Reel Opinions

Remember Me

2010-03-14T13:53:00.000-07:00

Writer's Note: The following review contains spoilers.

If it had not already been used, a better title for Remember Me would have been "A Series of Unfortunate Events". This is an old fashioned romantic tear-jerker that follows two beautiful people who fall in love, and then have a lot of terrible stuff happen to them. Actually, a lot of terrible stuff happens to them before they've even met each other. I guess we're supposed to be impressed with how their love stays strong, despite everything going on around them. The romantic leads are likeable enough, but mainly only when they're together, and not being manipulated by the melodramatic plot, which doesn't happen often enough.

The lovers at the center of all this tragedy and woe are Tyler Hawkins (Robert Pattinson) and Ally Craig (Emilie de Ravin from TV's Lost). They certainly do have chemistry together up on the screen, but the movie seems afraid to use it. Instead, it puts them through a lot of contrived situations. Tyler is a "bad boy with a heart of gold". We know he's supposed to be a bad boy, because he constantly has two-day-old facial stubble on his chin, drinks and smokes a lot, is rebellious to his estranged and emotionally distant father (Pierce Brosnan), and gets involved in a street fight. To be fair, Tyler only got involved in the fight in order to help someone. But, when the police show up, he mouths off to one of the officers. The officer is Neil Craig (Chris Cooper), and he's a hard-headed blowhard who exists in the movie only to be wrong at all times, or to take things the wrong way. He throws Tyler in jail for the night for getting in his way during the questioning.

Tyler's not a bad guy, really. He loves his mother (Lena Olin) and is supportive and loving toward his artistically-gifted little sister, Caroline (Ruby Jerins). But, there's a lot of turmoil at home. Tyler's still grieving over the death of his older brother, who killed himself years ago, and is angry at his dad for...I don't know, really. Yeah, his dad's a jerk, but we never really get a lot of information as to why the father is so cold and cynical toward his family. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Ally, who just happens to be the daughter of the cop who busted Tyler that night. In an opening prologue, we witness the night Ally was a little girl, and saw her mother get gunned down by some muggers in a subway waiting area. This makes her dad fiercely protective of her. Regardless, Tyler and Ally meet. Their meeting is arranged by Tyler's best friend/roommate/comic relief sidekick, Aidan (Tate Ellington). He figures out that Ally is the daughter of the cop who threw Tyler in jail, and thinks they should get revenge by having Tyler pretend to be interested in her, date her, then dump her. Yeah, I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it either. Anyway, Tyler and Ally date and, wouldn't you know it, really do fall for each other.

What follows is a fairly routine romantic drama that doesn't really offend, but something seems funny at the same time. Remember Me certainly seems obsessed with dates, and there seems to be an invisible clock ticking down to a certain event that will play a big part of the lives in the characters, and everyone else in the world. I'm doing my best not to spoil, but the movie begins when Ally witnesses her mother's death as a child back in 1991. The movie then flashes forward to 10 years later. It's almost summer we learn. The months tick by. Tyler and Ally share birthdays, balmy summer nights, and even spend Labor Day together. It doesn't take long for us to figure out what date in September of 2001 it's leading up to. It keeps on giving us not-so-subtle reminders of the passing of time, and just when exactly the story is supposed to take place. (We hear George W. Bush giving a speech on stem cell research on the TV. Tyler and Aidan are watching American Pie 2 in a theater in one scene, which just happened to come out in...gasp...August 2001!!) It really is a distracting method of foreshadowing. The only way it could be less subtle is if it had the Angel of Death itself hovering over our stars.

It's distracting, because this is supposed to be a simple and sweet love story, and it's hard to concentrate on that with the constant knowledge of what's coming. It's too bad, because Pattinson and de Ravin have some nice moments together. De Ravin especially brings a real star quality to her role, and I'd like to see her in other things. As for Pattinson, he tends to fly a little into ham-fisted melodrama a little too often, but he can be good during his more intimate scenes with his female co-star. It's when he's forced to act alongside veterans like Brosnan or Cooper that his performance doesn't measure up. Really, there's not a lot to complain about. This is a well-made movie, the performances there, and the characters are easy enough to care for when they're not being strung along by the mechanical plot.

None of this really bothered me until the final 10 minutes or so, when the movie starts piling on contrivances and coincidences so heavily, it's crushing to the audience. We know what's coming, but the movie still feels the need to play up the suspense of it all. It leaves a bitter taste in our mouths when the end credits come. The movie has not earned the ending it gives us. It's an ending that reeks of self-importance, when all we wanted was a simple love story.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Our Family Wedding

2010-03-13T13:27:00.000-08:00

There are bad movies, and then there are movies like Our Family Wedding. Movies so inept that you wonder if everyone involved was somehow blinded to the fact that nothing was working. Did they even read the script, which holds not a single laugh and is filled top-to-bottom with dated ethnic humor and slapstick that wouldn't have cut it in Three Stooges shorts? Did they actually listen to the dialogue that director and co-writer Rick Famuyiwa was having them say? Did they somehow fool themselves into thinking these obnoxious cartoon ethnic stereotypes they were playing were likable characters? What was going through poor Forest Whitaker's mind when he was shooting the scene where a goat trashes a wedding ceremony, gets into his stash of Viagra pills, and begins humping him?

These are the kind of questions I found myself asking as each reprehensible and ill-timed scene fell flat. This is the kind of movie you watch in total shock. Mind you, I had no idea what I was getting into. I had not seen any trailers or commercials for the film, so I was walking in almost cold. In this case, a warning of what I was getting into would have been appreciated. The movie concerns itself with two families of different ethnic backgrounds (one black, the other Mexican) brought together when the Mexican daughter Lucia (America Ferrera) and the African-American son Marcus (Lance Gross) plan to get married. They've been in a relationship for a while now, but have not told their parents. Heck, Lucia has even quit law school for the guy, and plans to travel with him overseas where he hopes to be a medical doctor. She's nervous about how her father Miguel (Carlos Mencia) will react to the news of her dropping out of law school, and marrying a black man who is not Catholic. They plan to break the news to both families during dinner at a restaurant.

Up to this point, the movie had been fairly middling and mediocre. The family dinner scene is the point when it becomes an unsalvageable disaster. They tell their families that they are getting married, and suddenly, everyone starts acting like they're in the worst TV sitcom you can imagine. The dads, in particular, are embarrassing. Forest Whitaker plays Marcus' dad. He had a bad run-in with Mencia's character in an earlier scene, where Mencia towed Whitaker's car. Whitaker's still angry about it, since he shows up at the dinner date in a tiny little car that's way too small for him. (ho, ho) So, when the two men see each other at the same table, they immediately begin behaving like children and acting like idiots. It gets even worse when they find out their children are marrying each other. Did the actors not look at this embarrassing scene and not think of one way it could have been handled in a mature and genuinely funny way? Instead, we get Whitaker making a total fool out of himself, and Mencia getting tongue-tied, and saying things like "I'll be right black" when he gets up to leave. (ho ho, again)

This movie's idea of having two different ethnic cultures coming together is having the Mexican grandma scream and faint when she sees a black man standing in her kitchen, or having the families arguing about their individual traditions that should be upheld during the wedding ceremony. All of the material here is hopelessly dated and borderline offensive. We can't get attached to any of the characters, because no one who enters the screenplay seems the least bit genuine. Every emotion is trumped up, so that when people are angry with each other, they literally start shaking each other by the throat. Every situation is overplayed, so that the characters come across as clueless dolts. There's not a genuine moment, thought, or instant up on the screen. No one gets to act like a human being would in such a situation, so we wonder why we're supposed to care about these people to begin with. The mawkish sentimentality that the movie throws at us during the last 20 minutes doesn't help much.

There are a lot of subplots tossed in that either don't get enough time, or don't matter at all. Lucia's mother (Diana Maria Riva) is worried that she's no longer sexy to her husband. This comes across as a lame and out of the blue attempt to give her character something to do, since she plays such a tiny part in the main plot itself. There's another subplot concerning Whitaker's character. He's a radio DJ who's a shameless womanizer, and never really settled down. The one woman who does matter in his life (Regina King) has grown tired of him never being able to admit his feelings for her, and walks away from him. This doesn't hit as hard as it should, as King's character hasn't really had a chance to stand out by this point. Even worse, the issue is resolved in such a simplistic and throw away manner that we wonder why the movie even included it at all.

It would be one thing if Our Family Wedding was just another throwaway romantic comedy, but this movie just digs deep in the gutters and comes out rancid. The actors have some charm, especially America Ferrera, but are given absolutely nothing to do. This is a startlingly bad film, and a strong contender for one of the worst of the year.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

She's Out of My League

2010-03-13T05:07:00.000-08:00

It's unfortunate that the ad campaign for She's Out of My League compares the film to last summer's blockbuster, The Hangover, as aside from the R-rating, the films have absolutely nothing in common. Aside from one or two gross out gags involving bodily fluids and men's lower regions, this is a fairly tame, very likable, and surprisingly sweet-natured romantic comedy. It could have used a few more genuine laughs, but when you compare it to a lot of recent romantic comedies, the fact that I was smiling through most of it is a small miracle.

Writers Sean Anders and John Morris (Sex Drive) take a fairly standard plot loaded with cliches, but add enough charm to the characters that we don't mind seeing it all again. It centers on Kirk (Jay Baruchel), a lonely and awkward guy who works as a TSA security screener at an airport. He's unlucky in love, but his friends and co-workers Stainer (T.J. Miller), Jack (Mike Vogel), and Devon (Nate Torrence) think they know the answer why. Kirk is a "5 out of 10" on a scale of attractiveness, they claim and remind him constantly. We can buy that. Kirk's a nice guy obviously, and we like him, but Baruchel's performance does a good job of making him out to be socially awkward in a comic way. (There's a funny scene where he goes on a restaurant date wearing a suit that looks like the same outfit the wait staff is wearing, so everyone keeps on mistaking him for a waiter, and he's too embarrassed to say anything.) We feel for the guy, though. His family (whom he lives with) doesn't seem to hold much respect for him, and even let his ex-girlfriend (Lindsay Sloane) continue to live in the same house, since she likes it there. The fact that her new boyfriend (who her family likes more than Kirk) lives with them also seems a bit cruel, but funny.

One day on the job, Kirk has an encounter with a woman whom his friends dub a perfect "10". She's Molly (Alice Eve), an attractive and kind event planner who's just out of a bad relationship herself. She's catching a flight to New York, but forgets her iPhone back at security. Kirk finds it, returns it to her, and the two hit it off. Kirk is stunned, his friends are stunned, even Molly's best friend (Krysten Ritter) asks her what she's thinking dating a guy like Kirk. We the audience see the attraction, though. The screenplay and performances by Baruchel (who has been in stuff like Tropic Thunder and Knocked Up) and Eve (a relatively new British actress who I haven't seen in a film before, but is charming here) really help us see how these characters could be attracted to each other. Most of all, it makes us want to see them get together by the end. Believe it or not, this is something I don't feel while watching a lot of romantic comedies. If we don't like the leads, why are we watching? The actors here have chemistry, and are written in such a way that we might recognize people we know or even ourselves in them.

It's probably not a spoiler to say that there's various things that threaten to keep the couple apart. He's constantly doubting himself and comparing himself negatively to other people, while she has an obnoxious ex-boyfriend (Geoff Stults) who keeps on showing up at the wrong time. When he first appeared, I worried that the movie was going to make him out to be a villain character in a movie that doesn't need one. Fortunately, the movie mainly treats him as an annoyance than an actual threat to their relationship, so he doesn't become too involved in the feather-weight plot. The movie is smart to keep its attention focused on the central relationship for most of its running time. The side characters (the best friends of both Kirk and Molly) could have been fleshed out a little more, but offer a sarcastic running commentary on the relationship. I liked how Kirk's friend, Devon, kept on comparing the romance to different Disney couples, like Aladdin and Princess Jasmine, or Beauty and the Beast. Honestly, though, I wanted to see more of Krysten Ritter as Molly's friend. She has a great screen presence, and I can see her as a lead in another movie, but this film doesn't use her enough.

She's Out of My League works as a romance, but could have been a little stronger as a comedy. Oh, there are definitely laughs to be had, but they're not as strong as they could have been. The biggest comic misfires found in the film are a couple of out of place gross-out gags that seem to have been thrown in to get an R-rating. Why the filmmakers found this necessary, I don't know. They're not that funny to begin with, and are a little too tame to stand out amongst some other recent raunchy hit films. We like the characters enough, so we don't want to see them get embarrassed in forced situations, anyway. Aside from this, the film's humor is gentle. It doesn't go for really big laughs, but we smile. This movie will never be remembered as a comedy classic, but it's pleasant and entertaining enough.

Watching the film, I found myself thinking I wouldn't mind seeing the two leads get together in a movie again. For a movie such as this, that's probably the strongest recommendation. This is a film that doesn't want to set the world on fire. It's a sweet, simple story that will work well enough as a Date Movie. My only hope is that the main cast will go onto big things, because there's a lot of talent on display here.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Green Zone

2010-03-12T18:22:00.000-08:00

Director Paul Greengrass is famous for using an "in your face" hand-held camera style in a lot of his films. He used it to good effect in films such as The Bourne Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum, and especially in 2006's underrated United 93. It gives his films a pseudo-documentary feel, placing you in the middle of the action. It's ideal that he should use this style in Green Zone, an effective action thriller that expertly blends fact with fiction, and puts us right in the middle of it all.

The film is inspired by Imperial Life in the Emerald City, an expose on the US occupation of Iraq, and the existence (or the lack thereof) of the WMDs that were supposed to be such a vital threat. Rather than be a straight forward telling of the actual events, Greengrass and screenwriter Brian Helgeland have instead opted to give us a fictional story based on events that happened in 2003, as the US military began its movement into Iraq. It's easy to see that some of the characters in the film are based on actual figures in the event, and the roles that they played. But Green Zone wisely does not get mired in finger pointing or conspiracy theories. This is intended as a high-octane action thriller, and at this, it succeeds. The movie gives us plenty to think about, while at the same time delivers enough thrills and action. The film could have used a few more personal touches or characters we could really feel for, but you won't find me complaining too much here.

As the film opens, Chief military officer, Roy Miller (Matt Damon) is beginning to get frustrated with the intelligence he is receiving about the WMDs his men and him are supposed to be seeking out. Every place they have searched has ended up being empty and long-abandoned. He brings up his concerns to his superiors during a meeting, only to be shouted down. The information and intelligence supposedly comes from a mysterious source known only as "Magellan", and is defended both by his superiors and by Bureaucrat Clark Poundstone (Greg Kinnear). Just as Roy is about to continue with his mission, he is approached by a CIA operative named Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson), who shares Roy's concerns. Meanwhile, an Iraqi who calls himself "Freddy" (Khalid Abdalla) comes to Miller's unit with information on General Al Rawi (Igal Naor), a former member of the Iraq military that may have information about the WMDs. As Roy and his men hunt down Al Rawi and search for the truth, Roy finds that everyone he works for seem to be working on their own side. His main ally in the search for the truth seems to be an on-field reporter (Amy Ryan) who has plenty of questions of her own.

It's a simple but effective conspiracy thriller formula that places an honest man in the middle of a situation where everyone seems to be looking out for themselves, and he finds himself uncertain of who or what to trust. What makes Green Zone stand out is that it adds a few shades of gray in its characters. We know that characters like Poundstone are not entirely to be trusted, but he has an agenda, as does everyone else. Everyone thinks they are doing the right thing. The movie also keeps a high level of energy throughout. It grabs our attention right away with an expertly filmed action sequence concerning Roy and his unit battling a sniper as they try to make their way to a location they've been ordered to investigate. Between the action-heavy sequences, there's enough backstabbing and shady dealings to keep us involved. We never get the time to get emotionally involved with the characters, except for one, but we are never bored, because the things they're talking or arguing about fascinates us.

The one character we do feel attachment for is Freddy, an Iraqi man who reluctantly becomes Roy's translator and partner in his search for the truth. He's a man divided by the love of the land he calls home, and the desire to help out these Americans who are "liberating" his land and his people. Khalid Abdalla doesn't have as much dialogue as his more famous co-stars, but he conveys just as much emotion, especially in his climactic scene near the end of the film. As for Damon, he slips comfortably into the role of a noble hero-type who finds himself surrounded by unsavory individuals that he once trusted quite blindly. He can pull off the action stunts, as well as a piercing gaze that tells you he knows he's being lied to, or not hearing the entire story. Also strong is Greg Kinnear, who is appropriately slimy yet able to hold himself in such a way that he demands authority and respect from those who work for him and those he works for.

I think what I appreciated the most about Green Zone is the clarity in which the story is told. It never gets bogged down in too many characters, too much story, or too much information. It knows just what to give us, and how much to give us. This is an entertaining and well-paced movie that excites and gets you talking afterward. Some movies about Iraq have gotten too involved with their own politics or beliefs of the filmmakers. This one is a thrill ride with a brain, which is probably the best way anyone could have handled this material.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

The Best Films of 2009

2010-03-07T04:46:00.000-08:00

Well, it's Oscar night, so I think it's time for me to look back over the past year and pick out my favorite films of 2009. Yeah, I know, it's March, and most people do this sort of thing at the end of December. You know, when lists like this are relevant. But, as a regular paying filmgoer, I prefer to hold off until I get to see as many films as I can. And since many of the big Oscar-nominated films usually expand slowly (sometimes very slowly) into wide release from December-February, I prefer to wait until the day of the Oscars themselves to post my picks.

As usual, I will be naming my favorite film of the year first, followed by the great films. The great films are the ones that I really enjoyed, so they can be dramas, action, comedies, kid's films, whatever. A great film is the kind you truly get into, and it can belong in any genre, I believe. Then, I'll be listing my top 10 favorite actor and actress performances. Aside from the "Best Film", all of these choices are in no particular order.

So, with that all out of the way, let's get down to the real important stuff - the movies.

THE BEST FILM OF 2009

THE HURT LOCKER - When I saw this movie back in August, I told myself that I was almost certain there would not be a better movie that year. I was right. Director Kathryn Bigelow achieved something that was almost impossible. First, she made a spellbinding action and suspense story that keeps you on the edge of your seat, without straying into contrived situations or melodrama. This is one of the most real depictions of military life I've seen on the screen. Second of all, she made a movie about the Iraq War that was not politically charged. The movie follows the daily lives of some members of an Army bomb squad. They deal with the fact that everyone around them could be an enemy, and the pulse-pounding depiction of their job diffusing bombs is some of the most heart-racing moments ever captured on film. This is a near-perfect film, from the performances and the scripting, right down to the atmosphere. No movie transported me completely into its story and its setting like The Hurt Locker.

THE GREAT FILMS OF 2009 (IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER):

AWAY WE GO - This is a simple story elegantly told. An unmarried couple (played by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph, both giving the performances of their careers so far here) go on a cross-country search for the perfect home to start their upcoming family before their first child is born. This episodic movie manages to be comic, thoughtful, touching, and beautiful all at once. Director Sam Mendes has created a joyful little movie that is very laid back and sweet, but still manages to hit very hard with its emotions. This is a wonderful film that caught me off guard. It's also simply fun to watch.

CORALINE - A lot of people think filmmaker Henry Selick will never top his debut film, The Nightmare Before Christmas, but I think he easily has with Coraline. This is an absorbing and whimsical dark fantasy that's targeted at kids, but I think most adults will be equally intrigued. Young heroine Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) finds adventure in her own home when she discovers a secret hidden doorway that leads to an alternate world that seems perfect and fun at first, but quickly turns dangerous when she learns the true intentions of the malicious ruler of the world. Like the best children's stories, it teaches a lesson without being preachy. It's also imaginative, filled with moments of genuine suspense, and very clever and funny. The stop-motion animation used to bring the characters to life is also astounding to watch. Coraline is joyous from beginning to end.

UP - Another animated film? You bet! 2009 was a strong year for animation, and there are two more to come on my "Great Films" list. Almost every year, Pixar proves why they're not only the top at what they do, but also why they truly understand the art of storytelling and character. This is no more evident than in Up, which I feel to be their most heartfelt and personal film. The idea of an elderly man going on an adventure by tying thousands of balloons to the roof of his house and flying away sounds far-fetched and whimsical, and it certainly is. But this movie also manages to be very honest and human with its characters and emotion. The opening 15 minutes or so (depicting the lead character's life up to the point the story opens) are probably the most lyrical and beautiful moments I can remember from any film this past year. Anyone who doubts the emotional power of animation (and I know you people are out there) needs to see this movie.

DISTRICT 9 - The little summer movie that seemingly came out of nowhere. While most people were being wowed by Michael Bay's moronic Transformers sequel, this movie snuck in under the radar. Thanks to a great marketing campaign and early word of mouth, the film turned into a small phenomenon. Of course, it also helps that District 9 is a truly gripping movie. My pick for sci-fi film of the year. It starts as a pseudo documentary, depicting a futuristic Earth where aliens have been living amongst us for years, and are treated like third class citizens, forced to live in slums. It then evolves into a personal story as one man (played by Sharlto Copley), originally sent to evict the aliens from their homes, becomes drawn into their world by means out of his control. Like the best of science fiction, it creates a fantastic yet plausible world and premise, as well as offers some commentary on our lives and society in general. The film also is beautiful to look at, despite having been made for a fraction of the cost of just about every summer blockbuster you can think of from last year. A great feature debut filmmaker Neil Blomkamp.

FUNNY PEOPLE - This movie did not get a lot of love or attention from critics or audiences when it came out last summer, and I'm really surprised that it didn't. This was an absorbing and emotional comedy-drama that defied a lot of cliches and conventions. It starts out as a "disease movie" when a major comic star (played by Adam Sandler, giving one of the best and underrated performances of the year, believe it or not) discovers that he has cancer, and begins reflecting back on his career and the mistakes he made in his personal life when he realizes he does not have long to live. But, the movie does not turn out how you would think. It's not a depressing movie, and it's not a story of redemption. It's honest, it's truthful, and it's completely engaging. A lot of people complained that the film was too long or that the entire third act was pointless, but I strongly feel that this was one of the few films that used every minute it had. I know a lot of people disagree with me on this one, but that's what opinions are for. Everybody has one, and in my view, this is an underrated great film.

PONYO - The next animated film to appear on my list is an import from Japan, and comes from the mind of the most celebrated Japanese animation director, Hayao Miayzaki. Ponyo is a magical and captivating film for children, which adults will find hopelessly charming, funny, and sweet. This take on the Little Mermaid fairy tale follows a 5-year-old boy named Sosuke and the friendship he builds with a magical and smart little goldfish named Ponyo. When the two become separated, the little fish uses her powers to become human and track him down. The movie is absolutely enchanting from beginning to end. The traditional hand-drawn animation is also an absolute wonder, and a reminder that as impressive as CG animation can be, it must never completely replace traditional animation. The film was just recently released on DVD, and I hope people will give this one a chance.

UP IN THE AIR - This was one of the most personal films to come out in 2009. It's the rare film that actually listens to the characters, and lets their lives unfold up on the screen without any contrived plotting or melodrama to get in the way. It follows George Clooney as a man with an odd and unenviable job position - he travels the country, firing people for other companies. We're introduced to his world, his ways, and his values, and then we get to slowly see them all get turned around when two women enter his life - a co-worker (Anna Kendrick) who thinks things at his job should be done differently, and another who he feels his first personal attachment to in a long time (Vera Farmiga, wonderful here). This is a wonderful film for so many reasons. It's intimate, and the characters seem completely real and complex, more so than any characters I met at the movies last year. This film continues to prove why rising young filmmaker Jason Reitman is one of the best and most consistent directors working today.

THE INVENTION OF LYING - My favorite comedy of 2009, and another underrated gem in my eyes. British comic Ricky Gervais (The Office, Extras) stars, co-wrote, and co-directed this intelligent and highly hilarious look at an alternate world where nobody can tell a lie, and speaks their mind at all times. His character is a man who doesn't seem to have much going for him in life, until he discovers the ability to lie and control the world around him, making things finally work out for himself. This is not just a funny movie, but also a bold and challenging one, taking views on values of people and religion, and holding them up to sharp satire. A strong supporting cast including Jennifer Garner, Louis C.K., Rob Lowe, Tina Fey, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Edward Norton round out what I feel is one of the smartest movies of last year.

THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX - Based on the classic chiclren's book by Roald Dahl, indie filmmaker Wes Anderson took a giant gamble with this stop-motion animated tale, and it paid off big time with the most original and clever family film to hit screens last year. An electric voice cast including George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, and Jason Schwartzman brought the film's cast of woodland characters to life, as they try to outsmart some greedy farmers and save their homes. The movie perfectly captures the offbeat style and humor that Anderson is known for, and hardly ever misses a single beat. The fact that this film failed to find an audience during its brief theatrical run is a true tragedy. Hopefully audiences will discover this whimsical and intelligent film on DVD.

That concludes the Great Films. Now let's look at the Honorable Mentions, where I list the films I enjoyed the past year.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

The International, He's Just Not That Into You, Watchmen, I Love You Man, Duplicity, Monsters vs. Aliens, Sunshine Cleaning, Tokyo Sonata, Adventureland, Observe and Report, State of Play, Earth, The Soloist, Star Trek, The Hangover, Bruno, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, (500) Days of Summer, Moon, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Julie and Julia, Inglourious Basterds, World's Greatest Dad, Taking Woodstock, Extract, 9, Surrogates, Whip It!, Zombieland, Where the Wild Things Are, Capitalism: A Love Story, Paranormal Activity, A Serious Man, A Christmas Carol, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Precious, The Blind Side, Brothers, The Princess and the Frog, Invictus, It's Complicated, Sherlock Holmes, Crazy Heart

MY 10 FAVORITE PERFORMANCES BY AN ACTOR IN 2009:

Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
George Clooney (Up in the Air)
Jake Gyllenhaal (Brothers)
John Krasinski (Away We Go)
Joseph Grodon-Levitt (500 Days of Summer)
Tobey Maguire (Brothers)
Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man)
Sam Rockwell (Moon)
Adam Sandler (Funny People)
Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)

MY 10 FAVORITE PERFORMANCES BY AN ACTRESS IN 2009:

Amy Adams (Sunshine Cleaning)
Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Zooey Deschanel (500 Days of Summer)
Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air)
Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)
Mo'Nique (Precious)
Maya Rudolph (Away We Go)
Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia)
Hilary Swank (Amelia)

That wraps up this year's list. Here's to hoping that 2010 is filled with more wonderful films and performances. Enjoy the Oscars tonight.

Brooklyn's Finest

2010-03-06T18:15:00.000-08:00

Antoine Fuqua's Brooklyn's Finest is a lot like a "Greatest Hits" collection of cop movie cliches. There's not a surprising moment in the just over two hours that it runs. Heck, the first 20 minutes or so feels like you're flipping channels between different cop shows you've seen before. This is when we're introduced to the main characters. There's a veteran cop who's a week away from retirement, and has just stopped caring about everything. He wakes up every morning with a shot of whiskey, and pointing a gun in his mouth. There's the undercover cop who's gone a bit too deep undercover, and has become good friends with one of the people he's supposed to be investigating. And of course, there's the guilt-stricken dirty cop in a confession booth.

Yeah, we've seen it all before, but the performances on hand at least make it watchable, if not credible. Richard Gere plays Eddie, the veteran. Some critics have accused his performance here as being stiff and wooden, but I found him surprisingly convincing. He's laid back in his speech and performance, but I think that's only because he's playing a character who feels like he's at the end of his rope, and is clinging for some form of redemption. Don Cheadle plays Tango, an undercover cop who finds himself torn between the genuine relationship he has built with a drug lord named Caz (Wesley Snipes), and his duty. Whoever he ends up betraying in the end, whether his friend or the law, it will weigh heavy on him. Finally, Ethan Hawke plays Sal, a family man with a wife (Lili Taylor) and a few kids, and with twins on the way. He wants to move his family into a better house, but the pay he's getting as a cop isn't enough. So, who would notice if some drug money just happened to disappear during a bust? His obsession for a better life grows even stronger when his wife's asthma becomes a problem due to the mold in their current home. He needs the money for his dream house, and will go to any means to get it.

The script by first-time screenwriter Michael C. Martin cuts between these three stories, until they all converge in one climax. And although it never quite makes us forget we've seen and heard these stories before, Brooklyn's Finest does have its moments where it is compelling. Things are slowest during the first half when they characters and plots are being set up. We can pick up where the individual plots are going to go fairly early on, so we settle back and wait. But then, I found myself caring about the characters more than I expected. While I would not exactly call Sal a sympathetic character, his situation is tragically easy to relate to. Ethan Hawke easily provides the film's best performance, further strengthening his storyline. Cheadle impresses as well, even if his story isn't quite as compelling. As for Gere, he's stuck with the least interesting story, but at least the payoff is strong, so we don't feel like it was all for nothing.

There's a lot to admire here, including some smaller roles provided by Vincent D'Onofrio and Ellen Barkin, but it never quite manages to grab us like it should. A lot of this has to do with how safe the movie ends up playing it. While its depiction of the streets is appropriately gritty (if not narrow-focused), the stories and the things the characters talk about often come across as contrived or cliched. It does just enough so that we're never bored, but doesn't take enough chances so that it can truly stand out. The cross-cutting between the three storylines also comes across as a little gimmicky, but at least it pays off with a surprisingly tense climax that brings all the characters and plots together. Until then, it never quite feels real enough, thanks to the largely stock characters and situations.

Maybe Brooklyn's Finest would have been a better movie if it had focused less on the plot, and more on the one-on-one scenes between the characters. When the characters are just having conversations (such as when Gere's character is riding in a patrol car with a rookie partner), it seems a lot more honest. There's a great scene where Sal is playing poker in his basement with some of his fellow officers, and the whole scene feels like we're getting a glimpse into their lives, and listening to them gripe about the shortcomings of their jobs. It's one of the few moments where we feel like we're actually hearing these people talk, rather than being manipulated by the screenplay. It's moments like these that make you realize that the screenwriter does have some promise, and hope the predictable nature of the plot is only the sign of a first effort, and that he'll challenge himself more next time.

This is ultimately a movie that's not as compelling as it could have been, but it still manages to entertain. If it disappoints at all, it's only because we want the movie to try harder than it is. Hey, at least it is trying. That's more than I can say for a lot of movies currently out there. I'm not saying you need to rush out and see this. But, if you ever see it on TV someday, it will be worth your time.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Alice in Wonderland

2010-03-05T18:15:00.000-08:00

Maybe I would have liked this movie better if it wasn't called Alice in Wonderland. Despite the title, and the claim that it is based on the classic stories by Lewis Carroll, there seems to be very little inspiration from the books on display. Instead, it seems that filmmaker Tim Burton and screenwriter Linda Woolverton (The Lion King) were more inspired by recent fantasy epics like Harry Potter or Chronicles of Narnia. Likewise, the film's muddy and somewhat pointless 3D (which never comes across as anything more than a gimmick) was obviously inspired by the boatloads of money Avatar has been making for the Fox studio.

That's not to say there are absolutely no familiar elements from the Alice stories here. There are the twin brothers, Twiddledee and Twiddledum (both played by Matt Lucas, with the aid of CG effects), constantly feuding with each other. The Cheshire Cat (voice by Stephen Fry) still has his unmistakable grin. The Red Queen still rules with an iron fist, although as portrayed by Helena Bonham Carter, she comes across more as an angry buffoon than a real threat. And the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) still presides over a mad tea party, although with his orange fright wig hair and white skin, he looks more like the demented cousin of Bozo the Clown. Rather than pay tribute to these memorable characters, or the stories that created them, the filmmakers have decided to give us an entirely new story - one that sadly gives most of the characters very little to do. If you're going to write a new story for these characters, at least write one that actually involves them, rather than making them observers mainly standing on the sidelines. The Mad Hatter plays the biggest role, thanks to Depp's star power. But even he's not as interesting as he could have been, or has been in past interpretations.

The story kicks off with Alice now 19-years-old, and convinced her earlier adventures in Wonderland were all an elaborate dream her childish mind created. She's played by Mia Wasikowska as a confused young adult, who finds herself trapped in a society she does not agree with. Alice's mother is forcing her into a marriage with a wealthy aristocrat bore she has no interest in, and fears that her entire life has been planned out for her before she has had a chance to experience it. When the aristocrat proposes to her, Alice knows she needs a chance to escape, and sees it when she spots a strange White Rabbit (voice by Michael Sheen), who almost seems to be signaling her. She follows it down the rabbit hole into Wonderland, and this is presumably where the movie is supposed to take off. But quite frankly, I found the prologue in London much more interesting. Alice comes across as a strong-minded girl during these scenes, and Wasikowska gives her the right amount of intelligence and child-like innocence that the character needs. She's at an important crossroad in her life, and rather than rush head-first into the life that has been planned for her, she opts instead to explore other worlds for herself.

The world she discovers is a disappointment, to say the least. It's an impressively-mounted, but somewhat gaudy CG world that never quite feels real. There's a hollowness to Burton's Wonderland. We constantly feel like we're looking at an expensive special effect shot, and never quite buy the illusion that we're in another world. I was reminded of the first time I saw Steven Spielberg's Hook back in 1991. That was the film that featured Robin Williams as an adult Peter Pan returning to Neverland to save his kids. The Neverland that the film gave us never felt organic. It looked like it had been shot on a big, expensive, overly-cluttered set. Here, we get some pretty, but ultimately soulless CG landscapes that never come to life the way that they should. A movie like this should be filled with color and whimsy. We get plenty of color (though somewhat muted by the 3D glasses), but the whimsy seems to have been lost along the way. Nothing catches our attention. Nothing makes us gasp or smile with delight. As envisioned by Burton and his special effects team, Wonderland is a surprisingly bland and uninteresting place.

I guess this somewhat makes sense, based on the plot. Alice returns to Wonderland, only to find it overrun with massive beasts and mechanical soldiers working under the Red Queen, who has taken control of the entire land after staging a coup against its rightful ruler, her sister the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). The land is in ruins, and many of its citizens secretly plot to defy the evil Red Queen, and return her sister to power. Alice is needed, as a prophecy states that she will retrieve a magic sword and slay the Red Queen's vicious Jabberwocky, a creature that resembles a giant dragon. The evil Queen knows of the prophecy, and sends her loyal Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) and his soldiers to track Alice down. This leads to a series of elaborate chase and battle scenes that seem strangely out of place in the film. Equally misplaced is the film's entire third act, where Alice dons a suit of armor, and fights alongside the White Queen's army in a massive battle for Wonderland's fate that seems like it came right out of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films. If the Disney studio wanted a new fantasy franchise (seeing as they've given up on the Narnia films early), they might have wanted to try to come up with their own idea, rather than forcing it into a story that should not end with an epic battle sequence.

I know I've been pretty negative about the experience so far, but don't walk away from this review thinking that Alice in Wonderland is a bad, or even an unwatchable movie. It is very misguided, but does have some hints of the film it could have and should have been. At only the age of 20, Mia Wasikowska is already an actress I look forward to seeing more of. She holds your attention whenever she's on the screen, and downplays the part to perfection. Despite all the special effects and odd characters around her, she never gets carried away with it, and remains a much needed emotional anchor. The rest of the cast is made up of fine and capable actors who either do what they can with the roles, or completely disappear, leaving no impression whatsoever. One sad victim of his underwritten character is the priceless Alan Rickman, who provides the voice of the talking Blue Caterpillar. There's nothing wrong with his performance, really, it just comes across as a glorified cameo that never really sticks out. He reads his lines quite well, but the character itself is so underwritten and used so rarely, you can't help but think his talents would have been better suited somewhere else.

Alice will no doubt enjoy a healthy opening weekend, but will it have staying power? That's hard to judge. The movie's a little too slow, and sometimes dark and violent for very young kids, and there's not a lot here for adults to grasp. Thinking back on the movie, I think I've figured out the core problem. The characters that Alice encounters on her adventure look and act odd, but they are not memorable. We stare at them quizzically for a few moments, then get used to them much sooner than we should. The characters of Lewis Carroll deserved better.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

The Crazies

2010-02-27T18:06:00.000-08:00

The opening moments of The Crazies are so peaceful and idyllic, you just know something sinister is about to happen. In the small town of Ogden Marsh, Iowa, a farmer does his chores, friendly neighbors greet each other, and American flags wave peacefully outside just about every building. The town Sheriff, David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant), is at the local baseball diamond to cheer on wholesome, clean-cut high school baseball team. The serene mood is interrupted when the town drunk suddenly comes walking onto the field with a loaded shotgun in his hand. David tries to reason with the man, but he is unresponsive to his words and raises his gun. David is able to raise his gun first and fires, killing the man in front of everyone.

David feels remorse for his action, and doesn't know what to say when the man's grief-stricken wife and teenage son confront him. He assumed the incident was brought on by the man's alcohol problem, but the wife insists he had been sober for two years. Indeed, when the mortician's report arrives, there's no sign of any alcohol in the man's bloodstream. These opening moments intrigued me, and made me think I had stumbled upon the rare, thoughtful and character-driven horror film, but the plot speeds right on ahead, and introduces us to the Sheriff's wife, Judy (Radha Mitchell), who is the town doctor. She too has a strange incident with a despondent and unresponsive man who is brought in for an examination by the man's concerned wife. She can't see anything physically wrong with him, despite his odd behavior, and sends him home to rest. That same night, the man ends up locking his wife and young child in the closet before he sets the house on fire with them inside it. It's a chilling scene to be sure, and it would have been even more so if the film had slowed down to actually let us feel for the people these things were happening to. Instead, the plot plows on ahead once more.

Are you noticing a pattern here? The Crazies keeps on setting up interesting and terrifying situations, then just moves right on along, like it can't wait to get to where it's going. It'd be one thing if the movie was hurrying along to something truly interesting, but director Breck Eisner (Sahara) eventually settles down into a predictable and disappointing series of non-stop jump scares, with people leaping out of dark corners or just out the camera's eye. After the early promise, we get a fairly typical plot for this sort of film. We find out that the town's water supply has become tainted, and is turning the people slowly into mindless and murderous zombies. The military quickly swoops in and seals off the town, killing anyone on sight who shows any sign of illness. The film is a remake of a 1973 horror film by George Romero, and it feels like a remake, because you constantly feel like you've seen it all before. David and Judy try to escape from the town and the military forces with the help of David's Deputy (Joe Anderson) and a young woman from Judy's office named Becca (Danielle Panabaker, who after this and last year's Friday the 13th reboot, might want to lay off the horror remakes for a little while). All the while, they're constantly menaced by people who have succumbed to the disease ("the crazies" of the title), who all act exactly like every single generic monster villain that's ever walked, lurched, or slithered across the silver screen.

This really had the potential to be so much more. Aside from a scene where young Becca sees her boyfriend get gunned down and incinerated by the military, we never really get a sense of the tragedy of the situation. We don't know anything about the townspeople, or who they really were before the disease hit, so they become faceless monsters who jump out and attack our heroes on cue. I don't know what happened here. The script by Scott Kosar (2005's The Amityville Horror) and Ray Wright (Pulse) starts out smart, and offers some genuine thrills, such as a sequence in a high school where Judy and Becca are strapped down in gurneys, only to have a deranged man start stabbing the helpless people to death with a pitchfork. But then the whole thing goes on autopilot in the second half, and I found myself losing interest little by little, until I just didn't care anymore. The movie stops being tense and scary as well at this point. I'm tired of horror movies that rely solely on things jumping out for their scares. They don't even provide a good jolt, since we pretty much can sense a set up for an attack from a mile away.

At least I can complement the movie on a technical level. It's very well made for a film of its kind. The vast cornfields and desolate streets do give a small sense of isolation that I wish the movie was smart enough to utilize more. The cast also manage to wring out as much personality as they can out of their thinly written characters. At least none of the heroes are annoying. In movies like this, there's usually one character that you hope will get chomped by the zombies or shot by the army, but no such feelings were stirred within me here. The problem was I didn't really have any feelings for the characters. Annoyance at least would have been something to respond to. I don't ask for much in my heroes in post-apocalyptic zombie movies, just give me something to respond with.

I tried my hardest to hold onto the early feelings of intrigue and enjoyment I felt during the first 40 minutes or so watching The Crazies. But, as the film lost its way, I found myself losing my good will. I eventually found myself wishing that Woody Harrelson's character from Zombieland would show up and liven things. If ever there was a movie that needed a guy who still knew how to have fun when modern society is collapsing all around him, it's this one.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Cop Out

2010-02-26T18:08:00.000-08:00

Here is a movie that goes wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to begin describing its many faults. Yes, Cop Out is not very funny, and seems to be built on a plot that could barely withstand a half hour TV police drama, let alone a 100 minute long movie. But, let's get back to that later, and take a look at the first problem that comes to mind. Any good cop buddy movie succeeds or fails on the chemistry between its two stars, and Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan have absolutely none. They don't even seem that comfortable together on the screen, which makes the audience feel uncomfortable watching them.

Not exactly a good start, when they're supposed to be playing characters who have not only been partners on the job for nine years, but also best friends. Willis is supposed to be the tough "straight" cop, while Morgan has the job of being the goofy comic sidekick. We're supposed to see how they can work together, despite their different personalities, but we never do. Willis often looks like he wishes he was acting along side someone else, while Morgan seems to mainly be playing for the cameras, rather than to his co-star. It's distracting, since we're constantly paying attention to the actors and their off key performances, not the characters they're playing. It's especially distracting to watch Morgan, who knows he's supposed to be the main jolt of comic energy in the film, but tries way too hard. He raises his voice, he bugs his eyes, and he quotes dialogue from other movies non-stop, but he never gets a single laugh. That's because he seems to constantly be making a conscious effort to be funny, like a failed stand up routine. He should have tried to build a genuine character, and let the laughs build from there.

In the movie, they play Jimmy (Willis) and Paul (Morgan). At the start of the movie, they're chewed out by the chief for letting some drug runners get away during a botched undercover job. Here is where we get another sign of trouble in the film early on. During the undercover job, Morgan is dressed in a foam rubber cell phone costume. He doesn't get to do anything funny while wearing the costume, mind you, the costume itself is the joke. Then, while the chief is ranting and raving, he's still wearing it. Why? And why does he continue to wear it the entire rest of the time he's at the police station? It's like the movie is wondering why we didn't laugh the first time we saw him wearing the phone suit, so he keeps it on, hoping we'll laugh if he keeps it on long enough. We don't, and the plot creaks on. We learn that Jimmy's adult daughter (Michelle Trachtenberg) is getting married, and wants a big, expensive wedding. Jimmy doesn't want his ex-wife's slimy new boyfriend (Jason Lee) to pay for the ceremony, but he doesn't have any money to cover it. He decides to sell a rare, prized baseball card, only to have it get stolen by a pair of incompetent burglars before Jimmy can sell it.

One of those burglars turns out to be a goofy dimwit played by Seann William Scott. He likes to practice parkour (a martial art that consists of doing flying leaps across rooftops), break into people's houses so he can use their toilets, and tell non-stop obscene knock-knock jokes once Jimmy and Paul finally capture him and have him locked up in the back seat of their car. They want to know what he did with the prized baseball card. Turns out he sold it to the same drug dealer they were after at the beginning of the movie. Now a cop movie about a stolen baseball card would be pretty thin stuff, so there's a lot of pointless subplots that try to hold our interest, but never go anywhere. Paul's worried that his wife (Rashida Jones) is cheating on him with their neighbor. There are two other cops (Kevin Pollak and Adam Brody) investigating the drug dealers. There's also a beautiful young woman (Ana de la Reguera) who is on the run from the villains and wants Jimmy and Paul's help, but can only speak Spanish. She's in the movie to provide sexy eye candy (which she does quite well), but never grabs our attention in any meaningful way.

It's hard to believe that so many talented people can be involved with a comedy as tone deaf as Cop Out. It doesn't earn any laughs, it's not shot particularly well, and the action sequences are instantly forgettable. A lot of this has to do with the fact that the director is Kevin Smith (Zack and Miri Make a Porno), a man who knows how to write some very funny dialogue, but even he himself admits that he is not very strong behind the camera. So why allow him to helm a fast-paced action movie? Everything seems off due to Smith's inexperience, especially the pacing. I'm not saying the guy's not allowed to branch out from his usual dialogue-heavy films, but this probably wasn't the best project suited for him. Speaking of dialogue, the movie certainly could have used some of his trademark wit. Instead, screenwriters Robb and Mark Cullen allow nearly every gag they set up to fall flat with a deafening thud.

Consider the scene where Jimmy and Paul stop a car thief, only to have it turn out to be a foul-mouthed 11-year-old boy. Why is this scene funny? The movie seems to think it's because the kid drops four-letter-words every two seconds, and strikes one of the cops in the privates. A good screenplay could have possibly made this funny. Instead, we get Bruce Willis threatening to tell the kid's mother about what he's done, and the boy breaks down in tears. End of scene. Or how about the scene at the beginning when Tracy Morgan is interrogating a suspect by quoting movies? He quotes everything from Al Pacino in Heat, to Batman, to Schindler's List, and even Dirty Dancing. Yeah, we smile at first, but the scene just keeps on going and going to the point that we just want him to stop. Same goes for the scene where Morgan goes into graphic detail about his bowel movements, and just keeps on going long after we got the joke. We start being mildly amused, and just end up disgusted and bored.

Cop Out is the worst kind of comedy. It's not funny, but it desperately thinks it is, and just keeps on hitting you over the head, hoping you'll laugh. Despite the movie's insistence, I think you'll find the urge to resist laughing quite simple. It's an obnoxious, rancid little movie made by people who should have known better.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

2010-02-21T14:34:00.000-08:00

Terry Gilliam is a talented filmmaker. He's also apparently a cursed one. Many of his films have been met with some sort of behind the scenes misfortune. Heck, there's even a documentary called Lost in La Mancha, which chronicles his attempt to make a film about Don Quixote starring Johnny Depp, and was plagued by so many disasters (floods, personal injuries on the cast) that the project never got off the ground. His latest film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, was met with tragedy when its lead star, Heath Ledger, died unexpectedly in early 2008.

The film finds a clever way to get around this. Ledger had already shot a lot of his scenes to begin with, and the film's fantastic and whimsical premise allows for his character to be played by multiple actors, including Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell. The film's central premise revolves around a magic mirror that allows people to enter bizarre, CG-filled worlds made up of their own imagination. Whenever Ledger's character, Tony, steps through the mirror, he changes his appearance and is played by a different actor. It's a clever way to cover up the death of your star, but not exactly a successful one. It's never really explained why no one else who enters through the mirror changes their appearance. We're just supposed to accept it. Unfortunately, we can't, because it's a glaring reminder of the tragedy that occurred behind the scenes. People were able to watch The Dark Knight, and completely see his performance for what it was, without thinking of the man behind it. Here, I think audiences will have a harder time. There are some astonishing and wondrous visuals to be found throughout, some of which seem to draw heavy inspiration from Gilliam's days as a cartoonist and performer for the Monty Python comedy troupe. What the film lacks is a strong narrative and focus.

The idea behind the film is certainly interesting on paper. The titular Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is an aging old street magician who travels across London in an ancient and run down traveling circus that seems like it comes from another time and place. Considering that the good doctor is immortal, it probably is. This immortality came about due to a deal he made with the Devil long ago. These days, the Devil goes about by the name of Mr. Nick (Tom Waits). The deal that was struck concerns the magic mirror, and how Parnassus must use its powers to convert five different people to his cause. If he cannot by the time Parnassus' only daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole) turns 16, then Mr. Nick gets to take Valentina as his own. Business has not been good for the traveling circus, and they have not been able to convert any souls. That's where Ledger's character, Tony, comes in. The crew of the circus first discover him hanging from a noose on a bridge, and barely alive. They revive him, and although he doesn't remember anything about himself, he does seem to have a keen business sense, and knows how he can drum up stronger business for the circus as Valentina's sixteenth birthday approaches.

A lot of talent obviously went into the making of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. The visuals and the various fantasy worlds that the magic mirror produces are absorbing, and the cast fill their roles well, and give what emotion they can. Unfortunately, a lot of this emotion is suffocated underneath the visuals themselves. This is a muddled movie that all too often serves as an excuse to display Gilliam's imagination and flights of fancy, rather than display any sort of coherent and strong plotting. The film ends up being more like an experiment, rather than an actual movie. It's a movie that seems to have been made for Gilliam himself, and perhaps his die hard supporters. Anyone outside of the inner circle will probably be completely lost, or amused by parts of it, but find it overall tiresome. That's about where I fall. I was interested and I was intrigued, but never truly engaged. As the effects began to take total center stage, choking what little meaning the film had, I became less interested.

If the movie needs structure, than the cast needs it even more. They often seem lost and adrift in the director's imagination. If none of the cast get to make most of an impression, it's not entirely their fault. They're often written in simplistic terms, or not given much to work with to begin with. If Tom Waits makes any impression as the film's central villain, it's because of what he brings to the performance, not by anything he's been given by screenwriters Gilliam and Charles McKeown. As for Heath Ledger and the other actors who play his character during the fantasy-filled sequences, they certainly seem to be trying. Ledger brings some gusto to his scenes, but never enough to make us truly attached to the character. As for Depp, Law, and Farrell, only the last actor makes any sort of impression, since he gets the most screen time. Depp and Law never come across as anything more than a gimmick, and sometimes seem to be winking at the camera.

This is one of those movies where you find yourself admiring what the filmmakers were trying to do more than what's ended up on the screen. I admire Gilliam's art, his vision, and for pulling on with this project through what must have been impossible odds. But the movie itself is such a jumbled mess, it's hard to really get enthusiastic. Doctor Parnassus delights from time to time, but those moments never create a whole satisfying experience.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Celine: Through the Eyes of the World

2010-02-21T05:00:00.000-08:00

As a film documentary of Celine Dion's 2008-2009 "Taking Chances" world concert tour, Celine: Through the Eyes of the World suffers from a lot of the same problems as This is It, the recent Michael Jackson film. We never truly feel like we're getting a behind the scenes look at the concert itself, as we never get to see the preparations that go into staging such a show, and we seldom get to hear from the people who work with her or are up on stage with her, unless they have to gush praise for the woman they work for. The material here is light, breezy, and doesn't give us as much personal access as some fans would probably like.

Despite this, it comes across as a better film than the Jackson one, because Dion is often much more involved, and comes across as a real person in her film. In This is It, Michael Jackson often came across as an enigma, even to the filmmakers. He was constantly kept at a distance, and never really gave his personal views on what was going on around him. When he was truly talking to the cameras, it sounded as if it had been prepared in advance. Here, we at least feel like we're seeing some of the private side of Mrs. Dion, as she speaks privately with her husband/manager, Rene Angelil, and son, Rene-Charles. The movie even manages to build a little bit of tension late, when Dion discovers she has strained her vocal chords, and we actually get to see the medical process to diagnose the problem.

Aside from that, Celine: Through the Eyes of the World acts better as a travelogue than an actual documentary on the recording superstar. We see her visiting different parts of the world, and seems to be making the argument that her music is one thing that people from all over the world can agree on. We see her fans gush about her music in different languages, we see how far they have traveled, we see them break down in tears at the very sight of her. Heck, we even get to see the French President bestow his highest honor upon her, for bringing French music to the rest of the world. It's all very superficial and sort of egotistical, since director Stephane Laporte edits the footage so quickly, we feel like we're only getting bits of pieces of what we're looking at. It seems to be the only explanation when the film depicts her meeting famous figures like Nelson Mandela and Muhammad Ali, and barely shows the conversation that follows. (I believe Ali got to say a few words of praise for Dion, but Mandela stays silent.)

We do get some lovely shots of the different countries and cities she visited during her tour, and we even get to see her visiting some places like Mandela's prison cell, and a former Nazi concentration camp (where she breaks down and cries in the middle of the tour). It just never really adds up to a lot. The movie lingers too long on the fluff and the praise, and when something seems to threaten Dion's happiness, the movie is all too quick to cut away. At one point, she has to cancel some concert dates when she becomes ill. We see a five second clip of two fans who seem disappointed and a little angry that they missed out (this clip seems to have been taken from a local news program), and then it immediately cuts to Dion being perfectly healthy and performing moments later.

The movie's main point seems to be that Celine Dion is a tireless performer, is loved all over the world, and is an adoring wife and mother. She's also good natured with her crew and staff, and has an offbeat sense of humor. All well and good, but not enough to fill the nearly two hours this film runs. Fans may also be disappointed that very few, if any, of her songs featured in the film are played in their entirety. As a film, it has its moments of entertainment, but as a backstage look at the woman and the concert tour, it comes up short.

Purchase related merchandise at Amazon.com!

Crazy Heart

2010-02-20T18:08:00.000-08:00

Scott Cooper's Crazy Heart is a simple and cliched film that is elevated by the lead performance by Jeff Bridges. It tells a story we've heard many times before. It's a redemptive one about a former celebrity who has hit rock bottom, and eventually tries to set things right, both with himself, and the numerous people he has burned bridges with. Bridges, in the central role, is sensational. He always demands our attention, and grabs our interest in a way that the film's predictable plot does not.

He plays a country western singer named Bad Blake. He was once at the top of the music industry, but years of alcohol abuse, and the fact that he hasn't written a new song in years, has reduced him to playing in bars and bowling alleys. He has his loyal fans, who seem to hold onto their memory of his past glory as much as he does. They don't even judge him when he has to leave in the middle of a song in order to throw up in a dumpster out back. Bad still has some friends in the industry, as well. There's a young upstart singer named Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) who views Bad as a mentor, and wants to help re-launch his career. But Bad resents Tommy. He helped get the young man's career off the ground, and now he's gone off and become a bigger star than he probably was back in his prime. In Bad's eyes, the world has screwed him over one time too many, and he doesn't see any reason to care anymore.

In terms of relationships, Bad was married once and even had a child, but walked out on both of them. Now his main form of human contact are the one night stands he has with women he meets at his concerts. He hasn't given a thought to a serious relationship in years, until he meets a young journalist named Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who interviews him. She is attracted to him, even though she is well aware of his alcohol problem. She has had bad luck with men in the past. She's a single mother with a four-year-old son named Buddy (Jack Nation). Despite this, she is drawn to him, and he in return. Bad bonds with both Jean and her son, and before long, he begins to see himself as the father figure he never knew he could be. But first, he has to battle his own personal demons.

The outcome of the story we can pretty much predict from the start. We can also predict a lot of the crises that Bad will face along the way. Crazy Heart gets all of its emotion from Bridges' performance. He makes what could be another simple "fall from grace and redemption" story into something much more noteworthy. He is real here. Everything is dead-on. He walks with a stumbling lurch that represents years of strain and pressure on his body. He talks with a raspy and strained voice that sounds like the years of drinking and smoking have taken their toll. His eyes are cold and disinterested, almost as if he feels like he's seen it all, and doesn't care to see any more. When he meets Jean and Buddy, we can see a faint glimpse of life that we didn't notice before, but Bridges is careful not to lose the character. This is not a story about an overnight change, after all. Bad Blake is a man who has spent the past 30 or 40 years slowly killing himself, and it shows in every bit of Bridges' portrayal.

That's not to say the other performances are completely forgettable. Gyllenhaal is wonderful, and portrays her conflicting feelings of this man who has entered her life with skill. She obviously has feelings for him, and he gets along good with her son, but she has seen this all before, and she probably has an idea where it will end long before it does. Farrell and Robert Duvall are also good in small, supporting roles. But let's be honest, the movie belongs to Bridges. He is what makes Crazy Heart work, and what makes it worth watching. It's the kind of performance you can't take your eyes off of. He's also surprisingly skilled during the scenes where he's required to sing. Speaking of singing, the songs by T-Bone Burnett (O Brother, Where Art Thou?) are quite good, and help convince us that Bad Blake was a successful singer in his prime.

The film has received its share of awards and nominations leading up to the big Oscar night next month, but I have to wonder if anyone would have paid much attention to this film without Bridges' involvement. Probably not. That certainly speaks volumes for his portrayal here. It really is that good, and I hope this fifth nomination finds him walking home with a gold statuette. He is what stays in your mind after the movie is over.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Shutter Island

2010-02-19T18:04:00.000-08:00

Martin Scorsese loves to play with his audience, and that is nowhere more evident than in Shutter Island. This is a well-crafted and fine tuned psychological thriller that actually knows how to build. We start out intrigued when we see our first glimpses of the island itself. As it stands amongst the rough seas and the approaching storm, it appears sinister. The music score starts out subtle and menacing, almost as if it knows something we don't. It quickly builds, and by the time the boat has reached the island, we know that the characters on board are walking right into danger.

The two men on board the boat are Federal Marshals, who have been summoned to the island, which is home to a hospital/prison for the criminally insane. One of them is a veteran by the name of Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio). He's the type who's seen it all, and he looks like he has. He's strong, but he's also weary. We learn why through flashbacks placed throughout the film which cover his days in the military, and the doomed relationship to his former wife, Dolores (Michelle Williams), who was killed in an accidental fire. His partner is a rookie named Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo). If he seems a little more optimistic, it's only because he hasn't been on the job as long as Teddy has. The two have come to investigate the mysterious disappearance of one of the inmates on Shutter Island. They are informed by one of the head staff members, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) that a dangerous and delusional patient by the name of Rachel (Emily Mortimer) has disappeared from her cell, seemingly without a trace. None of the staff members who were on duty that night saw anything, and there's no sign of an escape attempt.

Teddy knows that things are not what they seem, and so does the audience. Nothing quite fits together. The staff seem to be stealing glances off to the side whenever they are interviewed, almost as if they are afraid to tell the truth. The patients that are questioned are obviously not in the right frame of mind, so we don't know if they're telling the truth or not. And then there's the very presence of the building itself on the island. It's an old Civil War fortress, and has many dark corners where whispers and strange voices can be heard. Even when Teddy and Chuck are looking at the facts, none of it makes any sense. The island terrain is rough and covered with dangerous cliffs and poison ivy. So how did Rachel manage to escape while leaving her shoes behind? The movie slowly chips away at its own mystery, only to add more questions just when we think we're getting somewhere. And Scorsese seems to revel in every moment of it as a filmmaker.

Shutter Island is the rare film that you have to pay attention to almost every scene in order to unlock its many secrets. The answers are often staring at us in the face, we just don't realize it until we think back on what we've seen, or during repeat viewings. It plays fair, and it doesn't hold any information back. When the answers do come, they make sense. This is rare enough in itself, but what's truly masterful is the way the film gets you completely wrapped up in a sense of dread from beginning to end. There's not a single scene in the film that feels safe, and as the tension continues to build, it almost becomes overpowering. But Scorsese knows how to draw back when it's necessary. He knows just how much to reveal and when. He uses a lot of classic film noir elements to not only keep us guessing, but to offer insights into the characters and the increasingly winding plot. It's all too easy for a film like this to fly off the rails, but the movie stays grounded, at least until the big reveal. It comes dangerously close to over-explaining the solution, but manages to stay within the realm of believability.

What's most impressive is the film's ability to invoke fear. There's the fear of mistrust that we feel from just about everyone on the island. Even Teddy and Chuck come across as being questionable in our eyes. There's the fear of the unknown, as the movie takes us deeper into the institution's history, and into the dark and forgotten corners of the island. At it's heart, the film is a ghost story, but not in the traditional sense. The ghosts of the past seem to be all around, and as we learn more, the more intrigued we become. The characters seem distant to us, but it's not because they are underwritten. From the not-very convincing smile of the suspicious Dr. Cawley, to Teddy's nervous glances, we constantly feel like there's something we don't know. And when the answers come, they don't disappoint. We want to know the answers, and for once, our curiosity is rewarded.

Shutter Island is a movie that works on just about every level. The atmosphere and performances are top shelf, the story and mystery are intriguing, and the film itself is riveting in a way that few thrillers are. If the climax goes on a bit too long, it's a small price to pay for everything that comes before it. This is the first great film of 2010.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Valentine's Day

2010-02-14T05:34:00.001-08:00

The problem with Garry Marshall's Valentine's Day is that the planning pretty much ended once the all-star cast was assembled. Once they got all these stars signed on, the studio probably figured they were in the clear. They obviously didn't care about the script, which is often contrived, predictable, and not as romantic as it seems to think it is. It's stuffed with too many characters, and too many that don't make any impression whatsoever. Which means that only a small handful of the celebrities in this over-stuffed cast have anything to do.

The film is a collection stories that are all tied around Los Angeles on Valentine's Day. The characters in these stories sometimes cross over into other plots, but for the most part, we're supposed to get the feeling that we're watching a bunch of short stories that all take place during a 24 hour period. It's a gimmick, mainly, and that's just the problem. It never turns out to be anything more than that. Some filmmakers (like the late Robert Altman) could successfully pull off a concept like this, and make it work. But Garry Marshall is known for doing entertaining fluff like Pretty Woman. Here, he seems to be at a loss at how to juggle all these characters and plot lines. Some are emphasized over others, and some characters and storylines are barely touched upon to the point that we wonder why they're even there in the first place. It doesn't help that amongst the film's multiple storylines, there's not a single one that stands out, or doesn't feel generic. We never get to care enough about any of the characters, since it's always cutting away to someone else before too long. Because of this, we quickly become bored with the film's structure, and start looking at our watches.

The main plot in Valentine's Day (or at least the one that gets the most attention) concerns a happy young florist named Reed (Ashton Kutcher), who just proposed to his girlfriend Morley (Jessica Alba) that very morning. His wise friend and business partner, Alphonso (George Lopez), however, has his doubts if Reed and Morley are meant to be. His advice? Reed should marry his best friend, who just happens to be a sunny elementary school teacher named Julia (Jennifer Garner). But, she's involved with an unfaithful doctor named Harrison (Patrick Dempsey), who is secretly married and has a kid. Elsewhere, a TV sports reporter named Kelvin Moore (Jamie Foxx) is forced to do an on the street report on what people think about Valentine's Day, and ends up getting a big scoop on a football quarterback (Eric Dane). There's also the story of Liz (Anne Hathaway) and Jason (Topher Grace). They recently started dating, and she doesn't know how to tell her new boyfriend that she's a phone sex operator. Also thrown into the mix are two people (Bradley Cooper and Julia Roberts) who strike up a friendship during a plane flight, an elderly couple (Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine) who discover their relationship is not perfect as their 50th wedding anniversary approaches, a teenage couple (Carter Jenkins and Emma Roberts) contemplating having sex, another teenage couple (Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift) lost in young love, a woman (Jessica Biel) who worries that no one will come to her "I Hate Valentine's Day" party, and a little boy (Bryce Robinson) dealing with his first crush.

Of the many plots, the ones that probably should have been cut all together are the two concerning the teen couples, as they go absolutely nowhere to begin with, and seem to be thrown in at random to remind us that these actors are in the movie, also. Aside from these two completely pointless vignettes, the other stories seem to be constantly elbowing each other out of the way in order to compete for our attention. Out of all of them, the one that seems to have the most promise is the one between Hathaway and Grace. They're likable, and you wish they could have a full movie to themselves, so they could flesh out their characters. The one with the two strangers on the plane is pretty good as well, and has a nice ending, but once again, the actors never get to go as far with these characters as we would like them to. There are hints at chemistry here and there, but then the movie keeps on cutting to stuff that doesn't work at all, which sends us crashing back down to reality. The problems seem to vary with each story. Some are not as strong as they could be (that would be the one concerning the elderly couple questioning their faithfulness to each other), some suffer from the standard Idiot Plot (the center storyline about the florist torn between two women), and some are just completely pointless to begin with and are wasting our time (the one concerning Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner).

Because of the loose structure and uncertain tone of Valentine's Day, none of the actors get to truly stand out in their roles. Everybody's passable, but nobody gets to rise above the material. Some of the actors (like Jennifer Garner, Topher Grace, and Anne Hathaway) manage to get by on their screen presence alone. While others (like Jessica Alba or Patrick Dempsey) make no impression whatsoever. And then there are actors like Kathy Bates and Queen Latifah, who are stuck in such minor roles, it's easy to forget they're even in the movie in the first place. The movie also struggles to find any laughs. The one time I did chuckle was when the movie took a subtle swipe at Taylor Lautner's Twilight role. (He tells a reporter he's uncomfortable taking his shirt off in public.) Other than that, it's a dead zone of predictable gags, one-liners that fall flat, and two different dogs who exist solely to give reaction shots to what the characters around them are saying or doing. Having one "reaction shot dog" in a comedy is a sign of desperation. Having two means you're not even trying.

Of course, none of this matters. Valentine's Day will make a killing at the box office, thanks to the heavy promotion, the starry cast, and the fact that it's the only romance-themed movie opening this weekend. The studio will make their money, and most people will forget this movie ever existed in a few months. The question becomes just imagine how much more money this movie would have made if it was actually a good script worthy of the talent it attracted. Heck, it might have helped the movie have big weekends beyond the holiday it's named after. Couldn't hurt, is all I'm saying.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

2010-02-13T18:10:00.000-08:00

Aside from his unusual ability to hold his breath underwater for seven minutes, young Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) is a typical teenage boy with typical teenage problems and lifestyle. He struggles in school, thanks to his dyslexia. He has a wise-cracking black kid named Grover (Brandon T. Jackson from Tropic Thunder) to act as his best friend and sidekick. His sweet-natured mom (Catherine Keener) is married to an oafish beer-guzzling jerk, whom Percy resents as his stepdad.

One fateful day, Percy takes a school field trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A teacher pulls Percy aside into a secluded room, and reveals herself to be a winged demonic monster, who demands to know where Zeus' lightning bolt is. Percy, obviously, does not know, and does not know what's going on. Fortunately, another teacher named Chiron (Pierce Brosnan) and loyal Grover show up, and seem to know what's going on. It also turns out that Grover is a satyr, a half man-half goat creature from Greek mythology. He has somehow managed to keep this a secret all these years, though I couldn't understand how. Not only that, Chiron is eventually revealed to be a centaur (half man-half horse), who has somehow kept his secret by posing as a cripple in a wheelchair. The two chase away the demon, and take Percy home. His mom also seems to know what's going on as well, and is forced to tell her son the truth. He is a demigod, and the son of Poseidon, god of the seas, whom she was briefly married to at one time. Sadly, we don't get to see the Honeymoon video, or even a sex tape.

We're clued in on the plot. Someone has stolen the legendary lightning bolt of Zeus (Sean Bean), and he thinks Percy is the culprit. (Why, it is never revealed.) Grover and Percy's mom drive him to a camp where he will be safe, but before they can arrive, mom is kidnapped by a Minotaur sent by Hades (Steve Coogan), who holds her captive in the Underworld. Hades thinks Percy has the lightning bolt, wants it so he can take over the realm of the gods, and won't give back his mom until Percy hands it over. The camp, it turns out, is a training ground for demigods. We find out that all the Greek Gods have sons and daughters in our modern world, and they spend their time training for battle at a camp that looks like a cross between a Renaissance Fair, and a summer camp. While there, Percy is befriended by Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario), daughter of Athena. With Annabeth and Grover's help, Percy sets out to find a way to enter the Underworld so he can save his mother, as well as figure out who framed him for stealing the lightning bolt before a war of the gods can begin.

If Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief sounds ridiculous, you don't know the half of it. This is one of the goofiest movies I've seen in a long time. At least it has the sense to not take itself entirely seriously. There are some clever touches here and there, such as the location of the entrance to Hell. Unfortunately, the movie is never as smart or as clever as it seems to think it is. Director Chris Columbus (I Love You, Beth Cooper) keeps things moving at such a rapid pace, we never get the time to get attached to Percy and his friends, or comprehend this loopy plot. The film is set with the pace of a frantic video game, with each scene leading to another battle, special effects sequence, or major action scene. As soon as Percy, Grover, and Annabeth leave the camp, they head to a stone garden in New York to do battle with the vampish Medusa (Uma Thurman). Next, they're off to a museum in Nashville, where a hydra battle awaits them. After that, they hit a casino in Vegas, where they must resist temptation. Finally, it's a pit-stop in Hell, where Hades is revealed to be an aging British hair metal rocker trapped in a loveless marriage with Persephone (Rosario Dawson), followed by a battle in the skies over New York City with the real lightning thief, and finally a brief tour of Mount Olympus.

It should all be ludicrous enough to be a fun time, but it's not. The movie doesn't explain enough, and leaves us asking too many questions. It's also suffering from a curious lack of magic and wonder. All these fantastic creatures and gods, and the kids barely get to react to them. They're just another obstacle for the heroes to overcome, like enemies in a video game. Maybe this is all to distract us that the plot makes little sense. As I mentioned earlier, it's never really explained why Zeus thinks Percy is the one responsible for stealing his lightning bolt. And despite the bolt being the object that sets the plot into motion, Percy actually spends no time whatsoever looking for it. He spends the entire span of the film searching for some magical pearls that will allow him and his friends to exit the Underworld once they find and rescue his mom. It's only during the climactic moments that he accidentally stumbles upon the bolt itself, and the true identity of the thief, whom he has spent absolutely no time searching for. Speaking of the lightning thief's identity, it's terribly anticlimactic, and nowhere near as shocking as the script would want us to believe.

Percy Jackson is based on a series of novels by Rick Riordan. The studio obviously hopes it will be successful enough to span a franchise like the Harry Potter films. The movie plays it smart, though, and doesn't leave things too open ended. After the failure of films like Eragon, The Golden Compass, and The Vampire's Assistant, it's probably a good idea that the movie takes the safe route, in case sequels never come. Even so, what we have here isn't really good enough to make me want to see more. It's impossible to take seriously, and not goofy enough to be fun. Hopefully next month's Clash of the Titans remake will give us the fun we deserve in a movie like this.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

The Wolfman

2010-02-12T18:03:00.000-08:00

Joe Johnston's The Wolfman is a flawed, but entertaining B-movie filled with A-level production values. It gets a lot of things right. I liked that the film stuck to the classic 19th century London setting of the story. I loved the look of the film, especially the large, imposing mansion house that serves for many of the film's settings. I also enjoyed how the film employed mostly physical effects, using CG mainly when necessary. Given the film's well-documented behind the scenes struggle for control, and the numerous release dates, I expected much worse.

The film opens like any good movie about werewolves should. A lone figure, illuminated only by the lantern her carries and the light of the full moon above him, nervously makes his way through a foggy forest filled with dead trees. He seems frightened, leaping at every shadow around him, until one of those shadows turns out to be the titular beast. The man runs, and the wolf creature makes short work of him. The man's fiance, Gwen (Emily Blunt), writes a letter to his brother, a Shakespearean actor named Lawrence (Belnico Del Toro). She urges him to return to his childhood mansion home to help search for his brother. (At this point, the man's body has not yet been found, and is considered missing.) Lawrence returns home as requested, and we quickly learn that the mansion holds a lot of unpleasant memories for him, most of them surrounding his cold and distant father, Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins). The home itself is equally chilly in its demeanor. It's filled with cavernous halls, a snarling guard dog, and a lot of stuffed and mounted trophy animals, which naturally take on a more ominous shape when the sun goes down.

The body of Lawrence's brother is soon discovered, and when he sees the mutilated state of the corpse, Lawrence becomes obsessed with what kind of man or creature could have done it. The talk at the local tavern seems to point to a mysterious beast that wanders the woods, and may have ties to some traveling gypsies that camp there. Lawrence goes to the gypsies seeking answers, the camp is attacked by the wolf beast, and he is bitten by the monster but survives. From that point, The Wolfman follows a predictable, but never boring path. Lawrence finds himself taking a beast-like form himself whenever there's a full moon, and a series of murders begin cropping up in his wake. An Inspector from Scotland Yard (Hugo Weaving) is called in to investigate, and quickly begins to realize that the clues lead to Lawrence. Gwen begins to develop feelings for Lawrence, but he must do his best to resist, less he harm her. All the while, the owner of the dark mansion stays in the shadows, letting the events play out around him.

It's gothic melodrama that's been put together quite well by a talented team. Despite having limited experience working in the horror genre, director Joe Johnston (Hidalgo) has a knack for atmosphere, and knows how to use gory special effects so that they actually do shock, instead of coming across as exploitive. The production design is excellent all around. The dark manors and foggy moors bring out the right mood, and certainly fit the story better than a more modern setting would. There's even a memorable music score by Danny Elfman, which is subtle enough to not overpower the scenes, but does not fade into the background. All of this is complemented by a fine cast, who help breathe life into some thinly-written characters. Not all are successful (Emily Blunt often comes across as a bore), but Del Toro is brooding and intense, while Weaving finds the right balance of cockiness and stern authority. As for Anthony Hopkins, he seems to be relishing his role as the sinister father figure, who seems to be taking great pleasure in his son's personal suffering.

As mentioned, a majority of the effects to bring the Wolfman to life are done with physical make up effects by Rick Baker. For this, I am grateful. As someone who has been disappointed by CG attempts at werewolves in past films, I appreciated this approach. In fact, it's when the film does switch to CG that the effects start to lose their hold on the audience. There are some questionable shots of the Wolfman himself leaping across rooftops, as well as some laughably obvious attempts at a computer generated bear in one sequence. Fortunately, this doesn't happen enough to take us out of the film. The computer-enhanced transformation sequences at least are effective. The scenes where Lawrence becomes the beast are the obvious money shots, and seem to have gotten the most attention.

The Wolfman isn't about to become a genre classic, or make anyone forget the original film, but it's an effective reboot. It also feels like a necessary one, given how so many classic monsters are now being romanticized as teenage hunks for girls to scream over. Here's a movie that reminds us that werewolves are not young underwear models who walk around with their shirts off. Who says you can't learn anything from the movies?

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

From Paris with Love

2010-02-06T18:35:00.000-08:00

Peter Morel's From Paris with Love is enjoyable junk food cinema. The plot is inconsequential, the dialogue is pretty much forgettable, and there's not a single thing to think about while you're watching it. But it's so much fun to watch, I doubt many will care. The movie is a violent live action cartoon, and thank goodness for that. If this movie tried to take itself seriously, it would have been laughed right off the screen.

The cast certainly seems to be enjoying themselves, which is always a plus in a movie like this. If they're not having fun, then the audience usually isn't. It's especially fun to watch John Travolta reveling his role as Charlie Wax, a super spy who has a passion for guns, prostitutes, fast cars, and big explosions. His methods are unorthodox, but he gets the job done. And you have to admire his talent for being able to hang himself outside the window of a car that's speeding down a highway while aiming a bazooka at a fleeing vehicle, without anyone else on the highway apparently noticing him. That's not easy to do. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Travolta plays him as if he knows he has the coolest job in the world, and he's well aware he's the biggest bad ass in the room. He demonstrates this with gusto when he is able to clear an entire Chinese restaurant full of assassins in a matter of seconds. Sure, the stunt work relies heavily on Matrix-style special effects, but the action sequences are edited smoothly enough so that we can not only tell what's going on at all times, but we also get to see enough of the actors getting to do their own stuff.

The plot is an afterthought, but here's the rundown anyway. Charlie is teamed up on his latest mission with James Reece (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), the assistant to the American ambassador in Paris. James is a laid back man, happy with his fiance, Caroline (Kasia Smutniak), and doesn't know what to make of Charlie's extreme ways when he's paired up with the spy to be his driver. Charlie's mission seems to be to snuff out some Asian drug dealers that have ties to the recent death of the Secretary of Defense's daughter, but it turns out the mission is even more urgent. There is a meeting of American political figures taking place in Paris, and some terrorists are plotting to bomb the gathering. There are a few plot twists to keep things moving, but really, the plot is not the focus here. It's the string of elaborate and well-staged action sequences that grab our attention, as well as the likable "odd couple" dynamic that Travolta and Rhys-Meyers bring. It's funny to see how they handle each situation differently. Charlie is calm and collected as the number of bodies pile up in his wake, while James seems to often be wondering how he ended up running around Paris, carrying a vase full of cocaine.

The story was dreamed up by Luc Besson, and if you've seen any of his films, you'll see the connection. He specializes in action films that are usually bigger than life and twice as dumb. This is no exception. It zooms along, barely making enough sense for us to follow, and keeps on tossing in a lot of big action set pieces to distract us from the fact that there's not much behind the explosions. Here, we at least get a few interesting relationships. Besides the main one between Charlie and James, we also get a romantic one between James and Caroline. It doesn't get a lot of screen time, but it's important none the less, and holds our interest. Rhys-Meyers and Smutniak have obvious chemistry together, and offer a nice counter balance to the comic book-style action sequences.

I feel I should stress that From Paris with Love should not be taken seriously in the slightest. I say this, because some critics are accusing the movie of being needlessly cruel, or even racist and sexist in its depiction of minorities and women. Maybe if the film was grounded in any form of reality, I would agree, but I think most open minded viewers will see the movie for what it is - A bloody live action cartoon for adults that delivers on what it promises, and is the first truly fun movie to hit the screens this year.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Dear John

2010-02-05T18:04:00.000-08:00

Based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks, Dear John is a tepid and uninvolved wannabe romantic tear-jerker. The lovers at the center of the story are John Tyree (Channing Tatum) and Savannah (Amanda Seyfried). They meet on a beach back in the Spring of 2001, and the movie is supposed to follow their relationship over the years, along with the many trials they meet along the way. The main miscalculation of the filmmakers is that neither one is very interesting, nor do they get to spend much time together, so why should we care?

The two lovers come from different walks of life. John is a Green Beret on leave with a murky troubled past. The movie keeps on hinting at it, but never goes into any detail. At one point, he takes Savannah out to dinner, and as they enter the restaurant, they are stopped by a man who asks John what he's doing there, and that he doesn't want any trouble. We never find out who this man is, what happened between John and him, nor do we ever see him again for the rest of the movie. As for Savannah, she's a blandly sweet little thing who likes to ride horses, build homes for charity, and hang out with the mentally challenged little boy who lives next door to her. Her dream is to open a summer camp for autistic children. Despite their different life styles, they hit it off, and spend two weeks together in lover's bliss. He teaches her how to surf, she sings romantic songs to him on a guitar, and they both make PG-13-rated love. Soon, they must go their separate ways, as he has to go back to the military, and she has to go back to college. He promises her that she'll see him again when his tour of duty ends in 12 months, and that their time apart will pass quickly. "A lot can happen in 12 months", Savannah replies ominously.

Naturally, something does happen in those months apart. September 11th happens, and John is forced to extend his tour of military service. They begin to write letters to each other, but it is hard to keep in touch, and both begin to lose hope. The audience loses hope right around the same time, as the screenplay by Jamie Linden (We Are Marshall) begins to hopelessly spin its wheels. It can't think of anything to do with these characters, as they're forced to spend the entire movie apart, and there was never much chemistry between them when they were together. John is kind of rigid and wooden (part of this I credit to Mr. Tatum's rather wooden performance here), while Savannah seems nice enough, but never develops a real personality. They fail to create any sparks, and since certain plot developments (which I will not reveal) force Savannah to leave the film for the entire middle section, we're left with absolutely no desire to see them get together, or concern ourselves as to whether they will see each other again. It's strange and a little uncomfortable to watch a movie that is obviously trying to tug at our hearts, but creates no emotional response whatsoever, due to the haphazard nature of the characters.

Oddly enough, the film's secondary relationship comes across as being more memorable. This is the relationship between John and his emotionally distant and mildly autistic father, played by Richard Jenkins. It stands out not so much because the characters are more strongly thought out here, but because of Jenkins' performance, which is the best in the film. He plays a man who seems to be afraid to show any real emotion to his son, or to anyone. His main passion is collecting coins, which he spends hours every day obsessively checking and cleaning each one. He also cooks the same food for dinner every night of the week, each week. The subplot concerning John's efforts to reach his father emotionally, and to ease him slowly out of his rigid routine is the closest thing the movie has to a real emotional impact. Too bad that the conclusion to this plot ends up feeling overly calculated and manipulative, as well as anti-climactic.

Dear John is an unsatisfying movie that seems to think its hitting all the right emotional notes, even when it isn't. We don't care as much as the movie seems to think we do, because the characters are sketchy at best, sometimes fading in and out of the narrative at random. Early on in the film, we're introduced to one of Savannah's friends, who obviously is in love with her, and becomes jealous when her attention is turned to John almost the second they meet on the beach. After a brief fight with John, the character disappears from the plot, and soon from the movie altogether. I was also put off by the way the filmmakers seem to almost romanticize the current war situation, since John only sees any time on the battlefield when it is convenient for the plot. A majority of his time as a soldier is spent sitting around in a tent, waiting for letters from his lover. After the intense realism of The Hurt Locker, this movie's vision of war seems downright tame.

Looking at the film's message board over on the IMDB, it seems that fans are upset that the ending has been changed from the book. They complain that the new ending is artificial, which I find odd, since everything that comes before it is pretty artificial also. I suspect Dear John will do well with the crowd who flocks to the Twilight movies. There's a lot of attractive actors on display, looking longingly at each other, as they recite cornball romance novel dialogue. I didn't like this movie very much, but hey, I don't like Twilight that much either.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Edge of Darkness

2010-01-30T15:00:00.000-08:00

It's no secret that Edge of Darkness is an important movie for Mel Gibson, and serves as an opportunity for him and the major Hollywood studios to see if there's still an interest in the star after having not had a leading role since 2002's Signs, and several personal and legal tabloid incidents. My reaction after seeing the film? He's still an intriguing screen presence. He's older and a lot more leather-skinned than you might remember him, and the character he plays here isn't his deepest or most memorable. But, he makes it his own, nonetheless.

The movie throws him into a complex, and somewhat silly conspiracy theory thriller, where he plays a grizzled but kindhearted homicide detective named Thomas Craven. Thomas is tough as nails, but generally a good guy. He doesn't seem to have any vices (he prefers a ginger ale over any alcoholic beverage), and his 24-year-old daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic) is the light of his life. When Emma pays a surprise visit, Thomas notices that something is wrong. She seems violently ill, and suffers from brief bursts of nausea. Thomas tries to take her to the hospital, but as soon as they step out the front door, a masked gunman cries out and shoots Emma dead before fleeing. The authorities and the press assume that the bullet that killed his daughter was intended for him, but he's not so sure when he searches through Emma's belongings and finds a loaded gun. Digging further, Thomas discovers that there are a lot of people connected to his daughter fearing for their lives, including Emma's boyfriend (Shawn Roberts) and a former co-worker (Caterina Scorsone). The signs all seem to point that Emma was trying to be a whistle blower at the corporation where she worked, Northmoor Research Facility, which handles nuclear materials for the U.S. government.

Edge of Darkness doesn't rewrite the rules of the thriller genre, but it plays by the rules well enough to entertain. The film itself is based on a five part British TV mini series, and although I can't compare it to the source material, the film does not feel too rushed or tossed together. The screenplay by William Monahan (The Departed) and Andrew Bovell has to pull a difficult balancing act of juggling a convoluted and sometimes confusing plot, with a lot of characters. First and foremost, there's the shady boss at the corporation where Emma used to work, who is obviously hiding something. He's played by Danny Huston, who portrays the character as a smarmy villain who thinks he's above it all. He sometimes comes across as almost a James Bond villain, hiding in his sleek fortress-like corporation, poisoning and gassing his victims, and dumping bodies in the water, using his connections to cover them up as "accidents". Meanwhile, there's a shady government operative (Ray Winstone), and equally shady government figures and Senators who all have plenty of secrets to hide. It's not very hard to point out the bad guys in this movie, as they usually drive around in big, black, suspicious-looking vehicles that practically scream "property of evil henchmen".

It's all ridiculous, of course, and we usually are one step ahead of the characters. Not even the seemingly innocent character who ends up double crossing Gibson's character and selling him out to the bad guys is much of a surprise. Despite it all, I found it enjoyable in an escapist, popcorn entertainment sort of way. You pay to see Mel Gibson pissed off and seeking revenge against slimy corporate and political people, and you get it here. You also get it done rather well. The entire cast is strong, and director Martin Campbell (Casino Royale) keeps the pace lively enough so that we're engaged in the search for the truth. The movie makes some missteps, such as some scenes early on when Gibson's character has "conversations" with his dead daughter, and the film's final scene is kind of goofy in the way it tries to put a feel good spin on a relatively downer ending. Fortunately, it does not step into the area of wrong-headedness too often, and managed to hold my interest.

The movie all rests on Gibson, however. His character of Thomas Craven sometimes seems kind of one note in his quest for revenge, but he manages to sneak in a little sly, vicious fun here and there, such as a scene where he tells a person he's interrogating to take off his glasses, and when the man complies, Gibson punches him in the face. We don't exactly get a chance to feel for the character. Aside from a scene where he scatters his daughter's ashes on a beach they used to visit when she was a child, we don't really get to see him truly mourn for her. Still, he fits the role of the angry vengeance-driven hero pushed to the edge well. We can sense his fuse getting shorter in each passing scene, and he does get to show that intensity that made him famous. He gives just the right amount of rage to get the audience behind his quest for revenge. Now if he could have actually brought some genuine characteristics or emotion, this could have been a good movie, instead of a fun escapist thriller.

I'm recommending the film for what it is. It shows that Gibson still has what it takes, and it's made well enough. Edge of Darkness is not a great movie, but it works on all the right basic levels. It's a vendetta movie, it's an entertaining one, it's ridiculous but not so much that it winds up hurting the film, and that's really all that needs to be said.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

When in Rome

2010-01-29T18:17:00.000-08:00

Much like this month's other romantic comedy release, Leap Year, When In Rome is a perfectly standard example of the genre that gets a little extra mileage out of its lead stars. In this case, it's Kristen Bell (of TV's Veronica Mars) and Josh Duhamel (from the Transformers films). They both bring a certain down to earth charm, which is much needed in this film, as it's humor is often so broad that it resembles a live action cartoon, and not in a good way. With all the goofiness surrounding these two likable performances, I sometimes found myself wishing they were falling in love in a different movie.

The plot is strictly by the numbers, which is to be expected. Kristen Bell plays Beth, a museum curator who is married to her work, and doesn't have time for a relationship ever since her heart was broken in her last one. Early on in the film, she's approached by her little sister (Alexis Dziena), who is getting married in Rome after a brief whirlwind love affair. Beth is forced to drop everything and fly off to Italy to attend the wedding, where she meets a man named Nick (Josh Duhamel), who despite being highly accident prone and a magnet for pratfalls, could be the guy she's looking for. Just when Beth is about to make her move to get closer to him, she sees Nick seemingly being intimate with another woman. We obviously know it's not what it looks like, and the whole situation could be resolved if one of the characters just said a few words. But, Beth takes it the wrong way, gets drunk, and goes wading in the water in Rome's famous "Fountain of Love". There's a superstition that if you remove a coin that was thrown into the fountain, the person who tossed that coin will fall in love with you. Beth, in her drunken haze, removes four coins (and a poker chip), and when she returns home to New York, she suddenly finds herself stalked by four total strangers who seem infatuated with her, and won't leave until they profess their love to her.

The fact that these four people who tossed the coins into the fountain in Italy all just happen to live in New York and within walking distance to Beth is hard to swallow, but I digress. The men who start chasing after and following Beth everywhere she goes includes an insane artist with a foot fetish (Will Arnett), a vain and egotistical male model (Dax Shepard), a street magician who is obviously supposed to be a parody of stunt illusionist Criss Angel (Jon Heder), and a middle aged sausage tycoon (Danny DeVito). These characters can sometimes be funny (especially Heder), but they often come across as creepy, as a lot of the things they do to get closer to Beth would probably lead to them being arrested in real life, or at least a restraining order or two. And what of the poker chip she picked up from the fountain? Beth assumes that it belongs to Nick, since he starts calling as soon as she returns home, and seems genuinely interested in her. He explains the situation with the other woman that night, but she still thinks he's only after her because of the magic from the fountain. But then she starts to warm up to him the more time they spend together.

Are they destined to be together? Is it the magic of the fountain that is making Nick fall in love, or is it real? And if it is the magic, is it right for Beth to take advantage of it? These are the kind of questions you can only get away with asking in a movie like When in Rome. It's featherweight, it's silly, and it's not exactly that memorable. But it has to be said that the performances of Bell and Duhamel go a long way. The characters are thinly written, but their on screen chemistry and individual performances actually make us want to see them get together. I was grateful for this, as the film itself has very little to offer. While I chuckled at some of the more offbeat moments of humor (including an early scene concerning a very stubborn vase that refuses to shatter), the jokes can sometimes gets a little too broad, especially concerning the four obsessed suitors who start following Beth around everywhere. That, or the scenes have disappointing payoffs, such as a sequence where Nick takes Beth to dinner at a bizarre restaurant where it's pitch black, and the servers wear night vision goggles. There's a lot that could have been done with this scene, but the script goes for the predictable gags.

Outside of the charm of the two leads, there's not a lot that stands out. Director Mark Steven Johnson (Ghost Rider) and writers David Diamond and David Weissman (Old Dogs) go the predictable route, right down to the casting. Beth has some supportive best friends, who look and act like the best friends from other romantic comedies. The icy boss at Beth's job is played by Anjelica Huston, who specializes in these kind of roles whenever she's cashing a paycheck in a movie. Even the Rome settings have been swiped from other romantic movies, and seem to be staged the same way. Even if we feel like we've seen it all before, at least the movie is never boring. And the whole thing has a breezy tone that keeps the experience of watching it as painless as possible, no matter how generic it sometimes gets.

Can you tell that I'm fishing for complements here? That's because like almost every other January release this year, When in Rome is harmless and inoffensive, but not memorable in the slightest. It will work as a date movie, but that's about it. For many, I'm guessing, that will be enough.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Legion

2010-01-23T12:16:00.000-08:00

"I don't believe in God.
That's okay. He doesn't believe in you, either".
-Dialogue exchange from Legion.

Legion starts out so spectacularly silly, it's almost a shame that it loses faith in itself and becomes conventional. An apocalypse movie that starts out with possessed old ladies crawling the walls and screaming obscenities, as well as possessed ice cream truck drivers, should not end with martial arts fights, car chases, and explosions. But it does, sadly. Co-writer and director Scott Stewart (a special effects artist making his feature film debut) gives his film a sense of self-awareness early on, and loses it.

Things kick off when an angel named Michael (Paul Bettany) drops from Heaven, cuts off his wings, grabs some weapons, and swipes a police car to drive to a small roadside diner and service station in the middle of the desert. It's here that a young woman named Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) works and lives in a trailer behind the diner. She's eight months pregnant, and doesn't know that the child she carries will be mankind's last hope. It seems that God has lost faith in humanity, and is sending an army of angels led by Gabriel (Kevin Durand) down to Earth to wipe out all life. Her future child is the only hope we have for survival, though it's never really explained why, or what he is destined to accomplish. The angel Michael thinks that humanity still has hope, so he has disobeyed orders, and is fighting to protect Charlie and the few innocent bystanders that become trapped in the diner when the opposing angels begin surrounding the place.

The angels possess humans, and attempt to pass themselves off as being normal. In one memorable scene, an angel possesses a little old lady with a walker, and tries to act casual. She doesn't get very far, though, and arouses the suspicions of everyone else in the diner when she starts screaming that everyone there will die and burn. The angel gives up the charade, turns into a screaming monstrosity, and starts climbing the walls and ceilings. The owner of the diner (Dennis Quaid) doesn't know what to make of any of this, until Michael shows up, and explains the whole situation. Even then, Quaid's character is not convinced when Michael starts talking about angels. You'd think seeing a little old lady grow fangs, rip the lungs out of an unfortunate bystander with her teeth, and climb the ceiling, blood dripping from her jowls, would be enough to convince the guy that hey, maybe something's not right here.

Charlie's reaction to the news that she will give birth to humanity's savior is priceless. When Michael informs her of her destiny, she replies with, "I'm just a waitress. I don't even own a car"! I was having a lot of fun with Legion right around this point. It was the kind of gloriously stupid B-movie that I can enjoy. I silently hoped that it could keep this momentum, and not fall flat. It was right around this point that the movie did indeed fall flat. While never unwatchable, the movie just seems to stop trying, and goes for the conventional approach. We get a lot of shoot outs as the survivors barricade themselves within the diner, and we get a couple car chases that are done well enough, but never raise the excitement level like they should. We also never get a moment quite like the angel possessing the old lady. We get one that seems promising, when a possessed ice cream man threatens the survivors, but nothing is done with him.

Speaking of the survivors, they're your usual stock group. There's Jeep (Lucas Black), who's the son of the diner's owner and an all around nice guy, so he falls into the hero role. There's also a dysfunctional family with a troubled teen daughter (Willa Howard) that's run into car trouble, a religious cook (Charles S. Dutton) who begins to question his faith, and a shady guy (Tyrese Gibson) passing through. Most of these characters spend a lot of time looking out windows, or picking off any angels that get close to the diner, so we never get to know them that well. Of the characters, Jeep obviously plays the biggest role, as he protects Charlie. The ending also hints that he will play some kind of part in the war for humanity to come, but it's not very clear on the details.

I started out watching this movie with a big goofy grin on my face. This could have been so much more if the filmmakers had just had the courage to embrace the silliness of it all. Instead, Legion cops out by taking itself seriously during the second half. If ever there was a movie to not take itself seriously, a movie where the apocalypse is battled out in a roadside diner is that movie.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

The Tooth Fairy

2010-01-23T05:57:00.000-08:00

Compared to recent kids comedies like The Spy Next Door and the latest Alvin and the Chipmunks film, The Tooth Fairy is certainly better than I expected. The big difference between this film and the other two is that it does not seem to completely be running on autopilot. There's some imagination on display, a bright cast who seem to be having a lot of fun with the material, and even a few genuine laughs. I can't quite recommend it to anyone over the age of 12, but I must be honest when I say I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would.

The film stars Dwayne Johnson, whose charisma and screen presence seems well suited for a kids movie. He plays Derek, a former professional hockey player who was sent back to the minors after an injury. The injury has long healed, but he's stayed put, giving up on his dreams. This has made him somewhat bitter and cynical at the world. Despite this, Derek has found fame in the minors as being "The Tooth Fairy", as his fans have dubbed him. He's called this, because he specializes in powerful body blows that, yes, knock the teeth out of his opponents. He's good at playing for the crowd, and even has his own personal recliner chair in the penalty box. Off the ice, Derek is dating a single mom named Carly (Ashley Judd) with two kids. One fateful night while taking care of the kids, he tells Carly's six-year-old daughter Tess (Destiny Whitlock) that the Tooth Fairy she's anxiously waiting for to leave money under her pillow does not exist.

This angers Carly, and someone else unexpected as well. We learn that the Head Fairy (Julie Andrews) up in Fairy Land, who is in charge of all the Tooth Fairies in the world, has had enough of Derek shattering the hopes and dreams of children with his cynicism. She summons him up to Fairy Land, where he is sentenced to be an actual Tooth Fairy himself until he can learn to be a better person. This is where the movie starts to have a little fun with itself. Derek is assigned a case worker named Tracy (Stephen Merchant), who dreams of being a tooth fairy himself, but since he doesn't have wings, he has to settle for supervising Derek in his new job. There's a lot that goes into being a Tooth Fairy, it turns out. They have special equipment that can be used to avoid detection (amnesia dust, invisible spray, devices that can scare away pesky cats or dogs), which are provided by a fellow fairy named Jerry (Billy Crystal). Merchant and Crystal are both naturally skilled comedians, and they get to slip in some funny bits of dialogue, most of which I imagine were improvised on the set.

The film somewhat resembles the tone and structure of The Santa Clause films with Tim Allen, so I was not surprised to learn that director Michael Lembeck worked on both sequels for that movie. Still, I admit I had a little bit more fun with The Tooth Fairy. One thing that helps is that star Dwayne Johnson seems willing to go to just about any lengths to get a laugh. Don a pink tutu, put on a pair of frilly fairy wings, run around pretending that he's six inches tall while trying to avoid a hungry cat, or play tricks on his fellow hockey players with the help of his invisible spray. Kids will likely find this stuff hilarious, and adults in the audience will smile. The cast that has been gathered is also a little bit brighter than the norm. It's always welcome to see Julie Andrews in a movie, even if she is a little under used here. Stephen Merchant gets off plenty of one liners that fly over kids' heads, but adults will laugh at. And Billy Crystal's introduction scene gets some of the biggest genuine laughs in the film. The movie's obviously trying to appeal to both sides of its own audience, without coming across as being inappropriate for the younger viewers.

Too bad the conventional plot has to keep on getting in the way. While it never becomes unbearable or sappy, the scenes concerning Derek softening and warming up to Carly's two kids seem rather uninspired compared to the scenes that do work. Some parts of the movie seem to be clever and sly, while others seem to be written on total autopilot. The fact that there are five writers credited to the screenplay (the script's apparently been floating around Hollywood for almost 20 years, and was originally set to star Arnold Schwarzenegger) explains this. There's just such a huge difference in the quality of the writing from scene to scene. Whenever Johnson and Merchant are trading barbs and insults with each other, the dialogue is lively and fun. The dialogue whenever Johnson is talking to the kids or to his on-screen girlfriend seem to have been written by committee. It doesn't quite drag the film down, but it's disappointing none the less.

Anyone looking for something pleasant and inoffensive to take the kids to will find it with The Tooth Fairy. Heck, the parents might smile more than they thought they would. As long as that's all you want, you'll find what you need. The movie is gentle, funny in parts, and would probably get a rave review from me if I were 20 years younger.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

Extraoridnary Measures

2010-01-22T18:03:00.000-08:00

Like a lot of inspirational movies "inspired by true stories", Extraordinary Measures plays loose with the facts of the story it's based on. We meet John (Brendan Fraser) and Aileen Crowley (Keri Russell), a married couple with three children facing a crisis. Two of their kids, eight-year-old Meagan (Meredith Droeger) and six-year-old Patrick (Diego Velazquez) have a rare and deadly illness called Pompe disease. John works as an executive at a big business company, but spends most of his time tirelessly searching for information on the Internet for information on the disease, and for a possible cure, of which there is none. The average life expectancy of a child with Pompe is nine years, so he is running out of time.

During his search for information, John comes across an article about a medical scientist who is working on a cure, but can't find funding for his research. In real life, that scientist was Dr. Yuan-Tsong Chen, but since there are no Asian male actors working in Hollywood capable of having above the title status in a medical drama, Dr. Chen has become Dr. Robert Stonehill. He's played by Harrison Ford, a marketable name. Dr. Stonehill is a bit of a wild card. He's reckless, he has a short temper, he doesn't listen to authority, and he likes to blast rock music while he works at odd hours, which annoys his fellow scientists. But, John sees something in his theories, and thinks he could find a cure with the proper funding. John gathers up the money Stonehill needs, and the two go into business together.

Despite the family crisis angle, and the race against time to find a cure, Extraordinary Measures is somewhat laid back. Like a lot of movies I've reviewed recently, there's a lack of emotion that prevents the audience from getting involved. Even though little Meagan and Patrick are fighting for their lives, the movie does not emphasize this. Meagan has a medical scare early on that sends her to the hospital, but after that, she's a pretty happy and plucky little girl. She spouts off one-liners like a pro, and acts more like a standard Hollywood movie child, than a girl facing her own mortality. Poor Patrick is barely touched upon in the film. His big scene revolves around the fact that the disease has made his body so weak, he can no longer throw bits of bread to feed the ducks with the rest of his family. The kids are not so much characters in the story, but manipulations of the plot.

That leaves us the adults. They're certainly all played by fine actors. Ford is obviously an old pro, and Fraser and Russell are both underrated as actors when it comes to drama. But here, they all seem to simply be filling the roles, or giving just enough that the material requires. We never get a sense of the relationship between Fraser and Russell, as all of their scenes are based around worrying about their kids. The fact that Russell is pushed into the background once Ford's character enters the plot doesn't help matters. Speaking of Ford, his portrayal of Dr. Stonehill can best be described as predictable. He's a gruff, cold-hearted cynic whose heart slowly melts the more time he spends with the Crowleys and their adorable dying children. He plays the role well enough, but there's nothing that comes through in his performance. We learn so little about Stonehill, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire performance was based solely on a brief character description given to Ford by screenwriter Robert Nelson Jacobs (The Water Horse).

The movie itself is just as sketchy as the main characters, and that's just the problem. The whole thing feels like it's been clean and sanitized, and often feels like a not very memorable made-for-TV movie being projected on the screen. Perhaps this is the influence of the film's distributor, CBS Studios. Whatever the case, the movie feels toothless instead of engaging. We can't get behind the thinly developed characters, and the story is so paint-by-numbers, it never gets off the ground. As Extraordinary Measures played out, and obstacles kept on flying in the way of John and Dr. Stonehill, it felt like director Tom Vaughan (What Happens in Vegas) was stretching things out, rather than staying true to the facts. I grew restless when I began to realize that the movie had no intention of really explaining how the cure came to be (very little time is actually spent within the lab), but would focus on mawkish melodrama.

I'm sure the real story could make a compelling movie, but this is not it. This is one of those movies that you never feel reaching you emotionally, despite its best efforts. If good intentions were all it took, this film would be a winner. Unfortunately, it takes so much more. It takes a lot of stuff that Extraordinary Measures just doesn't have.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

The Lovely Bones

2010-01-17T13:15:00.000-08:00

In bringing Alice Sebold's acclaimed novel to the screen, filmmaker Peter Jackson seems to have gotten the basic plot of The Lovely Bones, but nothing else that made it stand out on the page. The movie is scattered, confused, and surprisingly weak. There are wild swings in tones, characters that aren't even developed to half the level they were in the novel, and an overall sense that Jackson understands the plot, but doesn't have a clue where the heart of the story lies. This is supposed to be a story about love and loss, but the film is mechanical when it should be engaging.

Just like in the original story, we are introduced to 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Saorise Ronan), who narrates the film, and tells us up front that she is dead, and that she met her end on December 6, 1973, at the hand of a man from her own neighborhood. We see glimpses of Susie's life - The love for model sailboats that she shared with her father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg), how she dreamed of being a photographer, and the building feelings she felt for a fellow and older classmate (Reece Ritchie). All of this came to an abrupt end while crossing a cornfield on her way home from school. She had a run-in with the man across the street from her home, George Harvey (Stanley Tucci), who lures her into an underground room, and murders her. Susie is sent to an afterlife, where she watches her family get torn apart by her disappearance. Jack becomes obsessed with finding information on Susie's killer, her mother Abigail (Rachel Weisz) has to leave when she can no longer stand the pain, and Susie's younger sister Lindsey (Rose McIver) becomes suspicious of Mr. Harvey, when he begins stalking her as well.

All of this is emotionally gripping on the written page, but the screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Jackson misses the point, or sometimes takes some extreme short cuts in order to fit it all into a two hour narrative. The actions of the characters sometimes make little sense in the script. and the movie never focuses on them enough to the point that we become emotionally attached to them. One of the key victims of this treatment is Susie herself. As soon as she is murdered, she becomes rather boring. We see her wander around in the afterlife, which is pulled off beautifully on a technical level with special effects creating a dream-like landscape, but never grabs us on any emotional level. It quickly turns into Susie walking around a technical demo, and grinds the narrative to almost a total halt whenever the story switches over to her.

The Lovely Bones is a complex story. Perhaps too complex to put on the screen. Characters have become overly simplified, and the narrative has lost much of its power. Part of this has to do with the way Jackson has softened the blow of Susie's murder. It occurs off screen, and no mention of the sexual assault is made. This was obviously done to secure a PG-13 rating, but this is obviously a story for mature audiences, so why was the effort made to tone it down? Other sacrifices include the character of George Harvey losing much of his personality in the transition. While the performance by Stanley Tucci is chilling, the character is disappointingly thin. He's nothing more than a standard creepy, shifty-eyed killer type, and somewhat boring. Then again, the narrative jumps around so much here, it never gives any of the characters a chance to stand out. Jack's obsession to find the truth about his daughter doesn't have half the emotional impact as on the page, and often seems convoluted how he stumbles upon the right information.

So, the obvious question becomes, would I like the film better if I had no knowledge of the source material? I think I would have been even more confused, frankly. The choppy narrative, under-written characters, and sometimes confused editing prevent us from getting a real handle on what's going on. I think this is a case of the filmmakers feeling so close to the source material that they forget to clue us in. Or maybe years of handling epics like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and King Kong have lessened Jackson's ability to relate to human drama and characters. I can't say for sure. He seems to be trying for a similar vibe here that he created in 1994's Heavenly Creatures, which successfully blended spectacle with drama and tragedy. He's lost the heart with this film. We don't feel the sense of loss with the family, we don't feel the horror with the murder, and we don't feel the wonder with the scenes in the afterlife. All of this makes The Lovely Bones a curiosity, rather than the engaging experience it wants to be.

I don't want to put across the sense that this is a bad, or even an unwatchable movie. It's disappointing, even largely so if you're a fan of the novel. Maybe the fans were right when they said the story was unfilmable. Maybe Jackson wasn't the right person to tell this story. All I know is that the film adaptation of The Lovely Bones knows the music, but it doesn't know the words.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

The Spy Next Door

2010-01-16T13:27:00.000-08:00

I guess most people will get what they need out of The Spy Next Door. Kids under 10 are bound to love it, and Jackie Chan does get to show off a little bit of his stuff. (Though it's nowhere near what he used to be able to do.) It sure is bland and unimaginative, though. It's also pretty mindless and forgettable. In other words, its a standard-issue kids movie that doesn't even really try to stand out. For some, I suspect this will be enough. Sorry to report it wasn't enough for me.

The plot casts Chan as an international secret agent named Bob Ho. We see his heroics during the opening of the film, but it seems that Bob has had enough of saving the world from evil Russians who plot to manipulate the world's oil supply. He's been dating a pretty single mom who lives next door to him named Gillian (Amber Valletta), and is ready to retire from the spy business to get closer to and possibly marry her. Gillian has three kids from past marriages, and they all don't like Bob, especially oldest daughter Farren (Madeline Carroll). She still thinks her dad will come back, and get together with Gillian. The other two kids, Ian (Will Shadley) and Nora (Alina Foley) just think he's boring. Gillian has to leave to take care of her sick father, so Bob volunteers to watch over the kids. He teaches them how to stand up to bullies and not to lie, they teach him about Halloween. (I find it hard to believe an international secret agent, even a foreign one, would have absolutely no idea what Halloween is.) Meanwhile, the Russian villains start snooping around. They're after a top secret file that Ian accidentally downloaded. Fortunately, the villains are of the comical variety, not very smart, and all talk like they learned English by mimicking Boris and Natasha from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons.

This is one of those movies where there's just not really a lot to say about it. There's a subplot about a mole in the spy organization feeding information to the Russians, and Billy Ray Cyrus turns up as a fellow secret agent who helps out Jackie Chan from time to time, and that's about it. It always boggles my mind when I see a movie as bland as The Spy Next Door, and then I see multiple people credited to the screenplay. In this case, there's three people credited. Did the team of Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer (Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector), along with Gregory Poirier (Tomcats), really have to put their heads together for this? Aside from a few personal moments that Bob shares with Farren, the kids don't get the chance to stand out as individuals. Instead, we get some gags about Bob trying to cook for the kids (never trust a super spy to make oatmeal), and the kids chasing around the various pets they have around the house. The animals (which include a pig, a turtle, and a kitten) all provide silent commentary, giving appropriate reaction shots or double takes when something happens.

Kids will have an easier time buying all of this than adults will. They won't question things like, how did the mom know where to pick up the kids when she finds out Bob is a spy? When Bob and the kids arrive at a Chinese restaurant to hide from the Russian villains, how did one of the evil operatives get their first? How did they know they'd be at the restaurant in the first place? And why does Bob think it's a good idea to teach little Ian how to use deadly spy weapons? Does he somehow know it will come in handy later during the climax? I know, I'm not supposed to be asking these questions, but my mind does tend to wander if the movie I'm watching fails to give me anything else to think about or notice.

None of this is Chan's fault. He's as likable as ever, and it can't be easy to do the stuff he does at 55. I have no problem with him doing a family action film, he just needs to find one where the creativity did not start and end with "let's put Jackie Chan in a movie with kids". The Spy Next Door barely rises to mediocrity, and the problem is, it doesn't seem to see the harm in that.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!