Reel Opinions

Death at a Funeral

2010-04-17T18:11:00.000-07:00

Taking direct inspiration from a 2007 British comedy with the same title, Death at a Funeral may just be the most pointless Hollywood remake since Gus Van Sant's infamous shot-for-shot update of Psycho. It slavishly follows the plot and gags of the original film, but still somehow manages to miss the point. The original had a sort of manic energy that this one lacks. It's leaden, it's overblown, and it's nowhere near as fun as it was the first time around.

Maybe it's the director at the helm of the remake. The director is Neil LaBute, a playwright and filmmaker who was once known for edgy, independent dramas, but has in recent years been known for bombastic and silly ones, like the infamous remake of The Wicker Man and Lakeview Terrace. He certainly seems to be trying here, but his style of directing is all wrong for a farce such as this. It's not fast-paced enough, and is sluggish when it should be light and hilarious. He also has an annoying habit of having the actors constantly act silly, as if they know they're in a comedy. One of the joys of the original is that the characters seemed to be normal, everyday people who watched in horror as the situation spiraled out of control. Here, the cast includes names like Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, and Tracy Morgan. They're constantly mugging for the camera, giving exaggerated line readings and bugging their eyes, and always seem to be playing for the camera. This movie works better when the actors act like they're not in on the joke.

A good example of how this remake misses the point of what made the original funny is the very first scene. Rock's character, Aaron, has the unenviable task of having to hold his father's funeral at their family home. The funeral home delivers the casket and opens it, only for Aaron to discover that it's not his dad inside. They have delivered the wrong casket, and lost his father somewhere. In the original film, it was funny because it was understated, and the character seemed justifiably horrified in a comic way. Here, Rock immediately goes into what seems to be an improvised stand-up routine, making cracks like "This isn't Burger King, you just can't mess up my order!" A person in such a situation would not be trying to think of clever things to say, so it sounds phony and artificial. It's a bad sign of things to come. In fact, Rock seems miscast as the character. He's constantly landing one-liners and comebacks, when he should be feeling like he's getting in over his head as the funeral service gets out of his control. The laughs should come from the situations, not from the actors constantly reminding us we're supposed to be laughing.

There are actually a lot of casting misfires here. Martin Lawrence plays Rock's brother, Ryan. He's a playboy and a published author, which is a source of constant irritation to Aaron, since he's working on a novel himself, but can't get it published. He's supposed to be cocky and arrogant, but Lawrence takes it a bit too far to the point that I hated his character whenever he walked on the screen. The relationship between the brothers is supposed to drive a lot of the plot, but because I didn't care for one and absolutely hated the other, I found it hard to care. Other examples of wasted casting include Luke Wilson (who is completely unfunny as a former suitor of a woman attending the funeral, and is trying to win her back), Keith David as the preacher, Loretta Devine as the grieving mother, and surprisingly Peter Dinklage, as a mysterious man who shows up at the funeral, and has a history with the deceased. I say surprisingly, since Dinklage played the exact same role in the original film, but doesn't get nearly as many laughs here.

Some may complain that I'm comparing it too much to the original, and that I should view it as its own work. The problem is that the movie keeps on forcing those who have seen the 2007 film to compare it, as it's literally the same film we got last time, only not as good. This is most likely due to the fact that both versions share the same screenwriter. There have been a few cultural things added, since this version is set in L.A. instead of England, but otherwise it's basically 90 minutes of warmed-over cinematic leftovers. The one performance that does come close to capturing the madcap spirit of the original is from James Marsden, who plays the fiance of one of the attendees of the funeral. He gets the biggest laughs when his character takes some hallucinogen drugs (he mistakes them for Valium pills), and spends the entire funeral service high as a kite. It's an inspired bit of lunacy, but isn't enough to lift up this leaden retread.

I'm still trying to figure out just who the audience is for a Death at a Funeral remake. The original didn't exactly win over many people, made around $8 million its entire theatrical run, and was quickly forgotten, except for those like myself who discovered it on DVD. Those who hated the original will hate this one as well, and those who are fond of it would be better off staying home and watching it. This is a pointless remake of a movie that, while funny, didn't need to be remade in the first place.

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

Kick-Ass

2010-04-16T18:28:00.000-07:00

Looking back on Kick-Ass, I find that I am of two minds. On one side, the film is obviously energetic, well-acted, and certainly features a number of scenes I won't soon forget. The movie is also very funny at times. On the other side, this is also an extremely disjointed movie, featuring severe shifts in tone and style. All of the characters seem to have wandered in from a different movie, and they collide in a single film that is often entertaining, but also often seems confused as to what it is.

Let's start by looking at the main character, Dave Lizewski (played by Aaron Johnson). Dave is an average teenager. He admits this up-front in his narration. There's nothing special about him. He's not even the "funny one" in the small group of friends he hangs out with at school. His two best friends, Marty (Clark Duke) and Todd (Evan Peters), and him hang out at the comic book store, and basically look and talk like they've wandered in from a Judd Apatow comedy. They have a sarcastic and smart view on comics, women, and sex that would make them seem right at home in Superbad or Knocked Up. Speaking of Superbad, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (who played "McLovin" in that film) hangs out at the comic book shop, too. He plays Chris, the wealthy and isolated son of the city's local crime boss, Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong). For all his money, Chris really just wants to have friends. Oh, and he also wants to take control of his father's criminal empire someday. As for Dave, he asks a simple but life-changing question to Marty and Todd - "What would happen if someone actually tried to be a superhero"?

It's an honest question, if you think about it. Dave figures someone doesn't need powers to be a superhero. Just the right training, the right costume, and the desire to want to help people in need. Dave needs something in his life. His home life is boring, and his school life is worse, since he's constantly ignored by the girl he's long had a crush on, Katie Deauxma (Lyndsey Fonseca). His crazy idea of attempting to be a real-life crime fighter just might be the thing he needs to add a little excitement in his life. He orders a costume off the internet, modifies it a little, and takes up the name of "Kick-Ass". His first attempt at superheroics does not end up well. He tries to stop some carjackers, and ends up getting stabbed in the stomach and run over by a car. His second attempt to stop a crime he witnesses goes a little bit better, and manages to be captured by someone's camera phone. The person puts the video on Youtube, and "Kick-Ass" becomes an internet sensation. I kind of liked this aspect of the film, and how it viewed how the media would become attached to this costumed hero. Even if he wasn't that good at his job, the fact that he's actually out there sparks people's interest. It even grabs Katie's attention, though not in the way Dave probably hoped.

Up to this point, Kick-Ass has played as a sort of R-rated rift on Sam Raimi's original Spider-Man film. But there are two other characters that the movie keeps on cutting to once in a while who will soon play large roles in the plot, and bring about a change in tone. They are the father and daughter duo of Damon (Nicolas Cage) and Mindy (Chloe Grace Moretz). Over the past few years, Damon has been training his young daughter (who has just turned 11) to be the perfect killing machine. She's been trained in just about every weapon and martial art known to man, and on her birthday, he surprises her with a pair of deadly knives. The apartment they share is also filled with just about every automatic weapon you can think of lining the walls. All of this is in preparation for Damon's big plan. He has a personal score to settle with the crime boss, Frank D'Amico, and plans to start a war against the entire crime family. They too both don superhero personas, he dressing up as a Batman-wannabe called "Big Daddy", and she as his pint-sized assassin sidekick "Hit Girl", whose outfit conceals various hidden weapons. Their style of seeking justice is very different from Kick-Ass. They don't seek glory or attention. They prefer to just swoop in, take the criminals off guard, and murder them mercilessly before anyone knows what happened. The scenes of violence in the film are indeed brutal, and may catch some off guard. How you react to the sight of a young child slicing up a room full of men will play a big part in your enjoyment of this movie.

As for me, I was not offended, but I did become a little confused. With the arrival of Big Daddy and Hit Girl, the movie loses its sarcastic and smart tone, and seems to try to be aiming for a more Quentin Tarantino vibe of combining off the wall humor with graphic, sometimes horrifying violence. And yet, the movie seems to want things both ways. Whenever the movie is focused on Dave/Kick-Ass and his friends, the movie goes back to its Apatow feel. This results in a something that feels like it's being pulled in two different directions. While I never lost interest, I did grow tired of the movie's constant tonal shifts whenever a character walked on the screen. Director and co-writer Matthew Vaughn (Stardust) never quite finds a balance between the film's two extremes. This leads to an uneven final product that has a lot of great individual moments, but never quite came together as a whole for me.

Am I saying that this is a bad movie or that you should not see it? Not at all. Like I said, the film is often very funny. And there are a lot of great moments or individual scenes. But there are too many problems on display for me to fully recommend it. One big drawback is the character of Kick-Ass himself. He's not that interesting the way he's portrayed here, nor does he have much of a personality, either in or out of costume. In fact, it's the duo of Big Daddy and Hit Girl who do most of the major action for a majority of the film. Yes, Kick-Ass takes his place in the third act, and finally gets to live up to his name, but before then, I was finding it a little hard to get excited about anything that concerned him. The movie also could have been trimmed by about 15 or 20 minutes with no sacrifice. There's a long middle section that sort of drags, and doesn't introduce that much that we haven't seen before. I never lost interest, but it did sometimes feel like the movie was spinning its wheels or padding for time.

The ending hints at a lot of possibilities for a sequel, and I hope it gets a chance to exploit them. I would love to see the characters taken further and meet their full potential. As a stand-alone film, Kick-Ass is a flawed, but interesting start to a potential franchise. There's a lot that's done right here, and there's a lot of room for improvement. A sequel can take advantage of that. Let's hope they get a chance to do it, and let's hope they don't waste the opportunity.

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

Date Night

2010-04-10T05:10:00.000-07:00

I'll admit up front that I was not really looking forward to Date Night, even though it featured two very talented comic actors in the leads. The movie looked like a perfect opportunity to waste their talents in a standard and predictable premise that would undermine their comic timing, and run them through a string of action comedy cliches. I grew more disheartened when I discovered the director was Shawn Levy, a filmmaker who has not exactly been a mark of quality in the past. (His past efforts include the Cheaper by the Dozen and Pink Panther remakes, and the Night at the Museum films). Add all this to the fact that recent action comedies like The Bounty Hunter and Cop Out had been bad experiences, and you can understand if I wasn't exactly walking into the theater with a spring in my step.

Well, I must say, I love it when a film surprises me. Date Night is everything those previously mentioned misfires are not. It's smart, it's energetic, it's creative with its action sequences (there's an elaborate and very funny car chase sequence that made me laugh harder than any other movie so far this year), and at only 88 minutes, it's breezy and quick enough to be a fun time. Most of all, it knows how to use its lead actors, Steve Carell and Tina Fey. Not only are they both funny here, and get many chances to show off their gift for improv dialogue, but we can believe that they are a loving but bored married couple looking for a night out in the city. They have a very natural chemistry, and act like they've been together for years. The movie is also smart to make them real characters that we can get behind. They're not just funny, they're sympathetic. Plus, no matter how crazy the situations that the movie puts them into get, they never lose sight of their characters, or start doing things that we couldn't believe their characters would do in the present situation.

Carell and Fey play Phil and Claire Foster. They're an ordinary couple whose lives revolve around their kids and their careers. A usual night out for them is going to the local steak house, and amusing themselves by guessing what other couples seated at the tables around them are thinking, or going to a book club event at a neighbor's house. One night, Phil decides they should do something different. They drive into Manhattan, and try to get a table at a trendy seafood restaurant called Claw. The scenes depicting this modern, ultra-trendy, and snobby restaurant are so dead-on perfect, it would be considered a parody if it wasn't so true and realistic in every regard. Phil and Claire arrive with no reservation, so naturally, the place is packed and they have to wait at the bar. Phil becomes worried that their special night is going to be a bust, so you can't really blame him for what he does next. A waitress is calling for a party of two called the "Tripplehorns". The mysterious couple are obviously a no-show, so Phil seizes the opportunity, and calls out that his wife and him are the Tripplehorns. They get a table, and the night can finally begin.

Not long after they are seated, two men approach their table. This brings the "mistaken identity" element that all screwball action comedies of this sort must contain. The men (played by Jimmi Simpson and rap artist Common) are dirty cops working for a New York crime boss (Ray Liota, hamming it up as usual). Apparently, the real Tripplehorns have stolen a flash drive with incriminating evidence, and the men want it back. Phil and Claire obviously have no clue what's going on, but get dragged into an elaborate crime plot of blackmail and shady elected officials with dirty secrets. The movie gives us the expected string of chase scenes, shootouts, and sequences where Phil and Claire will have to do things they never dreamed, like breaking into an archive office in order to get information on a person. But, it's all done with a lot more wit, energy, and intelligence than the norm. Part of the credit goes to the screenplay by Josh Klausner (Shrek the Third). Even more credit is due, I think, to Carell and Fey, who obviously are having a blast playing off of each other, and improvising a lot of their lines.

They carry a lot of the film effortlessly, but fortunately, the movie provides them with a lot of strong support. Mark Wahlberg shows up as a hi-tech computer expert/playboy who refuses to wear a shirt, James Franco and Mila Kunis have a memorable scene as the real Tripplehorns, and get a lot of laughs, and the talented Taraji P. Henson is a police detective who finds it suspicious that this suburban couple from New Jersey keep on getting involved in all these crime scenes. Other strong names in the cast include Mark Ruffalo and Kristen Wiig, who both get small roles. Like the lead actors, the movie is smart enough to use the talents of its cast, and doesn't waste them. I also admired how no one in the movie seems to be playing dumb. Everyone here is at least of average intelligence, and dragged in over their heads by a series of events that happen in a single night. Even the villains are depicted as serious threats, instead of the bungling comic buffoons we sometimes get in these movies.

Date Night gets a lot of things right that similar movies just don't seem to understand. The characters are likable and drive the plot, not the stunts and special effects. The movie also finds humor in its dialogue, not with people getting hit with stuff. (There is a running gag about Fey's character always running into open drawers, but it's a small one.) That it can avoid these dangerous pitfalls is admirable enough. The fact that it's actually engaging and we find ourselves caring about the characters is even more so. This is not a great movie, but in its own way, it's a small miracle that it turned out as well as it did, considering everything that could have gone wrong.

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

Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married Too?

2010-04-03T18:16:00.000-07:00

There's a strange disconnect between the movie Why Did I Get Married Too? (a sequel to Tyler Perry's 2007 hit film) thinks it is, and the movie it actually is. It seems to think it's a wise, eye-opening film about love and relationships. In reality, it's an overblown, crude, live action cartoon that shoots itself in the foot so many times, you start to think that Perry (who not only produced, wrote, and directed the film, but stars in it as well) was attempting to sabotage his own movie.

To be fair, the movie starts out being tolerable enough. It's not great or even good by any stretch of the imagination, but the first 45 minutes or so don't offend. These moments concern four different married couples (all of them best friends with each other) who go on a yearly couples getaway vacation. We learn early on that all of them have their own problems that they bring with them. Patricia (Janet Jackson) is a self-help author who seems to have a perfect relationship with her husband, Gavin (Malik Yoba). However, telltale signs of heated arguments behind closed doors hint at something else. Sheila (Jill Scott) is recovering from a bad relationship with her abusive ex, and hopes for a fresh start with her new husband, Troy (Lamman Rucker), who is struggling with unemployment. Things become awkward when her ex-husband, Mike (Richard T. Jones), shows up at the resort uninvited. Meanwhile, Diane (Sharon Leaf) and her husband Terry (Tyler Perry) seem to be happy, but Terry suspects his wife is unfaithful. Angela (Tasha Smith) thinks that her husband Marcus (Michael Jai White) is unfaithful too, and goes to extremes to try to get him to fess up, and give her access to his cellphone, so she can check all his calls and messages.

The character of Angela is the first big misstep the movie makes. She's loud, she's crass, and she's annoying to the point that we don't only wonder why Marcus stays with her, but we wonder what he sees in her in the first place. He mentions that the sex is good, but no sex, no matter how good, is worth the constant humiliation that Angela puts him through. She embarrasses him publicly every chance she gets, refuses to believe a word he says, and even goes so far as to humiliate him at his own job, where he works as an anchorman for a local sports talk TV show. When she suspects him of cheating on her, she barges in on his TV show while it's being filmed live, and chews him out. The scene is supposed to be played for laughs, but Tasha Smith is so shrill and abrasive, she made my skin crawl. Why does she think he's cheating? Because the elderly snoop who lives next door to them claims to have heard sexual sounds coming from their bedroom in the afternoon when no one's supposed to be home. Angela comes home one afternoon, hears someone making love upstairs, and grabs a loaded pistol from a closet door. She bursts into the room, fires multiple rounds into the wall and floor while she screams at her husband, only to find not Marcus in bed, but their hired gardener and his girlfriend.

This is the kind of stuff that holds Why Did I Get Married Too back from being the movie it wants to be. It keeps on throwing scenes so contrived and unnatural at us, it reaches the point where we can't even picture these characters as being rational human beings anymore. I don't care how angry or how certain Angela is that her husband is cheating, there is no logical explanation for her to just start shooting blindly at whoever is in their bed. When she discovers it's not her husband in bed, she doesn't seem to care, and even chases the two lovers out of her house, shooting at them the entire time. I was waiting for the scene where Marcus comes home, sees his bedroom and hallway riddled with bullet holes, and asks what happened. It never comes. Oh, he does come home, but the gunfire is never mentioned, and the two apologize and make up. It's supposed to be a happy ending for the two, but all I could think about was the safety of the two children she shares with her husband, given her violent and extreme mood swings that she constantly displays.

The other couples and their problems are not handled much better. In fact, the movie becomes increasingly silly to the point that we want to cry Uncle. Almost every conversation in the movie becomes a high-pitched shouting match at some point, showing that Perry has no confidence in his own material. He doesn't let his couples work things out like intelligent individuals. They scream, they smash and break stuff, they throw tantrums, and they don't get to exhibit anything that could be considered a genuine human emotion. Subtlety has never been a strong suit of Tyler Perry's past films, but here, he goes for broke and comes up empty handed. There's not a single moment here that's not contrived, manipulated to a ludicrous degree, or hollow. There's also a total lack of a dramatic arc, with Perry's screenplay throwing in crises and plot developments seemingly at random.

Is there anything here worth recommending? Well, the surprise cameo during the last 10 seconds is kind of fun, but you have to sit through an absolutely awful climax to get there. It's not worth it, overall. In fact, nothing about this movie is worth the trouble of the cast or the crew. This movie ends up being a giant waste of time for everyone involved, and the audience watching it.

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

Clash of the Titans

2010-04-02T18:24:00.000-07:00

If ever there was a movie that needed a big shot of silly spectacle to make it work, it's this one. Oh, it has its moments. I smiled when the giant scorpions rose up from the ground, and started attacking our heroes like rejects from a 1950s horror film. I also reveled in the sight of seeing actors like Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes hamming it up as Greek Gods, and bellowing lines like "Release the Kraken!" with theatrical flair. Clash of the Titans needed more of this. In its current form, it's too leaden and underdeveloped to truly indulge in its own silliness.

The film itself is a loose remake of a 1981 film that probably seemed cheesy and outdated even when it came out, but has gone on to become a cult classic. The new movie stays fairly faithful to the ideals of the original. It's a big, dumb take on Greek Mythology with lots of monsters, special effects, and questionable acting. The movie's obviously been given a new coat of paint, thanks to the CG special effects, which do an admirable job of bringing the various monsters and creatures to life. While Ray Harryhausen's stop motion effects in the original have their charm, I dare anyone not to say there was room for improvement, which this movie provides. It also gives us something I don't think anyone needed - unnecessary 3D. In an attempt to cash in on the recent trend, Warner Bros. performed a very quick transition to take advantage of 3D technology at the last minute, and it shows. It's distracting, it makes the visuals muddy and dark, and it adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to the film itself. If the viewer has a choice, I say go with the 2D version. You'll save money, get a better picture, and won't have to wear those glasses for the entire movie.

The plot, obviously, is utter nonsense, which makes it mysterious as to why the movie spends so much time setting it up. It's set in a time of man and Ancient Gods, and as the film opens, man is starting to get tired of the treatment from the Gods on Mount Olympus. The Gods seem to take whatever they want, bring disaster and famine, and still expect the people to worship them. There are cries of rebellion amongst the people, and now the head God Zeus (Neeson) is starting to grow restless. His brother Hades (Fiennes) offers a suggestion - He goes down to the city of Argos (where the Queen recently made the blasphemous comment that her daughter, Andromeda, is more beautiful than any of the Gods), and tells them that unless Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) is sacrificed, the Gods will unleash their most terrible beast, the Kraken, upon them. The King of Argos sends a small band of warriors on a journey to find a way to defeat the Kraken. Amongst those men is Perseus (Sam Worthington), a Demigod who just happens to be the son of Zeus, and holds a personal grudge against Hades after he killed his adopted human father (Pete Posthelthwaite).

Clash of the Titans wastes little time on things like character and plot development. We learn how Perseus came to be - How Zeus disguised himself as a mortal, and had sex with a mortal woman. We don't really learn why he did this, it just shows it happening in a flashback. We learn what happened to the woman who gave birth to Perseus, and what ultimately happened to her husband (who became enraged with Zeus, and tried to kill his wife and son as a result), but none of it makes much sense. This is a movie that likes to give us just the bare details, then move on. No problem. I'm fine with that, as long as the spectacle's there. There are some nice effects-driven scenes, such as the previously mentioned scorpion battle, and the sequence where Perseus tames the winged horse, Pegasus. But all too often, the movie meanders, focusing on lifeless dialogue between the heroes. Not one of the characters reaches a second dimension in terms of development, so it's kind of hard to pull for them to see it to the end of the journey.

We see potential everywhere. When Perseus and his soldiers venture to the Underworld to track down Medusa, the movie actually manages to build some short-lived tension. It gives you the feeling of the kind of spectacle this movie could have been. Everything about the movie keeps on selling itself short, though. The characters are bone dry, as are the things they talk about. Maybe this is why most of the cast (especially Worthington) appear to be phoning it in here. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes at least seem to be enjoying themselves, and know just how much to ham it up and when to pull back, but they're not utilized enough. In fact, even though Hades is treated as the overall villain (he's secretly plotting against Zeus to gain control of Olympus), he never comes across as a real threat. A big part of this has to do with how little he has to do here, and how quickly he's written out of the film in a highly anticlimactic "final battle".

In fact, the entire final 10 minutes of Clash of the Titans feels extremely rushed and choppy. Yeah, the Kraken looks great when it's finally revealed, but it's not enough to cover up the overall feeling that the filmmakers are racing to tie up every loose end as quickly as possible. Is this a terrible movie? Far from it. In fact, in some ways, it's an improvement on the original. (Not saying much, I know.) But at the same time, this should have been a lot more fun than it is.

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

The Last Song

2010-03-31T18:19:00.000-07:00

In The Last Song, Miley Cyrus plays Ronnie, an alienated teenage girl who's angry at the world, and not happy at all that her mother is sending her and her little brother, Jonah (Bobby Coleman), to live with their father (Greg Kinnear) in his beach-side home for the summer. You can automatically see the appeal of the character for Ms. Cyrus. She most likely saw it as a chance to shed her sunny Hannah Montana image, which she has made no secret that she is trying to escape from. I admire the effort, but this is not the vehicle to prove yourself a serious actress.

If anything, this could damage any future career goals. The film is relentlessly cornball, the emotions forced, and the plot a vague hook to hang a bunch of melodramatic situations upon. You also have to look at the fact that Cyrus just is not very good in the role. There is no anger, angst, or emotion in her performance. She's just scowling and looking moody at the camera all the time. Scene after scene, I kept on checking for something that showed she was building a real character, but there's never any evidence. I would say that maybe this was not the right role for her, but it's been highly publicized that screenwriter and author, Nicholas Sparks, wrote the character for her. It's a total miscalculation all around. Then again, it sort of fits here, since the entire movie is a complete and total miscalculation.

When Ronnie arrives at the beach-side town, she doesn't fit in at all. She wears a lot of black, and always has a scowl on her face. All the other inhabitants in the town are young 20-somethings that look like they walked in from an audition for a teen soap opera. Since she is not as buff, tan, or blonde as they are, they immediately shun her. Everyone, that is, except for Will (Liam Hemsworth). He's an attractive nice guy who falls for Ronnie at first sight. Of course, all of Will's friends are snooty and stuck up sorts who try to sabotage their relationship. We don't get to really know these characters. They just show up if the movie needs a contrived crisis for Ronnie and Will to work through. Of course, love ultimately prevails. The two get to know each other through a variety of montages, where we see them swimming, playing in the mud, making sand angels on the beach, and carving their names in trees. I can't be sure, but I think this movie holds the record for the most number of montages held in a single film. It's hard to tell, since some of them literally come one after another, with only seconds of dialogue to separate them.

The two have a lot of challenges ahead of them in their relationship. Ronnie was once a bright young classical pianist, and has even been accepted into Juilliard. But, she might not even go. Ever since her parents divorced, she's been angry at the world, and has even resorted to shoplifting once. This is why she's not happy about being with her dad for the summer. She still hasn't forgiven him for walking out on them. Dad had his reasons, of course, which we learn later on. As for Will, he has secrets of his own. He comes from a rich family, but finds his home life cold and unfeeling ever since a family tragedy made everything awkward at home. In true soap opera fashion, everything is treated as a bombshell. ("You're rich, and you didn't even tell me??") Ronnie's upset, because her dad walked out on her. Her little brother is upset, because he's growing apart from his dad. Will's upset, because he knows the secret of who started the fire at the local church, which Ronnie's dad blames himself for. Will's friends are upset, because they don't think Ronnie's good enough for him. With all this, did we really need an entire subplot devoted to Ronnie trying to save some sea turtle eggs from being eaten by raccoons?

Since The Last Song is based on a Nicholas Sparks novel (he co-wrote the script as well), the broader the emotion, the better. The movie fulfills another Sparks standard, in that someone must be stricken with a fatal disease (preferably cancer) at some point. It does not disappoint, and we can literally see it coming when a character casually mentions to Ronnie that they were sick for a while last year, but then immediately tells her not to worry and that "everything's okay". The cancer makes a surprise return, and we get a long, dragged-out sequence where goodbyes are said, tears are shed, and the music score hammers you over the head with emotion. This is a movie that previously showed little regard for subtlety, strong characters, or strong dialogue. When one of the characters becomes terminally ill, it gives the movie an excuse to go all out into offensively bad writing. The film's climactic moment is so heavy-handed and awkward, it shows a sign of restraint on the part of the filmmakers that they did not have the dying character show up dressed as an angel with a harp and wings, sitting on a cloud.

Seeing as this movie was designed from the ground up as a vehicle for Miley Cyrus to break out of her image, would it have killed the people behind the scenes to inject a little bit of life, honesty, or plausibility to the final product? This is a completely artificial wannabe tearjerker that doesn't get the emotions it so desperately clamors for, because we don't believe a second of it. I wish Cyrus the best of luck in her future career. I really do. But if she thinks this is the way to go, she's fooling herself.

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

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-03-27T18:18:00.000-07:00

I really wanted to like this more than I did. The title alone pretty much brings automatic goodwill, and the premise, which sort of combines last year's surprise hit, The Hangover, with Back to the Future, sounds like it should be a lot of fun. It should be, and it is at times. But not enough for me to recommend Hot Tub Time Machine. For the scattered jokes that do work, there are far too many that don't. This is a Level 1 comedy. They had the title, the premise, and the cast. That's a great start. Too bad they didn't go much further, and truly exploit the potential.

At the outset, we meet three long time friends who are all suffering mid-life doldrums. Adam (John Cusack) just went through a nasty divorce, his ex-wife took almost everything, and now he's stuck alone with his nerdy nephew Jacob (Clark Duke), who spends all day in the basement on the computer. Nick (Craig Robinson) is a washed up singer whose career never took off, and now works at a pet center. (This allows the movie to have it's first gross-out gag about two minutes in, where he has to stick his hand up a dog's rear end to fish out some car keys.) Lou (Rob Corddry) is a former wild man who realizes the party is over, and is now a suicidal alcoholic. The guys feel they need an opportunity to get away from their troubles, so they take Jacob, and head for their favorite teenage vacation spot - a Colorado ski resort where the three friends have some of their happiest youthful memories of sex, booze, and drugs. They arrive at the resort, only to find it mostly abandoned, run down, and its main employee is a one-armed bellhop with an attitude (Crispin Glover), who kicks the guests' luggage around with his feet and is disrespectful, but still expects a big tip at the end.

But hey, at least the hot tub outside their room works! Sure, it's emitting a mysterious, eerie orange glow, but that doesn't stop the guys from diving in with a mixture of alcohol and a Russian energy drink made up of illegal ingredients. The liquid concoction somehow ends up shorting out the electronic sensor on the hot tub, and this activates a swirling vortex which sends the four guys back in time to 1986 - the time when the ski resort was at the peak of its popularity, and Adam, Nick, and Lou were hip teens looking for action. In fact, when the three guys see themselves in the mirror, they look like their younger selves. Young Jacob looks the same, but his body flickers in and out of existence from time to time, so the guys realize they have to make sure not to screw the past up and ensure the right future. As Adam, Nick, and Lou relive their past, Jacob tries to track down a mysterious repair man (Chevy Chase), who seems to know how to fix the hot tub and send them back to their own time, but has a bad habit of speaking in riddles and disappearing and reappearing at will.

I can certainly accept the out-there premise, and even think it could work, but the movie plays it too safe to truly take advantage of its own weirdness. Instead of exploiting the idea of these guys being transported back in time to their past, the movie wastes a lot of time on obvious and overdone jokes about the era. The bad hair, the cheesy music, the guy talking on a really big cell phone, the leg warmers...These jokes have become cliche by now, and Hot Tub Time Machine is content to merely roll them out, not going to the next level, and actually doing something unexpected. That's really what holds the whole film back. It never goes far enough, and gives us only the norm. We know what will happen to these characters, we know what the "third act twist" will be concerning the identity of Jacob's father (whom he never met), and we can see how a lot of the gags will play out a mile away, because director Steve Pink (Accepted) never quite shows the right timing for a lot of the jokes.

Granted, some big laughs do manage to show through. But a movie like this needs to be risky and wild. This one seems strangely uncertain. It also has a couple bad ideas that just don't work out, namely the Chevy Chase character. He never makes any real impression, and just is not funny at all here. He's not the only disappointment in the cast, unfortunately. John Cusack is surprisingly boring in a straight role. You'd think with his past as an 80s teen actor, he'd be able to rift a little bit on it, or maybe poke fun at himself. Clark Duke is also disappointing, and often comes across as a wannabe Jonah Hill. The members of the cast who seem to be having the most fun are Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, and Crispin Glover. They also have the best understanding of the material, and get all the laughs. They know how to make it work, and although the movie gives Corddry and Robinson lots to do, they can't carry the entire film on their own, despite their best efforts.

Hot Tub Time Machine has obviously been designed to ride the wave of popularity of The Hangover, but it fails to understand what made that film special. It took a simple premise, then simply ran with it to the most ridiculous extremes it could think of. The strong lead performances added a lot, too. I think this film had all the essential things for a similar success, but it never comes together like it should.

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

How to Train Your Dragon

2010-03-26T18:21:00.000-07:00

During the opening moments of How to Train Your Dragon, its young hero, a Viking boy with the unlikely and unfortunate name of Hiccup (voice by Jay Baruchel) introduces us to his home village of Berk. It's a place where his people have lived for hundreds of years. During that time, they've also been tormented by the other main inhabitants on the island the Vikings call home. "A pest problem", he calls it. The pests being dragons.

There's a lot of dragons, apparently, in different sizes, shapes, and abilities. There are the traditional fire-breathers, of course, but there are also ones that spray acid, some that can burn you with scalding hot water breath, and some that can even kill you with their violent and thunderous roaring screams. They swoop into the village, taking livestock and sheep back to their nest. The Vikings have battled these beasts for years, but there is one particular type of dragon they know little to nothing about. It is perhaps the most dangerous of all, as it flies so fast it can hardly be seen, and attacks just as quickly. It's been dubbed the "Night Fury" by Hiccup's clan. Naturally, in the village of Berk, knowing about dragons and how to slay them is everything. That's probably why young Hiccup is considered an outcast. He doesn't fit in with the rest of his people, as he's scrawny, kind of short, and not very skilled with a weapon and a shield. The fact that he's the only son to the village chief and champion dragon slayer, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler), puts him at a particular disadvantage.

Wanting a chance to prove himself, Hiccup becomes determined to accomplish what no one has done before - bring down and kill the dreaded Night Fury. Through a stroke of luck, he actually manages to bring down the creature when he shoots it out of the sky with a crude weapon he made. When he finds the dragon lying wounded and helpless in the middle of a woodland clearing, he finds he cannot finish it off. He sees something in the dragon's eyes, and maybe the creature does in him as well, as it spares his life when he sets it free. The Night Fury dragon can no longer fly, due to its injuries, so Hiccup sees the opportunity to not only aid the creature (which seems more intelligent and aware than his people have ever believed dragons could be), but to also understand it, creating an unlikely bond. It's a traditional "boy and his dog" story, only How to Train Your Dragon adds an extra layer of smart and funny dialogue, genuine heart and warmth, as well as an exciting visual style that actually benefits from the 3D technology, so it's not just a gimmick.

In the long-standing animation war between Dreamworks (the makers of Dragon) and Pixar, it's pretty much been accepted by fans that Pixar films generally have deeper characters and emotion, whereas Dreamworks centered on fast-paced gags, childish puns, and pop culture references. This movie could change a lot of people's perception on that, as it's easily the most character-driven and emotional cartoon to come out of the studio. The writing and directing team of Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois (Lilo and Stitch) have not only created a rousing and exciting adventure fable for kids, but have packed it with plenty of clever dialogue and emotion for adults to latch onto. The relationship between Hiccup and the dragon (whom he names "Toothless", due to the creature's retractable teeth) is of course at the center, and in the cinema's history of two different beings from different worlds coming together, I'd rank it right up there with the one in E.T. The filmmakers are wise to make the dragon likable and relatable, without making it overly cute. It can be threatening when it wants to. It holds great destructive power, and will fight back when it feels threatened. But, it can also be quite playful and charming when it is in the right mood. I dare anyone's heart not to melt when the dragon, overcome with rapture, rolls on its back in the grass like a dog.

In fact, I liked the way the film handled its wide variety of dragons. They come in different forms, sizes, and colors - all of them very imaginative. I also appreciated that the dragons acted like animals, not comic sidekicks. They do not belch or fart on command in order to amuse the younger members watching in the audience, and you really get a good sense of their world and the way they live, especially when the movie reveals just what goes on inside their nest. This is one of the rare films that gives you the feeling of not just a beautifully realized fantasy world visually, but also in the underlying structure, and how it was planned out by the filmmakers. The 3D visuals are naturally captivating, especially the sequences where young Hiccup takes flight on the dragon's back. Compared to the muddy and disappointing images in the recent Alice in Wonderland, this acts almost as a "how to" example for future filmmakers as to how films of this sort should be done.

It's not just the visual splendor that draws us in, fortunately. The characters are likable, the things they say often funny, and yes, the relationships between them are strong. Sure, we've seen them all before. There's the one between Hiccup and his father, and how the young Viking wants to live up to his father's expectations, but at the same time feels he is misunderstood. There's also the one Hiccup slowly builds with the female lead, Astrid (America Ferrera). They start as rivals in their dragon slaying class, but soon bond when she opens her eyes to his way of thinking, and that the dragons can be tamed and used as allies. And yet, even though we know what to expect, we care about these characters, because they've been written in such a bright fashion. One of the hardest things for a movie to do is to make old material seem fresh, and this one accomplishes it with a strong script, a stunning visual style, and characters we are immediately drawn to.

If there's any fault to be found here, it's the odd casting decision to have all the adult Vikings be voiced by actors with heavy Scottish accents, like Gerard Butler and late night talk show host Craig Ferguson (who gets a lot of laughs here), while having the younger Viking characters be voiced by young Hollywood types like Baruchel, Ferrera, and Jonah Hill. It'd be a major distraction in probably any other film, but How to Train Your Dragon is so energetic, likable, and sometimes even awe-inspiring, that you just don't care about the tiny details. I know that Toy Story 3 is on the summer horizon, but for now, this holds the animation crown for 2010.

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

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

2010-03-21T05:47:00.001-07:00

Here is a movie that's easier to admire for what it tries to do, rather than what's up on the screen. Diary of a Wimpy Kid (based on a series of best selling books by Jeff Kinney) wants to take a satirical and somewhat honest look at the most awkward time in a child's life - namely, middle school. It's an odd time for everyone. You're too old to be considered a "child", but still too young to know better. It's a time when fitting in with the right crowd and wearing the right clothes means absolutely everything. It's also an odd time where you're too old for childish toys, but still young enough to believe childish school urban legends about that mysterious piece of moldy cheese that supposedly has been stuck to the basketball court blacktop for years.

I liked that aspect of the film. Early on, one of the kids at the middle school tells the story of the slice of cheese which has been laying there since time immortal (or at least what a 12-year-old views as time immortal). Whoever touches it gets the dreaded "cheese touch", and basically commits social suicide, as no one will go near them. It makes sense, since the only way to lose the "touch" is to pass it on to someone else. These are the kind of things that only make sense to someone in the age group of the characters, and when the movie focused on stuff like this, I smiled out of recognition. I imagined what a smarter and wittier movie could do with that material. This is not that movie, though. It's harmless enough alright, but it suffers from one major problem I couldn't get over.

I didn't like the "Wimpy Kid" of the title. He's Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon, who I must admit, is a pretty talented young actor), a 12-year-old who thinks he is ready to tackle middle school, but is not ready for the fact that almost everyone around him has had a growth spurt over the summer, making him one of the smallest kids in his class. His older brother (Devon Bostick) gives him the following advice to survive the next three years - lay low, and don't draw attention to yourself. But Greg has different ideas. He wants to climb the popularity ladder to the top, excel at every sport and after school club he tries out for, and ultimately end up as the "Class Favorite" in the yearbook at the end of the school year. The main thing holding him back from achieving popularity is his best friend, Rowley (Robert Capron), an overweight kid who always says the wrong or "uncool" thing, rides a girl's bike, and has the worst fashion sense imaginable.

The funny thing is, the character of Rowley fits the title of a "Wimpy Kid" better than Greg does. Greg at least has an understanding of what's considered "cool" amongst his peers, whereas Rowley seems to have not only missed the boat completely, but also the pier. The big problem I had with the film is that Greg frequently seems abusive and sometimes mean to Rowley. One of his favorite games to play with his friend is one where Rowley rides down the sidewalk on a big wheel bike, while Greg stands at the side, and throws a football at him as he passes by. This causes an accident where Rowley ends up breaking his arm. To Greg's shock, this suddenly makes his friend popular. Girls swarm around Rowley, wanting to sign his cast, and they actually start to get to know him and like him. Greg is left alone, which would be sympathetic, but the problem is that the kid is never once sorry for what he did. In fact, he actually thinks Rowley should thank him for breaking his arm, since it led to his sudden popularity.

If this was the only thing I didn't like about Greg, I still probably could have found more to like about this movie, but this is one selfish, self-centered kid. He constantly ignores the advice of a girl at his school named Angie (Chloe Grace Moretz), who is obviously wiser than him in just how pointless the pursuit of popularity is. He's so focused on his own goal of becoming popular, he brushes her aside every chance he gets. He's also a manipulative little brat. At one point in the film, he abandons a bunch of kindergarten kids he was looking after in a muddy ditch in an attempt to save his own skin. When the incident is brought to light, he blames it on Rowley. Why are we supposed to sympathize with this kid? Yes, he learns a life lesson at the end, and makes a speech in front of his fellow students about what he's learned, but it's too late by that point. The entire third act of the film concerns Greg trying to win Rowley's friendship back after wrongfully blaming him for the incident, but I couldn't help but feel that Rowley was better off without him.

Besides its unlikable protagonist, Diary of a Wimpy Kid has very little to comment on. It's a loosely connected series of PG-rated gross-out gags focusing on urination, boogers, snot, and other bodily fluids that kids in the 10-12 range will likely find hilarious. And of course, if the movie keeps on coming back to that moldy piece of cheese, you just know that not only will someone touch it at one point, but they will also eat it. The movie is also never as funny or as wise as it seems to think it is. I don't know about anyone else, but I highly doubt any middle school would have a "Mother and Son" dance night. Speaking of moms, Greg's parents (played here by Rachael Harris and Steve Zahn) are given very little to do, and may as well have not been in the movie at all.

I will give Diary the benefit of the doubt, and say that it probably works better on the written page. In fact, word from kids is that the movie differs greatly from the books. I will probably never know, and have no plans to find out for myself. All I can comment on is the film itself, and how it ended up focusing on the wrong kid. There are some cute moments here and there (I liked the little line drawing cartoons that show up from time to time, expressing Greg's thoughts), but they are overpowered by one insufferable little kid in the middle of it all.

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

The Bounty Hunter

2010-03-20T17:48:00.000-07:00

Watching The Bounty Hunter only makes you wonder what a better movie it would have been if it had played upon the strengths of its stars, Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston. They're tossed aside here, forced to wind their way through a labored and dumb plot we don't care much about. Instead of creating real chemistry, they run around exchanging insults, and engaging in non-stop bickering. It's not even funny bickering. If you were sitting in a restaurant, and were forced to listen to a couple at another table have the same kind of arguments these characters have, you'd ask your server to move you to another table.

It wants to be a romantic comedy with action elements, and fails on both counts. We don't like the romantic leads, and judging by this film, director Andy Tennant (Fool's Gold) doesn't know how to stage an exciting action sequence. So, we start to look for something else to grasp onto, maybe some wit or original thought in the script itself. But screenwriter Sarah Thorp gives us none. She at least gives us a premise that could have worked in a better screenplay. Aniston plays a reporter named Nicole, who is investigating a recent suicide that she thinks is a cover up murder. Her investigation causes her to miss her court date over a minor incident involving a police officer. A bounty is put out on Nicole for her capture, which is brought to the attention of Butler's character, Milo. He's her ex-husband, a former cop turned bounty hunter. They had a whirlwind romance, a brief marriage, then found out they drove each other crazy and divorced. We don't get to see why these two characters would be attracted to each other, other than physical appearances.

Then again, Milo and Nicole are not interesting people to start with. They have no personality and no defining characteristics, other than she's an emotionally wound up woman, and he's a slob. The two are reunited when he tracks her down and captures her at a horse racing track. From that point, we wait for sparks to fly, since the movie is obviously going to have them rediscover feelings for each other during their journey together. The sparks never come, because the movie gets lost in a convoluted crime plot involving dirty cops, drug deals, hitmen, and crooked bounty hunters. I highly doubt the audience paying to see The Bounty Hunter is interested in stuff like that. They come for some funny, possibly sexy interplay between the two stars. They'll be disappointed. The stars have zero chemistry, and there's not a single laugh to be had. As I sat stone-faced and realized it was going to be a very long movie, I hoped it would be over soon enough. Turns out, the movie runs almost two hours. To say that there's not enough here to fill almost two hours of material would be an understatement.

The script is completely by the numbers, and filled with moments we can figure out almost as soon as they start. We learn that Milo has a beloved car, so naturally it's going to have its windows shot out by thugs pursuing them, and be wrecked by the end. And when the couple hop aboard a golf cart to chase after a fleeing person they want to question, we just know that cart is going to end up in a water hazard on the golf course before it's over. Scene after weary scene, the movie never disappoints. It also fills itself with a lot of pointless characters, such as a nerdy and kind of creepy co-worker of Nicole's (Jason Sudeikis from TV's Saturday Night Live), who follows her and ends up getting captured by some crooked bounty hunters who mistake him for Milo. He's not funny in the slightest here, his plot goes nowhere, and it could have been removed from the film without any harm. Then again, the same could be said for most of the film.

As I think back on The Bounty Hunter, I find that I keep on going back to Cop Out, another failed action-comedy from about a month ago. Both films concerned themselves with an unlikable duo played by actors who had no chemistry. And both have completely disposable villains that fail to make the slightest impression. The lead villain here is filled in by Peter Greene, but judging by the amount of screen time he gets, it barely registers as a cameo. He threatens someone with a tattoo needle, he gets involved in a car chase, then he shows up for the required warehouse shootout at the end. The movie puts no thought into its villain, just like it put as little thought as possible into everything else.

I'm trying hard to think of something positive or redeeming to say about this film, but I'm coming up empty. The movie is a total paycheck for its stars, and a waste of time for everyone else. I'm sure the studio is hoping for one big weekend at the box office due to the fans of Aniston or Butler. Maybe if The Bounty Hunter had a real script, they could have gotten two or three weekends out of it.

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

Repo Men

2010-03-19T18:18:00.000-07:00

While no one will ever confuse Repo Men for an original film, or even a great one, I must admit it's been made with a certain degree of skill. The movie on the whole is kind of fun and held my interest, there's a lot of lively songs on the soundtrack, the cast holds their own, and the action sequences are cleanly edited, so we can actually tell at all times what's going on. You know things in the action genre are getting bad when I'm actually praising a movie for letting me see what's going on during a fight sequence.

The film introduces us to a futuristic society that's heavily influenced by the one seen in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. For sci-fi fans, this won't be the last time they'll pointing out a similarity or "influence" to a past film while watching it, but I digress. We learn of a shady corporation called The Union. They specialize in state of the art organ and body part replacement technology that's highly advanced, and seems to be used by just about everyone in this world. The head of the corporation is a slimy and slicked back tycoon named Frank (Liev Schreiber, pulling off the slimy and slicked back very well here). He promises potential customers that if they use his company's artificial hearts, lungs, what have you, they will have a longer and fuller life with their loved ones. Of course, he doesn't mention what happens if by any chance you can't pay for your new internal organ that's now keeping you alive. He has a team of brutes whose job is to track down people who are behind on their payments, break into their house, zap the non-paying customer with a stun gun, then remove the artificial organ or body part through the means of on-the-spot surgery. They're known as the Repo Men, and since everyone seem to use the Union's body replacement technology, business is booming on both ends.

We meet two of the top members of the Repo team, Remy (Jude Law) and Jake (Forest Whitaker). They're good at what they do, and work together well, since they've been friends since childhood. For them, tracking these people down, cutting them open, removing whatever needs to be returned to the Union, and leaving the customer to die is all part of the job. It's somewhat chilling the first time we see Remy do it with such cold accuracy and total nonchalance. Jake thinks they both have the perfect job, but Remy has a family, and his wife (Carice von Houten) doesn't like the idea of what her husband does for a living, nor does she think it makes him a good role model for their young son (Chandler Canterbury). She wants Remy to take a desk job at the company instead, but when he hesitates, she and the kid walk out. Remy wants to win their trust back, and agrees to a different job, but makes the unwise decision to do one last job as a Repo Man. On this particular job, his equipment backfires on him, gravely injuring himself instead of the intended target. When Remy awakens, he's in a hospital with a new artificial heart provided by his own company beating away inside of him.

I can understand if you think Repo Men sounds a bit gruesome so far, and while it certainly can be bloody, there's a darkly comic tone to the script by Eric Garcia and Garrett Lerner that keeps things from getting too brutal. Besides, the movie seldom slows down long enough to let the gory details sink in, since this is a high tech chase picture. Now that Remy has a personal connection with the people he's charged with going after, he finds he can no longer kill them and remove their artificial organs. With him not being able to make any money on the job, it doesn't take long for him to start receiving notices in the mail that he's behind on his own payments for the heart inside of him. He has no choice but to go on the run, aided by a woman named Beth (Alice Braga), who has every reason to be on the run, as she's filled with many replacement parts (ears, eyes, lungs, etc). I would have liked to have seen a stronger personal relationship between the two characters, as it would have made their more intimate scenes stand out more. They decide they need to break into Union headquarters, and delete their personal files if they ever want to survive. This leads to a lot of gun battles, martial arts fights with the various thugs sent after them, and a twist ending that makes sense upon reflection, but still feels like a bit of a cheat.

Look, I'm not saying this is a great movie, or even a good one. But director Miguel Sapochnik obviously knows what he's doing. His directing style is energetic and fast, and he knows how to stage a fight sequence, such as one that occurs in an airport, and the climactic sequence where the heroes take on a wave of attackers with a variety of weapons, ranging from guns to hacksaws. He also has a good sense of tongue-in-cheek humor, which is displayed throughout. The cast wisely pretends that they are not on to this fact, and take this material seriously. If it ever felt like the actors were winking to the camera, it would have sent the entire film crashing to the ground. If only the pacing were a little better. There are long stretches where not much seems to happen, and we find ourselves waiting. If Sapochnik could have tightened the film, he'd have a full-on guilty pleasure here. As it stands, this is a promising film from a promising fairly new filmmaker that stumbles, but still manages to entertain.

Sitting through the end credits, I was surprised to see that the copyright date is from back in 2008, meaning Repo Men has been sitting on the studio shelf for two years or so. It's certainly better than most films studios are afraid to release, and is even better than some movies that get pushed into release with no hesitation at all. This is a movie that will never be known as being art, but it can be kind of fun if you're in the right mind set.

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

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!