bring up comparisons to “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” again, except that this film so clearly invites them. The reason people return to John Hughes’ classic time and again isn’t just for the big laughs, but because the film has a genuine heart.

“Due Date” is content to just deliver “Hangover”-style laughs and, admittedly, audiences will likely be satisfied with that. It’s a trip worth taking; I’m just not sure how many times you’ll want to repeat the journey.

Chris's Classics: "Back to the Future" trilogy

2010-10-24T19:20:00.001-07:00

I had the pleasure to go see "Back to the Future" on the big screen yesterday in honor of the film's 25th anniversary. I'm pleased to say that the film is just as much fun all these years later as it was the first time we laid eyes on the DeLorean.

As the trilogy hits Blu Ray this week, I figured I'd post my thoughts on it from back when I was doing my Alphabet Project about a year ago. My thoughts are all still the same except that maybe I love the movie a little more now.

Enjoy!

"Back to the Future"--It hit me about halfway through my viewing of Zemeckis' film how easily this movie could have been just another forgetable '80s teen comedy.

The plot was ripe for a raunchy, broad piece of trash. A teenager lives with loser parents and is friends with an eccentric scientist. He goes back in time and his mom falls in love with him. So he has to get her to fall in love with his father. Toss in a couple '80s jokes and music and you can see how the wrong director and cast could have made this a "Weird Science" or "My Science Project" type of raunchy, dated flick. And "Back to the Future" certainly has every right to feel dated--it's set in 1985, has a soundtrack driven by Huey Lewis and the News' "Power of Love," and contains jokes about Ronald Reagan, Darth Vader, Eddie Van Halen and copius use of the word "heavy."

But I guarantee that kids today still love "Back to the Future." There is something endurable about it that transcends time and generations. It's probably one of the few movies where the entire family will stop and watch it together simply because everyone loves it.

I think that's a testament to the work of director Zemeckis and producer Steven Spielberg, who make this movie feel much bigger and more epic than the plot would appear to allow.

Because, really, the plot is simple. Kid goes back in time, complicates his parents' meeting and endangers his own existence. Yes, there is the complication of getting him back to his own time via a lightning strike, but the heart of the film is really setting up the meeting of Marty McFly's parents.

But it's that plot that I think appeals to everyone. We've all wondered what it would be like to go back and see our parents as teenagers--where they cool? Dorky? What if we could see them fall in love? What effect does one moment have on the rest of a life? On a generation? Would we be friends with our parents or would we think they were dorks?

The great thing about Bob Gale's script is how it doesn't use the time travel as an excuse for cheap humor and gags but rather explores these concepts with heart and whimsy. Marty--in what is Michael J. Fox's most memorable role--is really an audience surrogate here...he's not really a deep, complex character. But because he's a typical teen who wants to take his girlfriend to the lake and dreams of rock stardom, we like him. And there's great humor in the complications with his mother's crush, his father's dorkiness and the bully Biff who would be a thorn in the family's side for 30 years. The film's biggest laughs and smiles come not from the time travel gags or 80s/50s juxtapositions, but from character-driven moments. George McFly calling Lorraine his "density," Lorraine swigging liquor and then pouncing on Marty (who she believes is named Calvin Klein), Biff's knack for screwing up insults.

The cast is just wonderful here. Fox is one of the most likable actors in the business--whenever I see him in a rare interview I think how much I miss his presence on the big and small screens. He's got a great comic timing and he comes across as an intelligent, funny kid--not a smart alec teen or an uber-nerd, as original choice Eric Stoltz may have come off. And he's got great chemistry with the entire cast--Lea Thompson is wonderful as Lorraine and Crispin Glover will always be known as awkward George. No one stands out or steals the spotlight but everyone is so genuine and likable that they provide a beating heart to this movie which, at its core, is driven not by science or plot but by a sweet love story.

I think Thomas F. Wilson gets unfairly overlooked when it comes to this series, by the way. Is there any doubt that Biff Tannen is the greatest bully in cinema history? He's dumb but he's also a bit scary--the scene when he goes after Lorraine at the end (prompting that fateful punch from George) is played seriously when, today, I think it would be played for more laughs to show a bumbling Biff. He proves to be the series' memorable villain and I think that people don't realize the range Wilson shows in the franchise--he's George's schlubby jerk of a boss at the beginning, a typical teenage bully in the majority of the film and a suck-up in the "new" 1985 created at the end. Then in part II he's Old Biff, sadistic grandson Griff, the big bad villain of Hill Valley AND his 1955 bully again. And in Part III Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen is definitely kin of the Tannens but with a wonderful Western flourish. It's a bit sad that we never have seen Wilson really live up to the potential he showed here (except for in his few memorable episodes of "Freaks and Geeks"--please Judd Apatow, use him again!).

And, of course, it would be a crime not to mention Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmett Brown. Were this film to be remade today (PLEASE don't!!!!) I guarantee we'd see Doc as a one-note, bumbling and kooky mad scientist played by Eugene Levy or Ben Stiller. And yes, Doc is an eccentric character--he cons Libyan terrorists out of plutonium and creates a time machine out of DeLorean because it's stylish. But I also love the heart that Lloyd brings to the role here. This is a frustrated scientist with inventions that don't work...who finds out that he will be responsible for the creation of a successful time machine. There's a geeky awe that fills Brown's face as he studies the videotape of the future and I love the nerdy glee with which he makes a model of Hill Valley and apologizes that it's not painted or to scale. It's a largely comedic role, yes, but like everything else here, there's a strong heart to it.

Which I think only Zemeckis could pull off--he's never been a director who wants to make lowest-common denominator fluff. When he did a cartoon he made the insanely large undertaking of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." His Oscar winning "Forrest Gump" may be remembered for its quirky character, but it's also got a strong heart and ground-breaking special effects. Even his stumbles--I'm looking at you "Beowulf"--have been noble failures that managed to push the edge of technology and cinema. Zemeckis makes big movies. And while "Back to the Future" has a relatively simple story, it's a movie that feels big and magic.

As I said, much of that is due to its heart. But much of it is also due to the compact and airtight script by Bob Gale. In addition to being funny, it's also a wonderful example of screenwriting. There's not a wasted, useless scene or line of dialogue in the movie. Something interesting to try--pause the movie right before Marty escapes from the Libyans and is sent back to 1955; try to take stock of every piece of information you've been given in the movie up until this point--about the characters, time travel, Hill Valley, etc. EVERY single piece of dialouge ends up being vital and having a payoff in the movie. And its that tightness and focus that keeps audiences from drifting off--it's a fast-moving and energetic piece of work that never once lags. When you combine that with such great characters and wonderful pacing and editing work by Zemeckis--the climax of the film waiting for the lightning to strike is one of the best-timed set pieces in pop cinema--you have a formula that transcends simple entertainment and feels a bit like magic. And there's definitely a wonderful alchemy at work here that elevates "Back to the Future" above other films and explains why it's so beloved.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention Alan Silvestri's memorable score. In one of the behind-the-scenes featurettes on the DVD collection, Silvestri recalls that Zemeckis told him to compose the score so that the movie felt bigger than the images would suggest. And I think the big orchestral score is part of the reason the movie has such a wonderful feel to it--it really gives it an epic, larger-than-life atmosphere. I've tried imagining an average film score in its place and I simply can't do it without the movie feeling a bit cheap. Silvestri's work here is just as memorable as John Williams' scores for "Star Wars" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

And, like most great films, "Back to the Future" stands apart from its sequels. While I think Parts 2 and 3 are entertaining and fun in their own right, the fact is that they don't capture the magic of the original. And, in much shorter write-ups, we'll see why. . .

"Back to the Future, Part II"--When I was a kid, this was THE movie to see in 1989 for one reason: Hoverboards.

Zemeckis has stated time and again that "Part II" was not an original part of the "Back to the Future" plan...the "To Be Continued..." stuck at the end of the VHS copies of the first film was a bit of a sly joke. But once a sequel was called for, it would definitely have been a cheat not to pick it up right from the end of the first film. When Doc comes back for Marty and Jennifer and tells them they have to "do something about their kids" and then that DeLorean flies away audiences WANTED to see what happens next.

But I actually think the 2015 portion of the film is the weakest part of the trilogy and really falls prey to sequel-itis. Yes, it was fun to see them re-visit some of the beats of the first film but in a new setting four years after the fact. But when you watch the films back-to-back, it just seems a bit lazy. Michael J. Fox playing multiple roles is played for broad, cheap humor that never really works--Fox is a great actor but his comedy has always been based in characters, not in gags and I think having other actors play his children would have kept some of the heart of the first film (but I think Zemeckis probably wanted to see how far he could push having the same actor play multiple roles on the same scene). I also think it's a mistake in the first 1/3 to make Jennifer a major character...we all know Elizabeth Shue went on to become an accomplished actress but here she's just a bit too annoying. And Doc is really left to the sidelines in the first half of the movie...actually he doesn't really figure much in the movie until the final 1/3 (but he gets vindicated in Part III).

That said, I don't think the 2015 portions are terrible, per se. The special effects are still fun and there are some clever in-jokes to the careers of Spielberg and Zemeckis. I love the menace Wilson has as Griff and elder Biff; Part II is really the movie where Wilson gets to shine. And I think Zemeckis really was just going through the motions of this first act simply to get to where he wanted to really take the sequel...

Which would start with Act II, in the alternate-1985. Watching it again I was surprised how dark of a turn the series takes in this portion of the film. Hill Valley is turned into a hell hole as Biff has taken control and there's a genuine feeling of danger and edge as we watch the town we loved in the first film transformed into such a dark place. By setting up an alternate present where Marty's dad is dead, his mom is married to Biff and the world as he knows it is thrown in disarray, the heart of the first film starts to be beat again and we realize that the characters we loved so much in the original are in danger--we want to see things change back. It helps that, despite how bizarre the situations get, Thompson and Wilson never play the characters as cartoons. Lorraine is now a sad woman who hangs on to Biff because of what he can provide. And Biff is now a menacing, sadistic thug without a hint of the buffoonary we saw before. I don't blame audiences who may have felt unsettled by this alternate reality and yearn for the innocence of the first film's 1955 setting...

And then Zemeckis makes a wonderfully genius idea by taking us right back there and dealing in great detail with the implications of time-travel--parodoxes, multiple selves, etc. I love the way the film acts as a "sidequel" to the original and there's a wonderful glee as Gale and Zemeckis weave Marty in and out of the events of the first films. It's fun and so complex that the movie threatens to topple over...but it never does. If the first third of the sequel is the trilogy's weakest point, I think the 1955 section of Part II is one of the most purely brilliant of the franchise and the cliffhanger ending is perfectly done...the shock of seeing Doc disappear, the mysterious letter and then the funny ending that draws back to the climax of the first.

So yeah, "Part II" is a fun and entertaining movie that is full of very clever, even brilliant,, moments. But I do think it lacks the sincerity and heart of the original film, relying too much on creating logical twists and turns. It's full of brains but a bit light on heart. Which is funny, because "Part III" actually has the opposite issue.

"Back to the Future, Part III"--I know it's popular to dig on this film and call it the weakest of the series. I know some people who think the franchise fell apart with this last movie. And it's certainly not perfect. But I think people have been unfair...it may lack the cleverness and logical twists of the second film, but it's still an enjoyable, fun and surprisingly sweet way to close out the series.

Really, I don't know that there's much Zemeckis could have done with time travel after Part II. I guess it's only logical that after tackling the scientific complexities of it in the first sequel that he would set up the third to be an emotionally-centered and more stream-lined time travel adventure. And given the reality that they created--that they could travel through time but not space--and the series' insistance on focusing on Hill Valley's different families and generations, the best place they could go would be the Old West. Besides, it sets up a nice dilemma--without the scientific technology of the 1980s or even the 1950s, how in the world could Doc and Marty repair the DeLorean?

Besides, I think Zemeckis really wanted to make a Western. And the stunts and story-line may be pure fluff and typical Western archetypes, but they come off as fun and exciting. Some critics--such as Ebert--complained that the series went to a movie-style Old West instead of looking at the Real West. And yes, that may have been more scientifically accurate. But I'm a sucker for shoot-outs, horse stampedes, train robberies and other Western tropes, so I don't really care. And there's some good humor and excitement mined from it...and I like that Marty is finally challenged to mature and put aside his concerns about what others think of him. It's a nice way to mature the character a little.

But the heart of the movie and the reason it works so well is the burgeoning relationship between Doc and Clara. The romance is sweet and well-played and reminds us of the romantically-centered plot of the first movie. Lloyd really shines in this film and his heartbroken Doc, wrestling with love and logic in the final half, allows him to add a new dimension to the character. Mary Steenburgh is wonderful as Clara and their quiet interludes are the film's highlight--until the spectacularlly-done train robbery.

And in the end, the series ends on a fitting note. Marty, having learned not to worry about other people's impressions, avoids a tragic accident. The time machine is destroyed, just as Doc wanted. And yes, I don't understand why Doc would want the time machine destroyed and then would go ahead and build one out of a train--or how he would get the materials to do that. His reapparance at the trilogy's end is definitely more of an emotional capper than a logical one. But I understand why Zemeckis did it--no one would want to end the series without knowing that Doc and Marty see each other again and that Doc and Clara have happy lives. So I forgive that ending, even if it doesn't really make much sense.

Rumors, of course, persist about a fourth movie and I'm very happy that most everyone involved with the franchise has firmly said that a fourth movie is just simply not happening (if only the "Ghostbusters" cast were so willing. Sigh.). I don't think there's more for the franchise to say and, given the limitations they've set for themselves, there's not much more they could do in terms of time travel (Medieval England is out, and that would be the logical time-travel choice). I think a sequel would simply be an excuse for flash and special effects and would leave out the heart of the series...those who want a roller coaster road of fun had the opportunity for it on the fantastic "Back to the Future" ride that used to be at Universal Studios and fiction will never tire of exploring the philosophical and scientific complexities of time travel ("Lost" is doing it better than anyone right now).

What we have is a fun series that has moments of pure cinematic bliss. I'm happy to have it as it is without risking ruining it all.

Chrisicisms: Hobbits, Hangovers, Time Travel and Robopocalypse

2010-10-23T06:59:00.000-07:00

Happy Saturday everyone! While I sit down with my coffee and cereal, I thought I'd post my thoughts on a few of the movie-related news items that came up this week. So sit back, relax and here we go:

Obviously, the big news is that Peter Jackson's now-greenlighted adaptation of The Hobbit announced much of its cast this week, most notably Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Having never read "The Hobbit," I'm not sure how closely the cast resembles what fans had in mind, but Freeman does bore a striking resemblance to a young Ian Holm, who played Bilbo in Lord of the Rings. I've liked his work in the UK version of "The Office" and his brief turn in "Hot Fuzz," so I have no problem with giving him the keys to a movie this big. I called Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy last decade's biggest cinematic achievement, so I'm eager to see him take another trip to Middle Earth. Some have given Jackson flack for his post-LOTR career, but I found "King Kong" to be a highly entertaining, if overstuffed, ride and have yet to see "The Lovely Bones" for myself.
Other big news is that The Hangover 2, currently shooting in Thailand, has reportedly nixed the Mel Gibson cameo. It was reported last week that Gibson was going to appear as a tattoo artist, but this week director Todd Phillips stated that the cast and crew couldn't agree on the actor taking the role. I can see why--the jury's still pretty much out on Gibson's recent behavior. Those voice mails were pretty appalling and paint a dark picture of an actor whose persona was already pretty stark. Still, some have brought up the question as to why it was okay for "The Hangover" to feature convicted rapist Mike Tyson in a prominent role, but it's wrong for the sequel to feature Gibson, who has not been convicted with anything. That's a good point, although I agree with those over at www.ew.com who seem to think that it's the time element. People have had time to turn Tyson into a punchline while Gibson's offenses are still fresh. I do hope Mel can get it together and eventually be a respected actor-director again. But for now, he probably needs to lay low.
Still, I'd kill to see him on "Between Two Ferns" with Zach Galifianakis.
Back to the Future seems to be everywhere right now. "Entertainment Weekly" featured Michael J. Fox and Lea Thompson in their recent reunion issue, Fox re-shot the film's famous teaser trailer for Spike TV's Scream awards and the trilogy will be released this Tuesday on Blu Ray. This is all in celebration of the film's 25th anniversary, of course, and AMC Theaters is offering screenings of the movie today at 12:30 p.m. and again on Monday, Oct. 25 at 7 p.m. I'm heading out in a bit to catch the film, and I'm hoping to write it up later this weekend as a look back at one of my generation's most beloved films.
It was announced just yesterday that Steven Spielberg will direct Robopocalypse, based on an upcoming science ficton novel. Spielberg has been fairly quiet since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but it looks like we'll be seeing quiet a bit from him in the next few years. His motion-capture Tintin movie comes out next December the same day, actualy, as his WWI drama The War Horse, which appears to be his return to the serious fare such as Saving Private Ryan and Munich. I do love those films, but I have to admit that I miss old-school Spielberg, the man who brought us Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T. Popcorn Spielberg has been missing over the past few years--even his science fiction films AI, War of the Worlds and Minority Report are tinged with a darkness that wasn't in his earlier work. I have no idea what the tone is for Robopocalypse (which I assume deals with a robot uprising) but I hope it's in line with the Spielberg I loved in the 1980s.
Box office news from last weekend was, of course, Jackass 3D's unbelievable $50 million haul. There really aren't words for that.
This weekend brings Paranormal Activity 2. I had no plans to see this movie and was prepared for it to be a "Blair Witch 2" clone, but the early reviews I've read are promising. Now it just comes down to whether or not I'm brave enough to see it.
Work at my day job kept me busy this week so I had to miss screenings of Hereafter and Conviction. Stone also opened out here and I had to miss the screenings for that as well. Hopefully before I have to vote on the year's best I'll make up for that.

Okay kids, that's about it!

Movie Review: "Never Let Me Go"

2010-10-16T07:27:00.000-07:00

Science fiction is such a woefully under-realized genre. An opportunity to marry imagination and knowledge to an exploration of the human condition, it was once the realm of of authors who tackled big ideas and deep themes, exploring humanity, spirituality and morality through high concepts and difficult questions.

In today's world--possibly with "Star Wars" to blame--science fiction is basically thought of as lasers, robots and space travel. It is not seen as the realm of thinkers and poets, but as the domain of nerds. Occasionally, a "Dark City, "Matrix" or "Inception" will remind us of what the genre is capable of, but it's not long before it's back to aliens and spaceships.

Mark Romanek's "Never Let Me Go," then, is a film to cherish. Based on Kazuo Ishiguro's beloved novel, the film looks like a standard English drama. It's more concerned with questions of relationships and mortality than with anything fantastical and there are no action sequences or special effects. Running through this art house drama, however, are deep and thought-provoking questions about science, ethics and humanity that will haunt viewers long after the credits have rolled.

Ruth, Kathy and Tommy are three children growing up at an English Boarding School. They're ordinary kids, dealing with bullying, adolescence and a strict headmistress who reminds them to obey the rules because they're very special.

It's not long before a teacher tells them the truth--while most children will grow up to be anything they want and live long lives as adults, the children of Hailsham will never have that opportunity. They have not been born, but created. They will grow up to be donors and after three or four operations, their bodies will begin to shut down and they will reach completion. Hailsham--along with other facilities across the country--is a basically a clone farm.

At this point, most films would kick the plot into high gear and feature a rebellion, a daring escape or an attempt to change the public's mind about the dangers of cloning. But "Never Let Me Go" is less interested in preaching and entertaining than in exploring what the consequences of a breakthrough like this would be on the young men and women who learn they are created to be nothing more than spare parts.

The film follows the three through three separate time periods--their childhood at Hailsham, teenage years at a cottage and the period nearing their completion. They do not seek escape or a change to the situation; they simply accept their fate and spend the film with the knowledge that they will never see old age. The best they can do is make the most of the time they have left.

Kathy (Carey Mulligan), the narrator, pines after Tommy (Andrew Garfield), who instead winds up with Ruth (Keira Knightley), but there are hints that he still may love her and be a better match. Ruth yearns to fit in with a modern couple they meet at the cottage. There's a heart-breaking trip to the city, where they hope to find Ruth's "original" and questions about who they were modeled after--decent people or the nation's forgotten. There's a fallout, a reunion, a chance at hope, the loss of friend and the underlying question of whether a human created in a lab is truly a human--do they have a soul, can they feel love, are they simply carbon copies of their originals?

Romanek, the music video director whose last film was 2002's "One Hour Photo," pulls back on the flashy visuals and instead creates a simple, yet beautiful and poignant film, content to let these characters grow, breathe and deal with the implications of their situation. He allows the questions to come to the audience organically instead of in speeches or ham-fisted exposition, except for an ill-advised moment at the very end where Kathy voices the film's main themes, which careful viewers have likely already begun mulling over.

The film is carried by a cast of three wonderful young actors. Knightley, dressed down and looking plainer than she has since "The Jacket," brings a viciousness and sadness to Ruth, who desperately wants to fit in and feel normal, despite her fears that she's been modeled after trash. Garfield, just weeks after delivering a riveting performance in "The Social Network," perfectly captures the frustration of a young boy who can't control his anger, was always seen as an outcast and aches for connection with the one person who understands him.

Mulligan delivered one of last year's best performances in "An Education" and proves here that the work was not a fluke. She's heartbreaking as Kathy, the outsider who watches everyone else living life while she aches, yearns and questions her existence. She's sympathetic and loving--which plays a major role in her adult role as a Carer--and yet she too wonders where she's come from and why her short life is so lonely and empty.

"Never Let Me Go" provokes questions and thoughts on the issues of cloning, to be sure. But its deeper concern is about the issues of life and mortality. What matters at the end? How do we live in the face of death--an inevitability whether it comes at a young age or old? Do we feel special or are we just fulfilling an obligation here on Earth? Are we here to be used by people or are we here to be useful to them? It's a very deep movie and the one of the strongest meditations on the themes of life and death since "Synecdoche, New York."

I saw this movie on a beautiful, sunny afternoon. I left the dark theater and felt that everything took on a new seriousness or weight. I wanted to call my fiancee just to hear her voice and I wanted to make sure every moment was being lived to the fullest. It's a rare thing when films can produce these thoughts, instead of leaving my brain as soon as the lights come up. I'm very thankful for Romanek for having delivered this movie and have a feeling I'll be revisiting it several times.

Movie Review: "Jackass 3D"

2010-10-15T18:53:00.001-07:00

I hope you like poop...

Really, when someone plops down their hard earned movie money--plus the up charge for 3D--to see "Jackass 3D," they already know what they're in for. Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O and their band of idiots are going to get in front of video cameras and pummel, smash, crunch, degrade and defame themselves all for your entertainment. Vehicles will crash off ramps, teeth will be pulled, bodily fluids will fly and each horrendous stunt will end with the participants giggling, laughing and shaking off their injuries. Knoxville and his gang have been doing this for 10 years, so the formula's not likely to change...although now, in 3D, it's all coming right at you.

How does one review a "Jackass" film? There's no plot. No character development. I guess it's a documentary, but the only point it seems to be making is "don't try this at home." I wouldn't even call the film's set pieces "jokes," as there is no real build up or structure--just the basest, most juvenile and idiotic humor known to mankind, finding humor in pain, puke and poop.

I imagine that Knoxville and Co. would be very pleased with that review.

The truth is, there's no defense of the "Jackass" series. It's the natural evolution of a culture of children who grew up watching "America's Funniest Home Videos" and probably "Home Alone"--although to be fair, you could also call "The Three Stooges" and "Tom and Jerry" in as culprits, too. For some reason, no matter how refined and mature we'd like to think ourselves, we--especially men--laugh when someone gets hits in the crotch or takes a face plant from a cliff (or, in this case, a big tree). Bodily functions still make us giggle. And while we'll hold our breath as danger approaches, we'll double over in guffaws once we learn no one is seriously injured.

It's crass. It's stupid. It's immature.

And yet, so help me, I laughed. Sometimes very hard and sometimes simply to hold back the sickness. Despite the 40 hours I spent at work looking like a professional this week, some 12-year old part of me, some deep id, was tweaked and I laughed even as I questioned why I was doing so. I don't know that I'll respect myself in the morning, but the truth is that Knoxville and his crew, as Jon Stewart put it this week, turn punching someone in the nuts into some sort of art form.

You'd almost think after a successful MTV show (with multiple spin-offs) and two movies, these guys would have run out of ways to place themselves in mortal peril or that, with a semi-successful movie career, Knoxville would grow out of his phase of getting rammed by bulls or dressing up in old man makeup on the street. And yet, everyone is back, gleefully jumping jet skis off ramps and into bushes, crawling through taser-strewn hallways and strapping themselves into a Port-A-John that is then bungeed into the air, with the predictable mess even more disgusting than you could have imagined (poor Steve-O truly suffers for his art).

I'll say no more about the stunts, except to say that everyone seems a little more gleeful this time around, excited to be back around. There's less of the crude and purposefully wince-inducing stunts this time (the paper cuts and electroshock from the first were less fun than gag-creating), although a gag with a scorpion's a bit hard to watch. The rest is all your garden-variety "Jackass," crashing things off ramps and into bushes, sucker punching your friends or playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with a live donkey that kicks back. In fact, animals get quite a bit of play, particularly a ram who seems to be enjoying fending off intruders way too much and some bulls that knock Knoxville for a serious loop.

This all is more enjoyable than it has any right to be, and I think much of that is owed to "Jackass" crew themselves. If they were fighting with each other the entire time, morose or fearful about any of this, it wouldn't be fun anymore. But the guys giggle and laugh their way through the 90 minutes, even after they've been trampled, pummeled or dropped in snake pits. Even when one of them is the butt of a joke, they laugh it off and walk away. There's an easy-going camaraderie these guys have together, a rapport that feels makes us feel like we're eavesdropping on a very bizarre frat party. It creates a positive energy for the film that extends very easily to the audience. There's never a mean-spirited joke or a gag played at an innocent bystander's expense. Plus, as Homer Simpson once said, it's funny because it's not happening to me.

It's still hard to believe "Jackass" has been around this long, but the guys are starting to show their age. They're a little slower to stand up after a stunt goes wrong and a little quicker to get sick. Steve-O, who spent much of the previous films in a state of intoxication, is now two year's sober--and that extra lucidity seems to not only energize him but also creates a self-awareness that makes his inevitable humiliation that much more humorous ("why do I have to be Steve-O," he asks at one point). A video montage over the end credits shows the cast and crew as children, teenagers and adults (so to speak) throughout the existence of this series and it's surprising to realize just how long this franchise has been around--the fact that they still look like they're having fun putting themselves through torture for our amusement is kind of poignant.

Kind of. Until you realize that the bond that brings them together involves hitting each other in the crotch, pulling out teeth via moving automobiles, seeing if they can make each other vomit and blowing up toilets and living in a state of constant adolescence.

It is my critical duty, however, to say that the use of 3D in the movie is spectacular, easily the best since "Avatar." Filmed in 3D, every drop of water, spit or...well, you get the idea, seems to drench the audience and director Jeff Tremain is wise enough to film in bright colors to make everything pop off the screen. The key to the "Jackass" films is to make you feel every hit, smack and crunch and the use of 3D in this film is the best I've seen in a long time. That actually is kind of sad to write.

Also, there's ultra high-speed photography at work here that produces some of the clearest and most-detailed slow motion footage I've ever seen. If you want to see just how much a person's fat ripples when they're shot with a paintball gun, how far their nose moves when they're punched in the face or what the impact really is when you're smacked with a wet fish, this is your movie. Zack Snyder must salivate over the slow motion work here. Again, kind of sad to write.

Listen, let's fess up here: if you're reading a review of "Jackass 3D," chances are you've already made up your mind about whether or not you're going to see it. You shouldn't be surprised to learn that people get hurt, groins get pummeled and poop is flung. For many people, this is not your cup of tea. In fact, even those of us who laughed likely have to admit that at the back of our mind we're asking the question "why am I laughing a this? What kind of person does that make me?"

And while it's fashionable (and easy) to rag on the "Jackass" films as being lowest-common denominator trash, I think there's also some room for understanding the series' appeal. After all, Knoxville and his crew aren't picking on anyone--everyone is participating willingly. The jokes are never mean-spirited--in fact, the gang's camaraderie is really the energy that carries this film. Yes, it's crass and crude--but in a sea of films that give us gratuitous sex jokes or pick on people, there's a certain innocence to this. Okay, not innocence. Juvenilia. Still...

I think that these movies exist for a culture of young men who have been raised in a culture where men have to be refined, quiet and nice. That sense of wildness and recklessness that used to define masculinity has largely been ignored in favor of dressing in a tie, being polite and politically correct and hitting computer keys instead of doing manual labor. Most young men spend hours playing video games these days instead of being outdoors, getting into trouble and getting themselves dirty and hurt. Knoxville and the "Jackass" crew are perpetual 10-year-olds, still rolling in the dirt, making ramps to jump their bikes over and laughing at their own farts (or, in this film, blowing party streamers with them). It taps into some part of masculinity that has been lost in this culture.

Or, perhaps, people just like poop.

I should note that this review is a milestone--the 100th post on this blog. That makes me feel something...I don't think it's pride.

Movie Review: "Red"

2010-10-15T18:47:00.000-07:00

It's not too surprising to find Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Brian Cox co-starring in a film released in the awards season. These are respected actors who usually promote prestige projects this time of year.

It might be more surprising to discover that the film in question, "Red," features Malkovich toting a stuffed pig filled with guns, Cox hamming it up as a former Russian spy and Mirren, dressed in combat boots and a ball gown, firing a submachine gun with all the class and poise she displayed in "The Queen."

It goes without saying that Bruce Willis is the star.

Willis is Frank Moses, a retiree who spends his days working out and flirting over the phone with Sarah (Mary Louise-Parker), the clerk who sends out his pension checks. Moses has a bit of a crush on this girl, who encourages him to grow plants and tells him about the wonderfully trashy romance novels she reads at night. The two playfully chat over the phone and Moses suggests coming out to Kansas City to see her.

The film's opening 10 minutes have a playful sweetness to them, setting up what looks like a nice romantic comedy. It's perhaps a bit jarring when a team of assassins converges on Frank's house, quickly dispatched by the spry old man.

Frank, it turns out, is a former CIA assassin, classified as "Retired: Extremely Dangerous," or RED. Fearing that the men who tried to kill him will track his phone records and head for Sarah, Frank hightails it to Kansas City and forces her to come with him as he connects with his former CIA cohorts to figure out who wants him dead. This is not the first date she had in mind.

By the end of "Red's" two-hour runtime, I couldn't tell you exactly why the government was trying to kill Frank or who exactly was pulling all the strings. Based on a graphic novel by DC Comics, "Red's" plot is only an excuse to string together over-the-top action sequences, and scenes of Moses and his gang reminiscing about the good old days, when espionage was a "gentleman's game."

"Red" would likely be another disposable action-comedy were it not for the cast - surprising not for how out of place such esteemed actors appear, but for how comfortably they fit right into their roles. Malkovich, in particular, seems to be having the time of his life as an unhinged, paranoid former assassin who believes the government is trying to kill him to cover up for mind-control experiments they conducted - he has right to be paranoid, as the government did dose him with heavy amounts of LSD for years. Few actors play unstable as well as Malkovich, who sells every tic and outburst with hilarious flair, but also gets a few scenes to show just why he could be considered just as dangerous as Moses.

Mirren never phones in a role, and it's scary how comfortable she looks behind an automatic weapon with her steely eyes and hint of a smirk. Cox sells both menace and charm as Moses' former adversary who now is so weary of the game that he realizes he has more in common with his enemy than with most of his friends. Richard Dreyfuss is suitably slimy as a corporate villain and even Ernest Borgnine shows up, looking happy just to be along for the ride. The film's best scenes involve all of these characters chatting together, suggesting old histories, rivalries and romances that give the movie an unexpected sweetness. Only Morgan Freeman gets short shrift as Moses' best friend and fellow RED, showing up from time to time to crack a few jokes and help at a crucial moment.

The supporting cast is so good, in fact, that it's possible to forget that Willis is the film's star. It's tempting to say he's just playing the calm and collected hero role he's been doing for years. But there's a glint in his eye and a sense of humor that's been missing in his recent action work. When he's not invested in a role, his laconic nature can weigh down the film (see this year's "Cop Out"), but when he's having fun, it gives him a cool, dangerous edge (see his brief scene in this year's "Expendables"). In "Red," Willis brings more humor and style to the character than he did his last time out as John McClane, and he seems to relish the chance to have some romantic banter with Parker, who brings a comic jolt to a character that could easily be grating. It's funny to watch Sarah first be annoyed by the situation and then turned on by the adventure in which she finds herself. Wills also finds a suitable foil in Karl Urban ("Lord of the Rings"), the CIA agent tracking them down whose arc takes a few surprising and refreshing turns.

Director Robert Schwentke ("Flightplan") helms the action with one foot squarely in absurdity, particularly a sequence in a shipping yard where Malkovich literally hits a grenade like a baseball to save himself. The multiple car chases, shootouts and fist fights pack the adrenaline, but never become gratuitous or graphic because they're delivered with tongue fully planted in cheek, similar to this summer's "The A-Team" or "The Losers." "Red" is the better of those films, however, because of the joy these veterans are obviously having pulling off stunts that are usually left to the younger generation. "Red" is a slick B-movie usually reserved for summer, delivered with an A-list awards season cast. The combination is a great deal of fun.

"Red" likely won't be mentioned when these actors collect awards for, admittedly, higher-class projects in the future. I doubt it will be on a highlight reel at the Oscars. It's a solid and exciting action-comedy that hits the right notes in service of nothing more than entertainment. But if you've ever wanted to see the same woman who played the Queen of England take a shot at the vice president, here's your chance.

Chrisicisms: Catching Up

2010-10-09T12:12:00.001-07:00

Wow, I'm behind in my reviews. Pretty much everything I've written for the paper is posted on here but there's a lot I've caught up with on my own both in theaters and on DVD/On Demand that I haven't had a chance to write about. I'm hoping to be better about that as we go on, but for right now I really just need to get the reviews out of of the way so we can be up to date. So they're going to be quick, bulleted reviews. The only movie I've seen that I'm hoping to write up a full review on later is Mark Romanek's "Never Let Me Go," which deserves to be dealt with in its own separate entry. But this should bring us full circle and ready for the future.

Let's jump in:

For many people, Rob Reiner's cameo on this week's "30 Rock" was as funny as he's been in years. Part of that is because the director of "This Is Spinal Tap," "The Princess Bride" and "When Harry Met Sally" has spent recent years directing swill like "North," "Rumor Has It" and "The Bucket List." But another part is because the majority of people didn't get the chance to see his charming coming-of-age comedy Flipped, which was dumped unceremoniously in theaters at the end of the summer. A he said/she said teenage romance about a young boy (Callan McAuliffe) and girl (Madeleine Carroll) who have a love/hate relationship in the early 1960s, "Flipped" is a gentle, kind-hearted love story that remembers more innocent times, when the biggest scandal was throwing out a neighbor's gift and the biggest tensions involved matters of the heart. It doesn't reinvent the genre, but by playing with perspective and telling the story from both protagonists' points of view, it feels fresher than it probably has any right to. Carroll is the refreshingly smart and energetic girl next door and steals the film and I also loved how the adults in the film--most notably John Mahoney as the boy's grandfather--showcase the role parents play in how their children develop their personalities and temperaments. It's a sweet, clean and funny movie, worth a look for those wanting something to put a smile on their face.
It took more than twenty years, but Gordon Gekko is back in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Oliver Stone revisits the world of corporate trading and professional greed with this timely drama, following a young broker (Shia LaBeouf) as he navigates the corporate world in the time just before the recent financial collapse. LaBeouf has his first truly grown-up role in the film, looking to exact financial vengeance on the trader (Josh Brolin) who ruined his mentor (an excellent as always Frank Langella). Michael Douglas is as winningly slimy as ever as Gekko, fresh out of prison and hoping to reconnect with his daughter (Carey Mulligan), who is engaged to LaBeouf's character. The masterstroke with Douglas here is that Stone keeps us in the dark for most of the movie as to whether Gekko has truly reformed or if he has ulterior motives. The director's anger over the recent financial disaster is palpable and, as always, Stone doesn't hide his rage. He throws a number of flashy effects at the screen and presents the film with all the subtlety of the sledgehammer...he all but has Brolin twirl a mustache to show how evil he is. Still, the film largely works because we're just as angry as Stone is and it's a bit invigorating to see Wall Street's greedy honchos get lambasted for our entertainment. It's not the great, slick drama that the 1988 original was, but it's great fun to revisit Gekko again. Stone missteps at the ending though, with his anger seemingly replaced by a defanged climax that throws up its hands and goes soft instead of jabbing us in the gut like Stone has promised all movie long.
You can count me as one of the people who was angered at the mere mention of an American remake of the brilliant Swedish vampire film Let the Right One In. I was convinced that an American director would take everything beautiful, edgy and disturbing about this friendship between two children--one of whom's a vampire--and turn it into another "Twilight"-type disaster. But Matt Reeves ("Cloverfield") has proven me wrong with Let Me In, possibly the best horror movie to hit theaters since "The Descent." "The Road's" Kodi Smit-Mcphee and "Kick Ass'" Chloe Moretz deliver solid, devastating performances as a bullied boy and a vampire girl who befriend each other on a snowy Los Alamos playground. Reeves makes the story his own, giving increased richness to the boy's isolation and a sadness to the relationship between Moretz and her caretaker (a fantastic Richard Jenkins). The film keeps the themes of loneliness, identity and a world without adult supervision that made the Swedish film so haunting and adds in a gripping subplot about a detective (Elias Koteas) investigating a grim series of murders that connects back to the children. Haunting, beautiful and poetic, "Let Me In" is a worthy take on the material and just as gripping. Unfortunately, it also joins "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" as the best movie that audiences chose to ignore this year.
As Halloween approaches, so does my love for great horror movies. I recently had the chance to rent Adam Green's Frozen On Demand and can highly recommend it for those planning to never go skiing again. In the same vein as "Open Water" and "The Blair Witch Project," it's one of those great never-go-into-nature-because-it-will-kill-you movies. Three friends go away on a skiing trip and manage to finagle themselves onto one last run before the weekend's over. Thanks to a series of carefully explained events, the three find themselves left on the ski lift when the resort closes for the weekend. It's Sunday night. It's cold and there's an ice storm coming. There are wolves below. And no one's coming until Friday. Despite some implausibilities (I doubt that many wolves would congregate near a ski resort), the film is sickeningly suspenseful and terrifying. The three leads are believable and Green milks just as much suspense from their internal conflicts as he does the life-threatening situation they find themselves in. It's one of those movies that ask the audience to think what they would do in a similar situation...and then takes each one of those solutions and shows just how horribly it could go. Grim, taut and gripping, it's worth a look for those who love their horror without a supernatural bent.
I was one of the millions caught up in Steig Larsson's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, which I read over the summer. I'm excited to see what David Fincher does with his version of the story, but in the mean time Niel Opley's Swedish take on the material will suffice. The film follows the first novel fairly closely, as Mikael Blomkvist (Neil Nyqvist) investigates the 40 year old disappearance of a teenager girl on an isolated island. Opley makes the investigation--which involves much use of computer databases and photos--surprisingly watchable and cuts enough fat--such as the backstage intrigue with Blomkvist's magazine--out of the film to streamline the story, although I feel that he shortshrifts all the rich history of the Vanger family that made the mystery so resonant in the novel. Still, it works for a 2.5 hour thriller, and Noomi Rapace is utterly perfect as the troubled but brilliant hacker Lisbeth Salander. Newcomers will appreciate the suspenseful and beautifully-photographed thrillers but I think fans of Larsson's trilogy may find it a tad too abridged to fully embrace.
This weekend while I had some time to myself I also finally caught up with David Gordon Green's All the Real Girls, a quiet little romance he made a few years back. The story of a womanizer (Paul Schneider) who falls for his best friend's virginal sister (Zooey Deschanel), the movie is a quiet, deliberately-paced drama about growing up, maturing and navigating this whole labyrinth of love and relationships. I still have trouble reconciling that the same director who made this and the meditative "George Washington" and "Snow Angels" is the man who went on to helm "Pineapple Express" and some of the raunchier episodes of "Eastbound and Down." But Green's direction here is just as delicate as in his best films, capturing the slow rhythms of life in a small town and the gentleness with which we live alongside each other. The story is minor but beautiful and Schneider and Deschanel ably capture the insecurity, fear, thrill and danger of falling in love. Definitely a beautiful little movie.

Movie Review: "Waiting for Superman"

2010-10-08T07:22:00.001-07:00

Davis Guggenheim's "Waiting for Superman" is a documentary, not a comic book film. But for many parents, I have a feeling it may play like a horror movie.

The film details the utter failure of the American public school system, in which inner city schools are called "drop out factories," bad teachers are impossible to fire, and the country's students place 26th in reading and science.The bright side? Their confidence is high: Nearly every student polled thinks Americans place No. 1 in those areas.

Guggenheim ("An Inconvenient Truth") knows audiences are well aware of the problems that have faced the education system for decades. We've heard stories of classrooms that have run out of supplies, teachers who sit back and do nothing, and idealistic educators constantly thwarted by district bureaucracy and governmental politics. He plainly states that in the inner cities, many middle schools fail to properly prepare kids for high school. In many urban high schools, freshmen start five years behind and half are guaranteed to drop out, ending up on the streets or in prison. Conventional wisdom, Guggenheim states, has always believed that bad cities were to blame for bad schools. However, he reports that just the opposite may be true.

I'd imagine that an entire Ken Burns documentary could be prepared detailing the myriad things that derailed the public education system. But Guggenheim places the lion's share of the blame at the feet of teacher unions that wield enormous political power and make it nearly impossible to fire teachers once they receive tenure, which can often happen in as few as two years. In some states, such as Illinois, the film posits that it is actually easier for a doctor to lose his license or a lawyer to be disbarred than to fire a tenured teacher. In many districts, bad teachers are simply transferred from school to school in a game known as "pass the lemon." In New York, disciplined teachers sit in an office building reading newspapers while awaiting hearings; they receive full salary and they can wait as long as eight years before their cases are called.

It's sobering, even for this critic without children in school. Bright students who are eager to learn can have that potential snuffed out by teachers who don't care or districts that don't allow them to flourish. While many suburban parents can send their children to private schools, many lower-income parents don't have that luxury and are at the mercy of their districts, watching as their children are sent off to buildings where the odds are stacked against them.

The film would likely still be shocking if it were just a parade of these grim statistics and district snapshots. But Guggenheim engages the audience by following five inner city students from around the country as their parents worry about the future awaiting them in the classrooms. Statistics are sobering, but it's even harder to take when they're placed with names and faces. His subjects - Francisco, Anthony, Bianca, Daisy and Emily - are bright, precocious children who want to become veterinarians, surgeons and teachers. They're young and excited about learning, even if they have their own struggles in the classroom. Seeing their optimism and also their awareness that a tough road awaits them is sobering, and creates an emotional bond to the problem.

There seems to be hope, Guggenheim states. There are idealistic, innovative teachers across the country interested in education reform. We meet Michelle Lhee, the Washington, D.C., superintendent who came in and fired underperforming principals and teachers, and came up with a proposal to do away with tenure and offer teachers merit increases - a proposal that could have doubled teachers' salaries if they performed well ... and was shot down when the union deemed it too threatening.

We also meet educators like Geoffrey Canada, who opened a charter school in inner city Harlem where teachers are involved in the education process literally from a students' infanthood. Naysayers told Canada that opening a school in Harlem was a lost cause; years after opening, however, his students are scoring higher on tests than students from even the best areas. The implication is clear: When good teachers are allowed to teach and engage students, students can succeed. When education is more focused on protecting employment or watching the bottom line, students fail.

Charter schools - public schools that operate outside of the district policies - seem to be an attractive option, one that offers students a greater chance at success. But the limited availability and high number of applicants mean students are accepted through lotteries. In the film's tense and heartbreaking final 20 minutes, we watch as each student Guggenheim's followed sits in on lotteries and basically has their educational future determined by chance. It's one of the most sobering and devastating moments I've seen on screen this year.

At the screening I attended, there were several angry and frustrated outbursts with every setback or new statistic. Guggenheim, as he did with global warming in "An Inconvenient Truth," is able to take complex statistical information, and make it immediate and relatable. Is it a bit manipulative to parade children in front of to hammer home a point? Perhaps. But Guggenheim's work never feels overly manipulative and the point of the matter is this - this is about children's futures. When you see how schools are failing and the impact it has on children's lives, outrage is the only emotion to feel.

But as with "An Inconvenient Truth," Guggenheim closes with an appeal for involvement, asking audiences to text if they want to help. I can't imagine anyone who hears about the nightmarish state of America's schools will want to stay passive as they walk out of the theater. Parents, educators and anyone concerned about the future of the nation will want to pay attention to this movie, and it's the rare film that could spur people to action and make a difference.

Or, as the title suggests, we could sit back and wait for someone to come in and fix it for us. But, as Canada reminds audiences early in the film, Superman does not exist, and he's not going to come and save the day.

Originally published in the Oct. 10 edition of The Source.

Chrisicisms: Waiting for Zack Snyder's "Superman"

2010-10-06T19:59:00.000-07:00

So, in the interest of keeping this blog more active, I want to start adding in some new features. A few looks at older movies, maybe some capsule length reviews of movies I've watched and not reviewed for the paper. But a big component I want to introduce is "Chrisicisms," in which I talk about some recent news, trends or other opinions in film. Sometimes it will be a bullet list of some items that I've stumbled across during the week. Other times, such as this week, it's just my viewpoint on something I've been mulling over. Hope it's enjoyable!

The big news this week is that Zack Snyder has been chosen to helm the Christopher Nolan-produced reboot of "Superman" for Warner Bros. for a 2012 release.

I've seen quite a bit of reaction on both sides about this news. There are some who feel Snyder is a perfect fit for such an iconic character, as the "300" director has fueled his career by putting together some particularly dazzling images. Others feel that Snyder's reliance on slow motion and green screen (which, to be fair, was only with "300") make him the wrong person to tackle the Man of Steel.

It's kind of a silly game to play. After all, whether we like it or not, WB has made their decision. Unless there's some kind of behind-the-scenes fiasco, Snyder is going to make the next Superman movie. It might be best just to take a breath, let him choose his Clark Kent and make the final judgement once we've seen the final work.

But it's Superman. And fans of Superman movies are likely going to have opinions on this matter.

I wasn't much of a comic book reader as a child--a few Batmans and Ninja Turtles as they grew in popularity, but not much more. But when I was in Middle School, DC Comics presented the "Death of Superman" storyline and, like many of my friends, I was hooked. I read every issue of that arc, riveted to the page and shocked that in the end I actually saw Superman bloodied, beaten and dying in the arms of Lois Lane (I was still young enough to not know what "publicity stunt" meant and be surprised when Supes was resurrected just about a year later).

My grandfather bought us a VHS of the old Max Fleischer Superman cartoons when I was young. I loved every one of those and can still hear the theme song in my head. I loved the Christopher Reeve films (although even as a kid I knew Nuclear Man in Part IV was pretty lame). Superman was always the ideal hero to me--a bona fide good guy, fighting for good causes and without the dark, questionable morality of Batman. I still think Richard Donner's "Superman" is one of the greatest comic book movies ever made and I have a soft spot for "Superman II" as well. While I understand why some people didn't care much for Singer's "Superman Returns," I think it's a worthy follow up to Donner's film and Brandon Routh is fantastic as the Man of Steel.

Superman's a tricky property to get right, though. There's a balance of optimism, hope and Americana that is a large part of who the character is. Superman has been derisively called a Boy Scout, but I have never understood why that's a criticism--there's something pure and admirable about Superman, a character who always does the right thing and stands up for justice. When you can get it right on film, as Donner does in the first 2/3 of the first "Superman," you can make something joyful, inspiring and memorable. But if you go too far in the wrong direction, the character can be cheesy, cliche and campy.

Of course, we don't live in the same innocent world that embraced Superman before. We prefer our characters to be dark and edgy, haunted by inner demons. It's why Batman endures--he does the right thing, but goes to dark places to do it. And perhaps the failure of Snyder's "Superman Returns" was that it was a little too innocent and earnest for current audiences, especially those who had been thrilled by "Batman Begins" only a year prior--a hero reminding the public to fly safely and wearing bright red and blue tights may not have been what they were in the mood for.

But I still think that a warmth and optimism is crucial for getting the character of Superman right. Batman's darkness and edge work because they are a part of the character--the Dark Knight appeals to our darker sides. Superman is the Man of Steel...he's a symbol of hope, fighting for truth, justice and the American way.

Nothing Nolan or Snyder has done have convinced me that they can bring that tone to this story.

Nolan, of course, gets the benefit of the doubt simply because he's a genius. When your filmography includes "Memento," "Insomnia," "Batman Begins," "The Prestige," "The Dark Knight" and "Inception," you've earned a bit of trust. I've enjoyed all of Nolan's films and felt the majority of them are masterpieces. He's an original, a master of both images and narratives. I have no doubt that he has an idea of how to approach Clark Kent/Superman or that he has a fantastically plotted story in mind.

But remember what I said about optimism and hope. Up until now, all of Nolan's films have been dark, possessing a distrust of even their protagonists. The reason Nolan's movies are so resonant is because he deals with broken characters, men who are trying to do the right thing and yet find themselves complicating situations throughout the way. He has a recurring theme of men haunted by their past, trying and failing to do the right thing and often with a habit of sabotaging themselves; it's this interest that has elevated Nolan's Batman films beyond mere superhero movie status to actual art. I'm not saying that he doesn't have an optimistic bone in his body and I trust that he's smart enough to know what sort of theme "Superman" should have...but given the themes he's traditionally tackled and the tone in all of his films, it's just hard to fathom what a Christopher Nolan-produced "Superman" would be.

Snyder's more problematic for me, and not because I'm a hater. As I stated in my "Legend of the Guardians" review last week, I think Snyder knows how to produce gorgeous images. He knows how to deliver a hero shot and he's a master at delivering action sequences--yes, he might overdo it with the slow motion, but you have to admit it always looks good in his hands.

And Snyder's made good movies. A "Dawn of the Dead" remake should have been verboten; Snyder's is surprisingly effective and entertaining. While "300" has not held up well in my experience, I must confess that it was quite the visceral experience when I first viewed it in theaters. He deserves major points for just being bold enough to tackle "Watchmen" and even more for actually making it good, even brilliant in parts (although he also cast Malin Ackerman and oversaw the horrible makeup jobs that marred the film). "Legend of the Guardians" is an interesting children's film and I think his upcoming "Sucker Punch" looks visually amazing.

But all of those films are surface entertainments for the most part--pretty-looking movies that don't have a ton that stick with you. With Superman, he's setting up a franchise and has to be able to take a character that, in the wrong hands, can come off as silly and cheesy, and make him heroic, admirable and intriguing. Nothing Snyder has done has made me confident in his ability to put likable characters on the screen or engage me beyond a visceral level.

And again, look at that filmography. A zombie movie. A bloody gladiator epic. A satire featuring superheroes with neuroses who kill villains with meat cleavers or have awkward sex on the couch. A children's movie in which owls attack each other with metal claws. Snyder's films typically have a darkness and edge to them. He pushes the limits. He's best when he's going beyond what we'd expect in a traditional movie. He has a dark aesthetic and seems to prefer characters that don't apologize for their blood lust. With a little reining in, he might be good for Batman. But I don't see the right tone for Superman in any of his work.

Of course, with the success of "The Dark Knight," WB might be edging towards a darker Superman movie. The other two directors up for the gig were Ben Affleck and Darren Aronofsky--neither of whom is known for their lighthearted fare (although I can't help but dream about what an Aronofsky Superman would look like). After all, before Singer took on the material, the franchise was set for a reboot helmed by Tim Burton with Nicolas Cage as a Superman who dressed in black and didn't fly.

A dark, edgy Superman may be what WB wants. If so, I think it's a mistake and misses out on some of the most essential characteristics of this iconic character. I don't want a dark and edgy Superman...I want a noble, pure and courageous Superman, one who inspires children to deeds of great heroism.

And maybe I'll be wrong. There's nothing more I'd like than to sit back in 2012 and realize that Snyder has made a fantastic Superman movie. I will happily admit it if I'm wrong.

But still...if you've seen what he's done with owls, what do you think he'll do with Supes?

Movie Review: "The Social Network"

2010-10-03T18:47:00.001-07:00

Originally published in October 3 edition of the Source.

Ironically, the first thing I did upon walking out of the theater after screening "The Social Network" was check my Facebook.

It's almost a reflex. Since becoming one of the social networking site's 500 million users a few years back, it's become a part of my normal life. Whether through a computer or on my phone, I'm constantly viewing what my friends are up to or updating my status. There is hardly a person I communicate with regularly who is not on Facebook. Even my grandfather has a profile.

It's a rare thing to live through a communication revolution like this. Through social networking sites, we have the ability to reconnect with old schoolmates, keep up with our coworkers and learn every little thing about people we barely know in real life.

And if we're to believe "The Social Network," all it cost Facebook's creator to design this online intimacy was every close relationship he had.David Fincher's "The Social Network" is not really about Facebook, even though its creation drives the plot. Digging deeper, Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin examine a culture in which billions can be made by college students with only an idea and the life of a genius for whom technological revolution was a conduit for revenge.

The film opens with Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg, "Zombieland") on a date with Erica (Rooney Mara). In just five short minutes, a cordial date unravels as Mark parades his condescension, impatience and unchecked ambition, ending with Erica delivering a wickedly perfect break up that sets the stage for everything that follows. It's a breathtaking dialogue sequence that spells out everything we need to know about this character and Sorkin's script dares the audience to keep up.

Angry and rejected, Mark returns to his dorm for some drunken blogging. With the help of his roommates, he gets the idea to hack into Harvard's various online photo archives to create a website where users can rate student attractiveness. The site attracts so many hits in such a short time that it crashes Harvard's network. When he's called in front of Harvard administration, Mark simply requests recognition for revealing the network's vulnerabilities.

The incident makes Mark a pariah among the school's females but a hit among the computer elite. Twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer) enlist Mark's help in setting up a Harvard-only online dating site. At the same time, Mark and his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Patrick Garfield) are busy setting up a Harvard social networking site called TheFacebook in which users can connect to their friends' profiles and trade information. It's a business venture that ultimately attracts the attention of Napster creator Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake).

The fact that the narrative is filtered through litigation between Zuckerberg and his former friends should tell you that Facebook's start was not without a few bumps. The Winklevosses, not without reason, suspect that Mark has appropriated their idea and we quickly learn that things will not end well for Mark and Eduardo's friendship either.

I first read about Facebook's tumultuous behind-the-scenes drama in a magazine article a few years back. While I found the subject fascinating, I never pictured it as a film. It was a story about computer programming, shady business contracts and legal action - not the most cinematically gripping stuff.

But Sorkin, famous for turning Beltway politics into weekly drama on "The West Wing," finds a human element in presenting Zuckerberg as a socially clueless, wounded and ambitious young man who doesn't seem to get the girls or the attention of the popular clubs. His solution: be better, be cooler and attract more attention ... and then use that attention to shut down everyone who he feels has slighted him. Portrayed with fierce brilliance and aloofness by Eisenberg, however, Zuckerberg doesn't come across as being a true jerk - just an overly prideful young man who doesn't fit in and then lashes out when his feelings get hurt. He's like an unfunny version of "The Big Bang Theory's" Sheldon Cooper.

It's a tough role and Eisenberg, best known for his comedic work, tackles it ably. We don't learn much about Zuckerberg except that he's brilliant and driven - and, perhaps, that's all there is to him. When he gets the idea for Facebook, it consumes him. He moves out to California and dedicates himself to the site. But no matter how popular the site becomes, he's always wrestling with insecurity over the friend picked for the club that neglected him, the slight from other students or the girl who just wasn't impressed with how smart he was. He doesn't know how to navigate social situations and gets irritated when others aren't on the same page as him. Eisenberg perfectly captures the condescending character of a man who sees himself as intellectually superior to everyone in the room, yet he also finds a few quiet moments to showcase Mark as a kid out of his element, afraid at how fast his dream is coming true and not sure how to emotionally react.

Sorkin is the rare writer to make legal and computer jargon crackle off the screen. Like on "The West Wing," his dialogue flies out of characters' mouths, daring the audience to keep up. The writing is whip-smart, gripping and surprisingly funny. Fincher's technique of cutting back and forth in the narrative between depositions and the actual event, coupled with Trent Reznor's propulsive score, give it a momentum that rivets attention to the screen and makes two hours pass in an instant. It's refreshing to see a film that respects audience intelligence enough to expect them to keep up and pay attention.Fincher's ensemble is superb, particularly Garfield. As the film's victim, a level-headed economics student who'd rather see Facebook slowly gain a profit rather than peak early, he presents Saverin well as a business-savvy young kid who wants to proceed cautiously and is ultimately betrayed for his wisdom. Timberlake is perfectly cast as Parker, the rock star of the Internet world, a cocky and brash rebel who talks a big game despite being fueled by paranoia and not having a buck to his name.

Fincher, a visual maestro in "Fight Club" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," has to rein in his tricks here. But still, no one shoots darkness on digital better than him and his creation of life on Harvard has a wonderfully edgy, dark tinge to it, taking place in a world where cultural revolution occurs amidst 3 a.m. frat parties and drunken bouts of brilliance. The director, who made three decades of investigative work intriguing in "Zodiac," ensures that despite the legal mumbo jumbo and massive tech talk the audience never loses site of the character drama at play or becomes lost in a maze of dialogue.

The film is peppered with insights that may require a second viewing. It's amusing and a bit sobering to think that the online social network community started by appealing to our attraction to exclusivity and desire meet the opposite sex. There's so much to say about the dangers of online business and intellectual property; the film should be required viewing for anyone thinking of starting a website. But none of this would work without a human story propelling it.

And in "The Social Network," that story is how a young man changed the way we communicate and connect with the people we love, even though it meant his own friends list had no one else on it.

Movie Review: "Legend of the Guardians--The Owls of Ga'Hoole"

2010-09-26T18:02:00.000-07:00

With "Legends of the Guardians," Hollywood has finally delivered a movie about anthropomorphic animals that is exciting, visually sumptuous and features nary a poop joke.

Reminiscent of Disney's attempts to deliver more serious fare with "The Black Cauldron" or Don Bluth's "Secret of Nimh" in the 1980s, "Legends of the Guardians" may be about talking owls, but don't mistake it for an avian "Happy Feet." Helmed by director Zack Snyder ("300," "Watchmen"), "Guardians" is, at heart, a fantasy-adventure more interested in high-flying battles than clever pop culture references.

Based on a series of young adult novels, the film follows Soren (Jim Sturgess), a young, idealistic owl who revels in stories about the legendary Guardians of Ga'hoole - warrior owls who fought for the weak. When Soren is kidnapped along with thousands of other owlets and made to labor for a wicked queen (Helen Mirren) bent on overthrowing the owl kingdom, it is up to him to track down the Guardians, led by noble warrior Allomere (Sam Neill), and rescue the enslaved birds.

It's a fairly straightforward adventure, but one of "Guardians'" charms is the way it celebrates cultural myth-making. No one is really sure whether or not the Guardians of Ga'hoole exist; Soren only has heard of them in his father's (Hugo Weaving) tales. But it's the hope that these stories are true that fuel Soren to find rescue. In an age where most children's films rush to ape the latest pop culture fad or a timely gag, it's refreshing to see a film that celebrates our heritage of creating heroic tales to pass down to our children.

The film feels charmingly old-fashioned, right down to the cadre of friends that accompany Soren on his journey, from a lute-playing old bird (Anthony LaPaglia) to a care-taking snake (Miriam Margolyes). It's a charming and funny group, and each character is given a distinctive personality - the crazy old bird, the motherly nanny, the gung-ho best friend. They're the character types seen in earlier animated films and children's stories, crafted with gentleness and whimsy, free of the annoying catchphrase spouting and slapstick shenanigans.

Snyder, whose work has been decidedly aimed at adults for his directorial career, makes the wise decision not to pander. He knows children can handle serious, adventurous fare and treats his audience with respect. He's not afraid to have a story full of shifting alliances, dangerous escapes and scary villains, such as this film's Metal Beak (Joel Edgerton). His cast also treats the material seriously, particularly Mirren, who is wonderful as the film's villainess. The film is pleasantly missing the manic, gag-a-minute noise of recent family fare and could almost be viewed as a gateway into more epic fantasy; once children have handled 'The Guardians,' might Harry Potter or "The Hobbit" be the next logical step?

Snyder's biggest asset has always been his visual flair. "300" and "Watchmen" have their detractors, but few could deny the visual feast Snyder reliably brings to the table. "Guardians'" photo-realistic computer images are breathtaking - every feather, drop of rain or blade of grass is meticulously crafted; only the expressive eyes give away that these are animated characters. The film's numerous flight and battle scenes are some of the most amazingly realized animated sequences I've ever seen. Snyder's love for slow motion is on full display here, but I didn't mind - it gave more time to admire the art on display.

Snyder's refusal to pander to kids, however, should provide a caution to parents. The film's battle sequences are often dark and intense for a PG-rated children's film, and it's likely that many younger viewers will view the movie's final act through their fingers. Then again, kids of the 1980s grew up with "Poltergeist" and "Indiana Jones," so maybe children are more resilient than I like to think.

But an over-reliance of battle sequences keeps the film from presenting any real depth or insight. Soren learns that the Guardians are real, of course, but is never taught to develop any unique skill of his own; his success at the end is to simply fight and defeat Metal Beak. For a film that begins with the intentions to craft an old-fashioned myth, and is filled with such ingenuity and whimsy, ending with a fight seems shallow.

I would love to pronounce "Legend of the Guardians" as a new children's classic, but missteps like that keep it just off that shelf. While the majority of the film is free of pop culture inanity, Snyder does make the mistake of resorting to a pop music montage - made all the more cringe-inducing by the fact that the music is by Owl City (seriously?). Also, the film's 90-minute runtime means the story is rushed at a few points; it's hard to keep some of the main characters straight, and some motivations and intentions are lost in the shuffle.

Still, it's rare to see a children's film showcasing this much heart, charm and ambition. The visuals alone make the film worth a look on the big screen and it's the rare time you'll hear me urge you to see a movie in 3D. Hopefully it's the start of pushing the boundaries of what a family film can actually be, and we'll see more epic fantasies and adventures for children on the big screen.

Until then, this isn't a bad flight to take.

Movie Review: "The Town"

2010-09-17T15:44:00.000-07:00

In 2007, Ben Affleck took many by surprise with his nuanced and gritty directorial debut “Gone Baby Gone.”

The adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s best-selling novel was a tough and twisty examination of crime in a Boston neighborhood. It earned Amy Ryan a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination and convinced several critics that Affleck’s skill behind the camera might be strong enough to put the “Gigli” jokes to rest once and for all.

With his sophomore follow up “The Town,” Affleck may have also earned the right to have “Jersey Girl,” “Paycheck” and the Animal Crackers scene in “Armageddon” stricken from his record. Keeping his eyes on Beantown, Affleck crafts one of the most riveting crime thrillers in years and delivers one of the strongest performances of his career.

The film is set in Boston’s Charlestown neighborhood, an area known for having more bank robberies than any area in the country. Heists are a way of life to Charlestown boys, who seem to inherit it from their fathers the way others take on the family hardware store.

Doug MacRay (Affleck) is one of those boys. His father in prison for a murder-robbery, MacRay is a washed up hockey player and drug addict who now organizes robberies for an Irish crime boss (Pete Postlethwaite). As the film opens, MacRay and his crew commit a brutal bank heist, taking manager Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage before leaving her stranded by the ocean.

Upon learning that Claire lives only four blocks from the gang, MacRay’s hot-headed partner Jem (Jeremy Renner) suggests silencing the witness. MacRay, hoping to keep the situation from turning violent, offers to follower her and see what she knows. The two strike up a relationship that has Doug beginning to reconsider his criminal ways, all while Jem tries to convince him to take on a big score and an FBI agent (Jon Hamm) pieces together the new string of robberies plaguing Boston.

This is all well-tread territory and Affleck doesn’t try to reinvent the genre. What “The Town” may lack in originality, it makes up for in reliability.

I was one of the reviewers impressed with “Gone Baby Gone,” but Affleck outdoes himself here. The film, beautifully photographed by Robert Elswit (“There Will Be Blood”) is a slick, energetic affair. The action sequences move with an electricity reminiscent of Michael Mann or William Friedkin, particularly a chase through Boston and a blistering climax inside Fenway Park.

It’s easy to crash cars, shoot guns and blow things up, but Affleck also knows how to play out the film’s quieter scenes, knowing just how long to hold a shot and deliver the suspense and emotion the moment calls for. An encounter between Doug, Claire and Jem at an outdoor bistro is fraught with tension, with the entire scene hinging on whether Claire will notice a tattoo on the back of Jem’ neck. The scene plays out with delicious suspense, thanks to both nimble directing and strong performances by Affleck, Renner and Hall.

Despite some unfortunate career choices earlier a few years back, Affleck has always had a strong screen presence, delivering solid performances in films like “Chasing Amy” and “Changing Lanes.” As Doug, Affleck ably captures the weariness of a man born into crime, raised by criminals and proceeding fatefully into the underworld. Claire provides a glimmer of goodness, intelligence and humanity into Doug’s world, forcing him to think that change might be possible. But his convict father (Chris Cooper) and Jem serve as reminders that Doug is a street kid and that leaving behind the crime-ridden Charlestown streets would not be seen as escape, but abandonment. In a way, it’s the anti-“Good Will Hunting.”

Hall is solid as Claire, and Hamm is terrific as the driven as the FBI agent on Doug’s trail whose ethics may be slimier than Doug’s. Cooper, relegated to one scene, still manages to impress and bring a gravity to the film. But it’s Renner, hot off “The Hurt Locker,” who steals the show, taking the cliché “live-wire” character and giving him a sense of misguided honor and a willingness to do anything at all to stay out of jail and keep his friends nearby. It’s a fantastic performance and Renner creates a terrifying character.

Affleck loves his hometown and, as in “Gone Baby Gone,” he makes Boston a central character in the film. His characters are defined by their settings, wearied and beaten-down by family histories that have played out in the city for years. Elswit’s photography captures Beantown in all of its glory; Boston hasn’t looked this good since “The Departed.”

The film balances its action sequences and relationships well, rarely bogging down in exposition and keeping the breakneck scenes plausible and comprehensible. Affleck allows his characters to breathe and grow without sacrificing the film’s pacing. Only in the final moments does the tone slip from his grasp, turning what should have been a hard and gritty ending into something a bit too cheesy and sentimental. As much as I love “The Shawshank Redemption,” that’s the last film I should have been thinking of at the end of “The Town.”

There’s nothing about “The Town” that hasn’t been done before. Where it succeeds, however, is in taking those familiar elements—the robber with one last job, a chance at redemption and a vicious partner—and playing them out with tension, skill and drama. You may have seen it all before, but rarely is it done this well.

Movie Review: "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World"

2010-08-21T11:13:00.000-07:00

Normally I don't care enough to make more than a passing note of what films succeed or fail at the box office. If I liked a film, I consider it a success. If I dislike it, I don't care how much money it made - it remains a bad movie.

But once in awhile, moviegoers make a huge mistake. And last week, that was ignoring "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World," one of the year's most original, funny and enjoyable movies. Moviegoers instead decided they'd rather see Sylvester Stallone, Julia Roberts, Will Ferrell or take a third go-around with "Inception," leaving the adventures of Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) to settle for fifth place at $10 million.

Nothing against those choices - I enjoyed most of them. And I can understand why some may be a bit reluctant to see a film so heavily steeped in geek culture that it plasters its video game and comic book influences on the screen.

But gamer or not, there's a lot to enjoy in "Scott Pilgrim." Director Edgar Wright ("Shaun of the Dead," "Hot Fuzz") has crafted a modern-day slacker epic so packed full of action, romance, comedy and fantasy that the film sometimes seems at risk of toppling under its own whimsy. It's a miracle that Wright brings this all to life with a steady hand and a skill at controlling chaos, turning what could have been a hollow action-comedy into a funny, exciting and surprisingly smart look at maturity and relationships.

To be sure, Scott doesn't have much of either at the start of the film. A self-absorbed slacker who avoids steady jobs so he can play bass in his garage band Sex Bob-omb, Scott is rebounding from a broken heart by dating a 17-year-old high school student Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). Knives may be a poor dating option, but Scott isn't looking for a relationship - he's content to just stay at the hand-holding stage, so long as Knives tells him how much she adores him.

But then, one night, Scott meets the literal girl of his dreams when Amazon delivery girl Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) rollerblades through his subconscious. After a disastrous encounter at a party, Scott tries again with Ramona and the two start dating. Things are progressing nicely until Scott learns what every person who has been in a relationship discovers at one time or another: Partners come with baggage.

In this case, however, the baggage takes the form of seven evil ex-boyfriends, who Scott must battle to the death if he is to win Ramona's hand. These exes include a Bollywood-singing hipster (Satya Bhabha), a punk-rock chick (Mae Whitman), a psychic who gains his powers from veganism (Brandon Routh) and a Hollywood action star (Chris Evans).

These fights are staged by Wright with the flair and energy of musical numbers - sometimes literally employing song and dance. Influenced by gamer culture, "Scott Pilgrim" unleashes a visual and aural assault on audiences, with every "smack!" and "kapow!" boldly flashed onscreen, guitar bass lines that erupt into sonic waves and villains that transform into coins when they are defeated. Wright also employs comic book tropes - such as abrupt "panel shifts" in lieu of cuts and written narration - to keep the film moving at a bullet's pace.

There's so much wit on display - a Bollywood number here, vegan superpowers there - that "Scott Pilgrim" could easily risk being ADD-adled and empty. But Wright, who showed a skill at tweaking genres while celebrating them with his previous films, allows the film to show a surprising maturity and understanding. Scott never questions his newfound skills or ridiculous situation because, as a slacker steeped in gamer culture, this is how the world appears to him. Who hasn't felt like they've had to fight against the men or women their current love knew in the past? And who hasn't ever looked forward to falling in love, only to discover that it's a battle and we have to face our own demons, put a little elbow grease into the relationship and do some growing up - even if it means facing our own flaws. "Scott Pilgrim" may be hilarious fun, but there's a strong heart propelling it from start to finish.

It helps that all the comedic anarchy is grounded by one of the year's best ensembles. Cera is the go-to guy for playing awkward youths, but he finds new notes to play as self-obsessed, somewhat narcissistic Pilgrim. Winstead ably portrays Ramona as the punk girl every guy wants, with an air of mystery about her. Each of the evil exes appear to be having the time of their lives hamming it up for the role, but none get as many laughs as Routh, playing the perfect tool as the Vegan supervillain. Even the supporting actors get big laughs in their scenes; Wong has an enthusiasm and innocence about Knives that makes her a sympathetic heroine, and Kieran Culkin steals the film's biggest laughs as Scott's sardonic gay roommate.

Every year I ask for just one movie that shows me something I haven't seen before. And while "Inception" deservedly gets a lot of attention for its trippy narrative and action sequences, "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" blasts out of the gate with so much visual wit, energy and charm that it's impossible to dislike. It opens, with an 8-bit video game graphic of the Universal logo and charges through, never putting the same joke on screen twice, and gaining big laughs from its plethora of video game, television, movie and comic book references. By the time the film ends, asking the audience if we'd like to continue, I was already reaching for more quarters.

Movie Review: "The Expendables"

2010-08-15T18:42:00.000-07:00

Never have so many "Y" chromosomes been pummeled in the name of entertainment.

With its never-ending parade of machismo, bone-shaking combat scenes and a summit placing Rambo, the Terminator and John McClane in the same room, Sylvester Stallone's "The Expendables" aspires to be the "Godfather" of action flicks. Stallone clearly wants nothing left than to give audiences a film that reeks of gunpowder, sweat and grease.

Though he falls short of that goal, the former Italian Stallion can find consolation in knowing he made a tough, red-blooded and enjoyable action picture.Comprised of a who's who of B-movie action stars, the Expendables are a group of mercenaries led by Barney Ross (Stallone), and include knife-wielding Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), short but lethal Ying-Yang (Jet Li), gun-packing Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) and therapy-addicted Toll Road (Randy Couture). When they're not dispatching pirates or toppling drug cartels, the boys hang out with ex-Expendable, Harley-riding tattoo artist Tool (Mickey Rourke).

Yeah, it's that kind of movie.

The film opens at the end of a job, in which the team has outwitted a group of Somali pirates but had to cut loose one of their own (Dolph Lundgren), who became a little overzealous. The team is offered a new mission in a fictional South American country overrun by a corrupt dictator (David Zayas) and slimy ex-CIA official (Eric Roberts). Barney and Lee initially turn the job down after a close encounter scouting the land, but, as always, a determined girl (Giselle Itie) draws them back to save the day.

But "The Expendables'" target market doesn't care too much about plot. They just want to know how good Stallone blows things up. And although I could have done without the computer-generated blood sprays that punctuate every fight, I'll admit that this is a welcome return to the gritty action of the '80s, when fists, knives and guns were involved in every fight. Every team member gets an applause-worthy action moment, be it diminutive Li facing off against big lunk Lundgren or Stallone going fist to fist with Steve Austin. Statham gets a nice brawl on a basketball court and Crews gets the loudest cheers from the audience wielding a very big gun at a very opportune moment. Stallone, who brought vitality back to the Rambo and Rocky franchises in the last decade, seems eager to revive the days when action pictures were less cerebral and more physical, and stages chaos with a good eye. The film's last 30 minutes will be bliss to action aficionados.

Statham and Stallone command much of the spotlight and have a nice little chemistry. Not much is told about Barney, but Stallone has a good heart-to-heart with Rourke, who brings a surprising amount of soul to his world-weary ex-soldier. Statham is saddled with a tired subplot about a jilted ex-lover (Charisma Carpenter) that only exists for a nice basketball court brawl with her violent current boyfriend.The other Expendables are relegated to the sidelines until the film's final act, which may be a blessing. Li and Lundgren may be action icons, but they stumble through their dialogue, and Itie speaks her lines with a monotone earnestness that would seem amateurish even in the worst moments of "Rambo." Roberts tries to be as slimy and creepy as Alan Rickman in "Die Hard," but can't pull it off, and cuts a fairly disappointing villain; it's little stumbles like this that keep "The Expendables" from being the great action epic Stallone clearly wants it to be.

Although many will tout the brief scene featuring Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis onscreen together as the film's most iconic moment, the truth is that the 2-minute scene is a bit expendable itself, just a nice occasion for the Planet Hollywood co-owners to trade some barbs and set up the plot. It's a fun scene, but it hints at a bigger, flashier film that exists in Stallone's head. He wants to be making "Die Hard," but is instead making a more expensive variation of "Navy SEALS" or "The Last Boyscout."

Truthfully, if "The Expendables" were released in the 1980s it would be a second-tier action movie that found its audience on late-night HBO. Coming in an age where heroes have to apologize for brandishing weapons and spend more time on computers than in car chases, it carries a refreshing and nostalgic feel. Even its lame one-liners and puns are exactly what we expect from this genre and, were Stallone not so prone to sincerity in the film's few quiet moments, this could almost pass as a "Grindhouse"-style action revival.

Action fans are notoriously forgiving as long as the explosions are big, battles are brutal and heroes are larger than life. I suspect they'll have a great time with "The Expendables." It's easy to criticize a film for having no meat on the bone, but here's one that's all meat, no bone. I suspect those who line up for "The Expendables" would want nothing less.

Movie Review: "The Other Guys"

2010-08-07T06:38:00.000-07:00

Few comedy duos have been as consistently successful as Will Ferrell and Adam McKay.

The actor-director team has spent the better part of a decade tweaking the American male psyche in all its lust ("Anchorman"), swagger ("Talladega Nights") and juvenilia ("Step Brothers"). Ferrell has created a classic collection of blowhard idiots, lampooning male hubris and idiocy, and McKay, a writer-director pal from his "Saturday Night Live" days, has always been his best collaborative partner, finding new levels of absurdity to explore.

With the duo turning their eyes to the action-comedy genre for the new release "The Other Guys," it would seem a given that they would tweak the over-the-top, testosterone-fueled macho male hero. Perhaps sensing our expectations, McKay sends Ferrell the other way, encouraging him to be as fussy, cautious and nerdy as possible as NYC forensic accountant Allen Gamble.

Not that they totally resist the urge to poke fun at buddy cop conventions. The film opens with Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson playing two NYC super-cops who appear to have been flown in from a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie, unafraid to destroy millions of dollars in property if they can catch their crooks. Allen and his partner Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), who would much rather be the one crashing cars and shooting guns, are "The Other Guys" - police officers assigned to write up all the paperwork for the real cops.

Chasing a tip on a paperwork violation, Allen and Terry stumble upon a financial crime of unexpected proportions. When the city's best cops are taken out of commission, they step up to solve the crime and save the day, much to the chagrin of their captain (Michael Keaton), who can't be expected to clean up their mess and balance his part-time job as a Bed, Bath and Beyond store manager.

Unlike this year's wretched "Cop Out," "The Other Guys" isn't that interested in slavishly paying homage to cop movie conventions. While there may be a plot to follow and bad guys to find, McKay is more interested in using the genre as a framework for his cadre of bizarre characters to bounce around in.

Allen lacks the over-the-top nature of Ferrell's most famous characters, but he may also be the actor's most fully-formed creation. Allen likes the cautious nature of his job and enjoys filing paperwork. He's prone to outbursts of enthusiasm, such as telling his coworkers to "have a great day" every morning at 9:15 and buying random gifts for Terry. It doesn't bother him that he has to carry a wooden gun, and he's wise enough to call for an MRI after an explosion knocks him on his back. It's refreshing to see Ferrell play a character so normal on the surface, which makes it funnier when each random tic and non sequitur fly out of his mouth, especially when he bemoans his "plain" wife, played by the ravishing Eva Mendes, or ventures to remember his dark collegiate past. Allen isn't as instantly memorable as Ron Burgundy or Ricky Bobby, but Ferrell fills him with enough character and quirk to make it one of his best-realized roles.

McKay's gift as a director is to fill his movies with a cast of great supporting actors, and then step back and let them play. Wahlberg's intensity is used to great comedic effect here, and the actor elicits some big laughs as we learn more about Terry's life away from the force and his haunted past as the Yankee Clipper (he shot Derek Jeter). Comedians Rob Riggle and Damon Wayans, as two competing cops, bring wit to roles that could have been easily forgettable, and Jackson and Johnson perfectly parody their own macho personas. Keaton, just weeks after stealing "Toy Story 3" as Ken, reminds us once again how much we've missed his presence on screen, eschewing the tendency to play the loud-mouthed captain and, instead, portraying a mild-mannered father figure with a proclivity for quoting the music group TLC.

McKay has a wonderful knack for bringing absurdity to the big screen, both in big comedic moments (Terry and Allen's first car chase) and small expository scenes (the explanation of events that took place in Allen's stolen Prius will make you never hear the words "soup kitchen" the same way again). He's a nimble comedic mind, able to let his actors improvise to great effect and also able to deliver a great sight gag. One visual joke, featuring Jackson and Johnson's characters, made me laugh long into the next scenes.

If "The Other Guys" feels like it meanders in some spots, it's only because the action-comedy conventions require it to pause for plot updates, although the movie rarely stops delivering big laughs throughout its nearly two-hour run time. For the most part, every joke lands squarely, and the film moves forward with energy and confidence."The Other Guys" isn't really much more than a clever buddy comedy, but it never pretends to be anything more than that. The key criterion to its success is that it be funny. And while Ferrell and McKay have been at this game for quite a while, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that they haven't grown old, and that "The Other Guys" can stand proudly and idiotically beside "Anchorman," "Step Brothers" and "Talladega Nights" as a testament to one of cinema's great current comedic collaborations.

Originally published in the 8/8 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "Dinner for Schmucks"

2010-07-30T16:29:00.000-07:00

The titular event in "Dinner for Schmucks" is actually referred to as a "dinner for idiots," in which a group of businessmen invite the most bizarre, off-the-wall folks they can find to a fancy feast and proceed to mock them.

I'm guessing "Dinner for Idiots" would have been a tough title to market. The word "schmuck" feels more innocent, lacking the mean-spirited connotation that comes with "idiot." I have no idea if the film was originally called "Dinner for Idiots," but it wouldn't surprise me if Dreamworks' marketing gurus changed the title to something nicer.

That might actually explain some of the reasons why "Dinner for Schmucks" isn't quite the farcical feast it could be. Here's a film with a skilled director and a fantastic cast that could have been a merciless, fast-paced screwball romp. Instead, "Dinner" manages to wrangle a few laughs and chuckles but feels oddly defanged, meandering and too, well, nice.

Tim (Paul Rudd) is a low-level financial analyst given the opportunity for his big break. The catch is that his boss (Bruce Greenwood) makes the promotion contingent on attending the dinner described above. Admitting that the affair is "messed up," Tim tells his fiancee (Stephanie Szostak) that he'll stay home. But then the universe drops Barry (Steve Carrell) into his lap.

Barry is an idiot. Blissfully sweet-hearted and clueless with no common sense or understanding of sarcasm, he's an IRS worker who spends his days creating "mousterpieces": photographs featuring dressed-up, dead mice. By the end of their initial conversation, when Barry showcases his rodent "The Last Supper," Tim knows Barry is his ticket to the promotion. One short miscommunication later and Barry is wreaking havoc with Tim's love life, ruining his business deals and threatening to topple Tim's life with each kind gesture."

Dinner for Schmucks" is a broad farce in an age where observational humor and frat house mentality rule the silver screen. I'll give credit to director Jay Roach ("Austin Powers," "Meet the Parents") for trying something fresh with this remake of the French comedy "The Dinner Game." Roach knows comedy and has a knack for making scenes work. A few set pieces - including one in which Barry fends off Tim's psycho ex-girlfriend and another at a posh business brunch - unfold with a solid sense of pacing, building on small gags until every small moment erupts into big laughs. Roach understands how to properly time and frame each of these moments and there are several big laughs throughout "Schmucks."

The lion's share comes from Carrell, who manages to play Barry broadly, but with a foot in reality. Carrell brings a likability to his role and there's a sweetness to Barry that makes his aloofness endearing. Barry may be an idiot, but he's a genuinely nice guy who wants to help out his new friend. He's stupid, but happy with himself in a world filled with smart, insecure and cutthroat men and women. He's loyal, but with the unfortunate side effect that all of his attempts to help cause chain reactions of chaos to erupt around Tim. Barry's a great creation and one of the highlights of Carrell's rapidly advancing career.

Rudd doesn't do much more than react to Barry's off-the-wall antics, but I wish that he'd been allowed to play the role a bit meaner. As written, Tim is basically a jerk, willing to sacrifice another person's dignity in support of his career, but Rudd plays him as a nice guy who can't help himself. I understand that we're supposed to like Tim, but I have to imagine that if Tim started the film a bit more dislikable, pompous and off-putting, there'd be a greater tension between him and Barry, leading to a stronger payoff. As it is, Rudd is playing the same put-upon nice guy he's played in everything from "Role Models" and "I Love You Man" and, as well as he does it, it's becoming a bit repetitive.

Roach helms some very funny sequences and Carrell is always a joy to watch - his revelation of why his wife left him is both sad and hysterical, and his elaborate art creations are bizarrely affecting. But the film tries juggling too many side plots and becomes bogged down when it should be fast-paced and lean. There are some chuckles in a subplot regarding Tim's belief that his girlfriend is cheating on him with an artist (Jermaine Clement), but it weighs the film down with a needless romance and causes the film to drag. With 30 minutes excised, "Dinner for Schmucks" might feel a bit faster, more frantic and be able to sustain the laughs throughout the entire runtime.

The dinner party that everything culminates to is funny and fittingly absurd, particularly with Zach Galifianakis ("The Hangover") as Barry's boss, who believes he can control minds. The various characters who attend the dinner are fun to watch and there are some big laughs that I wouldn't dream of ruining, but just when the film should close, it meanders to resolve its romantic subplot. The film's epilogue delivers some chuckles on the way out, though.

"Dinner for Schmucks" isn't a bad movie, but it lacks the momentum, focus and edge that would have pushed it into hilarity. It's pleasant, with Carrell delivering a great comedic performance, but Rudd plays a bit too soft and Roach loses the narrative thread a few times. You won't necessarily regret RSVPing for "Dinner," but you're not going to miss out on much if you send a negative response.

Movie Review: "Salt"

2010-07-25T19:36:00.000-07:00

Let's get this out of the way first: "Salt" is not a good movie.

The film is 100 minutes consisting largely of Angelina Jolie running through a plot that grows more outlandish by the minute. There's little logic, characters act irrationally, and the entire enterprise is just an excuse for Jolie to prove that she can still kick, jump, shoot and run as good as - or better than - any male action star.

To its credit, though, the film is never boring. As "Salt" jumps the rails with each twist, it turns into a spectacular piece of trash cinema. After the full-course meal movie of last week's "Inception," "Salt" is a trip to McDonald's - tasty and fun, but not nutritious in the least.

Then again, I like McDonald's. And as preposterous and shallow as "Salt" is, it's a fun little ride that entertains even as your brain scolds you for neglect.

Jolie is Evelyn Salt, a CIA agent celebrating her two-year wedding anniversary. She's ready to quit the spy life and settle down when a Russian defector comes into her office. During the interrogation, the Russian tells of a secret society of assassins, trained from childhood and planted in the United States to wait for decades until they are given permission to strike. Today, he says, one of those spies will attempt to kill the Russian president on U.S. soil. The name of the spy who will carry it out? Evelyn Salt.Naturally, Salt's employers get a little cautious concerning this information and try to lock her down. Believing she's being set up and fearful for the life of her husband, Salt breaks out of custody and runs, although the film hints that she may have darker matters on her mind. And so begins a movie that tries its hardest to outrun "The Bourne Ultimatum" and out-twist every spy movie ever made.

Jolie inherited the role after Tom Cruise left for this summer's "Knight and Day" and she's probably the better choice. Little information is given to the audience about Salt and for a good portion of the film's run time we're supposed to be in the dark as to whether she is being set up or really a dangerous assassin. Jolie has an edge that sustains that mystery and she's not afraid to get dark when she needs to; a star like Cruise would likely be portrayed as a hero from beginning to end, removing some of the film's fun. As she's proven in "Tomb Raider" and "Wanted," Jolie is game at big action sequences, a plus in a film that spends the majority of its time propelling Salt through car chases, shoot-outs and fist fights.

Along with the physical contortions, Jolie must navigate a plot that features twists and turns that even Jack Bauer would find over the top. While initially a fairly straightforward espionage thriller, "Salt" quickly lets its plot unravel so that heroes become villains, stakes are raised to absurd levels and characters change motivations at the drop of a hat, even when it contradicts everything else they've been doing throughout the film. The twists are there to make the film seem unpredictable and there will be some who think it's a show of intelligence that the film ties itself into so many narrative knots. The problem, however, is that none of the twists make any sense considering everything else that happened before, and destroy any pretense of logic the film might have had; I also believe several laws of physics are blatantly violated. By the time the film heads to the White House for its finale, the twists have become so outlandish that laughter could be heard with each new revelation during the screening I was at.

There's a part of that absurdity, however, that is endearing. After a certain point, you can either check out of the film entirely or decide to go along with the ride. Should you choose to shut off your brain, director Phillip Noyce ("The Quiet American") makes the trip quick and enjoyable. Once "Salt" starts moving, it doesn't let up and there's a great deal of energy in the film's action sequences, particularly a chase that starts on foot and ends with Salt jumping over trucks in a real-life game of "Frogger." The supporting cast, which includes Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor, is solid, especially Schreiber, who clearly has a ball in the film's most ludicrous scenes. And Jolie has such a strong screen presence that we'll follow her even as the film unravels around Evelyn.

"Salt's" pleasures are all surface - even as I was thrilling to the action, I was laughing at the absurdity onscreen. To sustain the narrative and hide the upcoming twists, Noyce gives little information about who Evelyn Salt is, which robs the plot of any emotional grounding and fails to provide a protagonist we can invest in. In setting up a worldwide crisis in the final act, Noyce fails to provide any sense of a greater context; he keeps everything centered on the characters in the room and fails to create the sense that nuclear annihilation is imminent.

"Salt" is definitely a mixed bag, mainly due to an amazingly illogical and preposterous plot. But it moves with energy and speed, and is never dull. In many cases, its absurdity makes it fun. That might not be the highest praise, but in a summer that has regularly disappointed, it's not necessarily a bad thing, either.

Movie Review: "Inception"

2010-07-17T06:48:00.001-07:00

Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” is a film brimming with brilliance, humming with energy and so packed with ideas that it’s probably impossible to compose a judgment on it after only one viewing.

Nolan, best known as the director of “The Dark Knight,” gained notoriety in Hollywood circles 10 years ago with “Memento,” the twisty noir about a man with short-term memory loss trying to solve his wife’s murder. The film still stands as one of its decade’s best, a brilliantly woven crime drama told through a narrative structure that shifts backwards, forwards and sideways as it heads to its devastating conclusion.

“Inception” makes “Memento” seem as straightforward and predictable as an episode of “Two and a Half Men.”

Once again, Nolan returns to the world of the mind, in a science fiction thriller about dream thieves, led by Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio). Along with his right-hand man Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Cobb recruits Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect who designs elaborate worlds for the dreamer to get lost in, a “forger” named Eames (Tom Hardy) who impersonates people in the mark’s subconscious and Yusuf (Dileep Rao), adept at mixing sedatives powerful enough to knock people into sleeps so deep that if they die within a dream, instead of waking up they’ll be lost in a limbo-like coma.

Cobb is hunted by agencies around the world for his illegal activities, which involve breaking into people’s dreams and stealing their ideas. When one theft goes awry, however, the subject (Ken Watanabe) chooses not to get revenge but instead proposes one last job: Cobb is to break into a young business executive’s mind and, instead of stealing an idea, plant one. The team balks, saying that inception cannot be accomplished, as the mind violently rejects any foreign ideas. Cobb, spurred by the promise of seeing his children again, takes the job. He may, however, not be in the right frame of mind (literally) for this project, as he’s hounded by guilty memories of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) and their two children.

With that, I will lay low on plot details, except to say that “labyrinthine” is too weak a word for Nolan’s story. In “Inception,” cities fold in on themselves, dreams layer upon and crash in on each other and time shifts with each level of reality. In the same space of time the characters may be in different levels of reality, on different continents, involved in car chases, kung fu fights and James Bond-style fortress assaults all at once. We’re never quit sure of what’s real, what’s a dream or when and where we are—Nolan doesn’t stagger the chronology as with “Memento” but he trusts his audience enough to understand and keep up with the story he’s telling, even as its characters shift through layers of consciousness and reality.

After dropping the audience into the dream world in the opening sequence, though, Nolan does apply the brakes to give a primer on the film’s rules. He’s light on the details of how dream sharing technology works and instead uses Ariadne’s initiation to give us a lesson on how dreams are created, how they function and how the subconscious defends itself against intruders. By the time Ariadne’s subconscious causes Paris to explode in slow motion glory, we’re prepped enough to follow the film.

The film bursts with ideas but is never weighed down by its own brilliance. The plot is complex and puzzling and may take two or three viewings to understand every detail and thread, but Nolan attaches the story to the heist film formula so that audiences can follow the story’s main points even if they can’t wrap their minds around the plot’s intricacies. “Inception” dresses deep ideas up in genre clothing so that even if audiences have a hard time grasping what level of reality the film is currently in, they still understand the dangers immediately facing Cobb and his team in the form of subconscious assassins as they try to reach their goal of planting the idea in the subject’s mind.

The film pulsates with energy and visual brilliance. One of the complaints some critics had over Nolan’s work on his Batman films was that he couldn’t film a coherent action sequence. While I disagree, I think even the naysayers will be impressed with the drive and adrenaline he puts into each set piece, particularly in the last 45 minutes as realities threaten to collapse, threats pile up and the film hurtles towards its conclusion in a blaze of gravity-defying fistfights, bone-crunching car chases and an assault on a fortress clearly inspired by James Bond. And that’s not including the crumbling cities, flooding hotels and exploding elevators that punctuate the finale. If all the bullets and bombs were simply Hollywood filler, it would ring hollow but Nolan ties everything together so logically into the plot and makes it so easy to follow that every set piece pins viewers to their seats in anticipation. Like “The Matrix,” to which this film will inevitably be compared, “Inception” mixes big ideas and big events so perfectly that the film l feels like nothing that has come before it.

Unlike “The Matrix,” however, Nolan packs “Inception” with an emotional thread to keep audiences from being overburdened with tech talk and science fiction. DiCaprio plays a man not unlike his character in this year’s “Shutter Island,” haunted by a woman and ravaged by guilt. Cobb blames himself for his wife’s death and has turned in on himself so harshly that she literally stalks him in his dreams, threatening to undo his hard work and keep him with her. There’s a portion of Cobb that may be willing to stay in his dreams, where he can hold his wife again and avoid the pain of the real world. DiCaprio again shows that he one of the most versatile actors working today. He doesn’t play the same notes as in Scorsese’s thriller, but finds new depths of angst and guilt, creating a character well aware that he’s chasing an illusion, but also knows he might prefer that illusion to reality.

The rest of the cast is engaging as well, with Hardy and Levitt in particular supplying necessary energy and humor throughout the proceedings. Cillian Murphy provides just the right amounts of intrigue and earnestness as the team’s mark and Nolan regular Michael Caine shows up in a brief role as Cobb’s father-in-law to lend some class to the proceedings. Only Page feels slightly out of her element, not as in tune with the rest of the cast but that ultimately works in her favor because, as an outsider, Ariadne serves as the audience surrogate. Through her, we are introduced to this world.

I’ve come to the end of this review and I feel I’m just scratching the surface of a film that begs multiple looks. And that’s okay—with its narrative twists, reality-bending concepts and incredible set pieces, “Inception’s” surface is pretty darn great, alive in a way most films aren’t. But what’s even better is the feeling it gives that, like any good dream, there’s more to discover.

I have a feeling this is a film that will be argued over and studied by science fiction lovers and movie geeks for ages—there are surely hidden themes and symbols to uncover, character motives to question and even the film’s premise to debate over. And knowing that a movie can be that entertaining and that intriguing is what makes “Inception” one of this year’s best films.

Movie Review: "Despicable Me"

2010-07-11T20:03:00.000-07:00

Anyone who ever thought an Austin Powers movie would be better if it focused on Dr. Evil and did away with the double entendres should be mighty pleased with "Despicable Me," the new computer-generated comedy from Universal Studios.

With his bald head and cloak, Gru (Steve Carrell) looks quite a bit like Dr. Evil. Gru is one of the world's leading super-villains, happy to jaunt around town making balloon animals for kids - which he then pops. He's also fond of using his freeze ray on anyone in line at the coffee shop, just so he can get his mocha in a timely manner.

Gru, however, is being outshined by uber-nerd Vector (Jason Segal), an upstart on the villainy scene with a penchant for making guns that shoot squids or piranhas. With his nasally voice and appearance that suggests an evil Bill Gates, Vector has stolen the spotlight from Gru by absconding with an Egyptian pyramid - which he has replaced with an inflatable one, in the film's opening gag. Poor Gru, berated by his mother (a growling Julie Andrews) returns home to his lair and informs his army of minions - little yellow beings that look like Cheetos with eyes - that he will reclaim his glory by shrinking and stealing the moon.

Unfortunately, a little trouble getting a loan from the Bank of Evil and the inclusion of three darling orphan girls tend to complicate Gru's plans.Just writing out "Despicable Me's" plot has me chuckling and, indeed, a comedy about the life of a James Bondian super-villain is filled with comedic potential.

Directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud find some fun gags in creating Gru as an evil mastermind living in suburbia, particularly in the film's opening sequence. There's great visual wit on display in Gru's and Vector's lairs, particularly with a shark roaming under the floor at the latter. And there are a couple of moments when the film's dark humor comes through, as when one of the orphans steps into a dart-filled sarcophagus with a juice box, leading to a surprising and hilariously dark sight gag.

Since "Shrek" appeared 10 years ago, computer-generated comedies have been go-to ground for comedians, although many of the films tend to use those talents simply to create animated versions of the funnymen and women. "Despicable Me's" strongest asset is that the actors are allowed to disappear into their roles and have fun with the characters instead of playing the same roles they've been placed in throughout their live-action careers. With his Eastern European accent and grumpy demeanor, Carrell is farthest away from "The Office" that he's ever been and it allows him to create a character we wouldn't normally see from the actor. This may also be the only film kids are able to see featuring Russell Brand, who elicits a few chuckles as Gru's henchman Dr. Nefario. I wasn't even aware Andrews was the voice of Gru's mom until I saw the credits.

Coming so soon after the near-perfect "Toy Story 3," it can feel like a bit of a letdown to realize "Despicable Me" doesn't have the emotion or depth these stories sometime surprise us with. Unlike Pixar's masterpieces, "Despicable Me" is paced more like a Looney Tunes episode, veering from gag to gag at breakneck speed, and more concerned with making audiences laugh than making them think.

More often than not, the film is successful, particularly when focusing on the bizarre, mischievous minions employed by Gru. Kids will love the slapstick pratfalls and there are plenty of jokes aimed squarely at adults (the Lehman Brothers gag will cause grownups to chuckle) to keep everyone entertained. Like too many of the Dreamworks films, however, "Despicable Me" depends too much on fart jokes and pop culture humor to keep it afloat, and never really embraces its dark side as much as it could. There's a Tim Burton/Charles Addams vibe that wants to come out and play, but it keeps being shoved to the side in favor of tired catch phrases and random dance sequences. The result is a film that is entertaining and pleasant, but never really hits its full potential. A shame, because the voice talent is so committed and the visual artistry on display is so fun. There are a few moments where the film unfolds with a "Spy Vs. Spy" anarchy, only to be reined in by storytelling conventions.

I will say, however, that "Despicable Me" tends to be one of the few successful uses of 3D in recent months. Animated films, which can be made expressly for the format, are usually better at incorporating the technology and "Despicable Me" has fun with the gimmick. Audiences who shell out extra for the feature will be rewarded with one of the more enjoyable end credits features of the summer.

Kids will likely get a kick out of "Despicable Me," and enjoy its zany humor and slapstick gags. Adults will probably be entertained but wonder when the movie's going to surprise them. It's no "Toy Story 3," but really, few movies this year can be. But thankfully, it's no "Shrek 4" either.

Originally published in the July 11, 2010 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "The Last Airbender"

2010-07-02T15:13:00.000-07:00

Dear M. Night Shyamalan,

It's not me, it's you.

When we first met, you were the director of "The Sixth Sense." You swept me off my feet with a terrifying, yet touching supernatural drama featuring a final twist that made me woozy. You impressed me even more with your superheroes-in-the-real-world drama "Unbreakable" and continued to charm with "Signs," in which you wove a scream-inducing tale of faith amidst alien invasions. While others panned "The Village," I defended it as a clever political cautionary tale with a "Twilight Zone" twist.

Then you began to change, and I wondered if the accusations of pomposity and limited range were true. I felt betrayed when you directed "Lady in the Water," a fable that squandered creative potential in favor of turgid exposition, clunky dialogue and ham-handed symbolism. I was willing to say it was just a phase, the one slump that all geniuses have. Then you made the movie where Mark Wahlberg talked to a rubber tree.

I hoped that your next project would restore my faith. "The Last Airbender" seemed promising. Based on the popular children's program, it has a rich mythology and an intriguing cast of characters. The premise itself - what if there were people who could "bend" the natural elements to their will - is interesting fodder for a rousing action adventure. And it has that mixture of myth and spirituality that you have tackled so well in your best work. This project, I believed, would be the perfect comeback for you, enthralling us with a gripping, exciting and adventurous narrative.

And yet, after viewing the film, I realize you are no longer the filmmaker I so admired. It hurts to say this, but you've taken an idea that should have been easy to spin into a thrilling adventure and turned it a dull, incoherent mess. I'm telling you this for your own good: I think you have forgotten the basics of storytelling and it may be wise to step out of filmmaking for awhile.

I know it seems unfair to blame such a debacle solely on you. But you were its writer, producer and director. I still don't understand exactly what world this takes place in. Is it the future? The distant past? We're told that different nations are at war - but why? What are the stakes? Who are the two Eskimo children, Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), that we should frame the movie around them? Why should we care when they discover little Aang (Noah Ringer), the chosen Avatar, who can master the elements and bring peace to the world? By the end of the movie, is the Fire Nation's Prince Zuko (Dev Patel) a hero or a villain? Why, exactly, do all the characters end up at the ice city at the end?

You've plopped us into this world without giving us context or grounding. We're not told the rules or given any back story. When you try to widen the scope, you do it through expository dialogue that lands with a thud instead of showing us the betrayals, sacrifices and tragedies that have placed these characters together - you know, the exciting stuff we go to movies for. The oldest maxim in writing is show, don't tell, and yet the film consists largely of characters delivering stilted dialogue to explain things we'd rather see for ourselves.

Scenes come and go with no context or coherence; it often takes a few seconds just to understand where the characters are and what they're doing. Entire arcs are explained away with narration or a simple expository line. When a hero makes a sacrifice at the end there's no emotional impact because we haven't gotten to know them as a person. There's a love story that has no resonance because instead of seeing two characters blossom and grow, we simply get a narration telling us "they became friends fast" and then see them make googly-eyes at each other. Aang is supposed to inspire the world, but you give us a few short sequences of him doing martial arts and then move on without ever letting him have any impact. Aang hints at having some conflict as to being the Avatar, but quickly shrugs it off and embraces his position, although I'll note that he never looks too joyful about it. In fact, I don't think anyone smiles in this cold, detached movie. Aside from when they're making googly-eyes, that is.

Night, you may have written one of film's most oft-quoted lines with "I see dead people," but your dialogue now reads like unused takes from "Attack of the Clones." Although you've directed Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment and Mel Gibson to fantastic performances, your actors here have all the nuance and personality of a middle school drama club production. The teens speak in flat monotones, exuding no charm or excitement, and the adults chew the scenery as if it were coated in sugar. Poor Dev Patel, so winning in "Slumdog Millionaire," alternates between angry scowls and giggle-inducing outbursts. I couldn't tell whether he was a tragic hero, a villain or just holding his place until the inevitable sequel. Maybe the fans of the series know about Prince Zuko's history and role in the mythology, but the uninitiated don't have any clue about what's going on. What's worse, by the end, we don't care.

You said when you took on the role that you were a fan of the "Last Airbender" mythology. But there's certainly no sense of joy or emotional investment to your work here. I can't figure out why. There's a good idea here. I'd watch a good movie with this plotline, characters and mythology - but it would require actually creating characters we liked and a mythology that had some sense of awe and importance.

I'll give credit where it's due, though. You've made a pretty film. I like the ice worlds, and the use of forests and mountains in the Earth kingdom. The action sequences have some style and I'm glad to see someone using long takes in martial arts sequences. Given that your only other experience with special effects was that horrible alien at the end of "Signs," you show some flair for the fire and water-bending sequences, and the movie twitches slightly to life when the characters shut up and start fighting (although, given the film's Buddhist leanings, that may not have been your intention). Maybe you should put the story-telling on hold and go into business as a cinematographer or a second unit director.

I will say that I'm not mad, as I was with "Lady in the Water." With that film, you were egotistical. Here, it's obvious you just don't care or, worse, don't have the chops. The film reminds me of "The Golden Compass," another adaptation that lost all of the energy and excitement of its source material in favor of boring us with exposition. Your film also seems to exist just to set up a series of sequels. What you fail to realize, though, is that by the end of this, we're so happy to be leaving the theater that promising us a second film is tantamount to the IRS promising an audit.

So, Mr. Shyamalan, I think it's best if I don't see your films for a while. Perhaps you'll want to take a break and hone your skills. Perhaps I'll want to see good movies. And perhaps one day you'll recapture the spark you once had and I'll be able to look at this letter as just a bump in our cinematic relationship.

Originally published in the July 4, 2010 edition of The Source newspaper.

Movie Review: "Grown Ups"

2010-06-27T17:56:00.000-07:00

It’s hard to tear down a movie as well-intentioned as “Grown Ups.”

The new Adam Sandler comedy features the famous funnyman starring alongside Chris Rock, David Spade, Rob Schneider and Kevin James and consists largely of the four men sitting around trading wisecracks and occasionally participating in a plot that seems to wander in off the streets from time to time. It’s obvious Sandler has a camaraderie with these men—who have starred in films produced by Sandler’s “Happy Madison Productions” and most of them worked with him on “Saturday Night Live” in the mid-90s. The film gives the four the opportunity to hang out, trade some jokes and make a quick buck. If George Clooney and Brad Pitt were able to chill and call it “Ocean’s 12,” why can’t Sandler and his pals do the same thing with “Grown Ups”?

Of course, “Ocean’s 12” was a mess. And while “Grown Ups” is nowhere near as pretentious or self-satisfied as that film, an amazingly lazy script and some flat direction by Dennis Dugan keep the comedy from being the riot some might expect from this ensemble.

The characters all have names, but the comedians are all playing so closely to their established types that for purposes of this review we’ll just call them by their real names. Sandler’s character is a Hollywood agent, called back to his hometown after the death of his fifth grade basketball coach. He tries to hide his massive wealth, spoiled kids and nanny from his friends—who include James, with a wife (Maria Bello) who still breastfeeds her 4-year-old son; Spade, as a sarcastic ladies man; Schneider, as a sensitive hippy married to a septuagenarian and Rock, who plays Mr. Mom to his pregnant wife (Maya Rudolph).

The characters spend the weekend at the lake house where they grew up and, occasionally, a story thread emerges to distract us, although Dugan seems quick to shoo it away to allow for more shots of the boys sitting around trading quips. There are scenes of Sandler’s fashion designer wife (Salma Hayek) being prissy and moody, hints that Rock may feel unappreciated and belittled by his wife, suggestions that James may feel his wife is babying his children and the undercurrent that Spade is…well, suffering from being a David Spade character. But each of these subplots is dashed off with a shrug of the shoulders or a quick “I forgive you.” Even a big basketball rematch that seems to be given so much weight early in the film is never mentioned again until the film’s final scenes, where the movie grinds to a halt to remind us that James is out of shape and Sandler has game. There’s no tension or character to carry the plot and the film seems to shift about, genially yet befuddled, as if Sandler and Company thought it would be a great idea to get the gang together for a movie and then not only rolled camera without a script but edited that way as well.

And maybe that’s what happened. Given Sandler’s credit as a co-producer and co-writer, it’s obvious he liked the premise. And with the many shots of him talking to his buddies, it’s apparent he wanted to do a film with his old gang. Even his character—a Hollywood success story who just wants to be around “real people” again—could conceivably be the big movie star trying to prove he’s just a regular guy.

And for what it’s worth, Sandler is the film’s strongest part. One of the subplots that actually works deals with Sandler trying to teach his sons how to use their imagination, play outside and become normal kids. There are a few minutes early in the film where Sandler really seems to have something to say about this and, were the film edited to focus on Sandler and his family, I could see an entertaining and somewhat meaningful family comedy. It helps that Sandler is one of the most likable comedians in Hollywood. He’s displayed real acting chops in “Punch-Drunk Love,” “Reign Over Me” and last year’s “Funny People”. If he wants to dip his toes back into the old waters every once in awhile, he has that right and, to his credit, I don’t think he ever coasts through a film.

The rest of the gang succeeds based on your tolerance for the comedians behind the roles. I’ve always found Kevin James to have a genuinely funny, likable comedic presence and, while I don’t think Rock is much of an actor, he’s able to sell a punch line when he needs to. Spade’s sarcastic shtick grew old without Chris Farley’s warmth to balance him out, and while he gets a few nice one-liners, his boozy party animal grows old quick. Schneider gets shot in the foot with an arrow—and seeing him in pain should tell you how I normally feel about Schneider.

The women are woefully underused here, particularly the charming Bello and the always wonderful Rudolph. A scene at a water park in which the women try to lure in a cute lifeguard has an energy to it that the rest of the film lacks and, for a moment, I wanted to see the movie from these women’s perspective. Regular Sandler cohorts Colin Quinn, Tim Meadows and Steve Buscemi show up in cameos to varying success—Meadows is utterly wasted, although an extended sequence with Buscemi is a body cast had me giggling a bit.

The film is not without its pleasures. As I said, I think Sandler’s character has a storyline that’s refreshing in this area of constantly-texting children. There’s a genuine feeling of goodwill to the film—it’s apparent everyone in the cast had a great time making this movie and that feeling is contagious. While there’s nothing uproarious in the dialogue, Sandler and his buddies have a genuine chemistry and it’s a bit fun to see them wisecrack and poke fun at each other without resorting to annoying voices and cloying characters. Some of the film’s bigger gags—a dog with no vocal chords, blue dye in a swimming pool—work better than others (a farting grandma? Really?), but that’s par for the course in these comedies. And I do have to admit that it was nice to make it through a comedy that didn’t feature the f-word every five seconds or graphic sex references the entire way through.

There’s a good movie somewhere in “Grown Ups.” If Dugan and Sandler had focused the script and been a little more judicious in the editing process, I think it could have been a fairly successful family comedy. Instead, it’s a scattershot comedy suffering from a directionless script and a director with no other directive than to “point the camera at the funny people.” It’s far from the worst thing that those involved with the movie have ever done, but it’s not going to be the film they’re known for, either.

But I’m glad Sandler was able to play with his friends for a bit. Now maybe he can actually grow up and get back to the good, serious acting he puts on display from time to time.

Originally published in the June 27 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "Toy Story 3"

2010-06-20T18:24:00.000-07:00

I'm man enough to admit when I am wrong.

After a series of wonderfully original films that culminated with knock-out punch of "Ratatouille," "WALL-E" and "Up," I was worried about Pixar going back to the well for "Toy Story 3."

It wasn't that I had no desire to revisit Woody, Buzz Lightyear and the gang. I think 1995's "Toy Story" still stands not only as a game-changer in the film world, but as a lovingly-crafted and highly-entertaining story. Pixar only upped the ante in 1999 with "Toy Story 2," which was funnier, more exciting and had a surprising emotional depth--"Jessie's Song" was the first animated moment to ever make me cry. And the wonderfully cast of characters was always a blast to revisit--particularly Mr. Potato Head, Rex and the three-eyed martians (all together now: oooooooooohhhh!).

But then Pixar spoiled us. They raised the bar each time out and then vaulted over it so easily. The mixed pure creative genius with heart, soul, wit and technical artistry so beautifully that, for me, a new film from the company became not simply another release to look forward to, but an Event. There's not a bad film in the bunch and some, such as "The Incredibles," are among my favorite films ever made. The last two years, Pixar films have topped my year-end list. It was the rare studio that satisfied me fully each time out and made me want to see them continue stretching and surprising me with their magic.

So, for me, going back to the first series they had done seemed a bit disappointing. Had they lined up their creative best just to prepare for a possible separation from Disney? And when they stayed with the studio, did they just agree to "Toy Story 3" as a condition? Was this a cash grab? And, as a rule, don't second sequels usually suck?

Well, Pixar, I apologize. Because "Toy Story 3" deserves to be mentioned alongside the studio's best--right up there with "WALL-E," "The Incredibles" and "Up." It's a film brimming with so much invention, heart and goodwill that it may be impossible to dislike it. It's pure joy on display, constantly surprising us, thrilling us, making us laugh and then delivering an emotional knockout punch that will have everyone in the theater feeling guilty for growing up.

The first film tackled the tendency we have to love the new at the expense of the old and "Toy Story 2" dealt with abandonment and loyalty. Now, as the kids who thrilled to the first movie are growing up and moving on in the world, the film asks us to look at letting go. Is there a point where we've outlived our usefulness? What happens when we don't feel needed, when our friends begin to fade away and life moves on without us? Are we, ultimately, useless junk that can just be discarded? Will we just be thrown out and forgotten?

That's what the toys are dealing with as Andy, the young boy who so loved Woody and Buzz in the first installment, prepares to leave for college. Many of the old toys we loved in the first few films are gone, given away at yard sales or donated to other families. Those who remain--Woody, Buzz, Rex, the Potato Heads, Slinkie Dog and the martians--have sat in the toy box for years and are reduced to stealing Andy's cell phone and calling him just so he'll open the box and look at them once again.

Andy's mother tells him to clean out his room and decide which toys are trash and which are to be given to the attic--not that either option is appealing. Andy chooses to take Woody with him to college and puts the rest in a bag to go to the attic; but circumstances send the toys out to the curb and, after a daring escape, to a donation box for Sunnyside Day Care--a place that at first resembles a posh resort or, perhaps more appropriate to the movie's themes, a retirement village. The toys are welcomed with opened arms by the cuddly, purple and strawberry-scented Lotso Hugging Bear (Ned Beatty), who presides over Sunnyside alongside the droopy-eyed, eerily silent Big Baby and plastic, fantastic Ken (Michael Keaton)...who, of course, quickly locks eyes with Barbie (Jodi Benson).

It's not long, however, before the toys learn the truth: Lotso has a sadistic streak and rules over Sunnyside with an iron (yet furry) fist. The toys are relegated to the toddler room, where the tykes smash, toss, drool on and try to ingest the plastic heroes. Buzz is reset to his original Space Trooper mode and put in place as a prison warden. And Woody, who has tried to escape back to Andy, quickly gets wind of the situation and mounts a heroic mission to save the gang and get them back to their owner.

I've mentioned before that the film deals with darker issues, such as mortality, usefulness and abandonment. But what I should also stress is that "Toy Story 3" does it with the same amount of wit, joy and creativity that fuel every one of Pixar's masterpieces. The opening sequence is an action packed riot that perfectly captures the ingenuity and absurdity of a boy's imagination. The "prison film"-flavored sequences at Sunnyside pay homage to every great escape movie ever made Watching Mr. Potato head endure his out-of-body via a tortilla shell is one of those moments that had me collapsing in laughter while also marveling "who would have thought of that?" As is usually the case, this film is bursting at the seams with clever dialogue, close escapes and uproarious sight gags. One can come away from "Toy Story 3" absolutely spoiled by the creativity on display.

When "Toy Story" was released back in 1995, it had was notable not just for its pitch-perfect storytelling (which is still a Pixar staple all these years later), but for being the first computer generated feature film. I had a chance to watch the original a few weeks back and was amazed by how good it still looks all these years later. Due to advancements in technology, "Toy Story 3" looks even better, with the characters coming to beautiful, colorful life and the world they play in refined and made even vaster by the ever-extending amount of tools Pixar's wizards have to play with.

The new toys are welcome editions to the franchise. Conniving, yet still oddly cuddly, Lotso is a great villain, voiced with pure down home menace by Beatty. On his adventures away from the Day Care, Woody meets a group of toys just as committed to their owner as he is to Andy, and I imagine they have their own stories that could fill a trilogy--I particularly enjoyed the thespian porcupine and the Instant Message addicted Triceratops. Big Baby may be one of the creepiest cartoon creations I've ever seen, and Keaton steals every scene he's in voicing the fashion-loving, Barbie smitten mimbo, Ken (but he's not a girl's toy!).

It's worth noting just how much we've come to love these characters over the course of 15 years. As voiced by Hanks with his awe-shucks charm and Allen with over-the-top male bravado, Woody and Buzz have endured as one of cinema's most beloved buddy teams. But I was surprised just how big of a smile was put on my face just to see Rex, the Potato Heads and the Martians again (and yes, the martians still get some of the biggest laughs). As everyone (even the family dog) has aged, there's a sense of history between the characters, from a burgeoning romance between Buzz and Jesse (another surprising sweet spot in a movie full of them) to the sad commentary on the toys who have gone onto other places (poor Little Bo Peep), there's the sense that, yes, years have passed from the first one. Time is marching on. And when it happens to characters we love, it carries resonance--even if those characters are plastic.

Anyone can deliver a well-timed joke or a funny gag. What Pixar excels at is doing all that while making the audience invest in their creations. After three movies, we've come to love each and every one of these toys and, in its final stretches, "Toy Story 3" hits the levels of emotional perfection we've seen them return to time and again. There's a scene in an incinerator where the toys join hands and prepare for the worst--the seriousness and the subtlety used in this scene give it a surprising suspense and gravity, something most live-action dramas and action films can't sell. I wouldn't dream of spoiling the film's final 10 minutes, but suffice to say that there was a giant lump in my throat. Without giving anything away, the film ends on a note of pure bliss and sentiment and may be the most perfectly-realized trilogy capper I've seen. There's a gesture that Andy makes in one moment that is nothing more than a look on his face and the drawing back of his hand...and it's that one small, quiet moment that will likely drive a sledgehammer into the audiences' hearts. The film ends on a series of small grace notes, perfectly delivered to remind us all of the power of playtime and the important imaginary friends who helped us grow older.

And yet, Pixar makes it look so easy. There's never a sense that director Lee Unkrich trying too hard or hitting us over the head with the film's (many) big ideas. The film simply unfolds with an unflagging amount of energy, passion and joy. Is it Pixar's best? That's a hard determination to make in a field that includes "Finding Nemo," "The Incredibles," "Ratatouille," "WALL-E" and "Up." But I will say this: "Toy Story 3" belongs in the same company as those films. Yes, much of its power comes because we've had two other adventures in this trilogy...but I would also argue that "Toy Story 3," particularly in its final moments, makes the first two "Toy Story's" even better films.

There's a mad love I have for Pixar. There is a pure whimsy and magic at work in everything they've produced. Their films have not only entertained me, they've enriched my life. I feel happier, richer for having been able to enjoy their artistry and see things from their perspective, letting their creative teams remind me of some of life's deepest truths. It pleases me to no end that "Toy Story 3" continues that tradition. I can't wait to see it again. And again. And again.

Movie Review: "The A-Team"

2010-06-20T18:18:00.000-07:00

"Overkill is underrated…”

So says Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson) near the end of “The A-Team,” Joe Carnahan’s ridiculously entertaining update of the popular 1980s television action show. By the time he says this, the characters have already barrel-rolled a helicopter, broken out of three maximum security prisons and flown a tank (you read that correctly)-- and the bazookas, machine guns and firecrackers are still moments away.

At least “The A-Team” practices what it preaches.

Then again, “The A-Team” never shied away from excess. The program, best known for capitalizing on Mr. T’s post-“Rocky III” career, was a testosterone-laden action-comedy centered on four Vietnam vets who, after wrongful imprisonment, went underground as mercenaries. Today it’s best-known for its over-the-top stunts and action sequences—which featured little bloodshed and hardly any death--and a cast of characters who spent just as much time wisecracking as they did solving missions.

It’s no surprise that Carnahan, last seen helming “Smokin’ Aces,” would amp up the stunts and action sequences in this update. What is refreshing, however, is how Carnahan keeps the franchise’s daffy soul intact by spending just as much time letting his actors wisecrack and play around.

Neeson suitably takes over for George Peppard as the calm, stogie-loving team leader Hannibal; he’s first seen freeing himself from the clutches of a Mexican drug cartel and dispatching two guard dogs by handcuffing them together. Neeson’s made a career playing strong, wise mentors and he’s not really doing any heavy lifting here. But the relish with which he declares “I love it when a plan comes together” shows that he’s clearly having fun in what would be an otherwise throwaway role.

Bradley Cooper seems born to place Face, the group’s smooth-talking ladies’ man. Cooper brings the same swagger and sense of humor that served him so well in last year’s “The Hangover,” and replicates Dirk Benedict’s smarm with surprising accuracy; there’s really no one else who could play this part so well. Mixed-martial arts star Quinton “Rampage” Jackson has the unenviable task of taking over for Mr. T as tough guy B.A. Baracus, but shows the requisite blend of intimidation and teddy bear likability to earn the Mohawk. Jackson is even able to bring a touch more character to the role, with a corny but entertaining subplot about B.A. renouncing violence. And yes, he’s still afraid to fly.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is “District 9’s” Sharlto Copley as Murdock, the group’s insane pilot. Switching accents for no apparent reason, speaking through hand puppets and amused by every near-death experience, Copley makes Murdock the film’s most refreshing and entertaining character. He’s so fun to watch that it’s easy to forget that he’s basically just doing the same shtick Dwight Schultz did 30 years ago. Jessica Biel is easy on the eyes, but light on the interest, as a government official hunting down the team, but Patrick Wilson (“Watchmen”) is a hoot as the quirky villain who seems more amused than perturbed at the way the team frustrates his plans.

Carnahan may have let his love for extreme editing and absurd action get away from him with “Aces,” a film I was not particularly fond of, but he finds the right balance for action and comedy here. Rather than turn it dark and edgy, as others may have been tempted to do, he honors the show’s legacy by winking at the audience and letting them know that it’s okay to laugh: it’s meant to be silly. That’s helpful to know when an entire sequence hinges on parachuting a tank to the ground while dodging missiles. The film rushes headlong from one action sequence to the next without giving the audience time to register how over-the-top everything is; in many ways, the film is one exquisitely staged climax after another, each delivered with a flair for the absurd that would make Jerry Bruckheimer proud.

Carnahan makes sure to honor the hallmarks of nearly every “A-Team” episode. The black van makes an appearance and, yes, there are numerous escapes from prisons and mental institutions. New ways are found to trick B.A. into getting onto a plane and even the show’s iconic theme song is incorporated several times. The film’s final sequence, which both sets up a sequel and calls back to the show’s opening credits, is pure nostalgia for ‘80s geeks.

Yet even the uninitiated should have a good time with “The A-Team.” It’s the type of wispy, light-hearted fun that is rarely seen in this age of gritty franchises and reality-laced action dramas. Is it absurd, silly and ridiculous? Sure. But that’s all part of the plan. And I don’t know about you, but I love it when a plan comes together.

Originally published in the June 20 edition of The Source.