Terry's Movie Reviews

The IRON LADY

2012-01-22T18:42:00.000-08:00

“The IRON LADY” (Meryl Streep & Jim Broadbent)

I was prepared not to like this film since I vehemently disliked the worst Prime Minister in the history of Great Britain (Well, in my lifetime) I thought they would glorify her mistakes as accomplishments and sugar coat her deplorable decisions that took England from being prosperous (Thanks in part to a pop group called The Beatles) to being an economic disaster... One might call her the prototype to the Bush administration.
Instead, I found a different reason not to like it – it is quite boring – especially the beginning. It piddles along for the first 20 minutes or so showing an old lady (a retired Thatcher) basically doing nothing. She buys a carton of milk... She spends several minutes picking out a suit for her husband to wear... She tells someone on the phone that they’re having halibut for dinner... I wasn’t at all tired when I went into the theatre, but I found myself yawning at the lack of entertainment I was receiving.
Meryl Streep plays Margaret Thatcher from middle-age on and she is very good in the role, though some of the credit should go to the make-up artists that made her look believably elderly, as well as the authentic horrible British teeth she revealed whenever she smiled – usually in a condescending manner toward whomever she was addressing – be it family member, staff member or member of Parliament. I’ve never been a big fan of Streep’s, I think she’s been vastly over-rated in the past, but here she earns her reputation and so I won’t grimace when she finally wins an academy award that she actually deserves. She is good – the film, not so much.
As “Iron Lady” tries to rebound from its droning start, it delves into time travel as Thatcher’s life story is told via memories spurred by the elderly, borderline dementia-stricken Thatcher as she putters around her apartment. Jim Broadbent plays her carefree, happy-go-lucky dead husband Dennis – Sure, who wouldn’t be happy-go-lucky in death after being married to the Iron Bitc... um, I mean, Lady.
Retired Thatcher does make a telling quote when she tells a reporter, on being in politics; “It used to be about trying to DO something – Now it’s about trying to BE someone.”
Problem with Thatcher is that she tried to do too much and most of her ideas were crap.
When the film finally became interesting – on the first lady Prime Minister’s handling of the Falkland Islands debacle – I thought for sure they would spin it to make that look like a reasonable undertaking, but they do not. When the American ambassador questions her motives for calling for an all out attack, Thatcher thinks she puts him in his place by comparing the United States decision to go to war with Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor with her extremely stupid military decision - I was glad to see the ambassador, as well as every person in the room at the time wear the same bewildered look I had.
Thatcher makes big speeches about ‘prosperity’ and ‘doing what’s right for the country’ but she doesn’t DO anything about it. Kind of like our current administration...
Margaret Thatcher had no idea how to run a country and as Great Britain begins collapsing around her she blames her staff instead if taking responsibility for her actions. So the film got it right – No sugar coating. She seemed to be surrounded by likable people – which made her hard-assed ‘I’m always right and you’re always wrong’ attitude easier for everyone to put up with, and her steadfast, “I have a Cold War to win’ mentality began the fall of England’s economy. In fact, I found it amusing as the film rolled along that the old Iron Lady with dementia made more sense than the Prime Minister in her prime.
One notation I had was how it struck me that there were no other females involved in the Parliamentary procedure even after M. T. was elected P.M. You’d think after her victory more women would be encouraged to delve into British politics, but I guess she wasn’t a very good role model was she?
It wasn’t a bad film, in the long run, but it left a lot to be desired – there was very little back story as to what qualified Thatcher to make the citizens of Great Britain want to put her in the ultimate place of power... other than losing the frilly hats.

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN

2012-01-16T08:57:00.000-08:00

“MY WEEK WITH MARILYN” (Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branaugh & Eddie Redmayne)

Prior to entering the theatre my main concern was that Michelle Williams simply wasn’t pretty enough to play Marilyn Monroe. Being old enough to remember the living breathing Marilyn, I figure I have the right to pass judgment.
I will congratulate Michelle for getting Marilyn’s voice and mannerisms down, but she never convinced me for a single moment that she was MM – Too many close-ups didn’t help – Every time my mind kept telling me, “That’s Michelle Williams in a blonde wig with a fake beauty mark on her cheek.”
I liken it to having Will Smith play Muhammad Ali; I just wasn’t buying it at all.
Kenneth Branaugh, though looking nothing at all like Laurence Olivier, pulled his impersonation off without any complaints. Laurence, though a talented thespian (a little over-rated, but what actor from his era isn't?) was never an icon like Marilyn.
Branaugh was able to convince me he was Olivier from his acting ability and the fact that the image of Sir Laurence is not ingrained in my memory from childhood.
But it wasn’t Michelle’s casting that made this movie something to scoff at rather than admire – It was the story.
Normally a film taken from someone’s ‘memoirs’ is labeled as being ‘based’ on a true story – “My Week With Marilyn” flat out boasts ‘This IS a TRUE story’. . . Yeah, in Colin Clark’s dreams it’s a true story.
I liked the first half hour or so; it was interesting to see how a movie was brought together – Laurence Olivier being hired as the director and his concerns of working with the American beauty that was reportedly ‘difficult’. And Marilyn did not disappoint... Well, she did disappoint, but disappointment is what was expected so... never mind.
Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) is hired as the 3rd assistant director to Olivier by simply showing up on set and helping out without actually being paid. The title ‘3rd assistant director’ is given to make the gophers feel more important. Redmayne as Colin couldn’t look any more hillbilly if he wore a straw hat and overalls – the distraction is that he spoke with that ultra-British accent and was so soft spoken that I knew he’d never yelp out a ‘Yee-haw!’ for me.
Marilyn arrives with new husband Arthur Miller and within a few scenes Arthur and Marilyn are having marital problems. I know the Millers marriage didn’t last, but I think they probably were still in the stages of bliss so soon after their honeymoon - but if that were the case, Colin’s fantasy wouldn’t be believable... Yee-haw!
Somehow the gopher becomes Marilyn’s favorite person to lean on when she’s depressed and throughout the story Colin both skinny dips and sleeps in the same bed with a naked Marilyn Monroe. Now, they don’t have sex – he didn’t carry the fantasy all the way to ‘give me a break!’ land, but trust me, it was creepy enough just watching her frolic with this hillbilly kid in the nude as if she were madly in love with him.
The first part of the movie was enjoyable – it was interesting to view the behind the scenes making of a film starring Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. But when it turned into Colin Clark’s ‘fantasy’ version of what it was like it became to unbelievable to take seriously; when the naked Marilyn
invites the gopher to ‘spoon’ with her while she was lying naked beside him, I could only picture the real life Colin whacking off at his typewriter as he wrote that fantasy scene... Reality checks weren’t being cashed during the second half of the film as it deteriorated into something a kid going through puberty would write... At least they waited about 60 years before trying to pass this story off as a being TRUE. I’m sure Marilyn is rolling over in her grave... but not to spoon with a gopher!

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

2012-01-12T07:17:00.000-08:00

“TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY” (Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds, John Hurt & many more)

Today’s ‘Worst Person In The World’ award goes to Keith Olberman, who spent an entire segment of his show ‘Countdown’ singing the praises of this movie, which he hailed as possibly the best movie ever made. I was expecting to see a film that clearly belonged in the Top 10 of 2011 because Olberman wasn’t the only one harping “Tinker, Tailor...” as a taut espionage thriller. It’s going to end up being closer to the Bottom 10 than the Top 10 and I don’t think the let down from high expectations is the reason – this film is exceedingly bland; about halfway thru I renamed it “Tinker Tailor Snoring Spy”.
I was also encouraged when I saw that John le Carre, author of the original novel, was one of the producers – that’s usually a good sign that they ‘did things correctly’.
I came away with the impression that the film was made for those who had seen the British miniseries version of the story in 1979 because I had no idea what was going on – who was who – and why were they doing what they were doing and where they were doing it. Olberman did warn me that the film bounces back and forth in time and the best way to tell which ‘period’ they were in was to notice George Smiley’s glasses, since director Tomas Alfredson decided not give the audience any assistance in figuring out where and when in time the current scene was taking place.
But when all was said and done and the ‘Mole’ was revealed – easily figured out by everyone in my party – there was no ‘taut’ thrilling finale; the ending like the rest of the film was bland and boring.
Gary Oldman played George, the ‘Spy’ of the title (though they ALL were spies) and if ever an actor slept walked his way thru a film, Gary’s performance here rivals the Nicolas Cage in almost every single one of his hundreds of roles of the past decade – the difference being we expect mediocrity from Cage, NOT from Oldman.
The concept was intriguing; John Hurt, playing ‘Control’, the boss of all the spies working for ‘The Circus’, discovers he has a mole in his organization and calls all of the suspects together to hopefully get the others to flush out the traitor. His right hand man, George, is pretty much put in control by Control but Smiley later learns that he too is a suspect.
After a half hour or so of ‘set ups’ to nowhere, a character named Ricky Tarr appears and tells George an interesting story about an encounter he had with a Russian girl named Irina – the story is set in England in 1973 so Cold War fears are prominent.
We are told of a ring of Russians called ‘Witchcraft’ but we are never really told as to what their mission is or who they actually are. Just the word ‘Witchcraft’ is supposed to make adrenaline pump thru our veins and strike fear in our hearts – it did nothing for me.
Mark Strong makes an early appearance as spy ‘Jim’ who is shot and killed during a meeting in Budapest. I mention him only because he finally returns to some of the promise he showed earlier in his career. To give the film a bit of praise – the acting is above average – and even though Oldman never changes his expression; whether celebrating at the Circus’ Christmas party or discovering fellow spy, Bill (Colin Firth) is diddling his wife, Ann – Smiley’s countenance remains as stoic as a statue. That couldn’t have been easy, yet at the same time made George come across as an unfeeling robot.
Another piece of faint praise; the movie was set in the 70’s and it not only had the look of that decade, I kept being struck by the fact that it ‘felt’ as if it had been filmed in the 70’s... You tell me if that’s a good thing or not.
Toby Jones plays feisty little spy Percy who acts like he’s in charge and can do whatever he wants. In the latter part of the film, the others start talking about Allaline; ”Where is Allaline? Did you meet with Allaline?” I had no idea who Allaline was until the credits rolled and they revealed that Percy’s last name was Allaline.
The film becomes a horrible parade of one bland float after another with no cohesive story being put together until the final scenes – and then, whether it was due to indifference or lack of surprise, I really didn’t care who the mole was, I just wanted this movie to end.
I tried to watch closely, to pay attention to the clues so I could cleverly tell my wife and ex-teacher why everything that happened in the movie happened – but along the way, I simply lost interest.
An espionage thriller? Not hardly – it’s just about a bunch of whining English twits that start bawling like babies when they’re outted as traitors to her majesty.

SHERLOCK HOLMES 2 : Game Of Shadows

2012-01-12T07:11:00.000-08:00

“SHERLOCK HOLMES 2 : Game Of Shadows” (Robert Downey, Jr. & Jude Law)

I could take the easy way out and tell you just to scroll back to my review of the first installment of ‘Sherlock Holmes’ with Robert and Jude because the similarities are prominent. Being a sequel makes this the lesser film because it’s simply a matter of ‘been there, seen that’.
Once again, the culprit for what hurts the movie is director Guy Ritchie – Can we PLEASE get someone else to take over this franchise? And if not, then let’s kill it before he drags the good name of No Poop Sherlock down into the slow-motion pit of shame where it will die an ugly, though exceedingly l-o-n-g death...
Once again, Downey & Law provide the only entertainment value in the film – despite the irritating slo-mo for no reason and the fact that most of Holmes’ brilliant deductions come from figuring out how to win a fistfight before it actually begins instead of making clever deductions from the clues left in a room as to who was there and what they were doing – The Holmes-Watson relationship remains fun to watch. And a lot of that credit I feel has to go to Robert as his subtle English accent is so dead on you couldn’t tell which of the two actors was the actual Englishman. Usually I’m praising English or Australian actors for their ability to adopt ‘American’ accents so it’s nice to be able to throw some accolades to one of ‘our’ thespians.
One problem I had with the first was the casting of Rachael McAdams as Holmes’ love interest. Here, Rachel disappears early after making several ‘Why did she do that?’ moves in her opening scenes. I kept waiting for her to reappear to explain herself, but in typical Guy Ritchie fashion that never happens. Guy and bad story-telling do seem to go hand-in-hand.
Sherlock’s #1 nemesis, Professor Moriarty should have elevated this story to a higher level of entertainment value, but no, when it comes time for the Professor to confess his evil plan to Holmes just before killing him, thus giving Watson enough time to swoop in and save the day, we are told that Moriarty’s reason for devising his latest devilish scheme is to ‘sell bandages’. Sorry for the spoiler – but maybe it isn’t really THAT stupid - perhaps I just made that up to conceal the true evil plot of that maniacal criminal genius of literature. Yes, I must have, not even the annoying filmmaker Guy Ritchie would stoop so low as to make Professor Moriarty nothing more than a salesman for Band-Aids*.
*Band-Aids is a registered trademark and should not be included in this review by penalty of law.
Okay, pretend you didn’t read that part about Band... er, uh, ‘Ow-ie patches’...
The stuff that worked / the addition of Watson’s bride, whom Holmes throws from a speeding train – It would initially seem just to get rid of her so he and his ‘bud’ can continue to fight crime without female interference.
The stuff that didn’t work / the addition of Holmes’ brother Mycroft; although I didn’t have a problem with him until the extremely overweight broken nosed actor that played him did one scene completely nude. There was no reason for it, other than Ritchie thinking it would be hilarious to show an unattractive fat guy walking around his house naked while having a tea and crumpets with Mrs. Watson.
Noomi Rapace plays a gypsy woman (Of Curtis Mayfield fame) who warns Holmes that he has the mark of the werewolf upon the palm of his hand – No wait, that’s from the original ‘Wolfman’ with Lon Chaney – but, I digress...
I have nothing bad to say about the addition of Rapace – nor did she bring much in the way of interest to the table. Let’s just blame that on the director too and make it a clean sweep, eh?
I said it at the end of my review of ‘SH 1’ and I’ll repeat it here – If there’s a sequel, I’ll be there as long as Guy Ritchie is NOT involved!

WAR HORSE

2012-01-01T23:44:00.000-08:00

“WAR HORSE” (Jeremy Irvine, Peter Mullen & Emily Watson)

Any critic that doesn’t give “War Horse” a glowing review is a soulless creature without a heart. This is a wonderful film, the type that used to win Best Picture Oscars before they decided to start giving trophies to lesser stories just to be ‘fashionable’ (I’m talking crap like “Slumdog Millionaire” and the over-rated “Hurt Locker”)
“War Horse” is an epic story; well made and well told. it included some scenes that were hard to watch but almost every scene (after the initial ‘introducing the characters’ beginning) contained a memorable moment, or what I would call a ‘nice touch’.
I would compare it to a little gem I loved called “Paulie”. If you haven’t seen it, and you liked “War Horse”, make it your next rental choice.
“Paulie” was a simple story about a special little bird and his quest to find the young girl he was taken from by a jealous father.
“War Horse” is the story of a remarkable equine and is told in a grandiose style spanning the length of World War I. I can only fathom that anyone who has a bad thing to say about this film is P.O.’d because the Americans aren’t given credit for helping the British win the war. But, my over zealous patriotic Americans, the movie isn’t about America or Great Britain for that matter – it’s about Joey - the horse that would never give up hope of finding his lost master. Like “Paulie”, Joey was separated from the human that cared for him by an ungrateful father, who sold him to the British army.
Jeremy Irvine plays Albert ‘Alby’ Narracott, who, after witnessing ‘Joey’ being born, becomes infatuated with the colt.
For some unknown reason (one of the films few flaws) Jeremy’s father, Ted (Peter Mullen) buys Joey at an auction – spending more than twice what the horse was worth, just to one-up his landlord, Mr. Lyons (David Thewlis)
Rosie, meticulously played by Emily Watson, is Alby’s mother and she is furious with her drunken sot of a husband for spending the rent money on a horse that can’t plow. Albert insists that he’ll train Joey to be a usable workhorse and Rosie agrees to keep the animal.
Under the watchful eye of the Narracott’s ‘Watch-Goose’, Albert develops a bond with the thoroughbred, allowing his young owner to place a harness around his neck in an attempt to plow the Narracott’s rocky pasture.
Even after Joey and Alby prove their worth, Ted, a truly worthless, drunken gimp, sells Joey to the British Calvary – specifically, to a young Captain (Tom Hiddleston) who promises Albert that when the war is over he will do everything in his power to return Joey to his rightful owner.
Joey befriends the regiments’ commander’s horse, whose original name I didn’t catch.
Since he was a black horse, I called him ‘Sham’ (expertly played by Sarah Jessica Parker)
At first it seems as though the older horse takes the younger under his wing until Joey proves he is the fastest, toughest and bravest horse in camp. One of those ‘special moments’ occurs when Sham is summoned to help pull an enormous cannon to the top of a hill and Joey intervenes to save his friend.
There are so many of those heart-tugging moments in this film that to list them all would spoil it.
I do have a question for my readers, though – if anyone can explain to me why the German’s left Joey & Sham in the windmill after punishing Gunter & Mikael, I’d appreciate it, as it left me a bit baffled.
And another item that both my wife & I wondered about – It seemed that the two German boys – Gunter & Mikael switched names from the first time they were introduced – Was anyone else confused by that, or were we not paying close enough attention?
The moments were both sweet – French girl Emily, after renaming the pair of horses Francois and Claude, tries to teach Joey (Francois) how to jump over a fence and Joey either does what the girl does, or cheats his way around the blockade.
It had already been established that Joey/Francois DOES NOT jump.
And other moments were dreadful – very difficult to watch. I know they used computers to make it seem as though Joey ran through barbed wire fence after barbed wire fence until he was thrown to the ground after doing a complete somersault, but boy, that was painful to view – congrates to the special effects dept. for making that look horribly realistic.
A German soldier, put in charge of ‘captured’ soldiers Joey & Sham says, “It’s a pity they found you.”
I liked the fact that they made some of the ‘evil’ Germans appear human – this was a man who obviously loved horses and was more than likely forced into the war.
Not every person on the ‘wrong’ side was bad just as not every soldier on the ‘good’ side was angelical.
The two soldiers that meet in ‘No Man’s Land’ to save Joey from the barbed wire that would have torn him to shreds if he struggled while they tried to free him was another ‘moment’ that left a lump in my throat.
I even inserted my own special moments – When the Lieutenant from Devon (Charlie, I think – there were a LOT of characters that came & went) was rescued by Albert during a fierce battle, I thought he should have told Alby the name of the girl that was in the car with him when Alby discovered Joey didn’t jump fences.... Alby had asked him earlier for her name and he arrogantly answered, “I don’t recall – there’ve been so many women in my life.”
Incredible film – An epic – And if it wins best picture, despite all of the lame brained critics that have panned it, it will be a well deserved award.
Oh, and thanks, Emily's Grandpa, for turning that lump in my throat into tears streaming down my face like the little girly-man that I apparently am...

The GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

2011-12-27T21:08:00.000-08:00

“The GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO” (Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer & Stellam Skarsgard)

My background going into this movie was – I did not read the book, I did not see the Swedish version and, until I saw the trailer, I had no interest whatsoever in seeing this film. The trailer presented an interesting storyline and reputable actors Daniel Craig and Christopher Plummer.
This is not your conventional murder mystery – it gets a little hard-core – as well as being about a girl who disappeared 25 years earlier without a trace.
Craig plays Mikael Blomkvist, a political writer that gets in hot water with the publisher of the magazine he writes for when he accuses a high ranking Swedish official named Wennerstrom of embezzlement. Mikael is disgraced when he can’t prove his case in court.
Mikael’s boss/secret lover (Robin Wright) sends him to meet with an elderly man named Henrik Vanger (Plummer) to both get him out of the public’s eye and to give him something to keep his mind off his recent troubles. Instead Mikael finds himself ensnared in a hornet’s nest of characters with questionable morals, otheriwse known as Vanger’s closest relatives. Close, and yet distant, as Blomkvist is told which relatives are not speaking and which, and which ones are on speaking terms but only if they aren't on speaking terms with the other relatives – And they all live in mansions that Henrik can see from his front yard.
Martin Vanger (Stellan Skarsgard) is the only relative who seems willing to help Mikael with his investigation. Skarsgard is a very good actor – I couldn’t tell what his character was thinking as he constantly swirled his glass of wine and seemed amused as Mikael became acquainted with his unsavory relatives.
Henrik’s request is for Mikael to use his investigative skills as a writer to figure out what happened to his niece, Harriet, who disappeared 25 years ago.
Mikael enlists the help of the woman that hacked into his computer and helped to bring him down in the court case against Wennerstrom.
“Why do you want me?” the female hacker asks, thinking Blomkvist is seeking revenge. “I was impressed with how you broke into my computer,” Mikael responses, “Now I want you to do it to him.”
The hacker is the title character, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) an unusual looking character, even for a geek. The more we learn of Lisbeth, the more we see that it isn’t just her hair that is an unsightly mess. The early scenes involving Lisbeth also had me wondering about how well her character was thought out – She gets mugged in the subway but is able to run down and beat the living snot out of the young thug that steals her purse, yet when Randy Bachman, of Bachman-Turner Overweight, attempts to rape her, he gets the upper hand quite easily.
It took me a while to feel sorry for Lisbeth because she is forced to do disgusting things to garner money to live on from lawyer Bachman - but what does she do with the money? She spends $3,000 on a tattoo (And it's not even the dragon!)
The film wants you to read the book, obviously, as Lisbeth’s quirks just didn’t happen overnight – she is deathly afraid of men touching her; when Mikael barely brushes against her as he stands up from the computer screen they’re staring at, she jumps like a scared cat at the bark of a big dog. Then, unexpectedly, she removes her clothing and joins Mikael in bed as if they were long-time lovers.
So, yes, Lisbeth has issues. But she’s also as loyal as a puppy once she finds a human being worth worshipping. She simply tells Mikael, “I like working with you.” and it seems clear to everyone except Mikael that she means ‘I’m falling in love with you’.
Even though I was intrigues by the trailer, I still wasn’t sure if ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ was going to be something I’d enjoy – or one of those ‘art house’ films I deplore. It’s the former – it’s good because it isn’t conventional – it’s downright bizarre at times. I was so glad that there weren’t any elongated scenes of martial arts nonsense – in fact there weren’t any at all and that’s what I was warned the books were about; a martial arts expert who was also a computer genius and mentally unstable. Mentally unstable computer genius’s I can live with – Martial arts experts, I cannot.
I still have no desire to read the books, but I’m in for the next Americanized installment of the series when it comes out on celuloid...

MONEYBALL

2011-12-27T20:58:00.000-08:00

“MONEYBALL” (Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill & Philip Seymour Hoffman)

Some new morning talk show host here in Seattle told me to go see ‘Moneyball’ because it’s not about baseball – it’s about character building; an ‘inspirational’ story.
So when “Moneyball” came to the discount theatre we went to see it... It’s about BASEBALL – it is ENTIRELY about BASEBALL – no other subject matter is broached other than BASEBALL – It eats, sleeps and dreams BASEBALL. It is an exceptionally boring film about exceptionally boring people and the exceptionally boring game that they play, &/or played...
At my brother’s wedding reception a group of males gathered near the bar (Where, just as in the wild, males are prone to gather) The subject of golf came up. After silently listening for twenty minutes, I finally had to voice my opinion. I said, “I used to think the most boring thing on this playing was watching golf. Now I know there’s something even more boring – people who talk about golf.”
Later, since it was September and the baseball playoffs were approaching, baseball became the main topic. Once again, I let them ramble on and on until a break in the monotony allowed me to interject how I thought the second most boring thing on the planet was baseball – and now I could add ‘people who talk about baseball’ to my most boring things on the planet list.
Why is it that people who play and watch golf and actually pay attention when one of 163,000 baseball games are being played each year are under the opinion that those subjects are suitable for discussion among rational, thinking human beings?
I write this because I don’t want other people to be fooled by a misguided talk
show host that told them ‘Moneyball’ isn’t ABOUT baseball.
Being based on a true story doesn’t automatically make a subject interesting. The thing about sports movies that are based on actual events is that something special takes place at the finale – the underdog overcomes overwhelming odds and wins the championship – but in ‘Moneyball’ nothing like that happens. It’s simply the story of how a failed player turned manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) replaces three stars that signed with other teams by hiring Peter (Jonah Hill) a computer geek to pick his players for him using the complicated system of ‘how often do they get on base?’ – that’s it. That’s the ‘character’ builder here. “We want you on our team because you walk a lot.”
Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Oakland A’s manager Art Howe as a typical baseball manager – totally disinterested in everything that’s going on around him until it starts to threaten his job. It is unquestionably, Hoffman’s worst performance to date.
It’s not really a spoiler to reveal what happens at the end of the season, but all of you Brad Pitt lovers out there that are waiting for the DVD to come out might not know so I won’t say anything except they don’t exactly win the World Series.
For a film that supposedly wasn’t about baseball, there’s a good twenty minutes of the running time devoted to one game when the home team blows an 11-to-nothing lead during the regular season. This ‘highlight’ is as pitiful as Mariner fans that think winning one playoff series is tantamount to winning the MLB championship.
The only interesting aspect came when Beane, unable to coerce manager Howe into playing the guy he wanted him to play at first base, trades the prize rookie Howe has been starting so that he has no choice but to play the ex-catcher at first because he ‘walks a lot’. In any other film that wouldn’t have been all that interesting, but here, it’s the only scene that didn’t utterly bore me.

WE BOUGHT A ZOO !

2011-12-26T02:20:00.000-08:00

“WE BOUGHT A ZOO!” (Matt Damon, Scarlett Johansson & Thomas Haden Church)

“We bought a zoo!” is shouted a few times during the film, so I thought it apropos to add an exclamation point to the title. I’m a little surprised that this is getting some Oscar buzz, because, despite the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed this adorable little tearjerker, it isn’t what you would call a normal Oscar contender. In many ways, “We Bought A Zoo!” is just as sweet and sappy as the other adorable animal films released in 2011; “Mr. Popper’s Penguins”, “Dolphin Tale” & “The Beaver” . . . Okay, that last one’s a joke.
But “We Bought A Zoo!” has something extra going for it – maybe it’s the fact that it has multiple rascally animals in it as oppose to ‘just’ a dolphin or ‘just’ some penguins. This spreading out of wildlife however, did not work for the deplorable “Zookeeper”. I’ve heard that Matt Damon is being touted as a Best Actor possibility... if he squeezes in, I’ll be surprised – not that he isn’t good – but this is a cute movie – stars of cute movies don’t get Oscar nominations; especially when every actor in the film has to walk in the shadow of tiny Maggie Elizabeth Jones as Rosie. It is Rosie who loves shouting, “We bought a zoo!” and it is Maggie that provides the overload of adorableness to the production.
Matt Damon stars as recent widow Benjamin Mee. Benjamin (don’t call him Ben) has his hands full dealing with his moody teenage son, Dylan (Colin Ford) and precious young daughter Rosie – so you’d think when an attractive single mother keeps offering him pans of lasagne, he’d take the hint and at least invite the cute cougar over to share the meal – but we soon learn that Benjamin is having a very difficult time recovering from his wife’s passing.
When Dylan gets expelled from school for his 4th strike (drawing bizarre art projects that only Charles Manson would appreciate) Benjamin decides to use the money he received from his father’s inheritance to buy a home in the country – where the nearest Target store is 9 miles away! His brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) is flabbergasted that he would waste his inheritance money on what turns out to be a run-down zoo. When Duncan asks, “Why buy a zoo?” Benjamin smiles and replies, “Why not?” When Benjamin uses those two words again it should put a lump in your throat... with or without the stale popcorn.
The zoo is run by pretty Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) assisted by (among others) her teenage niece, Lily (Elle Fanning, who blew me away in “Super 8” but only does an average job here) As Lily attempts to bring a ray of sunshine to grumpy Dylan, Kelly attempts to educate Benjamin on how to bring the zoo up to code so they can re-open and start making money. As Benjamin pours more and more inheritance money into food and repair materials, he begins to question his decision to give in to his irresistible little girl who begged him to buy the zoo!
As Benjamin argues with Dylan one night, he shouts, “We live with a 7 year old girl who still believes in the Easter Bunny!” When Dylan ends the argument by slamming his bedroom door, Benjamin turns to see Rosie standing in her p-j’s and holding her teddy bear... “What ABOUT the Easter Bunny?” she whimpers with a demanding tone. Perfect delivery. I absolutely adored her.
But dealing with his life as a widow isn’t the only tearjerking moment for this film as one of the mainstays is an aging Bengal Tiger named Spar. Kelly keeps telling Benjamin that it is cruel not to ‘do the right thing’ by Spar and release him from his miserable painful life. The fact that Benjamin, obviously reliving his wife’s dying situation thru Spar, is unwilling to make the call causes a big rift between him and Kelly. When Duncan arrives to help out the first advice he offers is ‘get rid of the animals, but keep the girl’.
Scarlett does good work in this – maybe it was the drab hair and her glamorous looks were toned down so I wasn’t just ogling her – but I accepted her as her character; which, I think, is a first. Her dalliance with Sean Penn must have included some acting lessons, eh?
“We Bought A Zoo!” will definitely be in my Top 10 of 2011 and yet I still don’t think it will get any Oscar nods... except for Maggie as best supporting cutie-pie...

NEW YEAR'S EVE

2011-12-20T00:55:00.000-08:00

“NEW YEAR’S EVE” (Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sarah Jessica Parker, Hillary Swank, Halle Berry, Robert De Niro, Zac Efron, Jon Bon Jovi, Abigail Breslin, Josh Duhamel, Jessica Biel, Seth Myers, Carla Gugino, Sofia Vergara, Larry Miller, Chris Bridges, Hector Elizondo, Lea Michele, John Lithgow, Sarah Paulson, Til Schweger, Cary Elwes, Alyssa Milano, Common, Peter Vogt, James Belushi, Matthew Broderick, Lisa Simpson, Penny Marshall & Ryan Seacrest)

Look at that star studded cast! How could this not be anything but spectacular?

It’s crap, people. It’s horrible, horrible crap from start to finish – even the good actors stink in this; the main reason being insipid dialogue and moronic plotlines.
Probably the leading candidate for the Worst Movie of 2011, I couldn’t recommend this movie to any age group or sector. The fact that this garbage was even made was embarrassing enough, but the fact that it was #1 at the box office says that the American movie goer is even dumber than polls had originally predicted. I exclude myself because despite the fact that I spent money to see this rubbish, it was one of the those weeks when I relinquished my choice to my wife and this is what she picked.
Looking on the bright side when I see junk like this it makes me appreciate films that only annoy me a little instead of from start to finish. ‘The Muppets’ seems thoroughly entertaining now after viewing ‘New Year’s (Bleeping) Eve’.

The 27 plotlines in a nutshell . . .

Ashton Kutcher does his best acting to date in this... no, I take that back, he was actually pretty good in ‘The Butterfly Effect’ but Jeepers, how long ago was that? Kutcher plays Randy, a laid back guy that doesn’t speak very often, except to his buddy via his cell phone (Yeah, one of THOSE a-holes) Randy gets stuck in an elevator on New Year’s Eve with Elise (Lea Michele) A spunky little Jewish princess who happens to be a back-up singer for Jensen (Jon Bon Jovi, but more on that fiasco of a subplot later) Elise is the complete opposite of Randy (meaning, she’s friendly) but she gets to the point where you want Ed Asner to magically appear in the elevator and tell Elise how much he hates ‘spunk’. The second half of the film, all Kutcher does is stand in a crowd and smile whimsically at Elise as she sings her little heart out for a crowd of drunken New York extras with nothing better to do than to listen to someone they’ve never heard of sing to them on ‘the most romantic night of the year’.
Katherine Heigl (Am I the only one that wishes she’d stop making movies and concentrate on a career selling jewelry on the Shopping Network?) plays Laura; a caterer who gets a big gig on New Year’s Eve thanks to ex-boyfriend Jensen (Superstar ex-teen idol Jon Bon Jovi playing a superstar ex-teen idol)
I don’t know which was worse, watching Heigl ‘act’ as though she hates Jensen or watching Ava (Sofia Vergara) fawn over him with a thick latino accent that even Charo couldn’t understand.
When pop sensation Jensen starts singing his repertoire of hits – they’re all remakes – and trust me, Otis Redding’s bones are rattling over the fact that one of his songs was covered in this train-wreck. You’d think the biggest musical star in the world would play at least one ‘original’ composition – Even something as bland as a Bon Jovi song? The saddest part of this segment is realizing that Jon Bon Jovi can’t even play Jon Bon Jovi convincingly.
Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog was right when he told Jon to stick to playing vampires – that way the role would require him to suck.
Then there’s the ultimate ‘creepy’ segment with Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer) and Paul (Zac Efron) All I’m going to reveal is – the one thing you hope they don’t do, they do.
Then there’s mother Kim (Sarah Jessica Parker) loudly worrying about her daughter Hailey (Abigail Breslin) in a high pitched whine that made my dogs start howling out in the parking lot.
We’ve got Robert De Niro playing a dying man whose last wish is to live to see the ball drop one more time. Nurse Aimee (Halle Berry) promises to stay with him to make sure his Make-A-Wish comes true – but leaves him to go talk to her husband (Common) on Skype!
The stupidest of the stupid is a battle between two couples to win $5,000 by having the first baby of the New Year – Biel & Myers are the Byrnes & Schweger & Paulson are the Schwabs. This segment offers up what I consider to be the worse line spoken in any movie (at least of this century) when a gay male nurse (Peter Vogt) tells the two couples, “May the best va-jay-jay win!”
The only glimpse of someone trying to be entertaining came from Larry Miller as Harley, the tow truck driver who made me chuckle twice with lines involving Penn & Teller and watching porn. And that’s one of the chief problems here – the dialogue is so dreadful that the actors don’t even try to sell their lines. Most of them looked like Sarah Palin - just reading what was written on their hands.
The main storyline dealt with Clare (Hillary Swank) the person in charge of making sure the big ball was working properly and would be ready to drop at midnight. According to this film – the big disco ball dropping in Times Square is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN IN THESE UNITED STATES for the entire year.
Until, of course, it is time for the ball to drop again...
When the ball blows a fuse, goes dark and stops during a practice run – they cut to one of the news channels interrupting regular programming for the breaking news that the ball is stuck! This is followed by a Press Conference where angry reporters demand to know what is being done to fix the ball!
I found it amusing that – given how much value was placed by the leaders of New York City that the ball drop come off without a hitch – there was only one person in the entire world that knew how to fix the thing whenever it broke. Hector Elizondo comes to the rescue as a man known only as Kominsky. And how does the invaluable, but recently fired Kominsky repair the ball? By testing the bulbs one at a time to find the one burnt out bulb that shuts the entire thing down... And they say there aren’t any clever plotlines coming out of Hollywood anymore...
I know I’m forgetting at least a dozen other storylines, but I’m tired of writing about this sh*t.

YOUNG ADULT

2011-12-20T00:47:00.000-08:00

“YOUNG ADULT” (Charlize Theron, Patrick Wilson & Patton Oswalt)

This film ought to be called “Diablo Cody’s Revenge” (she wrote the screenplay) – it is so blatantly biased against every ‘prettiest girl in high school’ prom queen, the story itself becomes even more pathetic than Charlize Theron’s Mavis Gary. And that’s pretty damn pathetic.
I was hoping that this film would be better than the trailer – just because Charlize was in it and I hadn’t seen her for awhile. When it was over I shook my head in disbelief wondering why Charlize would ever agree to play such a character as Mavis – unless it was her intent to show that she could play a believable pathetic loser. Which she does a decent job of doing, but the storyline is what drags this thing down into the desperate dregs of possible 10 Worse films of the year territory.
This is also Theron’s movie from start to finish; there are very few scenes that don’t involve Mavis. In fact, I can’t remember any. There are also zero scenes of Mavis doing anything positive – whether it’s stuffing her poor little Pomeranian into a handbag and zipping it up or thinking she could simply waltz back into her high school boyfriend’s life and steal him away from the woman that just gave birth to their first child, Mavis is the quintessential ‘hot mess’.
Mavis is an author – a ghost writer specifically – for a successful series of ‘young adult’ romance novels. Trouble brews when she comes down with a case of writer’s block.
After Mavis receives an e-mail from her ex-boyfriend announcing the birth of his daughter, she hatches the idea of using a trip to her old hometown to both win back Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson) and use the journey as a plot inducer to finish what we learn will be her last novel for her current employer.
As desirable as Mavis appears, the story wants us to realize she has numerous flaws – the selfish beauty queen has an unsightly bald spot above her ear because she can’t stop pulling out the hairs from that area – so the nervous tick leads her to have to wear hair extensions. To let us know what a true slob Mavis is, they have her make the trip to Mercury (her hometown) wearing the T-shirt and sweats she slept in the night before. And, of course, the first place Mavis heads to when she arrives in Mercury is a dive bar because naturally the girl who peaked in high school yet is still stunning to look at – is an alcoholic. Mavis downs shots of bourbon like they were chocolate milk. Just to add insult to insult, Mavis is made out to be a complete moron by the fact that the only show she watches on television is “The Kardashians”.
Mavis meets Matt (Patton Oswalt) at the bar. Matt obviously remembers Mavis but she doesn’t have a clue as to he is even after he tells her their lockers were side by side all through high school. It is when she sees Matt’s crutch that she remembers him as being the gay guy that got beaten within an inch of his life and left for dead by a bunch of gay bashing jocks, even though, as Matt keeps repeating, “I’m not gay.”
Matt is clearly disturbed by Mavis’s rude behavior and lack of sympathy, yet still he sits with her all night drinking and conversing. Why? Because Mavis, despite being a female douche bag, is gorgeous – and morons like Matt feel privileged just to share a table with the witch. This is the one time Diablo lays off of Mavis’s shortcomings just long enough to let us know that unattractive men are pathetic creatures as well.
As the plot thins, Mavis’s deplorable behavior keeps getting worse; although the ex-boyfriend doesn’t help matters when he kisses Mavis passionately one night and then the next day acts as though he never made any advances towards his ex-lover. Another Diablo lesson – attractive guys are scumbags too.
It’s as if Cody wanted to show what a low life the ‘prom queen’ had become – so utterly pathetic that she turns to the only man in the buzzing metropolis of Mercury, Minnesota willing to have sex with her – meaning we’re supposed to believe that a woman that looks like Charlize Theron can’t get laid because of how she behaves... Uh-hu. Yeah. Right.
I know some will say that I’m being too harsh on this film – that it’s an in-depth character study of someone who ‘peaked’ in high school. That would be acceptable if Charlize’s looks had gone. They haven’t. Even though she isn’t a busty babe, Charlize was radiant in the scenes where she wore a low cut black dress. In a bar full of men I’m betting not a single one of them would have turned down an invitation back to her hotel room... except in Diablo Cody’s make believe world of revenge...

The MUPPETS

2011-12-20T00:34:00.000-08:00

“The MUPPETS” (Jason Segel, Amy Adams & Chris Cooper as humans / Kermit, Fozzie, Piggy & Gonzo as muppets)

My appreciation for the Muppets came from 2 sources; when the original Saturday Night Live debuted – the Muppets were a part of the cast. After that I became a fan of their weekly ‘variety’ show. I never watched Sesame Street or was much of a fan of their movies – the TV show seemed to be their best avenue; a half hour of silliness highlighted by a (sometimes) big name star acting like a kid whilst surrounded by puppets of all shapes and sizes. My favorites were Statler & Waldorf – the grumpy old men in the balcony that made sarcastic remarks on how poorly the show was going.
When I heard this movie was based on the Muppets trying to save the theatre that housed their old TV show by putting on a ‘Muppet Show Marathon’, I was interested enough to buy a ticket – plus the lovely and talented Amy Adams added to my anticipation of being entertained by a batch of cloth puppets.
The usual conversation I have with my wife at the end of EVERY movie we see goes like this; (Me) “So what did you think?” (Her) (A) “It was okay.” (B) “It was fine.” (C) “I liked it.” At the conclusion of the Muppets her response was, “I didn’t care for it.”
Wow, not even a drab ‘okay’ for Kermit & Co.
The surprising thing is I agreed with her, I didn’t care for it either – although it was sweet and some of the cameos were humorous, Alan Arkin, Emily Blunt (as Miss Piggy’s secretary) and Zack Galifiniakis particularly – but they only made me smirk. I laughed out loud once – at Amy Adams’ line, “This is going to be a really short movie.”
The problem clearly was in the writing (Sorry, Jason) I was hoping for a grown-up Muppets movie aimed at us ‘older’ fans that grew up with them. Instead this film is aimed at pre-teens and toddlers. It has no edge, no adult content, no pizzaz. It was rather boring.
Early in the film, Kermit hears about the fate of the old Muppet theatre and sets about rounding up the other Muppets – his first stop is Vegas where he finds Fozzie Bear opening for an act called The Moopets (3 raggedy Muppet look-alikes and David Grohl in a half-Muppet get up) When the movie ended I found myself wondering why they didn’t make a Moopet movie instead. In fact, I yearned for an R-Rated Muppet movie because this one was soooo milquetoast, it wasn’t like the Muppets I remembered at all. (Not that the Muppets were ever R-Rated, but THAT would have been a fun idea – this seemed like a huge step in the wrong direction to me)
The story was kind of dumb; Jason Segel as Gary grows up with his brother Walter who for some unknown reason is a Muppet. Walter worships Kermit and the gang for obvious reasons and joins his brother and his fiancée Mary (Amy) on a trip to Hollywood.
Chris Cooper as billionaire Tex Richman plans to purchase the old Muppet theatre and tear it down. Walter overhears this plan and makes it his mission to find Kermit to let him know. And the journey to bring back the old gang for one final extrava-gonzo is on.
The best part about Walter is when he’s turned into a human during a dream sequence and the human form he takes on is that of Jim Parsons (Sheldon of “The Bing Bang Theory”) The worst part about Walter is that he’s uninteresting and not the least bit funny. When Walter’s ‘talent’ is finally revealed I had to roll my eyes and wonder how anyone would have thought THAT was a good way to endear Walter to the audience – I found him to be even more boring after sitting thru his less-than-entertaining addition to the Big Show.
Nostalgia-wise, the Muppets worked for a short while, but for the long run, this would have been a better ½ hour TV special – or written by someone who would give the sock puppets more bite.

HUGO

2011-12-20T00:32:00.000-08:00

“HUGO” (Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley & Chloe Grace Moretz)

‘Hugo’ is a pleasant little tale of a young orphaned boy that helps a broken old man
re-discover his dreams... but it isn’t much more than that.
It is obviously director Martin Sorcese’s tribute to the film-makers that began it all and because of that, “Hugo” quite frequently delves into ‘cheesy’ movies with exceptionally bad acting.
The storyline that works involves title character Hugo (Asa Butterfield) and the friendship he creates with Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz, who didn’t frighten me this time) The one that doesn’t is the antics of Sacha Baron Cohen as ‘Station Inspector’ whose sole duty seems to be tracking down orphans and having them sent to institutes where they will live their days out in misery. Now, if he was called ‘Orphan Hunter’ I would understand this obsession, but he supposedly is the head of security at the Paris train station so his existence in this film seems to only be for ‘comic relief’. Problem there is that Sacha Baron Cohen never has and more than likely never will be funny.
Other than a heartwarming scene involving two long haired dachshunds, ‘Hugo’ just kind of rolls from one scene to the next without much impact on any emotion – the kids’ friendship is sweet, but sweet don’t feed the Doberman.
The acting, other than the hammy Cohen, is fine – well above the norm; Ben Kingsley as George Melies is fine when he isn’t shown acting in one of George’s crappy films and cameos by Jude Law, Ray Winstone and Christopher Lee were greatly appreciated but too short-lived, especially Law as Hugo’s doomed father.
I was misled by a reviewer that made it appear as though this film was about an automatron that unites young Hugo with the elderly Melies, but the automatron is simply a mechanical device that contains a special secret message meant for Hugo from his departed father. When the message is revealed, it’s somewhat of a let down.
‘Hugo’ relies too heavily on circumstance; now a little circumstance is fine, welcomed, in fact – a little more circumstance can still work as long as its done logically, but ‘Hugo’ goes way over the top with it until you’re left shaking your head in disbelief. Example; Hugo is frustrated by his efforts to get his father’s automatron to work properly; his need, a heart-shaped key. After a chance meeting in the crowded train station with Isabelle and discovering that she’s related to the grumpy old man that runs the station’s gifts ‘n’ trinkets shop (Kingsley’s George Melies) Hugo invites Isabelle into his secret domain behind the clocks in the station – which he keeps running so no one will discover his orphaned existence. After showing Isabelle the automatron, Isabelle just happens to have a heart shaped key that she keeps around her neck – Just in case she might happen upon an automatron that needed starting?
Still, it is likeable but not lovable... Kind of like ‘Wall-E’ with dialogue.

The DESCENDANTS

2011-12-14T21:06:00.000-08:00

“The DESCENDANTS” (George Clooney & Shailene Woodley)

Because of my high expectations for this, it was a bit of a let down. I liked the plot, I liked the trailer, I like George – the critics were raving. I told my wife I was hoping to see the second best movie of the year. So with all that going against it – “The Descendants” is a very likeable film, but nothing to get excited about.
Clooney plays Matt King, a lifetime Hawaiian resident that happens to be descended from Hawaiian royalty – his family owns a huge plot of land that will be worth millions to him and his relatives. Matt has the power of attorney as to what’s to be done with the land – or, in other words, sell it to the highest bidder. As the deadline is approaching for Matt to make his decision; local buyers - or ‘outsiders’ from Chicago - his wife gets injured and lapses into a coma.
Matt then discovers his wife was cheating on him prior to her accident so he pulls his oldest daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) out of college so she can watch over her younger sister, Scottie (Amara Miller) while Matt goes about tracking down his comatose wife’s lover.
And that’s pretty much the plot, with a few twists and turns along the way.

Beau Bridges plays Matt’s amiable cousin Hugh; well, amiable until Matt starts to waiver on his decision to sell the property. But he brings nothing special to the table.
Robert Forster plays Matt’s father-in-law, Scott Thorson and other than punching Alexandra’s moronic boyfriend, Sid (Nick Krause) he brings nothing special to the table.
Same for Matthew Lillard as Brian Speer, Matt’s unconscious wife’s lover.
Judy Greer has a couple of nice moments but isn’t in the film enough to make an impact.
What gives this film a pulse is the combination of Clooney and Woodley; there were times when they seemed to actually be father and daughter and it’s their relationship that makes “The Descendants” a cut above your average movie-going fare.
But the problem with the film is that the high expectations from the set ups doesn’t pay off at the end. When Matt confronts Speers in his home you hope for some fireworks, something out of the ordinary to take place – but no, Brian simply apologizes profusely to Matt for the affair he had with his vegetable, er, I mean, wife.
I guess the scenic shots of the Hawaiian Islands will impress those that enjoy sight-seeing. I don’t. But anyone that calls this ‘Oscar’ caliber is either from Hawaii, or agrees with me that this is another lame year for films, because despite being underwhelmed by this movie, it still may make it into my Top 10 just from the acting of Clooney and Shailene...

COWBOYS VRS. ALIENS

2011-12-14T20:56:00.000-08:00

“COWBOYS VRS. ALIENS” (Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde & Sam Rockwell)

When my friend Chris first told me about this film we both thought it was an internet joke. So when the joke became reality, it just made sense that we should wait until it came to the discount cinema and see ‘Cowboys Vrs. Aliens’ together.
It was worth the $3 admission basically due to Olivia Wilde’s engaging eyes – though Chris thought her rising from the ashes ala the Phoenix was ridiculous, I welcomed her back because I knew the film would suck without her to gaze upon.
But Chris and I agreed on everything else in this film – the beginning half was quite good, entertaining and humorous with an interesting concept – while the second half sunk to what we expected a film called Cowboys Vrs. Aliens to be – junk.
What worked was Daniel Craig’s Jake Lonegan. The film begins with Jake waking in the desert with a wound in his side and an odd metallic device clamped to his right wrist. Despite his efforts to break it off, the device remained attached.
Jake has no memory of who he is or where he was so he aimlessly wanders into the nearest town where he meets Paul Dano’s Percy, the son of the richest land baron in these here parts. Percy is drunk and shooting his gun off in the middle of the street when Jake makes a smart alec remark that Percy takes offense to. Percy winds up wounding a deputy and being kneed in the crotch by Jake before being carted off to jail – constantly claiming, “Wait until my daddy finds out about this!”
Jake soon joins Percy when the sheriff (Keith Carradine) finds a wanted for murder poster in his office.
Daddy (Harrison Ford in one of his ‘I just have to show up and read my lines’ moods)
shows up shortly before the aliens enter the picture. With Jake and Percy ensconced inside a prisoner transference wagon, Daddy demands that the sheriff release his son when the weird lights in the sky appear and begin shooting blasts of light that explode upon impact. As the blasts near the paddy wagon, Jake yells at Percy, “give me your hand!” A very frightened Percy whimpers, “I don’t want to die!” Jake replies, “You won’t if you give me your hand – I know how to get us out of here.”
Once Percy surrenders his hand, Jake proceeds to break every bone in it so he can slip the shackles over Percy’s wrist and thus make his escape.
So, yes, things were going along well at that point – I liked the mystery of ‘Jake’ and the object on his wrist and the humor of Jake constantly pummeling the spoiled rich kid.
But then came the frog-people...
Sam Rockwell played ‘Doc’ though he seemed to be the saloon owner and the local preacher was the one that tended to Jake’s wound. Doc joins the search party that forms after the aliens’ initial attack as his wife was one of the several townspeople that were abducted during the melee.
Jake discovers he was the leader of a gang of outlaws and they, along with a band of renegade Indians join the posse in search of the aliens that they are told by the beautiful Ella (Olivia Wilde) will wipe out all civilization in order to mine all of the earth’s gold.
The movie then descends into the silly cowboys versus aliens motif where it seems that dozens of cowboys and Indians are killed in battle, yet when the dust clears – all the cowboys and Indians seem to be accounted for.
The device on Jake's wrist is a weapon that gives the cowboys an upper hand - but it is one of the alien's weapons - How come they don't have the same thing to fire back at the cowboys and Indians? And how is it that cowboys on horseback can catch up to aliens in spaceships?
What disturbed me most was the ending which lent itself to set up a possible sequel or two – Coming next year “Cowboys Vrs. Aliens 2: The Wrath of The Frog-People”
followed by the Daniel Craig-directed, “Cowboys Vrs. Aliens 3: The Search For Ella”
and then, of course, the Back To The Past time travelling sequel, “C V A 4 : The Voyage Home (To The Old West)” where the cowboys are transported into the future to find a pair of humpback whales that they can bring back to their time to ease the Frog-people who now want blubber instead of gold. You laugh now, but stranger things have happened in Hollywood and you know it...

LET ME IN / NEVER LET ME GO

2011-12-14T20:41:00.000-08:00

“LET ME IN” / “NEVER LET ME GO”

Normally I only review films I’ve seen in theatres, but after viewing these two movies on TV, I felt I should write these ‘warnings’ to anyone that hasn’t seen them yet...

“Let Me In” is simply harrowing – that’s the best word to describe how I felt after seeing it. When it came out I read that it was about a 12 year old girl who happens to be a vampire. I am not a 12-16 year old female, so I am not the least bit interested in these modern-day vampire tales where all the male leads look... well, gay. If that offends you, I’m sorry, but it’s the best way to describe these actors that wear feminine looking make up and don’t seem to have much in the way of acting abilities. So I passed on paying money to see “Let Me In”. But it was given mostly good reviews, so I taped it. First thing I thought when it ended was, “I sure hope no 12-16 year old girls ever see this!”
I don’t get ‘scared’ by movies, but “Let Me In” was frightening in the sense that there were a couple of scenes that will haunt me – probably for years.
Quick summary; 12 year old Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) moves into the same apartment building as 12 year old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) with what appears to be her father (Richard Jenkins) Or grandfather, Richard isn’t exactly a spring chicken. During their first meeting on the roof of the building Abby tells Owen, “We can never be friends.”
Small for his age Owen is the main target of three school bullies. Abby tells Owen to fight back – hard. As their friendship grows, Owen finds out that Abby can’t enter his room without him saying out loud that she can ‘come in’.
‘Dad’ is in charge of feeding young Chloe – with the blood of unsuspecting victims he finds by hiding in the back seat of their cars covered in black garbage bags. When he spills the plasma of his latest victim, Chloe is outraged and Owen hears her yell, “What am I supposed to do now?”
So sweet, diminutive Abby goes out and attacks someone. The scene isn’t scary as the creature Abby turns into is obviously computerized, but the idea that a small child would feign an injury and then 'eat' the person who stops to help her is.
The scene where ‘Dad’ is forced to disfigure himself when his last attempt to find ‘food’ for Chloe is the one that sticks in my mind the most – and gives me the creeps.
Owen remains clueless about Abby until the little nitwit decides he wants to be ‘blood’ brothers with his female friend and cuts his thumb with a knife in front of her...
What happens to the victim Abby attacks after fleeing from Owen, so she doesn’t ‘eat’ him is another disturbing scene that won’t clear from my memory bank.
What makes this film intriguing is the fact that when she’s been fed, Abby is a little sweetheart – in a dark foreboding kind of way – and she does eventually befriend Owen, who seems to be less freaked out by Abby the more freakish she becomes. The only time Owen gets upset is when he discovers who 'dad' really is.

The secret of who dad really is and the fate of the school bullies make “Let Me In” one scary film. Despite the sometime low-rent special effects – it’s the realism that kept me glued to the story. Abby is a normal 12 year old girl, cute when she’s recently dined on human blood, but the fact that she’s been ’12 for a very long time’ is kind of creepy and Owen is a sympathetic little geek that needs protection – they combine to help one another when needed and so the story – dark and gloomy for the most part does have a semi-happy ending.
With “Never Let Me Go” there isn’t a moment of brightness, or a single ray of sunshine in the entire film. I won’t reveal the ‘secret’ of Kathy, Tommy & Ruth –though it is resolved fairly early on, but these three children who are introduced as three of several children being brought up and schooled in an English institute called Hailsham.
I figured it out from the opening scenes, but for some reason telling the obvious is a spoiler. But the only thing that could spoil this movie for anyone is for someone to recommend it to you. It is depressing from start to finish. The secret is revealed by a glum, depressed, Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins) the students English teacher. Why Miss Lucy is fired is kind of a mystery because in time these kids HAD to be told what their lot in life was to be.
Kathy loves Tommy, but Tommy his social issues – he befriends Kathy but seems incapable of loving her back. Ruth, despite being Kathy’s best friend, seduces Tommy and becomes his lover until they graduate from Hailsham and go to live in The Cottages.
It’s a strange, depressing film because it just ambles along without any resistance from the students. They simply accept their fate without any outcry of protest or attempts to escape. That would have made this a much better story. And wait until you get to the end – You couldn’t imagine a more depressing ending if you tried.
So if you’re in a good mood and you want to lose it quick – Rent “Never Let Me Go” and the blues will encompass you for as long as you keep this glum movie in your brain...

J. EDGAR

2011-11-22T21:57:00.000-08:00

“J. EDGAR” (Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Watts, Armie Hammer & Judi Dench)

As an actor, Clint Eastwood has never impressed me – as a director, I think he’s brilliant... Perhaps I should change that now to ‘was’ brilliant, after viewing this jumbled mess of a film. It has its redeeming value; DiCaprio & Watts are in fine form – though Naomi’s role is quite understated, she’s perceptively in character in every scene. She deserved an Oscar for “Fair Game” and didn’t even get a nomination; I’m hoping they do a make-up job by giving her at least a nod for her portrayal of Hoover’s lifelong secretary Helen Gandy. DiCaprio’s nomination is a given. He has finally developed into a decent actor – and I am one of those who thought that would never happen. One thing Eastwood excels at is getting the best performance possible from his actors and in that he succeeds with “J. Edgar”. Where he goes wrong is in the editing room.
The story of F.B.I. director in chief, J. (John) Edgar Hoover is told in the annoying ‘jumping around in quantum leaps’ timeline style. I’d like to tell any director that thinks this is an innovative way of telling a story that is most certainly is NOT.
It’s like listening to someone who is high or drunk (or 10 years old or younger) relate an incident to you. They tell you how the story begins and then they stop and go, oh, wait, before that happens, I gotta tell you about this. Then they tell you about that and then wonder where they left off, so they pick up the story in a completely unrelated spot from where they previous interrupted themselves and then pretty soon there’s another, ‘oh, wait, I forgot to tell you about what happened before that happened’ moment... Imagine this going on for 2 hours and you have how Clint Eastwood decided to tell the story of J. Edgar Hoover.
It’s an interesting story of a very strange man, but it is not a very good movie because of the way it’s told. Eastwood drops in on spots of the historic moments that occurred during Hoover’s tenure as head of the F.B.I. but the only one he elaborates on is the kidnapping of Charles Lindburgh’s young son. Deemed more important than Hoover’s uncovering that Eleanor Roosevelt was having an affair, supposedly with a ‘known’ communist and his blackmailing of FDR to keep this fact from the media; a little thing called World War II, JFK’s illicit lifestyle and assassination, the Vietnam War and Tricky Dick Nixon’s antics – an aviator’s child being kidnapped was the most important event of the 1900’s according to director Eastwood.
While Clint leaves little doubt that Hoover was a gay man who kept this fact secret because his mother (Judi Dench) once told him she hated ‘daffodils’ – going so far as to say she’d rather see him dead than homosexual. Since Edgar doted upon his mother as if she was a religious figure, he had to obey her every command. So he proposes to Bureau secretary, Helen Gandy, because he ‘admires’ her capabilities. Although Miss Gandy turns down his proposal, she ends up spending the bulk of her life as his personal secretary – and the person that destroys all of his secret files upon learning of his death.
Hoover hires Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) to be his #2 man despite having no qualifications for the job. Speculation is that Edgar fell in love at first sight and sensing that Tolson was homosexual as well, convinced him to take a job he didn’t really want.
Edgar and Clyde’s catfights are almost laughable in how they claw at one another ala a cat fight; “You’re a scared, heartless, horrible little man!” Tolson screams at Edgar with tears in his eyes. He follows this with a kiss on the lips. Hoover bellows, “Don’t EVER do that again!” and then when Tolson storms out, Edgar whimpers, “Don’t leave me, Clyde.”
At one point Edgar states, “Love is the most powerful thing on earth.” - Which seemed totally out of place to me. Here was a man who knew no love (other than mommy’s) and spewed hatred and mistrust his entire life; especially toward anyone with power – inclusing every president and Martin Luther King.
The last item I’ll mention is the make-up crew, which I also found baffling. Naomi’s aging was seamless, Leonardo’s was decent, but Armie’s aging Clyde looked like the Elephant Man in a bathrobe.
Eastwood also makes it appear as though Hoover’s cross-dressing was a misnomer; that he only put a dress on once in homage to his recently deceased mother and then never wore a dress again... As though he just wanted one moment to be a ‘daffodil’ now that there was no chance of being caught by mommy.
And there was little delving into the reasons why Hoover felt the need to unethically send his agents out to dig up dirt on everyone he considered to be a threat to his ‘power’. And why Helen was so fiercely loyal to him and never questioned his motives. Tolson would, and Clyde was in love with the freak – so why did Miss Gandy continue to do the heartless, horrible man’s biding even after his death?
I guess that wasn’t as interesting as tracking down the kidnapper of a baby that was never kidnapped, eh, Clint?
If you enjoy films that bounce around in time more often than Christopher Lloyd in all three ‘Back To The Future’ films combined, then you’ll have a good time watching this jigsaw puzzle biopic. Me? I prefer stories to be told without the teller forgetting necessary details every two minutes and having to go back before continuing...

TOWER HEIST

2011-11-17T10:26:00.000-08:00

“TOWER HEIST” (Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Matthew Broderick, Casey Affleck, Alan Alda, Tea Leoni & Michael Pena)

This isn’t anything special, but it’s entertaining enough – It was the first time in decades that I laughed at anything Eddie Murphy did. Same goes for Matthew Broderick – he & Murphy were clearly the funniest characters in this film. It’s not a laugh out loud comedy, it isn’t an intriguing story – it turns into a silly throw a car off the roof of a skyscraper to steal it crime caper. The revenge factor of getting back at the rich a—hole that lost all of the employees pension finds kind of loses its steam after a hotel maid (Gabourney Sidibe) pushes her cleaning cart into an FBI agent & he gets knocked unconscious by the mild blow that would have had anyone else just go “Ow! Why did you do that?” And then the agent seems to stay knocked out for hours before coming to?
The thing about Ben Stiller movies is that they can sometimes be entertaining but it’s never due to anything that Ben Stiller does; “Tower Heist” is no different. Stiller mopes thru the role in his usual manner & never says or does anything remotely funny.
But the supporting cast helps bring this movie to life and make it worthy of something to watch while munching on a $6 bag of popcorn and slurping on a $4 soda. Say, theatre owners, do you think that in this time of financial hardship for most regular folks you could bring the concession prices down a tad?
Okay, back to the film, “Tower Heist” concerns the employees & residents of a high priced apartment building. One resident in particular, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) is arrested for insider trading and when the smoke clears after his indictment, the employees at the high rise discover that Shaw pissed away their pension funds after promising to triple them. Josh Kovacs (Stiller) is the hotel manager – he is also quite friendly with Shaw (they play on-line chess against each other & seem very buddy buddy in the beginning) Charlie (Casey Affleck) is the desk manager who is always late and doesn’t seem to take his job very seriously, and Enrique (Michael Pena) is a newly hired elevator operator who gets fired along with Josh & Charlie for confronting Mr. Shaw. One realistic touch that was added; Charlie, the most incompetent of the three is not only the only one hired back, but with a promotion!
Matthew Broderick plays Mr. Fitzhugh, a resident who has lost his job, followed by his wife & kids and avoids being evicted by simply not answering the door.
Part of the fun of “Tower Heist” was seeing actors that haven’t been seen in a while; “Hey, there’s Hawkeye Pierce!” “Look, its Alex Reiger from ‘Taxi’.” “Isn’t that what’s-her-name that married the sex addict that used to be on “X Files”? & “That can’t be Eddie Murphy he’s actually making me laugh!”
Remembering how good Murphy & Broderick were in their early days helps to boost the enjoyment of ‘Tower Heist’ as well – Thinking about “Beverly Hills Cop”, “Trading Places” & “48 Hrs.” along with “War Games” “Project X” & “Ferris Beuller’s Day Off” brought some of the classic scenes from those films to mind - which is never a bad thing.
Murphy plays Slide, a current and ex-convict that Josh knew as a child and sees everyday as he walks to work. When Josh hatches the idea of stealing the 4 million dollars he believes Arthur has in a hidden safe in his luxurious suite, Slide is the only ‘acquaintance’ he knows that can help them. Some of Slide’s moves are clever, some, such as telling the three would-be break in men to go steal something from the mall they’ve convened in & to keep them from just purchasing the merchandise tells them to leave their wallets on the table are so juvenile they barely deserve a smirk. However, having said that and seeing a mile away that Slide was going to take all their money, Murphy’s delivery of the line that tells the trio what morons they were is perfect. He took a scene that didn’t deserve a guffaw and made me spit one out in spite of my smugness.
“Tower Heist” isn’t memorable, but it was a pleasant distraction from the rest of my current life of recovering from hip replacement surgery. It doesn’t sound like much of one, but it IS an endorsement...

The RUM DIARY

2011-11-09T04:00:00.000-08:00

“The RUM DIARY” (Johnny Depp, Giovanni Ribisi, Michael Rispoli, Richard Jenkins, Aaron Eckhart & Amber Heard)

This is far and away the most coherent story concerning Hunter S. Thompson I’ve ever seen or read – But that’s not to say it’s cohesive. At times it’s a rambling mess of political unrest, the rickety future of the newspaper business, a property scheme involving rich people risking nothing to gain even more wealth and three mainland American reporters living in Puerto Rico in 1960 and finding nothing better to do than to drink rum practically every waking hour of every day... However, taken scene by scene, it is quite funny and Depp, playing a man named Paul Kemp (who is actually Thompson as it states at the end of the film) is actually one of the saner members of the crew.
I wasn’t planning on seeing this film, but it had been a few weeks since I was able to see a movie & it was either this or ‘Johnny English Reborn’ – fortunately my wife made the correct choice. I was impressed with the cast, however, I had just seen Richard Jenkins in “Let Me In”, so seeing him as the editor of the paper that hires ‘Kemp’ threw me off for a second as I flashed back on a scene in “Let Me In” where he disfigures himself in a rather gruesome way & so my stomach churned every time I saw him. Sure hope that feeling goes away with time...
I remember liking Giovanni Ribisi years ago but then he hit a couple of snags & seemed to disappear – here, he comes back with a vengeance as rogue reporter ‘Moburg’ who produces 470 proof alcohol in a homemade still set up in Kemp’s apartment.
The co-worker that takes Kemp under his wing is staff photographer Sala (Rispoli) These two become almost inseparable since the moment they meet and they segue from one drunken escapade to the next without taking a breather to stop & think about the idiotic situations they keep finding themselves embroiled in... But they are fun to watch (at times)
Then there’s the real estate developer, Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart) who starts throwing money at Kemp as soon as he lands on the island & then becomes indignant when Paul refuses to do his bidding. Despite all of his wealth, Sanderson's chief asset is his gorgeous girlfriend, Chenault (Amber Heard)
Speaking to the male readers – Am I the only one who noticed that Chenault without her ruby red lipstick isn’t all that sexy, while glossed up Chenault is incredibly hot?
The story is supposedly fact-based, taken from a H.S. Thompson novel – but if the man was drinking as much as Kemp was during his stay in Puerto Rico – he couldn’t possibly remember all that much of what went on!
Then there’s the land development side plot; I could understand it being a concern today – but in 1960? In Puerto Rico? & all Sanderson seems to do is give Kemp money & cars & show him how to live the ‘good life’ & in return, Kemp steals his boat? & Sanderson’s the bad guy?
If they stuck close to the book, & I doubt that - otherwise it wouldn’t have made ANY sense, being the ramblings of Hunter S. Thompson, it is awfully coincidental that Puerto Rico in 1960 is an awful lot like America, 2011 – political unrest, the newspaper business dying off, the greedy rich wanting to get richer at the expense of the poor & guys who show up drunk for work everyday & wonder why they lose their jobs.
Did they throw all that into the mix just so younger people could relate to the basic story despite all the drunken mishaps?
Still, it is humorous; like when Kemp uses the 470 proof alcohol as a flame thrower to escape from angry drunken Puerto Ricans that were going to kill him just because he knew Sanderson. Boy, I remember when I had my first beer...

IDES OF MARCH

2011-10-10T23:55:00.000-07:00

“IDES OF MARCH” (Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, Marisa Tomei & Jeffrey Wright)

An impressive cast gives an impressive over-all performance in this politically-charged film, but it is Ryan Gosling’s character & portrayal that makes this a potential Best Picture contender.
I can see where a criticism for being TOO political would turn some viewers off, but I enjoyed the predicament that Steven Myers (Gosling) finds himself mired in as he found himself wading thru muck that kept getting thicker & thicker as the plot unraveled against him.
The set-up; George Clooney plays Governor Mike Morris, a democrat front-runner in the next presidential election. His lone opponent is an older, less exciting politician named Pullman (& as we Washingtonians all know – there is nothing duller than Pullman – Sorry, Cougar fans, but it’s true & you know it)
What Pullman has going for him is a savvy campaign organizer named Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) who sees Steve Myers as being the difference between his candidate winning the party’s nomination or losing it, as Myers works for the charismatic, able to connect with the younger voters Governor Morris.
Philip Seymour Hoffman, flawless as always, plays Paul Zara, Morris’s chief advisor. Paul has been-thru-the-campaign-wars-many-times as well & is appalled when Steven tells him that he met with Duffy and how the opposition strategist tried to steal him away from the Morris team.
Evan Rachel Wood is Molly Stearns, the daughter of a current U.S. Senator who goes to work as an intern in the Morris-For-President campaign headquarters. She takes a shine to handsome Mr. Myers & throws herself at him. He catches her & the second time that they have sexual relations Molly’s cell phone goes off at 2:00 in the morning while she’s sleeping. Steven picks up the phone, which then goes dead. He asks about any ex-boyfriend’s that he has to worry about & she tells him there’s no one...
Jeffrey Wright is kind of boring as Senator Thompson, a man who holds the key for either candidate to succeed in winning the state of Ohio & more-than-likely propelling them to the democratic nomination. Gov. Morris dislikes the Senator & doesn’t want to ‘give in’ to the sleazeball’s demand of attaining a cabinet post in exchange for his endorsement. And I don't mean to demean Wright's performance, it is spot on as most Senator's are exceptionally boring...
Throw in Marisa Tomei as a reporter that will do anything to dig up any inside scoops, or dirty laundry to make a name for herself & this cast of characters makes for an intriguing stew in which to boil a pot full of plot.
The person who was on the other end of the 2:00 AM phone call & what he shared with Molly becomes the focal point which gets Steven embroiled in a scandal which could win or lose the nomination for either candidate.
How Steven decides to ‘fix’ the situation is what ends up costing him his career & possibly his life. The driving question running thru my mind during this film was – How is he going to get out of this mess?
Where “Ides Of March” failed on me though was in the final scene. I hated the way it ended. I wanted to hear the answer to the question that was asked just before the screen went black & the credits started to roll. Yes, I felt a bit cheated by the failure to disclose how this story was going to be ‘spun’ by the professional spinners, yet still, I did enjoy the ride up until I was cut off from any further communication by the filmmaker...
Bastard.

REAL STEEL

2011-10-10T23:47:00.000-07:00

“REAL STEEL” (Hugh Jackman & Dakota Goyo)

AKA “Rock ‘em, Sock em Robots – The Movie”.
Set a mere nine years in the future, “Real Steel” takes place in 2020 & Charlie Kenton (Jackman) is a washed up ex-boxer that had a mediocre-at-best career & has delved into the ‘robot boxing’ biz that has taken America by storm (albeit mostly in remote backwoods places like run-down county fairs & dilapidated zoos)
Charlie is a hopeless ‘get rich quick’ schemer who always over-estimates the capabilities of his robots & always gets them destroyed – Thanks also in part to his lackadaisical operating skills. In the first robo-fight we see, Charlie’s latest acquisition is pitted against a live rodeo bull. The robot has the match well in hand until Charlie gets distracted by a hot little number in the stands that keeps winking at him. Charlie loses the bout & his life savings by thinking with his pecker rather than his brain.
Charlie then receives word that his ex-wife has died & he needs to show up in court to sign over his rights to the son they had to the boy’s Aunt Debbie (Hope Davis)
Charlie sees dollar signs in Debbie’s elderly spouse & makes a deal with the man behind Debbie’s back to take the 11 year old kid for three months so the old guy can take his wife to Italy. Upon their return, Max (Charlie’s son, played by the unfortunately named Dakota Goyo) will be turned over to Aunt Debbie & Charlie will receive a second cash paymeny of $50,000.
After purchasing & destroying another ‘legendary’ robo-boxer, Charlie takes Max on a trip to rob a robotic junkyard looking for usable parts to rebuild his fighter. After all, what better way is there to bond with your 11 year old than to show him you’re not only a hopeless loser, but a thief as well?
Showing off his parenting skills, Charlie nearly gets Max killed in the junkyard but they do happen upon an intact robot literally stuck in the mud. Charlie, ever the wise judge of robo-boxing talent sees a hunk of junk, but Max sees potential in Atom, the ‘sparring bot’ that he digs out of the mud (& steals – like father, like son)
Evangeline Lilly plays Bailey, Charlie’s on again/off again girlfriend & even though I initially thought she wasn’t good looking enough to attract a Hugh Jackman – She works because she is pretty enough to put up with a completely incompetent loser like ‘Charlie’.
Although ‘Real Steel’ turns into a sweet and mushy father & son bonding tale, it still has moments where you don’t want to start popping all the zits that form while you’re viewing this celluloid version of a Hershey’s Kiss.
The predictable finale was fun to watch – as a fan of Muhammad Ali, I had to admit that I enjoyed the way Atom 'rope-a-dopes' World Champion Boxing Robot Zeus in the Rocky-esque bout that Max helps to set up by being an annoying little braggart brat.
The thing with ‘Real Steel’ is that it comes up with a formula to entice all manners of movie-going masses into wanting to check it out – Chicks will enjoy the estranged father learning what it’s like to feel an emotion as his unknown offspring turns out to be a better ‘robot-trainer’ than the old man. Dudes will get off on the rock’em sock’em robot battles... Chicks will get to fawn over dreamy Hugh Jackman whenever he takes his shirt off, while dudes will get off on the rock’em sock’em robots. & chicks will giggle & go ‘aww’ when Max teaches Atom how to dance like an 11 year old white kid with absolutely no rhythm whatsoever & dudes will get off when Atom enters the ring & pulverizes his opponents.
For me, it was actually the relationship between Charlie & Atom that made this better than I expected; for Charlie gets to redeem his unfulfilled boxing career by showing his son’s fighter-bot how to box like a human.
So it has something to appeal to all ages, sexes & I. Q.’s – which means the public will love it, while I just found it to be mildly enjoyable...

DREAM HOUSE

2011-10-10T22:15:00.000-07:00

“DREAM HOUSE” (Daniel Craig, Rachel Weisz & Naomi Watts)

Normally I steer clear of haunted house movies, but the upper echelon cast made me hopeful that this one would be better than the norm. It is, but it still has drawbacks.
For one thing, there aren’t enough characters – I knew the ‘actual’ killer had to be one of two people - & the only reason I was slightly surprised is that it turned out to be the most obvious of the two – the other possible character would have made for a more interesting outcome.
But it did set up nicely. Daniel Craig as Will moves into a new home with his wife, Libby (Rachel Weisz) & two young daughters. Goth teens appear in their basement one night holding a ritual for the family that was murdered there.
Naomi Watts plays Ann, the next door neighbor who constantly looks at Will as though she’s either deathly afraid of him, or deeply concerned for his well being.
Will finds out that Peter Ward is the name of the man who murdered his family in the house and that Ward was recently released from the local insane asylum. When he goes to the facility for the criminally insane to find out why Ward was set free, he is shown a video of the man when he was first brought in – A gruesome looking being with an ugly bullet wound scar in the back of his head is seen having a violent reaction to his incarceration – when the killer turns toward the camera, Peter Ward turns out to look exactly like Will. Is it the old ‘just a coincidence’ ploy or the tired ‘evil twin’ device?
Or is friendly easygoing Will actually Peter Ward; & if he is – who are those three females living with him in his house acting as though they are his wife & daughters?
It’s a potentially interesting plot – but unfortunately there aren’t enough characters introduced to make it a conundrum as to what the truth might actually be.
So this is basically a decently acted haunted house/ghost story that doesn’t challenge the viewer all that much. It’s O.K., but it had the potential to be much better...

50 / 50

2011-10-02T01:45:00.000-07:00

“50 / 50” (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen & Anna Kendrick)

If ever there was a feel good cancer film, this is it. I’ve always liked Gordon-Levitt, but this is the second humorous performance by Rogen this year - & the first where he’s actually playing someone who looks just like Seth Rogen.
“50 / 50” is based on the true story of what happened to an actual friend of Seth Rogen’s – so that makes it even more amazing since Rogen is basically playing himself & is the main reason this cancer drama is pretty damn funny.
My cousin’s 17 year old son asked me last week if I could make any film, as the director, which one would I have liked to have made. Being a narcissist, I answered “A Flickering Of Inner Light” (the title of my second novel) But of films that have already been made, I said “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” because it ran the gamut of emotions – it was seriously dramatic, hilariously funny and had a poignant, lump in the throat finale. “50 / 50”, though not anywhere near being on par with the quality of ‘Cuckoo’s’ does that as well. Nicholson had to do it all in ‘Cuckoo’s’, but here the load is shared by the three leads mentioned above.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam – his best friend Kyle (Rogen) is kind of a dickhead, but even though he tries to use Adam’s illness to get them both laid, there’s an underlying concern that Kyle shows that makes him acceptable. They both work at Seattle Public Radio, where unlike the radio station I worked at for 18 years, they never seem to air anything. But Adam’s working life is a minor portion of this film – what makes it beat are the relationships he has / had / & hopes to live long enough to get.
Bryce Dallas Howard plays Rachael, Adam's artist girlfriend who is just on the verge of becoming Adam’s permanent room mate when the tumor is discovered on Adam’s spine.
With cackling glee Kyle helps to bring that relationship to a crashing end, leaving Adam to fight off both his over-protective mother (Anjelica Huston) & the bimbos that Kyle wants to score with by using Adam’s sickness as an aphrodisiac.
Anna Kendrick gives another pleasant performance as Katie, Adam’s appointed psychologist/therapist who doesn’t exactly install a lot of confidence in Adam by revealing he’s her third patient... ever. But it is Katie who puts things in perspective for Adam on many levels.
The title comes from Adam’s research of his illness on a website that had ‘50/50’ as the chance of survival for this disease. As Kyle tells him, “Hey, if you were a casino game, you’d have the best odds!”
This is an excellent film, even with the hokey ending, which, I’ll be honest, if it didn’t end the way it did, I would have been disappointed, so I’m guilty this time of wanting the stereotypical ending & then not being disappointed when I got it. Some films earn my respect by giving me the unexpected, but I don’t think this one would have worked by doing that.
Not a bad performance in the cast – but I am concerned with Opie Cunningham’s daughter giving her second performance of 2011 playing a total b*tch! Okay, Bryce, we get it, you can play unlikable, now gives us someone friendly please!
Like ‘Dolphin Tale’ this is one of those films that if you say anything bad about it, you’re just mean...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The GUARD

2011-10-01T05:29:00.000-07:00

“The GUARD” (Brendan Gleeson, Don Cheadle & Mark Strong)

Sgt. Gerry Boyle (Brendan Gleeson) is the Archie Bunker of Irish cops; he routinely spouts out racial insults, but in a way that makes you laugh – You know he’s just saying them for shock value and always raises his eyebrows with a quizzical, ‘Did I say something wrong?’ expression.
The main reason Brendan Gleeson makes Boyle acceptable is that you soon discover Gerry isn’t exactly a racist because he hates EVERYBODY no matter what color their skin happens to be. Which should make him a humanist, but somehow it doesn’t work THAT way...
The body of an unknown man is found in an abandoned apartment with a bullet hole in his forehead, passages from the bible stuffed into his mouth and the number ‘5 ½’ written on the wall in the victim’s blood, ala ‘Helter Skelter’.
The chief suspect is shown on video surveillance knocking the then living corpse out in a bar fight the previous evening. But the suspect, though a definite hot head with violent tendencies has an alibi for the rest of the evening and is released.
When American FBI agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle) arrives to brief the local law enforcement officials about a quartet of drug smugglers who are planning a 500 million (“That’s half a billion,” someone always has to add) heroin shipment in Ireland, Sgt. Boyle interrupts the briefing with racial comments that make it seem as though he wants to be dismissed for insubordination by his superiors. Just when Agent Everett has had enough of Boyle’s inappropriate behavior, Gerry informs the FBI man that one of his heroin smugglers was found in an apartment building with a bullet in his head...

Things get even rockier between the pair when Boyle informs ‘Wendell’ that he’ll get started on the case in two days as tomorrow is his day off.
At one point Wendell tells Gerry, “I don’t know if you’re the dumbest cop I’ve ever met – or the smartest.
Gleeson & Cheadle play well off of one another, but this is Gleeson’s baby from start to finish. The serious plot of two officers of the law trying to track down a trio of drug smugglers that will kill anyone that crosses them isn’t taken all that seriously by the script – In fact, oftentimes, the bad guys are just as funny as the good guys – which made them hard to dislike.
Mark Strong plays another mega-villain with relish as Clive, the no nonsense member of the drug smuggling ring. & pretty Katarina Cas plays Gabriela, the wife of Gerry’s missing partner, Aidan. Gabriela’s relationship with her husband is as unorthodox as the rest of the film and despite the many odd characters & situations, ‘The Guard’ pulls you in and holds your interest.
But again, everyone bows to Gleeson here; Gerry, an unmarried, weary policeman uses ‘escorts’ on a regular basis and so he is constantly fondling his privates as though he has unwelcome guests in his pubic region. One of the more memorable scenes comes when Boyle uses his itching problem to his advantage after being placed into a dangerous situation.
There are no wasted scenes in ‘The Guard’, the story is compelled forward at a good pace leading up to the climax when Gerry & Wendell find themselves going up against an entire drug cartel without any backup. Although it is easy to tell that this production is ‘low budget’ – the entire production isn’t as slick as a ‘Hollywood’ film, the soundtrack sounds like someone brought in a bunch of old vinyl records and slapped them on the turntable when a musical interlude was necessary, but I thoroughly enjoyed ‘The Guard’ and the main reason was Brendan Gleeson’s performance. Mock me if you will, but I’d say he should get a best actor nomination because this is my favorite performance of the year so far...

**I want to apologize to anyone that reads my reviews - I have been having trouble getting into my Google account lately, which is why my blogs have been so sporadic of late. If you know of anyone that likes films & might enjoy reading my sarcastic ramblings, please invite them to Google 'Terry's Movie Reviews', just in case
they're thinking of dropping my account due to lack of interest! THANKS!**

DOLPHIN TALE

2011-10-01T05:23:00.000-07:00

“DOLPHIN TALE” (Nathan Gamble, Winter, Harry Connick, Jr., Ashley Judd & Morgan Freeman)

The ONLY complaint I have about this film is that it plays the handicapped card to death – but what is more sympathetic than a wounded soldier and a little wheel chair bound girl with one leg? Well, for one thing, a dolphin that had to have its injured tail amputated, & this movie throws them all into the mix in a tearjerker extravaganza.
Harry Connick, Jr. & Ashley Judd were previously matched in the bizarrely interesting “Bug” – THAT was not a family-friendly flick – “Dolphin Tale” is SO family friendly it should have a rating that insists no one Over the age of 17 not be admitted without a child in tow.
Nathan Gamble plays Sawyer, a fatherless boy that looks up to his swimming champion cousin Kyle (Austin Stowell) When Kyle joins the army and is sent overseas, Sawyer retracts into his room – venturing out only to take a summer school class.
Sawyer’s life changes dramatically when a man on the beach calls to him and asks if he has a cell phone. Sawyer sees that the man has found a beached dolphin tangled in the ropes of a crab trap. Using the Swiss army knife that Kyle gave him, Sawyer does the best he can to free the dying creature. When the sea animal rescue squad shows up to take the dolphin to their compound, Sawyer tracks down their location to see if the dolphin survived.
Befriended by Hazel (Cozi Zuehlsdorff) the daughter of the doctor that runs the facility, Sawyer is invited to join the crew when it becomes obvious that Winter (the dolphin) responds positively when Sawyer is nearby – recognizing him as the one that cut her free of the crab trap.
Other than Morgan Freeman, as Dr. McCarthy, a physician who specializes in prosthetics, “Dolphin Tale” doesn’t have a single impressive actor – Ashley Judd is given little to do as Lorraine, Sawyer’s mom and Rufus, the pelican that provides the comic relief from all the drama succeeds mainly due to his goofy appearance rather than his acting abilities.
Harry Connick, Jr. as Dr. Clay Haskett doesn’t have to act – In fact no one has to as it’s the dolphin that makes this film special.
This is one of those films that if you don’t enjoy it, you’d better go have an EKG examination because you may not have a heart. The only ‘bad guy’ is the unseen billionaire that wants to buy the compound & turn it into something profitable. But that dilemma always seems to be on the backburner as Winter’s survival is everyone’s major concern.
Now that I think of it - there are two rather sexually explicit scenes involving Sawyer & Winter - but it's consentual, so I guess that keeps it 'family' friendly...
A sweet, touching, emotional film – I had to keep flicking tears out of the corners of my eyes, which is very troublesome for me since my father was one of those macho guys that couldn’t stand cry babies. But something tells me even the old man would have had a hard time keeping his eyes dry during this charming ‘tale’ of an innocent & adorable ‘fish’ (as Dr. McCarthy keeps mis-labeling Winter) that has to learn how to swim with a prosthetic tail or be put out her misery.
I just hope Hootie isn’t in the theatre when you see ‘cause he’s gonna be bawling his head off...

CONTAGION

2011-10-01T05:21:00.000-07:00

“CONTAGION” (Matt Damon, Jude Law, Laurence Fishburne, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet & Marion Cotillard)

This film is meant to frighten hypochondriacs and germophobes. Not being either of those, I wasn’t frightened at all by this so-called ‘gripping’, ‘pulse-pounding’ film. What made the movie even slightly interesting to me was the political aspect it brought forth – That in this country the gap being the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ is widening with every breath a Republican politician takes.
So while the film is full of well-known actors playing bit roles as people who are probably going to die, the only one I found intriguing was Jude law’s Alan Krumwiede; a conspiracy theorist blogger who catches the disease, gets a hold of an experimental drug that counteracts the virus and begins to expose the medical profession and their link to the filthy rich that controls the government. “Why isn’t this drug being given to the people?” Alan asks Laurence Fishburne’s Dr. Cheever during a nationally televised debate.
“Because it hasn’t passed safety regulations,” the doctor replies, obviously lying as the sweat forms on his brow.
Of course Alan’s proclamations don’t help matters as riots break out across the country from the filthy poor that are told there isn’t enough vaccine – for them...

That’s the interesting part of “Contagion”, unfortunately the bulk of the film centers on the disease – how fast it’s spreading and how did it get into the United States.
And in doing that the film frequently feels like a documentary. Maps with large red blotches are shown and it’s just as dangerous as during presidential elections as the red blotches are bad. Newscasters smile wistfully as they project the number of humans expected to die from the virus in millions.

Mitch Emhoff’s wife, Beth, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, returns from a trip to Hong Kong looking pale and weak. Soon she goes into convulsions and Mitch (Matt Damon) rushes her to the hospital. When the doctor comes out and informs Mitch that he ‘did all he could do’ to save his wife, Mitch responds, “Well, can I talk to her?”
A few days later, Mitch’s son gets sick and dies. Although Damon does a decent job playing someone who is immune to the disease, his character doesn’t seem to get all that angry or does much grieving after losing his wife & son suddenly and mysteriously. He has a daughter that wasn’t home when mom brought the disease into the house, so he has to protect her and I guess he makes that his main focus instead of going into shock with grief.
Marion Cotillard as Dr. Lenora Orantes is put into a dangerous position (I won’t reveal why) but just as her predicament intensifies, the movie leaves her story dangling without coming back to check on what’s happening to her. When she finally returns to the screen, there isn’t much revealed on what she’s been going through with her dilemma and the resolve just kind of fizzles out...
Big names, such as Demetri Martin (seriously, someone hired him to ‘act’ in a film after ‘Taking Woodstock’?) & I-thought-he-died-years-ago, Elliott Gould play doctors (the latter more convincingly than the former)
& Bryan Cranston, becoming quite the bit player in his burgeoning film career, plays the head of the military that’s forced to keep the undeserving of medical treatment paupers in line...
As I said, if you’re one of those people that won’t shake hands with anyone or wears gloves all the time in fear of catching something nasty from your fellow diseased-riddled humans, you’ll probably be horrified by this non-gripping, pulse slowing, non-action flick. But if you like to see one over-rated actress bite the big one before her bland acting style starts to annoy you, then there’s at least one scene in ‘Contagion’ that you’ll enjoy as much as I did..
Otherwise, it’s a showcase for Jude Law to look unattractive (I couldn’t keep my eyes off of that crooked tooth!) and act quite the oddball even though he’s the only voice of reality in this film. It has its moments, thanks to Jude, but overall, it’s kind of boring...

I DON'T KNOW HOW SHE DOES IT

2011-10-01T05:19:00.000-07:00

“I DON’T KNOW HOW SHE DOES IT” (Sarah Jessica Parker, Greg Kinnear, Pierce Brosnan & Olivia Munn)

I don’t know how they green lit this. However, I was expecting it to be the leading candidate for worse movie of 2011 & it’s not that – It’s Bottom 10 material, but not the worst - & the reason for that is Olivia Munn – her character (& attractiveness) save this from being total dredge.
Olivia plays the unfortunately named ‘Momo’; Sarah Jessica Parker’s assistant at the banking firm she toils for night & day, on weekends & holidays 24/7 a week, 365 per year. Parker’s Kate is married with children; Momo is single & happily unattached. Hence, Kate is annoying, Momo is sarcastic & likeable. But the main reason Momo/Munn save this film is simple; they are seen onscreen together frequently, giving the viewer something pleasant to look at instead of Horseface. I’m sure the females in the crowd of 9 (Myself & an obviously senile invalid being the only males) were concentrating on the horse that used to be on “Sex & The City” – And I’m not all that sure that the muddleheaded old-timer wasn’t gazing at the woman with the enormous proboscis as well, but I found it to be a great relief to be able to gaze upon Ms. Munn instead of Sham during scenes involving Momo.
Okay, chauvinistics aside, this movie brings nothing new to the chick flick stable. And I use that word to make Ms. Parker feel at home. SJP’s Kate is the reason for the title – she has two small children, an unemployed husband (who acquires a well paying job early in the story) and works for a demanding boss named Clark (Played by Frasier Crane of TV fame)
Kate’s already hectic life of pretending to be a good mother (she buys a pie & tries to pass it off as one she baked for her daughter’s school bake-off) is further complicated when Clark assigns her to work with Jack Abelhammer (Pierce Brosnan) a V.I.P. out of New York to help them land a big client.
The so-called comedy in this farce runs along these lines – Kate receives two emails; one from Jack saying he’s looking forward to meeting her & one from her best friend, Alison (Christina Hendricks) asking what she’s up to. Kate replies to the second email first saying she ‘has to go to New York and blow somebody’ – then she replies to Jack saying she’s looking forward to meeting him as well... Gee, can anybody guess what happened next?
Other than saying ‘thank you’ repeatedly, Kate isn’t the type of person that uses phrases like ‘blow somebody’ – so this lame attempt at humor doesn’t even fit her character.
After husband Richard (Greg Kinnear) gets a full time job, Kate’s lists of things to do, which she concocts in the dead of night while everyone else is sleeping, keep her up for hours... the strange thing is, there’s nothing on these lists that really mean anything. Take kids to school, get balloons for party, blow Jack in New York... Okay, I made that last one up – but you get the idea – her lists are mostly things that are done on a daily basis – you don’t have to make a list of things you do routinely.
In another lame comedic effort, Kate enters a crowded elevator with about 2 dozen balloons (for the aforementioned party) She pleads for someone to hold the elevator for her while she crams in with her massive display of blown up rubbery things; While I’m thinking, “Just wait for the next elevator you selfish dingbat,” Gramps and his keeper sitting in front of me are laughing their butts off as the balloons begin to pop... That’s when I began to wonder; “What is it that I’m not getting here?” Then it dawned on me, “Oh yeah, I’m not senile... yet.”
What else bothered me? On a drive to Grandma’s house for Thanksgiving, Richard encourages his family to sing along with Bill Withers’ “Lovely Day” . . . Like anyone on the planet knows any of the words to f***ing “Lovely Day” other than the title, which is repeated as often as “I know” is in Bill Withers’ “Ain’t No Sunshine”
Seems I always have to take a shot at the music when it irritates me, but that’s just the way I am...
Seth Myers plays Kate’s nemesis at work, Chris Buntz, and he makes one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard; “No one goes to a pet store and says ‘I want a bird that cannot fly.” Huh???? EVERYONE who goes to a pet store says they want a bird that cannot fly otherwise the bloody thing will fly away first chance it gets & you’re out the cash you spent on the bird, you twit!
Several characters are shown after scenes as though they are being interviewed documentary-style as they comment on what just happened to Kate – a lot of the dialogue from these scenes seems forced (as the above bird commentary) except when delivered by Olivia’s Momo – the few lines that made me chuckle slightly were Ms. Munn’s.
Is this ‘style’ of interviewing characters an attempt to draw in reality show viewers? I ask because I don’t watch reality shows, but when I see clips of them on the shows that make fun of reality shows (Chelsea Lately & Talk Soup) this seems to be a major tool among the trashy TV veneers.
So I disliked this film for several reasons - let’s not forget the absurdity that decent looking guys like Greg Kinnear & Pierce Brosnan would find Sham attractive – but thanks to Olivia Munn there is something about it to like.
Okay, let’s all singalong with Bill; “It’s going to be a lovely day, lovely day, lovely day, lovely day. Gonna be a lovely day, lovely day, lovely day, lovely day. We’re going to have a lovely day, lovely day, lovely day, lovely day. Let’s all have a lovely day, lovely day, lovely day, lovely day...”
Sorry, those are the only words I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know...
Bill Withers . . . the master of redundancy!

The DEBT

2011-09-06T01:55:00.000-07:00

“The DEBT” (Helen Mirren/Jessica Chastain, Tom Wilkenson/Marton Csokas, Ciaran Hinds/Sam Worthington & Jesper Christensen)

The best film of the year so far – without question. I loved this movie! The only flaw it has is the fact that none of the younger versions of the characters look anything like the older versions. The only way we know Helen Mirren is Rachel 30 years later is due to the scar on her cheek & the only way Sam Worthington morphs into Ciaran Hinds is due to extensive botched plastic surgery...
That easily dismissible annoyance aside – this is a great film. Best one I’ve seen in a few years. At one point I felt they had ruined it by revealing something too soon, but when they showed why that scene was included, it made the film even better.
Opening in 1997 with Rachel (Helen Mirren) sitting in the front row of an audience congratulating her daughter, Sarah, on the publication of a book she wrote about an exploit her mother & father went through in 1966. Without saying a word, you can tell that Rachel has a problem with what is taking place – she appears to want to force herself to look proud of Sarah’s accomplishment, yet at the same time,
her eyes reveal that she feels ashamed.
Obviously something about this project doesn’t sit well with Rachel – and to find out why we are transported back to East Berlin in 1966 when she (Now played by Jessica Chastain) meets with her two male counterparts; Stephan (Marton Csokas) & David (Sam Worthington) They are given the assignment to capture Nazi war criminal Dr. Dieter Vogel, otherwise known as the ‘Surgeon of Birkenau’ (Sounds like they’re saying ‘beer canal’ so I had to look it up)
Vogel is practicing as an gynecologist, so Rachel is the only choice to see him as a patient. It becomes her task to take heir doktor down so they can kidnap him & get him out of East Germany to stand trial. When she does this, it is a both exhilarating & mildly erotic &, as in a lot of the films major scenes, heartpoundingly* suspenseful.
Problems arise when the trio can’t locate any allies to take Dr. Vogel off their hands, so they have to keep him prisoner for several weeks. This is where the film gets its Oscar caliber muscle as Jesper Christensen shines in his role as Vogel when he confronts David with tales of why it was so easy to exterminate Jews. “Why do you think it only took 4 soldiers to walk 1,000 Jews to the gas chamber?” the disgusting excuse for a human being taunts, “Because they were weak people who only thought of them selves. Not one of them would risk their own life to save the others.”
That scene – very powerful & one I’ll remember for a long, long time – opened my eyes to what the Nazi’s were. You wonder how an entire country of people could be warped by an insane leader, & it really comes down to the strong devouring the weak. I’ve known a few people in my life that were like that (To a much weaker degree, of course) But who doesn’t know someone that will take advantage of another ‘because’ that other person allows them to? The Nazi's, of course, were the ultimate sick f---ing bastards...
When they return to 1997 for the finale; the closure, if you will – Stephan is now Tom Wilkenson, & he’s an a—hole. David, botched surgeries & all, is Ciaran Hinds & he’s a sniveling little fraidy-cat. And once again, Rachel has to bail them out of their predicament.
It’s a great story – well told and excellently acted. I think I could put all six lead actors on my list of Oscar candidates & Jesper Christensen is my leader for best supporting actor. Go see ‘The Debt’, people. If you don’t like it, then just wait for ‘Zookeeper’ to come out on DVD & stay home for the rest of your life...

* As a movie critic I feel it is my duty to make up my own words every once in while...

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

2011-09-06T01:38:00.000-07:00

“RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES” (James Franco, Andy Serkis, Freida Pinto & John Lithgow)

For the second time, a franchise that I never gave a damn about is re-worked & ‘fixed’ into something I find entertaining. The first was Batman – I hated the Michael Keaton incarnation but when they brought it back with Christian Bale & superior supporting actors, I liked it. With “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, it wasn’t the actors that drew me to give it a shot but a single scene from the preview – a gorilla leaping into a helicopter & beating the living daylights out of the man in the passenger seat. That looked pretty frickin' cool, so I read some reviews & they were mostly positive – saying 'Rise...' was intelligently written to at least seem plausible. I was surprised to learn that that not a single real primate was used – they were all computer generated. With the scene of the gorilla & seeing the apes’ ringleader, Caesar, looking very realistic, I was curious to see how it turned out. &, as I’ve written before, I’m always up for a rousing tale where mankind is destroyed – especially by the animals that we torture & mistreat on a daily basis.
With the exception of the gorilla (Buck) leaping into the helicopter, I was very pleased with this film. The odd part though, is that I don’t think I’ll have much interest in any sequels. THIS was the story I wanted to see; and when they ruined the leaping into the helicopter scene (The preview angle is much more thrilling to watch) I don’t know if I care to see the next installment.
For maybe the first time ever I wasn’t shaking my head wondering how James Franco keeps getting acting jobs – he does a decent job here as Will Rodman – the scientist that invents ALZ-112, a formula that cures Alzheimer’s disease. Of course, such formulas need to be tested on animals before being given to humans & Caesar’s mother, Bright Eyes, is one of the guinea pigs. Meant to reactivate brain tissue for Alzheimer patients, the drug increases intelligence in the tested chimps.
The reason for Will’s over-anxiousness to find a cure is due to the fact that his father (John Lithgow) has Alzheimer’s and is fading quickly.
The scenes of Caesar as a young chimp are clearly unrealistic – Still, it’s a kick to watch the chimpanzee grow from a ‘kid’ with a perpetual look of wonderment upon his face into a hardened, angry, dangerous animal that is much more intelligent than his captors (Brian Cox & Tom Felton as a father & son team that run a primate enclosure where Caesar is imprisoned for attacking one of Will’s neighbors)
When Will finally gets an injunction to have Caesar released back into his custody, the chimp turns his back on his one-time ‘daddy'. My wife whispered, “Why did he do that?” I told her, “Because he’d rather be king of the apes than some human’s ‘pet’." Was I finally right for once? See the film.
Andy Serkis (of Gollum & King Kong fame) plays Caesar & I’d said he should be given some consideration for Best Supporting Actor – One, it’s been a weak year for Supporting roles so far & Two, I knew exactly what was going thru Caesar’s mind in almost every scene just by his facial expressions – that’s the sign of higher quality acting. Now, does he lose a few points for being computer-generated?
Yes, that’s why I just said he should be ‘considered’...
I was thoroughly entertained by this film from start to finish – Like I said, the only let down was the helicopter scene – I liked Buck from the moment he came onscreen because he was the main reason I became interested in this project. For some unknown reason the director decided to go with a different angle than the preview & it isn’t nearly as breathtaking as the trailer – very odd choice. Still, the scene is powerful because of why Buck makes the leap in the first place.
I remember seeing the original ‘Planet of The Apes’ & wasn’t very impressed by it – Never cared for Charleton Heston’s over-pompous acting style & actors speaking thru rubber ape masks didn’t convince me they were actual monkeys – this film, after Caesar becomes a full grown chimp, is quite realistic with the way the primates are presented. You can still tell in some scenes that they’re not real, but for the most part they are impressive creations. But it’s the story that drew me in; this is the Rise of Caesar more than anything else & because they make you care about him – showing him from a baby to a wide-eyed youth to a resentful warrior/leader makes it hard not to cheer for him and against those cruel heartless humans. That’s another thing – I didn’t find myself rooting for the monkeys in the rubber masks during the original “POTA” movies, but I did in this one - & I gotta tell you - it was pretty frickin’ cool...

The HELP

2011-09-06T01:24:00.000-07:00

“The HELP” (Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard, Octavia Spencer, Jessica Chastain, Allison Janney, Sissy Spacek & Cicely Tyson)

According to EW, the one entertainment magazine I read, this is the second greatest film ever made (“Crazy Stupid Love” being the best) It’s a good film – well worth viewing, but I wouldn’t call it an Oscar shoe-in by any means. & the reason for that I won’t reveal in this review because that would be a spoiler. But the ‘big twist’ that becomes the main focus of the second half of the film would never take place - and that fact reduces a lot of the value of the overall film.
As a poignant story about what black people (maids in particular) had to put up with in the Deep South of this country (specifically Jackson, Mississippi) in the late 1950’s & early ‘60’s, it makes a powerful statement on an era that this country should hang its collective head in shame over. Very difficult to watch at times, “The Help” would have been the perfect film to release back in the early
70’s, because the type of people that you come to despise in this film would see just how despicable they were a lot sooner than they will now. But then again,
a—holes like Bryce Dallas Howard’s Hilly & her flock of racists housewives never would have gone to see a film with Negroes in it. And I’m not calling Bryce a nasty name – just her character. It is a testament to her acting that I hated Hilly & wished she’d die.
And that’s what the writer was banking on by creating the ‘pie’ that serves as Hilly’s come-uppance. Problem for me being – she never would have taken more than one bite.
The two stars of this film with very impressive performances are Emma Stone’s ‘Skeeter’ & Viola Davis’ Aibileen. Eugenia, nicknamed Skeeter, wants to be a writer. She takes a job at the local newspaper writing the housekeeping tips column. Problem is, she doesn’t know anything about housekeeping, so she enlists maid Aibileen to provide responses to the letters that come in. Soon Skeeter realizes she has a gold mine in Aibileen and comes up with the idea to write a novel telling the real-life stories of the tribulations black maids in the South were having while caring for their employer’s white children in order to provide a life for their own families. Aibileen has a tragedy in her past that makes her the perfect subject to begin with.
Needing more tales of racial abuse, Skeeter finds an eager participant in Aibileen’s best friend, Minny (Octavia Spencer) Whereas Aibileen is quietly reluctant to spill too much of herself for Skeeter’s project, Minny is a leave no stone unturned gadabout when it comes time for her to reveal all of the incidences where she was treated like an animal by her white bosses.
There is a nice mixture of ‘decent’ white folk & extremely prejudice scumbags in the film; Allison Janney plays Skeeter’s mother, Charlotte – a bigot who comes to regret her discretions. Sissy Spacek, as Hilly’s mother, doesn’t appear to be racially slanted at all, but that could also be due to the fact that she’s a major crackpot. Then Jessica Chastain’s Celia couldn’t be a sweeter person, though somewhat ditzy and overly anxious when dealing with newly hired maid Minny.
Cicely Tyson has a touching cameo as the maid that helped to raise Skeeter.
“Help!” also features 8 new songs by The Beatles, the best being the title song... oh, wait a minute – wrong ‘Help!’. Sorry.
Which reminds me of an error I noticed in the credits – the song “Jackson” is credited as being written by Leiber & Stoller – it was not. It was written by Rogers & Wheeler. Plus, they use the unmusical Cash & Carter version instead of the better Sinatra & Hazelwood cover... Pretty bad when Nancy Sinatra is a better singer than you are.
There have been plenty of ‘mistakes’ dealing with the times that critics have been pointing out – stupid things like the vacuum they used wasn’t invented until 1965 and this film supposedly takes place in the early sixties! The only one that jumped out at me was when Skeeter uses Liquid Paper to ‘white out’ a typographical error. Mrs. Nesmith’s invention may be old hat by today’s standards, but I’m quite certain it wasn’t available to the masses in 1963...
But that’s nitpicking – which I am very good at, but shouldn’t be doing it here. This is a very good film, one you should take your grandparents to see, if they were in their youth during that era. My parents were racists – most of my older relatives were racists. One relative, after I reprimanded them for using the ‘n’ word very derogatorily, used the excuse, “that’s just the way I was brought up.” That’s B.S. – I was brought up that way as well, but then I had a black classmate in the second grade & I realized he’s just like any other kid except for his skin color. Now, it’s time for the older generation to ‘grow up’ – Go see ‘The Help” & feel ashamed if you were one of ‘those’ people that mistreated someone just because their skin was darker than yours.
Lecture over. Wonderful job by everyone involved in this film. Except the secret ingredient would have made Minny's pie inedible... Not that I’ve ever eaten one of Minny’s pies...

30 MINUTES OR LESS

2011-09-06T01:20:00.000-07:00

“30 MINUTES OR LESS” (Jesse Eisenberg, Danny McBride, Aziz Ansari & Nick Swardson)
Not a stellar cast by any means, but because it had a ‘Zombieland’ connection I decided to give it a shot. It’s not bad, but it’s also not all that funny. I think there were times when they meant it to be & actors like McBride simply don’t know how to be funny so it didn’t produce any laughs during his scenes, but it seemed to be more of a ‘statement’ on using terrorists threats to get what one wants in today’s society.
Apparently something similar to the plot of ‘30 Minutes’ actually took place a few years ago & so many critics decided this film was just in bad taste because of that & panned it. Another reason I wanted to check it out for myself.
Jesse Eisenberg plays pizza delivery driver Nick. Danny McBride plays a useless pot smoking alcoholic named Dwayne. Aziz Ansari plays Chet – Nick’s best friend whom he breaks up with after Nick admits that he slept with Chet’s sister, Kate (Dilshad Vadsaria)
Nick Swardson plays Travis, the perfect companion for McBride’s Dwayne as he too is one of those comic actors that rarely says anything funny.
The whole idea of the film is that Dwayne wants to hire a hit man to kill his ex-marine father (Fred Ward) so he can inherit his house & collect on his life insurance. But first he needs money to pay off the hired killer (Michael Pena as Chango)
Dwayne & buddy Travis devise a plan where they use pizza delivery boy Nick by strapping a bomb-vest to him & tell him to rob a bank or they’ll detonate the bomb.
“When you have the money, call this number & I’ll give you the code to deactivate the bomb,” Dwayne tells Nick. Nick, in his panic, goes to Chet despite their recent falling out. Chet teaches elementary school children, so when he discovers Nick has a bomb strapped to his chest he yells in a high-pitched voice, “You have a weapon of mass destruction on you & you decide the best place to go was to a building full of children?”
Unfortunately, Ansari delivers ALL of his lines in the same high-pitched voice throughout the remainder of the film... Yes, it gets monotonous.
However, as a ‘statement’ on today’s world, “30 Minutes Or Less” is a decent film – As a comedy... well, let’s just say that it ain’t no “Zombieland”.

ZOOKEEPER

2011-09-06T00:24:00.000-07:00

“ZOOKEEPER” (Kevin James & Rosario Dawson)

The first film I remember Kevin James being in was “Hitched” & I gave him a decent grade for what I thought was an above average click flick. Since then, James has partnered up with Adam Sandler & has created some of the most unfunniest comedies in the history of filmdom.
Continuing the cycle of abnormally obese guys matching up with women that would never be caught dead with a lard ball like Kevin James, here he opens by proposing to the preppie-looking-but-nonetheless-way-over-his-head Leslie Bibb & when he later asks co-worker Kate, played by very beautiful Rosario Dawson, to go out with him she eagerly accepts as though she was hoping the plain looking chubby guy would notice her... Filmmakers – when you do sh*t like this it takes all the believability out of your movies!
Stop with the hot chicks falling for fat guys routine, okay? It doesn’t happen in real life unless the lardass in question also happens to be a billionaire. Good looking women don’t fall for run of the mill beer-bellied fat asses just because they’re nice guys. Maybe you beer-bellied fat ass writers are hoping to start a trend by making movies where this happens, but it’s not going to work. I mean, Rosario Dawson & Kevin James as a romantic couple – one, where she seems more attracted to him than he is to her, no less? Hello, reality! & who wants to imagine those two having sex? If he was on top, we’d be worried that his chubby little arms are going to give out & he’ll crush her – or, if she mounts him, she’d never be able to see anything but his hairy naval in her face & I’m pretty sure that would be somewhat of a turn off.

Well, that’s my review of ‘Zookeeper’ – see it at your own risk.

You want to know why I bothered? $3 tickets. It was hot out. I’ve always been a sucker for talking animal movies. One of my favorite trivia questions to ask is – what was the first thing Mr. Ed said to Wilbur Post?
‘Zookeeper’ features a plethora of bad actors as the voices of the zoo animals – perhaps that was another reason why it failed so miserably. Nick Nolte as Bernie the Gorilla did all right but the situations they put him in were so absurd, it was simply too stupid to enjoy. Master thespians Sylvester Stallone, Cher & Adam Sandler voice lions & monkeys who appear to be badly in need of acting lessons. Maya Rudolph voices the Giraffe becoming one of the most annoying talking animals ever created. & they really went for broke in casting James’ nemesis for Leslie Bibb by putting Joe Rogan in the role. Can’t get any more top line than that, can ya?
The most puzzling thing about this film is what was Rosario thinking when she agreed to appear in this obvious flop? She deserves better; the rest of the cast I’m sure felt right at home making this crap...

OUR IDIOT BROTHER

2011-08-31T23:12:00.000-07:00

“OUR IDIOT BROTHER” (Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks & Zooey Deschanel)

Paul Rudd was on Chelsea Lately & Ms. Handler called this movie ‘hilariously funny’. That’s not going to help, Chelsea, because if anyone goes to this film expecting it to be hilarious, they will be greatly disappointed. It isn’t even hilarious by accident. I’m not certain if it was even intended to be a comedy – but it is worth seeing because of the interaction with the characters that Paul Rudd & Elizabeth Banks play as brother & sister.
There are two other sisters, a brother-in-law & a mom, but I liked the relationship Ned (Rudd) had with Miranda (Banks)
Ned isn’t an ‘idiot’ – he’s naive. He’s too trusting. He’s ‘dim’. He’s likeable. But the word I think describes him best is ‘sweet’. Ned is just a sweet, lovable guy that can’t help but be sweet and lovable to everyone he meets. Unfortunately this also includes deceptive police officers. In the opening scene, Ned is arrested for selling pot to a uniformed policeman because he said he was having a ‘tough week’. Ned doesn’t WANT to sell weed to the man – he wants to GIVE it to him, but the officer refuses Ned’s charitable gesture & insists on paying for it. Ned’s biggest concern when the handcuffs are slapped on him is what’s going to happen to his dog – A golden retriever named Willie Nelson. Willie is turned over to Ned’s soon-to-be ex-girlfriend who keeps the dog out of spite.
When Ned is released from prison he moves in with mom. Mom is almost as sweet as Ned & that drives Ned to move in with his older sister Liz despite objections from her husband (Steve Coogan) Ned plays with Liz’s young son while she tends to her newborn baby. All Ned does is tell the truth – he makes no accusations, he doesn’t say anything to be a gossip – he just reveals to Miranda that their brother-in-law has the unusual habit of working in the nude with his latest subject – a Russian ballerina.
Ned then moves in with Miranda and once again gets the boot for being honest with Miranda & her friends & co-workers.
When he moves in with lesbian sister Natalie (Zooey Deschanel) & her lawyer girlfriend (Rashida Jones) whom Ned quickly befriends, she tells him he should just take Willie Nelson from his ex-girlfriend.
That endeavor doesn’t work out so well.
There is, one hilarious moment – which I can’t repeat here, nor should I, it would definitely be a spoiler. The line comes from Ned’s young nephew & it follows the scene where Ned tells the boy, “I want you to tell your mom, and your aunts something for me...”
The hairdos & some of the costumes made me think this film was set in the mid-70’s, but no it’s supposed to be in modern times. It IS mildly amusing, but mostly it’s just a sweet little movie about a sweet guy with 3 non-sweet, but well meaning sisters. It is worth seeing, as are almost all of Paul Rudd’s films (except “How Do You Know?” with Jack Nicholson – THAT was crap!)
I thought of Ned & Willie Nelson as being very much alike – they’re both just sweet & lovable, & as Miranda relates, “Ned gives love unconditionally” . . . just like a dog.

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 4

2011-08-31T23:08:00.000-07:00

“PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 4 : ON STRANGER TIDES” (Johnny Depp)

Just so you know... I thought the first Pirate movie was marginally well done (for a film based on an amusement park ride) The 2nd I could do without & when my wife told me she wanted to see the third installment, I briefly considered asking for a divorce, but knew no one else would put up with my sarcasm, so I bit the bullet & took her to see it... The only redeeming value of the sequels is that Kiera Knightly was in them – something pleasant to look at while the bad movie played out. Keira isn’t in this one – thus, it’s the worst Pirate movie ever...
Eye rolling dialogue such as : (Jack Sparrow to Penelope Cruz) “How can you say that I used you?” (Cruz) “Because you did!” (Sparrow) “I know, but how can you SAY it?”
Seriously? & a couple of people chuckled at this chuckleheaded dialogue?
Speaking of Cruz, here she plays a woman with a thick Latino accent – how does she do that in every film she’s in? I’m just amazed that every character she plays speaks in the exact same voice as all of her previous characters – incredible!
The first half hour is nothing but silly chases & swordfights on land. Then the action changes dramatically – to swordfights on a ship!
Geoffry Rush is back (I’d rather look at Keira, thank you) as Hector... Didn’t he die in one or two of the sequels? At least he looks like a legitimate pirate, unlike Depp’s Captain Jack Flash, er, I mean Sparrow who looks more like a member of the Village People (circa 1978) than an authentic pirate of the Caribbean...
There is one new addition to this quad-quel that made it interesting; mermaids.
The mermaids were very cool. Beautiful topless chicks that turn into ‘Jaws’ –
nice touch.
But alas, they are only onscreen for a brief period...
The thing about the other ‘Pirate’ movies is that they weren’t stereotypical ‘pirate movies’ ALL of the time. This one is. More buckles are swashed than in all of Erroll Flynn’s movies put together.
The premise of this swashbuckling bonanza is the search for the fountain of youth.
Ian McShane plays Blackbeard – the meanest pirate there ever was; why, he once made a man walk the plank just for snoring – and the whole idea of ‘Pirates 4’ is that Jack Sparrow has to lead Blackbeard & his daughter (Cruz) to the fountain of youth so Blackbeard can have eternal life. When they finally make it to the elusive fountain – with really gnarly effects such as water dripping upside down – what do you suppose happens? That’s right, another elongated swordfight.

ONE DAY

2011-08-23T03:14:00.000-07:00

“ONE DAY” (Anne Hathaway & Jim Sturgess)

I thought this was going to be a remake of “Same Next, Next Year”, but it isn’t – It’s much, much worse than that. The One Day in question is July 15th – St. Swithins Day in England. Those of us old (& lucky) enough to remember the British series ‘Doctor In The House’ will remember St. Swithins as the name of the hospital the young interns worked at initially before becoming full-fledged medical practitioners. If that sounds familiar, yes, “Scrubs” literally stole the premise to “Dr. In The House” and as far as I know never paid the origianl creators any residuals (cheap American bastards).
The fact that the events that take place in this exceedingly long film (4 hours & 44 minutes*) happen on St. Swithins day just made me long for someone (BBC America, are you listening?) to air reruns of ‘Dr. In The House’ just so something entertaining comes about from this film being made...
The film starts on July 15, 1988 – The day that Dexter (Sturgess) first remembers meeting Emma (Hathaway) even though, as she reminds him, they had met previously but he was too drunk to remember – or she just wasn’t sleezy enough to catch his eye...
The rest of the movie shows where these two characters are at in their lives every July 15th (the beloved St. Swithins Day)
In the beginning it is obvious that shy, demur Emma has a crush on Dexter, the arrogant womanizer but her intellect fights her desire to become one of his conquests – so they settle on being friends.
As the years roll on, Dexter becomes even more loutish and Emma gives up on her dreams and gradually becomes a permanent waitress in a Mexican restaurant. So I didn’t give a damn about Dexter, the jerk and only semi-cared about Emma only due to the fact that her life was so boring I was wondering why I was being forced to watch it play out.
Then something that should have livened things up happens – a young man named Ian comes to work at the English version of Jalesco’s & is immediately attracted to Emma. Ian’s goal in life was to become a stand-up comedian. Great! Someone to add some levity to this boring story – all right, Ian – makes us laugh, funny boy! . . . . Ian, we’re waiting . . . .
do or say something funny, would you please? . . . .
So Ian wants to be a comedian that doesn’t make people laugh. We are later told that the only time he made Emma laugh was when he fell down the stairs.
This is the funniest line in the movie. So I guess, in the end, after 15 years or so, Ian finally pays off...
Just when I thought, ‘although this movie is exceptionally dull, at least it isn’t annoying’, we then have to sit thru the most insufferable wedding/reception in the history of film.
So basically this story covers 20 years in the lives of two ordinary people leading dull, ordinary lives . . . this is the stuff that makes epics!
When Patricia Clarkson appeared as Dexter’s mother, I had hope that this film was going to spring to life – But no, her character is just as yawn inducing as all of the others...
Dexter does eventually turn his life around and becomes a decent human being – problem is, the writers don’t explain how he does this – just somewhere between 2003 and 2005, Dexter decides to stop being an a—hole. They also never mention what Dexter is doing for a living after making this epiphany. Lazy writing is the main culprit here - creating a wanna-be comedian who doesn't say anything funny is taking the easy way out; making the story only be told by what happens on every July 15th means we don't have to actually explain what happened the other 364 days of the year. This script was probably written in chicken poop...
Another odd, slightly annoying quirk is that Dexter clearly ages during the 20 year span of this tale, while his father looks the same age in 1988 as he does in 2008 (?)
“One Day” did set a personal record for the number of times I thought, “Jesus, when is this thing going to end?” (beating “Lord Of The Rings 3” by 1 ‘Jesus’)

(* may not be the actual running time, it just seemed that long)

The CHANGE UP

2011-08-15T23:03:00.000-07:00

“The CHANGE – UP” (Jason Bateman & Ryan Reynolds)

So what would happen if you took a tired, lame Disney-esque plot and filled it full of filthy humor, nudity and characters that don’t seem like cardboard cut-outs of all the other ‘body changing’ films? You get a surprisingly funny movie that catches you off guard, even though you are very aware of how over-used and moronic the entire premise of the film is. “The Change-Up” is the story of two best buddies, Dave (Bateman) and Mitch (Reynolds) who are as different as night and day; Dave is a successful lawyer, working feverishly to make partner at the law firm he toils at to better provide for his family in a monetary way – and Mitch; an unemployed pot smoking womanizer with about as much finesse as a chimpanzee with handful of feces. The only thing slacker Mitch envies about Dave’s life is his lovely and tolerant wife, Janice (Leslie Mann, who shockingly shows her nearly perfect breasts, all in the name of comedy) Janice, on the other hand, wishes Dave would cut Mitch out of his life for good.
During an evening of over-imbibing, Dave and Mitch find themselves urinating into a fountain with an angelic-like statue looking down on them. As they converse they say simultaneously, “I wish I had your life.” The next morning, Mitch wakes up in Dave’s bed inside of Dave’s body & vice-versa...
Even though there’s plenty of disgusting toilet humor (Can anyone make an R-Rated comedy these days without it?) ‘The Change Up’ features enough laugh out loud moments that it challenges ‘Hall Pass’ as the 3rd best comedy of 2011.
Prime example; Slacker Mitch inhabiting Dave’s body has to get through a very important meeting for Dave to stay on track to becoming a partner in the firm – Dave’s extremely hot assistant, Sabrina (Olivia Wilde) tells him, “I’ll have my briefs on your desk before lunch.” Mitch – looking & sounding like the normally gentlemanly Dave – replies, “And I’ll have my balls on your chin by dinner.”
Yes, it’s sophomoric, but that is a funny line and when it comes from a character that would never speak that way to any woman it takes you by surprise.
The funny thing is – whichever character is playing Mitch is the actor having the most fun and spouting the best lines. I never thought Ryan Reynolds could make me laugh, but he does in the early going here, and he does it several times.
Even when it slips into cornball schmaltz as Mitch ‘grows up’ as Dave and sincerely tries to save his best friend’s job and marriage, ‘The Change-Up’ still worked for me. Not every bit struck the right chords, but enough of them do so that the tired toilet junk and the search to find the relocated fountain doesn’t spoil the over-all good time you’ll have while watching ‘The Change-Up’.
All I can say is Jason Bateman is on a roll, with ‘Horrible Bosses’ one of the 2 best comedies and this one in the Top 4, I’m actually looking forward to his next project... And I never thought I’d write something like that!

CRAZY STUPID LOVE

2011-08-15T22:56:00.000-07:00

“CRAZY STUPID LOVE” (Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling & Emma Stone)

After seeing this film, I wondered how they decided to call it ‘Crazy Stupid Love’ when a more apropos title would have been, “Wow, What A Coincidence, Huh?”
I’m not saying I didn’t like it – it is a very likable film; likable characters hitting snags & doing their best to forge ahead with life and making the best of their depressing situations – but it does play they ‘Aha, bet you never saw THAT twist coming, didja?’ card 3 or 4 times too often. It distracts from the overall enjoyment of a nicely acted film that blends just the right amount of humor and touching dramatic moments.
The film opens with Cal (Carell) & Emily (Moore) having dinner in a restaurant. Both look bored out of their minds as they contemplate whether or not to have dessert. Finally Cal says, “Okay, on the count of three we both say out loud what we want; 1, 2, 3.” Emily says “I want a divorce.” as Cal slowly mutters, “Creme Brule.”
On the ride home, Emily admits to having an affair with co-worker David Lingnaught (Kevin Bacon) As she goes into detail of what lead to their tryst, Cal says, “If you don’t stop talking, I’m getting out of the car.” She doesn’t, so he does.
We are then informed that their 13 year old son has a huge crush on his 17 year old babysitter... Now, there’s nothing unbelievable about the crush, but who thinks a 13 year old needs a babysitter? He’s just lovesick, not mentally challenged... Well, maybe those two have more in common than I originally thought...
Then we find out that the babysitter is in love with Cal, thus driving a wedge between father & son that dad has no control over.
So Cal moves out & finds his own place. He starts frequenting bars to meet women and winds up just driving them away by whining to everyone within earshot how David Lingnaught screwed his wife and how HE got kicked out because of her indiscretion.
A young gigolo in the making named Jacob (Gosling) hears Cal’s diatribes once too often and decides to help the guy out. It’s actually the relationship that develops between the young charmer and the older inexperienced (with women) heartbroken sap that makes this a film worth seeing.
Now the first, ‘Wow, What A Coincidence, Huh?’ works – when a woman that Cal ‘conquers’ by following Jacob’s rules shows up later in the film. But then it happens again and again and again until you just want to say ‘enough already!’
Emma Stone, an upcoming actress with loads of promise, enters the story as Hannah, a no-nonsense law school student that catches Jacob’s usually wandering eye and ignores all of his attempts to charm her into his boudoir. As I said, I like Emma, but she’s not gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination – she’s pretty, but not a striking beauty. So it doesn’t make sense that shallow, looks-infatuated Jacob should desire someone that doesn’t stand out in the crowd. I’m sure the writers felt that the audience would go for the old ‘he wants her because she shot him down’ routine, but that didn’t make sense here. Other than he saw her & just knew she was ‘the one’ that was going to change his life (the ol' beauty in the eye of the beholder gag) the pairing of Jacob & Hannah took a while for me to accept, but I eventually did.
So goes ‘Crazy Stupid Love’, silly one minute, serious the next; unrequited puppy lovers and mature ex-lovers learning to cope with a failing marriage and lots and lots of unexpected ‘wow, what a coincidence, huh?/never saw that coming, didja?’ moments.
Those moments are a distraction, but actually by the end of the film they didn’t seem to bother me in the long run – In other words, the ending doesn’t suck...

LARRY CROWNE

2011-08-15T22:51:00.000-07:00

“LARRY CROWNE” (Tom Hanks & Julia Roberts)

This isn’t “Charlie Wilson’s War” by any means; which proves every movie is better with Philip Seymour Hoffman in it. The re-teaming of Hanks & Roberts has very little life and absolutely no chemistry whatsoever. Hanks is fine as the title character who is unexpectedly fired from his job at ‘U Mart’; but Roberts, who actually brought something different to the table in CW’s War, is as bland as she’s been in practically every other movie she’s been in.
But the premise is kind of far fetched which gets it off to a rocky start – Okay, if you’re a businessman who’s worked his way up the corporate ladder through many years of diligence and excellent workmanship and the board of directors discover you never went to college so they feel as though they need to ‘let you go’ since you’ve gone as far as you can according to their dumb rules that every executive must have a college degree, I can accept that – But a ‘U Mart’ employee??? Are you telling me most people who gather up empty carts around shopping mall parking lots and return them to the store are college educated? And Larry Crowne does this with glee; a perfect employee for such a business – More than eager to help customers, doing any duty that needs tending and doing it all with a sincere smile on his face. It would have made more sense if they laid Larry off because he’d been at U Mart for too long and was making too high a wage due to years of raises. Trust me, I know what it’s like to be downsized no matter how loyal you’ve been to the company so that they can save a couple of thousand dollars a year by bringing in someone younger and willing to work for less. If they’d used that reasoning for Larry’s dismissal, I’d have accepted the premise.
Over-all I think the problem with Larry Crowne is that the supplemental characters are relatively uninteresting; I liked the gorgeous black coed that calls Larry ‘Lance’, but I wanted to see that May/December romance blossom instead of Larry and his stick-up-her-butt disinterested in her job teacher (Mrs. Tainot)
Cedric T. Entertainer (Get a real name, would you, Clyde?) plays Larry’s bartering neighbor whose business is running a sixteen hour a day garage sale from his front yard. His shtick is to over-price his merchandise and come down just a few dollars at a time as numbers are bartered back & forth... No, it isn’t even funny the first time.
Larry buys a scooter from him because he can no longer afford the gas to fill up his SUV. Which, of course, leads to Larry offering Mrs. Tainot a ride home but only if she wears the stupid helmet – which, of course, she says she will NOT do & then in the next scene she is seen wearing the stupid helmet while riding on the back of Larry’s scooter. Oh, what hilarity!
Now, George Takei as an economics professor that thinks he knows the answer to every economic problem in the world got a few chuckles from me, but for what was promoted as being a comedy, this film doesn’t really have any memorable lines or scenes.
‘Larry Crowne’ is a film with good intentions and it is ‘likeable’ enough – it just doesn’t go anywhere interesting. Larry loses his job, buys a scooter and takes a couple of classes at the local junior college so the next job he works at for 20 years won’t fire him for not having a degree... Like the fry cook job he takes to make ends meet.

FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS

2011-08-15T22:42:00.000-07:00

“FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS” (Mila Kunis & Justin Timberlake)

Yes, the ONLY reason I wanted to see this is due to the fact that Mila was supposed to be naked throughout most of it... she isn’t. In fact, she has one quick glimpse of standing in the nude with her back to the camera & that’s it. Aside from being disappointed by that revelation (or lack thereof) this entire movie is a complete waste of time.
If Timberlake isn’t gay in real life, he sure ‘acts’ like he is. Very effeminate in almost everything he does; voice, mannerisms & especially when he does his cute little singing & dancing routines. Speaking of which, I’m guessing there was supposed to be something humorous about them, but whatever the joke was, it went way over my head...
You’ll never hear me complain about getting old because if I were younger it would mean that I missed the Beatles, the British Invasion & the emergence of groups like Led Zeppelin. I feel sorry for anyone born in the mid-70’s or later – You missed the greatest era in music & you’re musical idols are no talent fruits like Justin Craterlake.

“Friends With Benefits” is almost as bad as “No Strings Attached” – the only plus being able to look at the much prettier Mila Kunis.. It amazes me how crap like this gets made. If I wrote a story & dialogue as lame as this, I’d give up trying to write because I obviously don’t have what it takes to succeed... Yet, here it is - & making money because horny old married farts like me will act as though I’m doing my wife a favor by taking her to see another chick flick when my biggest worry was whether or not I’d be able to get from pleasuring myself during Mila’s numerous nude scenes, thus becoming the guy known as ‘Seattle’s Pee Wee Herman Pervert”. What’s really disgusting is that Mila & Justy were raunchier on that awards show where he grabbed her breasts & she latched onto his crotch than they are in this R-Rated sex-comedy.
So I guess what I’ve learned about friends that decide to have sex with one another is that there’s nothing funny about it and there’s more male nudity than female (if any at all)
& who wants to see that? Oh yeah, gay guys like Dusty Craterlake...

HORRIBLE BOSSES

2011-07-17T22:06:00.000-07:00

“HORRIBLE BOSSES” (Jason Bateman, Kevin Spacey, Jason Sudeikis, Colin Farrell, Charlie Day & Jennifer Aniston)

I listed the actors in pairs of employee/boss employee/boss employee/ boss. Nick (Bateman) works for David Harker (Spacey) in an office where Harker dangles a vice presidential position in Nick’s face to force him to kowtow to Harker’s constant harassment.
Nick shows up for work two minutes late & Harker tells him he’s going to fire the security guard forcing Nick to confess that he wasn’t one minute late, but two.
Kurt (Sudeikis) works for kindly Donald Sutherland, who promptly dies, leaving his cocaine addicted son, Bobby (Farrell) in charge of the company. Bobby has always resented Kurt‘s relationship with his father and goes out of his way to make Kurt’s work life a living hell. These two indeed have horrible bosses and the thought that they would consider hiring a hit man to rub them out to make their lives less stressful isn’t beyond the realms of reality. However... the third coupling; short, scruffy looking, squeaky-voiced Dale (Day) works as the dental assistant to D.D.S. Julia (Aniston)
HIS complaint is that his boss sexually harasses him. I don’t care if Dale just got engaged – I don’t care if Dale has scruples – I don’t care if Dale has erectile dysfunction; If someone that looks like Jennifer Aniston wants to have sex with you – it is not harassment, it’s the greatest (bleep)ing job in the whole (bleep)ing world!
Unlike ‘Bad Teacher’, ‘Horrible Bosses’ delivers as an extremely amusing dark comedy. Hearing Jennifer say very raunchy R-Rated lines was a hoot in itself. She steps away from her ‘cutie pie’ roles of the past and the fact that she’s talking filthy makes this her most impressive acting performance to date.
Kevin Spacey also makes a comeback of sorts (The promise he showed in ‘Men Who Stare At Goats’ comes to fruition here) Harker is an unbelievable a-hole, but Spacey plays him with such delight that he’s just fun to watch.
In fact, everyone gels in this film, except Day. I became annoyed with his voice very early on & when he started shunning his gorgeous boss’s advances, I found him to be annoying and unbelievably stupid. What would have worked is if they made him gay.
But he’s engaged to a woman. A rather plain looking mousy woman - and he’s appalled by the fact that Jennifer Aniston wants to have sex with him?
As you can tell, that’s the one faucet of ‘Horrible Bosses’ that keeps it from being perfect, but it is a pretty leaky faucet.
Jamie Foxx enters the picture as the hit man the three men think they’re hiring to rub out their deplorable bosses. Since this is a PG-13 rated blog, I can only refer to Foxx’s character as ‘M-F’ Jones.
Then there’s a cameo by Bob Newhart that works like a charm as well.
It’s a dark concept, but that doesn’t stop it from being silly as well. It mixes the two perfectly – When they discover Harker is allergic to peanuts they devise a plan to empty a jar of peanuts into his bottle of shampoo. Like no one will suspect foul play when the detectives discover a bath tub full of Planter’s peanuts.
Or when Nick flees the scene of a mishap they didn’t expect and gets caught speeding, Nick tells the officer he was drag racing. Incredulously the cop asks, “In a Prius?” Nick replies, “I never win.”
I just wish someone would have stepped forward with the voice of reason and said, “Dale HAS to be gay!” The scene were Julia calls Dale into her office and she’s wearing nothing but her unbuttoned white lab coat and a pair of panties and Dale doesn’t jump on her right then & there is just too unimaginable for words. “Paul” was more believable and that movie was about an alien from outer space with a raunchy sense of humor!
& the reason I bring “Paul” up is because I’m debating which movie was funnier; “Horrible Bosses” or “Paul”. They’re both top notched comedies that cracked me up.

MR. POPPER'S PENGUINS / FLIPPED

2011-07-17T21:54:00.000-07:00

“MR. POPPER’S PENGUIN’S” (Jim Carrey)

This film is too adorable to make fun of. It’s a flat out kiddie flick, there isn’t a hint of adult content, but if you like penguins - real, computerized or animated - you’ll enjoy watching Mr. Popper turn from ‘Penguin Scrooge’ into penguin lover.
Jim Carrey plays the title character and fortunately doesn’t resort to his earlier outlandish characterizations (I was afraid he’d revive Ace Ventura and was relieved when he did not)
As a boy, Tom Popper’s father was always away on adventure trips – the boy mainly knew his father thru late night conversations on a ham radio.
As an adult, Tom becomes a shrewd businessman whose specialty is getting people to sell property they don’t really want to part with. The owners of the corporation he works for keep dangling a partnership in front of him, saying, “We’ll put your name on the building when you land the _____ account.”
In this case, it’s a quaint little restaurant/Inn that his company needs to tear down & replace with a profitable venture.
When word comes that Popper’s father has died in Antarctica, it only causes him a brief moment of remorse before he has to get back to work.
A crate arrives from his late father, a seemingly stuffed penguin. When the frozen bird thaws out, he comes to life. It’s a kid’s movie, remember?
A phone call to the Russian accented gentleman that sent the crate results in 5 more penguins showing up in Mr. Popper’s high rise New York apartment and silly penguin antics ensue.
When his ex-wife Amanda (Carla Gugino) drops off their 2 kids for his weekend visit, the kids immediately fall in love with the 6 flightless birds and Popper is forced to give the penguins names. The first one he received is dubbed Captain, then the one who bites is Bitey, the one who squawks is Loudy, the one that nuzzles his leg is Lovey, the one who farts is Stinky and the one that falls over is Nimrod. Popper keeps the birds simply because his children now enjoy spending time with him and along the way Popper’s penguins become his ‘other’ children.
Even the bad guy doesn’t appear to be bad; a zookeeper that wants ‘what is best for the penguins’ and that is to be in a proper environment – his zoo.
Mr. Popper’s penguins isn’t a classic, but it has all the elements of a great film, it is amusing, heartwarming and touching, with a neat ending that, if you’re a sap, will leave a lump in your throat. And yes, I’m a sap for penguin movies and this is one kid’s film that I will recommend to everyone.

While I'm on the subject of enjoyably sweet films, I just watched a Rob Reiner movie called "Flipped"; a coming of age story involving a boy & a girl that grow up living across the street from one another. Each sequence is shown first from the boy's point of view and then from the girl's. It's just the story of two kid's who 'flip' as they grow up - In the beginning she's infatuated with him; then, as her interest in him wanes, he starts to have feelings toward her. The differences in their two families and a sycamore tree make "Flipped" a very special 'little' film.

SOMETHING BORROWED

2011-07-17T21:50:00.000-07:00

“SOMETHING BORROWED” (Ginnifer Goodwin & Kate Hudson)

Normally I agree to see the occasional chick flick with my wife because I know I’ll have fun ripping it to pieces with a scathing review. The rule I have is that it has to have an attractive actress in it for me to ogle. The two leads here are not unattractive by any means, but not the kind of females that I have a tendency to drool over; and Kate’s road record over the years seems to keep setting lower and lower standards.
“Something Borrowed”, however, is an anomaly – it’s a chick flick without the normal chick flickisms. It had a believable premise; Rachel & Darcy grow up together and remain best friends into adulthood. When Rachel meets Dex (Colin Egglesfield) in college, she thinks he’s out of her league and so settles on just being his study buddy. She introduces him to her extroverted best friend Darcy and the sparks fly.
When they become engaged Rachel is devastated; how can she be the maid of honor for the woman that is marrying the man that she’s adored since the moment they met?
Her platonic friend Ethan (John Krasinski) loses her trust when he spills the beans about her feelings and an affair with Dex causes further complications. Now she has the dilemma of – do I steal Darcy’s future husband & lose her? – Or break it off with the man of her dreams so that no one gets hurt, except her?
It doesn’t stoop to the usual chick flick antics or delve into implausible plot lines. It’s almost real. I say that because I’ve been in similar circumstances; having an affair sidetracked by ‘bad timing’ or feeling that the other person would never be interested in someone like me.
I didn’t like the ending; as I told my wife, “A chick flick with an unhappy ending, what will they think of next?” Of course, she didn’t find the ending to be ‘unhappy’ and didn’t agree with my assessment. And by not liking the ending, that makes it a rarity as well, it didn't go the way I thought it would & I have a tendency to admire films that do that.
So here I am - hater of chick flicks - saying I kinda sorta really liked ‘Something Borrowed’ because it didn’t seem like a chick flick to me at all. It had substance and the acting was above average. Why, it was like a regular movie that just happened to feature two chicks in the leading roles involved in a complicated romantic situation. Why can’t they all be as intelligent as this one?

BAD TEACHER

2011-06-30T01:31:00.000-07:00

“BAD TEACHER” (Cameron Diaz)

The premise and the trailer gave me high expectations. With that, ‘Bad Teacher’ was a huge let down. Despite being semi-amusing, there simply wasn’t that one killer scene that would make you tell your friends, “You’ve got to go see this movie if just for the (i.e. ‘taser’) scene!”
It has some humorous moments – none of which are memorable.
The ‘hard R’ rating is due only to the repeated use of the ‘F’ word, but this is far from being an adult comedy. In fact, it’s quite childish at times – basically two grown women behaving like teenagers while fighting over a male teacher (Whom to me seemed obviously gay)
Cameron Diaz, playing disinterested middle school teacher Elizabeth Halsey, has almost zero talent in comedy timing – “There’s Something About Mary” being an obvious fluke.
Yes, Elizabeth is a bad teacher, but calling the film ‘Bad Teacher’ invoked comparisons to ‘Bad Santa’ and teech comes up sorely lacking when going up against that comedy classic. (“Best Christmas Movie EVER!” according to comic-book guy)
Is ‘Bad Teacher’ a bad movie – No, it’s a passable comedy (a 21 on my laugh-o-meter)
but I wanted it to be so much better than it was. Yes, I wanted another ‘Bad Santa’; a politically incorrect satire with plenty of witty lines and sight gags – ‘Bad Teacher’ is definitely politically incorrect, but it has no wit. Nor heart.
Elizabeth is a golddigger – her goal in life is to become the wife of a rich husband – love, companionship, finding a partner to go through life together – those feelings and dreams are for saps. So Elizabeth is shallow and could care less about teaching the kids in her class. She’s just there to collect an easy paycheck until Mr. Right puts a ring on her finger.
Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake) is her target husband, even though he is ‘just a teacher’, he is the son of a wealthy watch tycoon. He is bland, uninteresting and to this viewer, more than likely gay. Lucy Punch, an odd looking actress but with nice curves, plays Amy Squirrel, Elizabeth’s arch enemy both in school and in trying to win Delacorte’s heart. Their antics devolve into childish catfights that caused more disgusted shakes of the head than guffaws. Actually, they didn’t cause any guffaws, ONLY disgruntled sneers.
There was a dry humping scene included that - #1) seemed entirely out of place considering the point the characters were in at the time and - #2) seemed only to exist for the gossip show crowd. I guess because the two actors involved (Diaz & Craterlake) were at one time real-life lovers, we were suppose to laugh hysterically at them screwing one another fully clothed. This information was foreign to me until Diaz appeared on ‘The Daily Show’ and made me aware of that fact. - #3) wasn’t the least bit funny, and - #4) added more proof that Delacorte was gay.
Jason Segal,as Russell, the gym teacher, plays the seemingly dopey nice guy yet again. Elizabeth insults Russell for the entire first hour of the film. If this film wanted to break from the norm and try to actually be a hard-edged dark comedy, she would have kept insulting him. If this film wanted to make Elizabeth less unlikable by having her suddenly seeing the gym instructor in a new light, without any lights actually coming on, thus turning into a... holy crap, chick flick, they would follow that tired old formula... I’ll let you guess which one they settled for.
With ‘Bad Santa’, even though Billy Bob Thornton’s character takes advantage of the little boy that actually believes he’s Santa Claus, he does so reluctantly. You can tell that he doesn’t revel in making the dumb little kid look dumb – and tries to teach the lad to stick up for himself – thus making ‘Bad’ Santa an acceptable character.
Everything Elizabeth Halsey does ‘for’ her students is meant to benefit Elizabeth Halsey – from opening day of class when she takes a nap while the kids watch ‘Stand & Deliver’ to when she finally decides she needs to start teaching her students properly in order to win a bonus that will allow her to pay for the breast implants she feels she desperately needs in order to attract a multi-millionaire looking for nothing more in life than a trophy wife he can cheat on.
It has some funny lines - I believe Segal’s Russell uttered the bulk of them - but it just doesn’t ‘click’. I found Russell to be pathetic when he gives in to Elizabeth’s come-on after she treated him like a pile of excrement earlier.
So as long as you’re okay with your pre-teens hearing the ‘F’ word, this film is actually aimed at them with its juvenile set ups between Halsey & Squirrel.
I was hoping to have a new best comedy of 2011 to hail, but “Paul” still holds that title for now... “Horrible Bosses” look promising to anyone?

SUPER 8

2011-06-20T05:24:00.000-07:00

“SUPER 8” (Joel Courtney & Elle Fanning)

When the trailers prior to the feature presentation are all silly, stupid or just plain uninteresting, that usually means what I’m about to see is going to be silly, stupid or just plain uninteresting. ‘Super 8’ didn’t follow that criterion. Realizing it was a kids’ movie along the lines of ‘E.T.’, but with a scary alien, ‘Super 8’ far exceeded expectations.
Besides, ‘E.T.’, I also thought of ‘Alien’ & ’Australia’... ‘Australia’??? I’ll explain later.
But the obvious comparison is to ‘E.T.’ one of the most beloved movies of all time by the American masses... of which I am not a member. ‘E.T.’ was a cute little kid’s film, but it was nothing special to me. It was childish, poorly acted and phony. ‘Super 8’ has a more adult theme to it despite being dominated by child actors, the acting is decent – in the case of the two leads, outstanding, and it is realistic; the U.S. military (the Air Force in this case) is the villain – the creature is simply an added, unseen terror. The heart of ‘E.T.’ was the ‘aw, schucks’ simplistic story of a boy’s friendship with a muppet from outer space; ‘Super 8’ is the story of 2 kids developing a friendship with one another because their fathers lack the ability to relate to them.
The comparison to ‘Alien’ is that the creature isn’t cute & cuddly – it’s a monster, but you don’t even get a glimpse of it until late in the film & then see the whole thing, up close & terrifying, at the end. I throw in ‘Australia’ because like that film, ‘Super 8’ had to win me back after stumbling out of the starting gate. I hated the first 30 minutes of ‘Australia’, but then it improved. What I disliked about ‘Super 8’ was the implausible ‘accident’ that sets the whole story in motion – a truck speeds onto a train track & collides with an oncoming locomotive head on. I’ve actually seen something like this happen & in every train vs. truck match-up – the train wins. But not here. The truck is cut in half. The collision was head on, but somehow only half of the truck is obliterated? Not only does the driver survive the crash & subsequent explosions, so does his map of the trains’ itinerary – it isn’t even crumpled or singed... I just found that to be somewhat ridiculous and I was disappointed because the movie had a really nice opening.
Joey (Joel Courtney) is seen sitting on a swing while adults gather inside his house following his mother’s funeral. A man (Men Behaving Badly’s Ron Eldard) comes to pay his respects & is brutally thrown out of the house by Joey’s grieving father (Kyle Chandler, yet another TV actor, but at least he’s had a job in this century)
Later, Dad – a deputy on the local police force – tells Joey he’s sending him to a 6 week fantasy baseball camp for the summer. Joey doesn’t want to go & feels as though his father is abandoning him, virtually making him an orphan.
Joe’s excuse is that he has to help his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) finish his movie. 'Super 8' is set in the late 70’s, the amateur ‘zombie’ movie is being shot with a camera that uses ‘Super 8’ film – the kind that has to be sent away for three days to be developed. So by the time the footage returns and a glimpse of the creature is finally seen, the small town of Lillian has already been over-run by the military and every dog in town has thumbed a ride to anywhere but there. Which leads to my next curious moment – why didn’t the horses and goats run away as well? Because they’re used to being food?
Noah Emmerick plays the military meanie that herds people like cattle and imprisons anyone that questions what he’s doing and why he’s doing it (Like Joey’s dad) Emmerick was excellent as the bad cop in ‘Little Children’, but here, he plays a ‘seen that same character dozens of times before’ role, so he isn’t very impressive.
‘Super 8’ is elevated by the appearance of Alice (Elle Fanning) the cute girl in school that Joey (& every boy in class) has a secret crush on. When Alice sees the son of a cop, she sneers at him; “I’m not doing this with him around!”
Alice has agreed to be in Charles’ movie, but balks after she’s ‘borrowed’ her dad’s car & is driving without a license. Joey assures her that he won’t tell his dad and although she agrees, the look on her face says, ‘OK, but stay AWAY from me!’
It’s that growing into puppy love relationship between Joey and Alice that makes this film special because the actors are two of the best for their age that I’ve ever seen. Though her sister Dakota was much younger when she came into prominence, Elle proves in ‘Super 8’ that she can definitely act. In fact, if I have one complaint about her it’s that she’s TOO good. During one scene Joey has to act in a scene from the zombie movie and he’s terrible; Alice is impressive right from the start – but then again, why would Alice want to be in these geeky guys’ movie if she didn’t think she had acting chops?
The other kid actors pale in comparison to Joel & Elle, but they’re ‘ok’. The most amazing casting however is Cary; a kid who is obsessed with fireworks and blowing things up – somehow they cloned Tanner Boyle from the original ‘Bad News Bears’ and brought him back to life!
So ‘Super 8’ is the kid’s movie made for adults – if you have little ones that have seen ‘E.T.’ a hundred times on DVD & want to go see the latest cute ‘n’ cuddly alien movie –this isn’t it. I think pre-teen kids will be bored by this film - They’ll think the implausible train vs truck crash & explosions are gnarly, but after that, they’ll get restless because then it becomes a mystery & when the alien is finally brought to the forefront, it is far from being cute’n’cuddly and instead of Reese’s pieces, it eats people (because the dogs had the good sense to hightail it out of town!)
Since I grew up with a father that I never connected with, that I felt didn’t want me around either, I related to Joey’s predicament. That’s what pulled me into this story – why I cared about the kid and needed that happy ending – because I never got it. Perhaps ‘Super 8’ is just special to me – maybe the masses will love it because the monster at the end is real gnarly. By the way, what word do kids use today instead of ‘gnarly’?
Dudley Moore, after peaking with 'Arthur' made a whole lot of stinkers, but one had the memorable line, "Do you know why Hollywood has such a difficult time finding good actresses for female characters? Because you have to hire women to play them." I always felt that way about 'child' actors - that they can ruin an otherwise good flick. In 'Super 8', it's the kid actors that are the reason to go see this film. Did Joel Courtney & Elle Fanning just happen to find roles that fit them perfectly, or do they have impressive acting careers on the horizon? I'll be watching them both in the future and I hope they continue to work at their craft because they are off to an incredible start. Excellent job, kids, excellent.

HANNA

2011-06-20T05:19:00.000-07:00

“HANNA” (Saorise Ronan, Cate Blanchett & Eric Bana)

This is one of those films where you reach the point that you don’t care what happens to the characters or how it’s going to end because you JUST want it to be over with. And I felt that way about a half hour into the thing.
It opens with a disgusting scene of an elk being murdered by a little girl (Saorise Ronan as Hanna) This is followed by a scene of child abuse as Hanna’s father, Erik (Eric Bana) attacks like ‘Kato’ in the old Pink Panther films – the only enjoyment I got from this movie was when my mind yelled out, “Not NOW, Kato!” during this senseless scene.
Hanna murders an elk with no feelings of remorse, yet she wants her father to tell her that the dog the Russians sent into space in the 1950’s made it back to earth alive?
Hanna & her father live in a cabin in the Arctic tundra. They have no logical reason to exist this way, other than Erik telling the girl to flip the switch on the location finder box when she’s ready to leave.
Hanna is given a make believe background to recite if and when she is captured. When she flips the switch on the box, he father puts on a suit & a backpack & leaves her.
Hanna awaits the arrival of the military & murders several of them before deciding to go with them willingly (huh?)
Once ensconced in a military installation, she demands to speak to Marissa & when the woman arrives, Hanna crawls into her lap like a frightened child & then... well, sets in motion her plot to escape. This thin, frail child shoots her way out of a heavily guarded institution to an 80’s techno pop beat that would make The Pet Shop Boys(*) envious & then makes her clever getaway by latching onto the bottom of a speeding military vehicle. Pretty impressive, eh? Except they don’t show you HOW she was able to jump up from a hole & grab onto a speeding vehicle as it passed overhead – they just show you her in the hole & then the line of vehicles, panning down to Hanna clutching to the bottom of the last car. It’s not clever when they ask you to believe something implausible without showing how the trick was pulled off. It’s stupid & it makes you feel like they think you’re stupid enough to believe it.
At this point I would have liked to have learned exactly what the hell was going on – but no hints are given – everything is revealed at the very end, when you really don’t care what the hell is going on anymore...
To make things even more implausible, Cate Blanchett sends Elton John’s younger, gayer brother to track down Hanna & bring her back dead or alive. . . Elton John’s younger gayer brother as a hit man? How much B.S. do you expect us to buy?
This is Cate Blanchett’s career low point – in both films & her performance – she’s almost laughable using a Texan accent as she mercilessly hunts down a small blonde waif. Even when the secret is revealed, you think – If Erik cared about Hanna, why didn’t he simply take her to a remote city in a small corner of the world & bring her up to be a normal child instead of training her to be a ruthless killer? HE determined her destiny would be filled with violence, not the military. So there’s no good guy here, they’re all bad & there’s no sympathy for the little killing machine either – I mean, do YOU want to adopt her?
This film is as bad as ‘Black Swan’, except that there is an explanation at the end...
but who cares?

(*) I used Pet Shop Boys because I never listened to 80's techno pop so if it's a bad reference, don't blame me, it's the only name I could think of from that time frame... I don't even know if The Pet Shop Boys were techo pop!

The HANGOVER PART II

2011-06-07T04:04:00.000-07:00

“The HANGOVER PART II” (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms & Zach Galifianakis)

“The Hangover” scored a 79 on my laugh-o-meter... Part II soared to 19 thanks to another entertaining round of photos shown during the closing credits.
I think that says it all. And there’s going to be a Part III ?
Unless Mel Gibson's in it, I’ll pass...

I’d like to leave this review at that, but I suppose I should explain to you why this movie pales in comparison to the original – It’s the same story but with a twist! Stu’s soon-to-be-brother-in-law Teddy disappears instead of soon-to-be-groom Doug. Amazing what they can come with in the ways of new original scripts isn’t it?

Everybody’s back for Part DUH, except Heather Graham is replaced by Paul Giamatti... Improves the acting caliber, but I’d rather look at Heather playing a stripper - especially in a comedy. Stu's new relationship is mega-creepy; he's engage to a Thailand girl (Jamie Chung as Lauren) who looks to be 17, maybe 18 years old. And everyone is mystified as to why her father doesn't want her to marry a 40-ish dentist coming off a failed marriage to a Las Vegas stripper.

That's another innovation – instead of Vegas being a co-star, the backdrop is the city of Bangkok, with all its live chickens & dead pigs roaming the streets.

Since the script is so familiar, it seemed that Ed Helms decided to make it ‘come to life’ by screaming most of his dialogue. Quirky, semi-disturbing idiot-savant-like Alan (Zach) comes across as a racist jackass and much meaner than the boyish misfit he played in the original.

Justin Bartha is back as Doug and contributes virtually nothing. Ken Jeong returns as a much kinder, less dangerous Mr. Chow (now a buddy with goofball Alan) though he still manages to get the hungover trio in steaming tubs of hot water. Now, it made some sense that Asian Mr. Chow might show up in Bangkok the same time as the hungovers –But Mike Tyson? Yes, the way they bring him in makes sense – but who wants him? And when you see what they have him do – displaying his lack of singing skills to go along with that Oscar caliber acting ability – it isn’t a welcome return by any means.
These people refused to be in a movie with Mel Gibson, but a convicted rapist is A-OK?

Just a side-note – Andrew Howard plays a Russian mobster in HO2 but doesn’t have nearly as many lines as he did playing a Russian mobster in Bradley Cooper’s previous film, “Limitless”. They were so lazy with this film they couldn’t even come up with a different guy to play a Russian mobster!

There is one scene that had me laughing out loud, but it is also its most difficult to watch... I'll only say that the stripper Stu gets 'involved' with in this film isn't nearly as enticing to watch disrobe as Heather Graham was.

The only reason to anticipate Part 3 is the obvious inclusion of my pal, Brody Stevens in yet another unnamed cameo – here, Brody plays bodyguard to mobster Kingsley (Giamatti) This time, unfortunately, he doesn’t even have one spoken line. Let’s hope they don’t make that mistake again when they spend the 7 minutes its going to take them to write the script for #3...

LIMITLESS

2011-06-07T03:56:00.000-07:00

“LIMITLESS” (Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro & Abbie Cornish)

Finally a film with a positive message for America – Do drugs! Do lots of them! Especially untested ones and you too can make it to the top of your field becoming wealthy beyond your wildest dreams!
Actually this was an entertaining tale, but yes, that IS the message it seems to be sending.
Bradley Cooper plays Eddie Morra, a struggling unknown writer to has received a rather large advance from his publisher even though Eddie has never had anything published...
Which let’s us know right from the git-go that this is a fantasy tale...
Not only has Eddie never been published, but he hasn’t even written one word of his manuscript before receiving this bonus – How in the hell did he sell THAT idea?
I’ve written three full-length novels and I can’t get agents or publishers to even look at what I’ve written, let alone advance me any bread to write something from scratch!
OK, so that aspect of the film made me bitter...

But the rest of the story unfolds in a way that keeps you interested in Eddie’s sudden mercurial rise to the top despite the fact that he’s doing it while taking a drug that will kill him if he stops taking it - & looks like it will do that eventually if he continues popping the pills like peanuts to avoid the D-T’s as well.

Eddie’s ex-brother-in-law hands him an experimental drug called NZT (“FDA approved,” Vernon tells Eddie, “though it’s not on the market yet.”
NZT supposedly allows the user to expand the ability to use one’s entire brain instead of just the 20% most of us can access. Eddie remembers everything that’s ever entered his head since birth and goes from a disheveled looking loser into a sharp dressed well-groomed business genius in just a matter of weeks.
The downside – well, when Eddie tells Vernon, “You told me this was FDA approved!” Vernon chuckles, “And you believed me?” – so Eddie is addicted to a drug that he discovers will kill him if he stops taking it or takes too many doses too often.

Throw in a Russian mobster (Andrew Howard) that keeps shaking Eddie down for more NZT and Robert De Niro as Eddie’s new mentor and Eddie finds himself keeping dangerous company along with his ‘drug problem’.
Abbie Cornish is quite cute as Eddie’s girlfriend that dumped him when he was a useless writer but finds the ‘genius’ Eddie irresistible – Until his unscrupulous lifestyle puts her in danger and her only hope to survive is to start taking NZT herself.

I liked this movie despite being an anti-drug person. Not that I care if you do them, I just wish I didn’t have to take as many pain pills as I do in order to get through my job.
I didn’t care for the ending – but on the other hand, it didn’t end the way I expected it, and I always appreciate a twist of that sort – at least it’s original...

AFRICAN CATS / OCEANS

2011-06-07T03:52:00.000-07:00

“AFRICAN CATS” / “OCEANS”

Saw these within a few days of each other and I felt a comparison was needed. Going into these two nature/documentary films, I had a much higher interest in ‘Oceans’.
(Not a cat person, you understand) But ‘African Cats’ is unquestionably the better film.

Probably because ‘Cats’ focuses on one central location and tells the ‘story’ of two prides of lions and a cheetah mother trying to raise and protect her cubs and ‘Oceans’ has no story. They simply show you footage of underwater creatures from all 5 oceans, tell you their names & then move on to the next creature. No interesting commentary on their lives and how they survive in the deep, just “this is a weird looking fish and here it is eating another weird looking fish” (or being eaten by...)

I am a wimp when it comes to watching something being killed and eaten. I was able to foresee scenes that were going to make me sick to my stomach in both films and closed my eyes at the appropriate times. I did see a large group of lions feasting on a fallen zebra, but by the time I looked up you could hardly tell what the beasts were devouring.

So I recommend ‘African Cats’ even if your not a cat person – though I did scoff, “What a pussy!” when Fang ran away from danger. It takes the time to let you know these animals, and yes, the slow motion footage of a running cheetah is impressive to see -
though I also would have liked to have seen more actual speed chases. You root for the moms and you boo the (bleep) out of those (bleep)ing hyenas – that’s one creature I wouldn’t mind seeing become extinct – the little a—holes. Oh, sorry, forgot this is a kid’s movie!
In the end you come to understand there’s an order that needs to be maintained as distasteful as it is to view or learn that a cub has been killed or a daughter that just lost it’s mother is not being accepted back into the ‘tribe’.

‘Oceans’ is only interesting from a viewing viewpoint. You see lots of strange looking creatures – you see lots of creatures killing and eating smaller creatures (Unless you close your eyes & count to ten) – and you learn next to nothing about any of them.
It would have been a better idea to do a series of 5 films, taking time to show & teach us about the creatures that inhabit the world’s oceans.

THOR

2011-05-25T05:06:00.000-07:00

“THOR” (Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman & Anthony Hopkins)

Was not a fan of the comic book so I had no interest in this film when I heard about it. When I saw the trailer, Hemsworth (Thor) looked like another ‘wrassler-turned-actor’ so that made it official – I won’t be wasting my time seeing ‘Thor’.
Then 3 things happened; I saw an extended trailer which made the film look much more interesting; Found out Hemsworth isn’t a wrassler but an Australian actor (& I have a long list of Aussie actors that I like) & one review compared it to ‘Iron Man’ because it was funny and the quality of acting was several cuts above your usual comic book movie. The only problem I had was that it wasn’t very funny – a few chuckling moments, lots of grins and my favorite line, “Base command, we’ve got Xena, Jackie Chan & Robin Hood walking down the street here,” was spoken by an unknown extra.
But ‘Thor’ IS a cut above most comic book movies - & this comes from someone who ISN’T a fan of the genre; I love the ‘Iron Man’ series basically because of what Robert Downey, Jr. bring to the table & I’ve liked the new Batman’s with Christian Bale (though not as much as the masses) Other than those – all other comic book movies basically suck.
This doesn’t suck and the acting might be the chief reason; after ‘The Wolfman’, I was leery of being able to take Sir Anthony seriously as a quality actor again- he sort of redeems himself here, but oddly enough, he doesn’t stand out. Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, the earthling Thor meets when he’s cast out of Asgard & worm-holed to earth does a much better acting job here than she did in ‘Black Swan’.
‘Thor’ also has a interesting storyline; though I found it preposterous that dozens of ‘Frost Monsters’ couldn’t overtake a handful of human-like Asgardians (Including Xena, Jackie Chan & Robin Hood)
But the key to making this comic book movie stand out is the character relationships between Thor and his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and the simmering ‘Smothers Brothers’ animosity that grows because ‘dad always liked you best’. Thor’s broken relationship with his father (Hopkins as Odin) after he defies the old man - and then Thor’s disdain for human’s changing rapidly as he becomes hopelessly attracted to Jane.
‘Thor’ is visually impressive as well; the blue ‘Frosty People’ who are three times the size of Asgardians but can’t seem to win a battle even with the aide of an overweight T. Rex (Introduced in a laughable ‘release the Kraken’ style) were still frightening villains.
I did find it odd that Jane traveled with an older man (Stellan Skarsgard as Erik) who didn’t seem to serve any useful purpose in her studies and Darcy (Kat Dennings) a young girl who took the arrival of Mythical gods & legends with a grain of salt.
But despite the silly moments & odd pairings, ‘Thor’ is an enjoyable watch. It isn’t as entertaining as ‘Iron Man’; though Downey’s character is mentioned when a gigantic metallic robot is ‘beamed’ to earth & the FBI agent in charge asks, “Is that one of Starks?”
‘Thor’ even won my wife’s approval; when I asked her if she liked it, she replied, “Yes, it was fine... he’s easy on the eyes.”
So there you have it, despite all the wrinkles & the eye patch, Anthony Hopkins can still make the ladies swoon... Or perhaps she meant the Aussie who played Thor?

BRIDESMAIDS

2011-05-25T04:48:00.000-07:00

“BRIDESMAIDS” (Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph and various other chicks)

This was advertised as ‘The Hangover’ of chick flicks – but don’t call it a chick flick...
Well, I believe in honesty and though it isn’t a run of the mill awful chick flick – it IS still a chick flick. I can say that because I just didn’t ‘get’ the way these women behaved, though my wife & the heavily perfumed members of the audience seemed to understand them and thought they were much funnier than I.
For a chick flick it was quite funny, but compared to regular comedies, it’s just ‘all right’.
The plot works (which is a rarity for c.f.’s) Kristen Wiig (as Annie) discovers her lifelong best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph, who should never be shown in close-ups) is getting married. As the obvious maid of honor, Annie is put upon to virtually organize every pre-wedding excursion she and the other bridesmaids are expected to make. Problem for Annie is she’s broke – her dream bakery shop failed miserably which lead to her boyfriend dumping her and having to move in with a loathsome brother & sister combo and taking a job in a jewelry store where her depressed persona isn’t appreciated. And now she’s expected to shell out hundreds of dollars for a dress & hundreds more for a trip to Vegas while being unable to come up with her share of the rent, straining the relationship with her unsympathetic roommates, as well as with Lillian.
There is no resemblance to ‘The Hangover’ in any way – having a scene where Annie gets plastered doesn’t make it Hangover-esque.
Annie’s car is an additional pain, though the piece of junk does lead to a meeting with a friendly police officer (Chris O’Dowd)
Annie has no one but herself to blame for the ton of baggage she carries around because she makes the choice to be treated like dirt by the douche bag who 'allows' her to have sex with him as long as she leaves shortly after he's through with her. Still, you can’t help but feel sorry for her because she is an obviously nice person who is just having an extended streak of bad luck.
So Kristen Wiig as Annie is the perfect lead character – where ‘Bridesmaids’ goes wrong is with the other title characters - & not to say that any of them are horribly written or unpleasant – it’s just that this group of women would never join forces under any circumstances. Someone like Lillian would never have such a diverse collection of friends. I guess the thought process was – make the bridesmaids as varied as possible & that will lead to hilarity... but I just kept thinking – why are these women in this wedding party? The only actress I knew previously was Wendi McLendon-Covey (from Reno 911) The other three; the chubby, looks-like-a-lesbian-but-apparently-isn’t, one; the rich bitch & the quiet one are played Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne & Ellie Kemper. They all play their roles well, but there’s no chemistry - & how could there be? They have nothing in common. So I guess we were supposed to laugh at all these various personalities clashing from scene to scene.
But Wiig is the mainstay and I have to give her credit for holding this film together (being a co-writer she’s responsible for the good & the bad) because I cared about Annie; I wanted her to stop being a doormat & realize that officer Rhodes wasn’t another douche bag male.
There is one stretch of the film which had me laughing out loud as Annie continuously drives by officer Rhodes’ squad car trying to get him to pull her over. That scene alone provided enough comedy to elevated 'Bridesmaids to ‘one of the better’ chick flicks I’ve seen.
As the film reached it’s climax, brief pop sensations from the 90’s, Wilson Phillips appear to sing at Lillian’s wedding; I thought for certain they had a replacement playing the part of Chynna Phillips as the woman in the middle didn’t look at all like the cute blonde I remember as being the reason for viewing their videos – turns out it’s actually Chynna Phillips... Botched plastic surgery? The Wilson sisters looked pretty much the same, but what the heck happened to Chynna?

You women can tell me if I’m wrong, but I was put off by the failed attempts at gross-out comedy – For me, it just wasn’t funny (except for the one scene where one bridesmaid throws up on the back of the head of the bridesmaid who made it to the toilet first)
Guys can be rude & crude because we are in real life. I guess I just expect women to be better than us so when they act like men they’re more disgusting than funny.
So yes, this is the rare chick flick that I can recommend despite the absence of any scantilly clad hot babes... Jeez, what the heck happened to Chynna Phillips?

The BEAVER

2011-05-17T23:49:00.000-07:00

“The BEAVER” (Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, Anton Yelchin & Jennifer Lawrence)

There’s no full frontal female nudity, and no, Jerry Mathers does not make a cameo appearance – still, this version of ‘The Beaver’ did not disappoint. In fact, it ‘wowed’ me; it was funny, touching, depressing, uplifting and weird. I could actually understand someone not liking it because it isn’t a film you can pigeonhole into a specific category. Let’s face it, people who went to see ‘Fast Five’ are not going to enjoy something this off-the-wall and relevant.
“The Beave” won’t do boffo box office but if you enjoy an intelligent family drama with enough quirky comedic touches to ensure a virtual roller coaster ride of emotions, then Mel Gibson as The Beaver is something you’ll enjoy. Provided you’re not one of the sanctimonious perfect people that won’t see this film simply because Gibson stars in it. Yes, he has personal issues that bug me – the melt downs on the phone with his ex not being one of them – What man hasn’t been (bleeped) by a (bleep) that (bleeped) him over? - but does that lessen his acting skills?
Gibson is outstanding in this film, as are all of the actors.
I thought back on the previous Gibson/Foster pairing in ‘Maverick’ & it’s like two entirely different actors here – ‘Maverick’, though not a horrible film, wasn’t one either actor could say was their finest work (most embarrassing, maybe – finest, no)
In ‘The Beaver’, Gibson gets the teeth, literally, as armed with a buck-toothed beaver puppet on his hand he chews up the scenery like he was building a freaking dam.
But in the subtle scenes, Jodie Foster as his wife gets the grand prize. Frequently she has to convey her character’s feelings through facial expressions and she does so with an acute awareness – probably aided by the fact that she was directing herself.
The plot concerns Walter Black (Gibson) the president of a toy manufacturing plant who has fallen into a deep depression. When wife Meredith (Foster) kicks him out of their home, Walter stops by a dumpster to toss out those of his belongings that are weighing him down – he finds a discarded hand puppet in the dumpster – a toothy beaver. Walter smirks at it & walks away... then turns back & takes the puppet with him.
Why? Well, apparently to assist Walter in his attempts to commit suicide. The puppet tells Walter he’s so worthless he doesn’t even have the guts to kill himself. During the ensuing argument with his hand, Walter winds up unconscious on the floor of his hotel room with his tie around the shower curtain rod & the TV on his head.
In a way, Walter succeeds in committing suicide as Walter Black fades away into oblivion and ‘The Beaver’ takes his place. His youngest son delights as dad shows him attention under the guise of an Australian accented rodent made of cloth, whilst eldest son, Porter (Anton Yelchin) is so embarrassed by his father’s new persona that his hatred for the man quickly reaches a boiling point. In his bedroom, Porter has a collection of post-its with ‘similarities’ written upon them between himself and his father – the high school student chagrins every time he adds another trait to the numerous yellow slips of paper that decorate his wall.
But as Walter rebounds from depression by announcing to his employees that The Beaver is now in charge and unlike the old regime, the puppet WILL listen to any ideas they may have to improve the company – Porter is approached by cheerleader Norah (Jennifer Lawrence) who wants to pay him to write her valedictorian speech.
‘The Beaver’ is like a twisted roller coaster – it soars and dives from sly comedic touches to gut-wrenching emotional moments to lead characters exhibiting extremely strange behavior to an ending, which even though I saw it coming, was still powerful.
Just to let you know, I lost my father to suicide when I was 16, so I can relate to this film in a very intimate way. That makes me prejudice – I loved it. Maybe this review will make you not want to see something this off center from the mainstream. I can accept that – my whole reason for doing these reviews is to simply tell you how each film affected me personally – I have no hidden agenda for liking or disliking any movie.
I won’t tell you I question your sanity if you see ‘The Beaver’ and don’t care for it (Well, I’ll say I question your sanity, but I won’t actually mean it)
But please do not refuse to see this remarkable film on the grounds that Mel Gibson has serious personality problems in his real life – you’ll just be depriving yourself of witnessing something that I think is a very special, unique film.

JUST GO WITH IT

2011-05-09T11:57:00.000-07:00

“JUST GO WITH IT” (Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston & a really hot blonde)

No, don’t go with it. Stay home. Save your money. A one-laugh disaster with a great looking chick and an awesome scene of Jennifer Aniston in a skimpy bikini; other than that - & you could probably find the stills of the bikini scene online somewhere – there is absolutely no reason to waste your time with this crap.
I was watching a show on HBO recently with Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Louis C.K. & Ricky Gervais just sitting around talking about comedy. Chris made the comment that some people can be funny for a short period of time, but no one that isn’t genuinely funny all of the time can have a sustained career in comedy. I discredited his remark by saying, “Adam Sandler.”
And it isn’t just that he isn’t funny – he’s possibly the worst actor on the planet.
People slam Nicolas Cage for ‘walking thru roles just to collect a paycheck’ but at least he varies is style slightly from film to film to film to film, but Sandler is the same mumbling, juvenile slob in every single one of his humorless outings.
Here, he plays a plastic surgeon. A plastic surgeon who comes to work wearing an oversized plain blue shirt (untucked) with well worn frumpy blue jeans. The jackass isn’t even trying to commit to character! ‘Hi, I’m Adam Sandler pretending to be a plastic surgeon, isn’t this hilarious?’
Why, you may ask did I go to see yet another Adam Sandler film when I’ve been annoyed by every single one I’ve seen? It was Mother’s Day – my wife (mother of our two furry kids) had wanted to see it since it came out & so I sacrificed my dignity and took her to see ‘Just Go With It’...
On the one hand, I always enjoy viewing Jennifer Aniston on the big screen, but I’m also almost always disappointed with her script selections –I knew this one was going to be a huge disappointment walking in, so I wasn’t ‘let down’ by her. In fact, she was so hot in the skimpy bikini that when this rotten film comes to HBO, I’ll be setting my VCR (yes, I’m the guy that still uses video tapes) to record the 5minute ‘swimming in the water hole’ scene for posterity.
Hey, at least I have an early favorite for Worst Movie of 2011...

SOURCE CODE

2011-05-09T11:24:00.000-07:00

“SOURCE CODE” (Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga & Jeffrey Wright)

Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal) wakes up and finds himself on a commuter train in Chicago sitting across from the lovely Christina Warren (Monaghan)
Christina speaks as though they know one another when Colter has no idea who she is. Then she calls him Sean. He tells her she’s mistaken him for somebody else – Christina looks at him as though he’s lost his mind. Colter excuses himself and enters the men’s room only to find an unfamiliar face staring back at him in the mirror. Colter freaks out; the obligatory ‘This can’t be happening’ line is uttered and he goes back to Christina hoping she can shed some light on this nightmarish situation. 8 minutes after Colter awakens on the train a bomb explodes killing everyone on board.
Colter Stevens then finds himself inside an enclosed metal bunker with a female voice asking him if he discovered the identity of the bomber. The last thing Colter remembers prior to the experience on the train was flying his helicopter in Afghanistan.
The voice belongs to Colleen Goodwin (Farmiga) who heaves a frustrated sigh and runs Colter through a series of memory tests. She tells Colter he’s being sent back to the train and that he has 8 minutes to find out who planted the bomb.
This is the premise of ‘Source Code’ – the name of the secret project headed by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) - Colter Stevens, it turns out, is the perfect guinea pig for the Source Code experiment as he is able to ‘quantum leap’ in Sean’s body for the last 8 minutes of his life repeatedly, each time uncovering more information about the bomb and the possible suspects onboard that planted it. Each ‘leap’ opens with Colter sitting across from Christina; the same soda pop can being opened, the same comments being made by those sitting nearby and the ticket taker asking Colter to produce his ticket stub.
But each leap is altered as Colter gathers information and at one point leaves the train with two incentives in mind; follow a suspicious passenger and get Christina off of the doomed freight.
Each explosion is followed by a trip back to the bunker and Goodwin’s voice asking if he discovered the identity of the bomber. When Colter excitedly tells Goodwin & Rutledge that he saved the girl, they look at one another with 'should we tell him the truth?' expressions.
Colter is told his only mission is to give them the name of the person that planted the bomb as the terrorist has already taken credit for the deed and claims that a bigger explosion with many more casualties is coming later that day. Colter focuses on the task at hand, but is dismayed when he leaps back into Sean’s body and there’s Christina – back on the train, sitting across from him.
‘Source Code’ is far-fetched, but it’s the kind of far-fetchiness I can enjoy – the set up, the chemistry between the actors and the eventual out come are all well done, even if it leaves the audience scratching their heads when recalling some earlier scenes.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Jake Gyllenhaal just knows how to pick good projects.
This is a combo of the movie ‘Groundhog Day’ (without the humor) and the TV series ‘Quantum Leap’ and oddly enough it works. I’m not one to leave reality behind when I enter a movie theatre but I was able to for ‘Source Code’ and I credit all of the actors and a good character-driven storyline for making that happen. Good popcorn flick. Even if you don’t like popcorn...

WIN WIN

2011-05-05T05:07:00.000-07:00

“WIN WIN” (Paul Giamatti)

I heard this began regaled as a laugh out loud comedy... That line couldn’t be more misleading. This is a dramedy; the humor is mostly subtle. Whenever I laughed at something, it wasn’t loudly. This is a decent film, worth seeing, but if you go in expecting to giggle a lot – that isn’t going to happen... well, unless you’re high.

“Win Win” is the story of a struggling lawyer named Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti)
Mike runs his own practice, he isn’t a high priced attorney for a big firm and so the economy has Mike looking for ways to increase his income. A client named Leo (Burt Young) has Alzheimer’s and no guardian – his lone daughter disowned him and hasn’t been heard from in years – so when Mike discovers his guardian will get $1,500 a month to care for Leo, Mike takes the job. Then he promptly moves Leo out of his house and into an old folks home so he doesn’t have to actually ‘care’ for the old guy. Mike somehow makes this ethical in his mind because ‘Leo can afford it’. Even though it is clearly not what Leo wants.

Even though we come to like Mike for being a decent guy, we keep hoping that he’ll eventually do the right thing for Leo. To me, Mike’s flaw made him human. Clearly if it wasn’t for the tough economic times, this lawyer wouldn’t have made such an unethical move.

Things get awkward for Mike when Leo’s grandson Kyle (played by a pre-Fast Times At Ridgemont High Sean Penn) appears on Leo’s doorstep. Now Mike has to lie to the kid about why Leo is in a place he doesn’t want to be. The Flaherty’s take Kyle into their home – for wife, Jackie (Amy Smart) it’s due to her charitable nature / For Mike, it’s clearly out of guilt.

The subplot involves Mike’s ‘hobby-job’ as a high school wrestling coach. After Mike discovers Kyle is a state champion caliber wrestler, he asks the boy to join his winless wrestling team. Jeffrey Tambor plays Mike’s assistant coach so low-key you hardly remember him being in the cast, while Bobby Cannavale adds a major creepy factor as Mike’s best friend, Terry. Terry comes across as a closet pedophile in the way he enthuses over watching teenage boys grappling in close quarters. When Mike agrees to allow Terry to become his 2nd assistant coach I thought for sure the storyline was going to end with Terry in jail for sexually harassing one of the boys.

Then Kyle’s mom (Melanie Lynskey) comes to town and the proverbial poop hits the fan for Mike. Just like in ‘South Park’ this Kyle’s mom is a b*tch as well. And Kyle freaks out when she appears, but the reason is never fully explained – other than she’s been in rehab most of his life and he hates her for it.

So ‘Win Win’ presents an interesting premise; Nice guy Mike does a bad thing because he thinks no one will ever find out – soothing his conscious by saying ‘Leo’s better off being watched after by professionals’ – and then gets buried in lies to everyone in his life to cover his greedy move and now his marriage and livelihood are crumbling over this one stupid misdeed.

It’s a pleasant film – an interesting film. But it isn’t even close to being a laugh out loud comedy!

UNKNOWN

2011-04-25T23:43:00.000-07:00

“UNKNOWN” (Liam Neesom & Diane Kruger)

After “Taken”, I was skeptical of Liam Neesom’s credentials. If he thought that script was worth filming, I had to question his ability to smell crap.
When I saw the preview to ‘Unknown’, I smelled crap. & since I knew Liam has a blockage in his nasal cavity, I decided to avoid it... And then a good friend told me she thought ‘Unknown’ was better than 'The King’s Speech'. Obviously after such high praise, I had to check ‘Unknown’ out for myself. The plus being, it only cost $3 to see it. Thanks to Diane Kruger's beauty, it was worth the price... barely.
What I liked about the goofy plot is that all of the questions were revealed, sewn up & answered in the final scenes. What I didn’t like is that the answers were kind of far fetched and very silly.
I’ll approach this review from the standpoint of the trailer. Going into this mistaken identity/amnesia plot I understood that Neesom played Dr. Martin Harris (adamantly!)
After surviving a devastating cab ride crash, Dr. Harris returns to his wife who acts as if she’s never seen him before in her life and introduces Aiden Quinn as her husband, Dr. Martin Harris (in a much calmer fashion) For emphasis, Aiden wears a badge emblazoned with his moniker. Upon seeing Quinn’s Harris’s passport & ID, the police instantly remove the taller, hammier Dr. Martin Harris.
Then came the scene that turned me away as Neesom’s Harris points at Quinn’s Harris & says, “This man is an imposter. I don’t know who he is, but I want you to arrest him immediately or many lives will be lost!”
I’m assuming the ‘Doctor’ part of his name means this is a well-educated man, but what kind of dumb-ass makes a statement like that & expects the police to arrest the one that isn’t acting insane? “I don’t know who this guy is, but I’ll bet he’s planning to do something mean!” “If you say he’s a bad guy, Dr. Martin Harris with no ID or credentials, we’ll take you at your word & book him immediately on suspicion of being a potential bad guy.”
Then the line that was suppose to ‘hook’ audiences to check this film out when Quinn stands in a smoke filled room with Neesom and says, “You REALLY don’t remember ANYTHING do you?”
Yes, I wanted to know what the catch was, but I’d been taken in by ‘Taken” – I wasn’t going to fall for another Neesom turd.
The main draw here for me was Diane Kruger as the most gorgeous cab driver in history. I used to feel Diane was worth the price of admission just on that incredible face, so it didn’t matter if she couldn’t act. But once she got away from the Nicolas Cage influence (“Just show up, act disinterested and cash the paycheck, Diane. It’s easy, I do it 8, 9 times a year”) Ms. Kruger (“Inglorious Basterds”) has shown she actually has some acting chops. She is clearly the best part of this film in every sense.
So what’s the story? I’m not going to reveal the ‘twist’ but it’s an acceptable explanation for why Neesom swears he’s Dr. Harris & why Quinn takes his place, complete with passport & a wife that calls him hubby.
I watched this film like a hawk – I was expecting it to be one of those where the plot twists made no sense & I was going to be ready to jump all over it for that.
Neesom’s Harris & wife Elizabeth (January Jones) arrive in Berlin. At the airport, Neesom loads a bag into the trunk of the cab & Elizabeth tells him, “Martin, let the driver do that.”
The driver loads all the bags, except one.
My conclusion - Wife is obviously in on the scam (along with the cab driver)
At the hotel, Neesom notices missing bag & hails another cab to take him back to the airport – the second cab is driven by Gina (Diane Kruger)
Impatiently, Neesom asks if the most beautiful cab driver on the planet knows of any shortcuts, which leads them into the accident which ends with the cab careening off a bridge & into a river. Gina could have let Neesom drown, but risks her life to save him. We can conclude that Gina is not in on the scam. Unless... it was imperative to keep Neesom’s Harris alive because Gina disappears as soon as she gets Neesom to safety.
Neesom comes out of his coma 4 days later; leaves to find his wife & the scene from the trailer ensues. Assuming Neesom isn’t ‘well’ he’s returned to the hospital where they run some tests. When an assassin shows up, he wastes no time in disposing of the nurse on duty, but for some ‘Unknown’ reason decides to kill Neesom slow by injecting poison into his I.V. bag. Really? Like the hospital staff won’t suspect foul play when they find a dead nurse on the floor? So instead of shooting Neesom in the head, he decides the smarter move is to kill Neesom in a way that he won’t be present when the delusional ‘Dr. Harris’ bites the dust?
Frank Langella enters the picture as the one colleague Neesom can remember, his old friend Roy. When Roy turns up the truth begins to unravel. Like I said, the mysteries are all revealed, but the answers are goofy.
The ending left a lot to be desired as well. There’s a scene where one of the characters is trying to defuse a bomb. They stop breaking thru the wall when they can fit their arm through the hole they made instead of breaking it more so they can SEE what they’re doing... Obviously you don’t have to pass an I.Q. test to become a spy.
“Unknown” isn’t awful (like “Taken”) it tries to take a different look at the tired amnesia/mistaken identity plot and it doesn’t leave you scratching your head as to why it turned out the way it did. But when you realize everything that took place was over a new breed of corn... Well, that’s when the head scratching comes in.

ARTHUR - The Remake

2011-04-12T03:18:00.000-07:00

“ARTHUR (The re-make)” (Russell Brand & Helen Mirren)

When I heard about this movie I was totally against it – You don’t re-make a classic, you re-make movies that had a good idea but for some reason didn’t quite work out onscreen the first time around – “3:10 To Yuma” is a prime example – Or – to ‘update’ an oldie but goodie to introduce it to a new audience (“The Wolfman” SHOULD have fit this category, but failed miserably) This re-make of an endearing comedy doesn’t fail miserably, but fails nonetheless. There are several reasons, the main being writing. There simply aren’t that many funny lines, whereas the original had more laughs in the first twenty minutes than this has total.
The second is casting; I like Russell Brand as a back-up singer, but not as a lead vocalist – too much dosage of Brand leads to many annoying side effects.
#1 – playing a lovable drunk millionaire worked for Dudley Moore because he was diminutive (Which helps with making him lovable) Brand is freakishly tall & lanky (Something about that combo doesn’t lend itself to lovable – Don’t ask me why)
The first time I saw Brand was on the BBC’s ‘Graham Norton Show’ – he came out as though he were a rock star – I had no idea who he was, of course - & was surprised to discover he was a comedian. Not a joke-teller per se, more of the teller of humorous antidotes – he seemed to be famous in England for getting laid a lot.
The persona Brand exuded on that talk show was similar to the Arthur Bach he plays in this film; exceedingly laid-back, childish, devilishly impish in his openness in discussing his sexual preferences and somewhat difficult to understand because of his annoying habit of slurring his speech. An interesting character, but not lovable. Arthur needs to be lovable, otherwise he’s just an annoying drunk spoiled brat millionaire playboy with no scruples. As I watched this film I found myself wondering ‘Why would they put this out NOW?’. Now, at a time in America when the filthy rich are being given every break possible & the working people are not only suffering because of it, but are also getting the blame for the economy, instead of the filthy rich who screwed us out of our savings & homes?
I know, no one likes it when I get political in my reviews, but as I’ve said before I try to relate my movie-going experience with these blatherings & I was annoyed at the way this ‘Arthur’ foolishly & wastefully threw cash away like it was bread crumbs in a park full of pigeons.
Next, let’s talk chemistry; the original pairing of Moore & John Geilgud (as butler ‘Hobson’) clicked in every scene. One of my favorite Hobson lines, “It was a pleasure to meet you, Linda; normally one must go to a bowling alley to meet a woman of your stature.” obviously wouldn’t have worked coming from Helen Mirren’s mouth – still playing ‘Hobson’, but as Arthur’s ‘nanny’ instead of his butler.
Is it acting ability that Brand is lacking, or just that his version of Arthur wasn’t lovable that generated zero chemistry between him & Mirren? I’m leaning toward the former, because his relationship with chauffer Bitterman (Luis Guzman) didn’t connect either.
Making potential bride Susan Johnson (here, played by the vastly over-rated Jennifer Garner) a greedy b*tch didn’t help – It was her father, Burt that needed to be the unlikable heavy. All I need to say as to why this Burt Johnson didn’t work is two words; Nick Nolte.
Extravagances; Why did this Arthur have a floating, magnetic bed? So that when unwanted fiance Susan came over to show Arthur her kinky side (In a metal corset, naturally) the bed, which she conveniently crawls under scoops her off the floor and attaches itself to her. Why? I asked again. So Arthur could say the 'really reaching for bit of comedy' line, "At least something in this room is attracted to you."
And every scene that they copied from the better Arthur seemed out of place – A clear mistake every time they did it. Which brings me back to my original complaint – Why didn’t they just make an entirely new story about a drunken millionaire playboy that falls in love with a commoner when his family wants him to marry for ‘prestige’? They could have called it ‘Dudley’ as a nod to the original for the idea, but re-making ‘Arthur’ didn’t work because you’re only going to invite comparisons that your new version can’t possibly win.
The original opened with Arthur driving up to two prostitutes and from the back seat of his Rolls Royce asking, “Would the one of you who’s the more attractive please step forward?” & despite being constantly drunk, Arthur was polite; “Aren’t waiters wonderful? You ask them for things and they bring them to you!” It was funny and charming right from the git-go. The new Arthur opens with Arthur in a batman costume and chauffer Bitterman in a 4 sizes too small Robin costume on their way to a fund raiser hosted by Arthur’s mother. They drive recklessly through the streets of New York and crash their batmobile. There was nothing funny or charming about any of it.
Finally, I’ll end by picking on Greta Gerwig – for some reason playing Naomi, instead of Linda (Liza Minnelli in the original) the only name change that I could tell. Linda is introduce to Arthur after stealing a tie to give to her father for his birthday & the police are forced to let her go when Arthur intervenes and tells them to put it on his tab. Naomi, although much prettier than Linda gives ‘illegal’ tours of Grand Central Station... WTF? I can’t remember the last time I witness such really awful acting. She’s very cute and I enjoyed the throw-back mini skirts she wore, but Greta is in need of acting lessons.
If you’ve never seen the original – go see Brand’s Arthur first. Then rent the ‘classic’. I’d like to know if you agree that the two versions are miles apart, or if it’s just a matter of ‘timing’ – that now is just a dumb time to put out a film with a drunken spoiled billionaire as the lead.
Other than the woman Arthur falls for being better looking, there is nothing about this remake that comes remotely close to matching the original.
If this is ‘The Best That Brand Can Do’ – he’d better go back to being the screwball side-kick because this starring role attempt is a complete failure.

The LINCOLN LAWYER

2011-04-07T02:46:00.000-07:00

“The LINCOLN LAWYER” (Matthew McConaughey & Ryan Phillippe)

If I had one complaint about this film, it’s that it is TOO slick. The courtroom scenes should have been extended to make them more believable. Matthew McConaughey’s Mick Haller questions the prostitute that filed the suit against Ryan Phillippe’s Louis Roulet and tricks her into perjuring herself for admitting that she had seen Roulet driving a car after testifying 3 questions earlier that she had never seen him in a car... Sometimes the bitches just deserve it.
True, the courtroom scenes weren’t the meat of this story, so I wouldn’t expect it to have the impact of ‘A Few Good Men’, but I would liken this film to “And Justice For All...” without the humor. ‘Lincoln’ does have some excellent actors which seemed to have made the second-raters ‘up’ their game... I won’t pick on the star because he actually does a nice job here, but it’s performances from the always reliable William H. Macey and a brief but powerful appearance from Michael Pena that help to lift this film to higher than expected expectations.
As lawyer Haller, McConaughey dominates the film as the story is basically told through his eyes and it is clearly his best acting since ‘We Are Marshall’...
A divorced alcoholic that uses his Lincoln town car as his office, Mick is both portrayed as a crooked loser and a top notched high price win at all cost defense lawyer with the ability to dazzle even higher priced corporate attorneys.
After the film establishes Mick’s renegade style of practicing law, he is asked by a courthouse friend (John Leguizamo) to assist Louis Roulet, a wealthy young man who was arrested for beating up a prostitute. We’re never quite sure how much of Roulet‘s story Mick believes, but you do get the feeling he takes the case merely because he sees a huge payoff at the end of the rainbow (& doing a favor for a wealthy family could only lead to bigger and better paydays)
Wasted is Marisa Tomei as Maggie, Mick’s ex-wife and mother of his young daughter – the pair seems only to exist as fodder for the bad guys to threaten.
In fact both supporting female characters are lackluster as Frances Fisher plays Roulet’s mother as a carbon copy rich bitch that feels as though her ‘baby’ is above the law whether he’s guilty or not... Sometimes the bitches deserve it.
Bryan Cranston does well as the police detective out to nail Haller for his unethical practices & Josh Lucas plays Ted, the D.A. during Roulet’s trial with zero flair – it wasn’t until I thought back on the film that I realized that was exactly what his character needed to be – Haller was going to try & bring as much drama to the case as possible, so Ted wanted to be the laid-back voice of reason.
I also liked Laurence Mason as Haller’s chauffer, Earl – given the job of driving Mick’s ‘office’ until his license is ‘un-revoked’ following his latest DUI. Earl always seemed too cool for the room (or Lincoln in this case)
When a burly motorcycle gang surrounds the Lincoln, Earl calmly asks, "How do you want me to play this, boss?"
It is cleverly written, doesn’t stoop to bizarre revelations that make no sense and lays out a very logical and believable path as to how Haller turns the tables on his client without breaking the lawyer/client confidentiality pact.
‘The Lincoln Lawyer’ isn’t a classic, but it is a very good film – not too far fetched but with enough twists to maintain your interest throughout.

PAUL

2011-04-04T01:35:00.000-07:00

“PAUL” (Simon Pegg, Nick Frost & (voice of) Seth Rogen)

Just as Simon Pegg was getting to the point of being given the first name, ‘Heywhateverhappenedto?’ he bounces back with what is clearly his funniest film.
‘Paul’ is exactly what I was hoping it would be – a return to the Simon Pegg that made the humorous parodies “Shaun Of The Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” (the former being the better of the two) as ‘Paul’ sends up science fiction/alien flicks in the same silly low-brow way that ‘Shaun Of The Dead’ skewered zombie films. The difference being, I laughed almost continuously at ‘Paul’.
It doesn’t start off well though. When I saw Pegg & Frost (co-writers of the script as well as co-stars) playing ‘elderly’ English nerds vacationing in America by visiting Comic-Con and every infamous UFO site in their ‘Traveling Beagle’ RV, I was worried. I thought this film wasn’t aiming at me as its target audience. But then I started laughing and I rarely stopped. Yes, this is the funniest movie since ‘The Hangover’. The question now is - will I laugh when I view it again?
Pegg & Frost are Graham & Clive; middle-aged geeks but with a goal – Clive has written a science fiction comic book (Sorry, I refuse to use the term graphic novel) with Graham’s illustrations. The cover features a female alien creature with three breasts – a bit that gets over-milked (If you’ll pardon the expression) but I have to admit I chuckled at the final “3 titties... awesome!” quip.
They show the comic to every geek they encounter, including a famous sci-fi writer played by Jeffrey Tambor.
Graham & Clive encounter every form of American misfit you can imagine but the one that changes their lives is when Paul, a stereotypical short green creature with large eyes and an ‘E.T.-like’ torso crashes in front of them.
As a CIA agent (Jason Bateman) pursues them, aided by two local agents - Paul, Graham & Clive become buddies.
Apparently Paul’s usefulness has run its course (Steven Speilberg has made a film about every one of his stories) so now they’ve decided to dissect the alien to find out how he ticks.
They are childish fart jokes and crude R-rated lines like “Get your damn hands off my (bleeping) nuts!” but they work simply because the script is so full of funny lines. It also helps that Seth Rogen is heard but not seen – as the voice of Paul it is clearly his best ‘acting’ to date.
SNL’s Kristine Wiig plays the daughter of an RV park manager who joins the trio... well, I say ‘joins’ because kidnapped is such an ugly word, and she is another bright spot, given plenty of R-rated language to spew as a deeply religious woman who is shone the light of truth via Paul’s ability to transfer his knowledge to others.
It took me a while to place John Carrol Lynch as her father since he has hair! To those who watched the Drew Carey Show, Lynch played Drew’s large, bald and gay older brother.
Like ‘Hall Pass’, the laughs are cheap and stupid - but it did make me laugh, scoring a 57 on my ‘Laugh-o-Meter’.
I told my wife as we sat in our seats, “I’m hoping this is Simon Pegg returning to what he does best.” And it was.

ANOTHER YEAR

2011-03-14T15:33:00.000-07:00

“ANOTHER YEAR” (Jim Broadbent, Ruth Sheen & Lesley Manville)

A British ‘Dramedy’, this film tells the tale of a year in the life of an elderly couple, Tom & Gerri (Jim Broadbent & Ruth Sheen)
‘Another Year’ is a character driven story that goes absolutely nowhere.
Tom has a rather boring job testing the ground for construction sites. Gerri’s job as a hospital therapist is somewhat more interesting, but after the opening scenes, it is never brought into the script again – which was also frustrating because Imelda Staunton appears in the first two scenes explaining how she is unable to sleep. Several reasons are given as to why this is happening but her character’s dilemma is never resolved – in fact her character exits the film after appearing to be the main focus of the story.
Tom and Gerri have a son, Joe (Oliver Maltman) Joe is a nice guy in his early thirties. Joe rides his bike a lot. Joe is dull.
Gerri has a man-hungry spinster friend named Mary. Now, Mary is clearly the most interesting character and actress Lesley Manville gives an impressive performance, but we soon discover that Mary is a pathetic drunk. Mary shuns the advances of Tom’s friend Ken (Peter Wight), an overweight, closer to her own age drunk in hopes that half her age, not all that slobby looking Joe will look upon her as girlfriend material instead ‘drunk old (psuedo) Aunt Mary.’ Joe is polite towards Mary basically out of pity, but Mary doesn’t ‘get’ it.
‘Another Year’ is divided up into four segments, Spring, Summer, Autumn & Winter.
I’m sure I’m not the only one in the audience that was hoping that it started with Winter and that Autumn would be the last season, but no, this uneventful story plods on & on with the audience sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for something interesting, unusual or strange to happen to these people.
Mary drops by unexpectedly when Tom & Gerri are out and Tom’s recently widowed brother Ronny (David Bradley) lets her inside. I thought, ‘OK, this is it – This is what all the boredom has been leading to – either Ronny is going to snap (due to grief) because Mary starts flirting with him and kill her; or Mary is going to snap & rape Ronny. Either way, I felt sure that something dramatically weird was going to happen... finally!
I can’t say I was disappointed when the screen went black because, at least, we were all put out of our misery. Still, I felt cheated by the fact that NOTHING out of the ordinary happens to these people. In fact, I started thinking of better titles for the movie & the one I came up with was, “Another Year In The Lives Of Ordinary People Having Ordinary Conversations About Their Ordinary Lives” . . . Ordinarily, I’d avoid a film with that title. So I guess that’s why they just cut if off at ‘Another Year’. But that’s ALL it is, ‘JUST’ another year in the life of a likable older couple & their uninteresting friends and relatives. And don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good character study – but in order to make characters come alive, something interesting has to happen to them and NOTHING INTERESTING happens to these nice people. They simply sit around and talk about food, the weather, driving a car versus taking public transportation and how dull their lives are... Oh, and wine – Lots & Lots & Lots of wine! It seemed like in every season there was an elongated scene involving the discussion of what each character felt like drinking;
“Tea, Mary? Or perhaps a spot of Chablis?” “Feel like a cup of coffee, Ken? We also have beer and wine.” “What are you drinking today, Ronny; how about a glass of Chardonnay?”
The female members of our party got off easy – they both fell asleep. While Alan Smithee (Who has come to his senses and is back to agreeing with me) & I kept our eyes glued to the screen, begging for a morsel of memorable dialogue, only to be rebuked by this Oscar nominated script for best original screenplay time & time again. And it wasn’t easy to keep your eyes on the screen at the luxurious Grand Theatre in Tacoma, since every time someone got up to use the bathroom, the screen would turn completely white when they opened the door (& when they returned!)
The label ‘dramedy’ is a misnomer here since there isn’t any dramatic moments and the comedic bits were a limited number of titters and maybe a chuckle or two.
When ‘Inception’ finally ended, I was of the opinion that the audience agreed with me that is was a boring piece of feces since no one left the theatre showing any kind of pleasure. As the crowd exited ‘Another Year’one man said to another, “I liked the first hour fine, but I found the last three to be quite boring.”
It isn't crap, like 'Inception'; the film is nicely acted, but dull. Even the drunks are friendly, but dull. And it seemed to have a running time of infinity. Once again, the viewing audience (& Alan Smithee) agrees with me.
All is right with the world.

The DILEMMA

2011-03-09T04:28:00.000-08:00

“The DILEMMA” (Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, Jennifer Connelly, Winona Ryder & Channing Tatum)

The most interesting thing about this film is the plot – or the concept of the plot, to be more precise. I’ve been in similar predicaments a few times in my life. Fortunately my dilemmas weren’t hampered by Vince Vaughn’s foolish antics. On one side you might argue that my dilemmas were void of any humor... Ron Howard’s ‘comedy’ dilemma doesn’t have much of it either.
That’s not to say it isn’t worth viewing – my wife and I had a lengthy conversation about our personal dilemmas, and after 16 years of marriage, lengthy conversations are a rare commodity. I plan to use it as a conversation starter when we’re out with other couples – asking ‘what would YOU do?’
What Vince Vaughn’s Ronny does is go way overboard in both spying on his best friend’s wife (Winona Ryder as Geneva) and agonizing over when, where & how to tell his buddy and business partner Nick (Kevin James) that his wife is cheating on him.
The subplot of Ronny & Nick’s idea to develop an electric engine that makes a loud annoying rumble was so stupid it detracted from the dilemmas dilemma.
Now, Winona isn’t the sexiest actress alive (or even in the top 50) but it made as much sense that she would marry a homely lardball like Nick as it did that Channing Tatum (as the ‘other’ man, Zip) would find her attractive enough to start a relationship with. Why Ronny acts shocked and appalled when he discovers Geneva making out with Zip is laughable – she’s married to Kevin James and Channing Tatum comes onto her; what a dilemma! Do I remain faithful to my bad boxer-faced obese husband or have an affair with this dopey hunk? Well, DUH!
The one relatively interesting aspect of this dilemma is Ronny’s relationship with girlfriend Beth (Jennifer Connelly) In his pursuit to force Geneva to confess her affair to Nick he drives a wedge between himself and the woman he wants to become his bride.
'The Dilemma' was advertised as a comedy & that is very misleading; it isn't an awful film, but as my wife said, "I was hoping to laugh once or twice."
Vince Vaughn’s rambling speeches should have died an agonizing death after ‘Couples’ Retreat’, but here he is again, babbling in the exact same manner he has in the last 4 or 5 films he’s been in.
I recently pointed out that Owen Wilson broke his string of bad comedies (Marley & Me
being an exception) with the dumb but funny ‘Hall Pass’, but ‘Wedding Crashers’ co-star Vaughn’s streak continues to grow...
In an elongated scene involving Ronny confronting Zip both characters are made to look childish, violent & stupid - but in a pathetic way, not in a humorous way.
Like I said, the best part of this film is the conversations it should stir up AFTER it is over. So wait to rent the DVD and invite a couple of couples over and relish in the ‘real’ stories your friends tell because this one isn’t even worth discussing...

HALL PASS

2011-02-28T23:47:00.000-08:00

“HALL PASS” (Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Jenna Fischer & Christina Applegate)

The four above mentioned actors are the two couples involved in this film, but ‘Hall Pass’ will forever be known as the film that gave us the absolutely gorgeous Nicky Whelan. . . Wow, what a strikingly beautiful woman - & the Australian accent just makes her even hotter.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, the stupid movie. & I’m not knocking it by calling it ‘stupid’. It’s the return of the Farrelly brothers – they excel at stupid - & this one is stupidly funny. Perhaps I was just in the mood to laugh after watching all those serious Oscar contenders (Some of which were just flat out awful) but I chuckled frequently at ‘Hall Pass’ despite realizing, ‘boy, was that dumb!’
One particular scene involved a drunken Latino girl who kept saying she wasn’t going to throw up. I’m sorry, but the sight gag made me laugh loudly. & yes, it was disgusting; disgusting & stupid – Farrelly brothers trademarks - though they haven’t made a good film since ‘Me, Myself & Irene’ in 2000.
Owen Wilson plays Rick – married to Maggie (Jenna Fischer)
Rick’s best friend is Fred (Jason Sudeikis) who is married to Grace (Christina Applegate)
After Maggie calls out Rick for openly ogling a passing girl in tight jeans, she tells Grace, who relates that she knows all about her stupid husband’s ‘trick’ of looking at where the girl will be instead of directly at her. Their friend Joy Beher tells them to give their husbands a ‘hall pass’ – a week off from marriage because every husband ‘thinks’ he could get a lot of tail if only he weren’t married.
So give them permission to be single for a week & they’ll learn how lucky they are that their wives put up with them – because every other woman – especially the hotties they ogle, don’t want to have anything to do with jerks like them.

Rick & Fred, using two of their buddies as an audience & inspiration, decide to start off hitting on chicks at Applebys. . . Then they decide to upgrade to Chilis.
While the ‘boys’ are striking out without ever swinging their bats, their wives are off on vacation meeting guys who know how to hit on ‘chicks’ married, or not. The women come to the conclusion that their husbands’ hall passes work both ways & don’t discourage their suitors.

Now, I’ve always thought Owen Wilson went into comedy because no one would take him seriously as a leading man with that unsightly, disfigured nose of his. So when he meets the extremely attractive barista Leigh (Nicky Whelan) at ‘Drips’, his jaw drops & he’s speechless. Leigh is very sexy & coquettish – but Rick just thinks, she’s like that with ALL her customers. The fact that drop dead gorgeous Leigh would find a man with Owen Wilson's nose attractive is a joke in itself, but I digress - at least he isn't as homely as a Seth Rogen or Adam Sandler, right? It's almost plausible that one of the cutest girls on the planet would show a little interst in him...

When Rick & Fred hear that their chick magnet buddy Coakley is back in town, they salivate at the opportunity to learn from the master – or at least pick up his leftovers.
The joke with Coakley’s arrival is that it’s elderly actor Richard Jenkins - & he’s very funny in the role.
My least favorite sight ‘gag’ – the schlong – is used rather graphically & although the scene had humorous intent – I don’t need to see a $5 foot long flopping around onscreen. Call me homophobic, I just don’t like to look at guys’ junk. It worked in “Walk Hard”, but that’s the only time I found male nudity to be funny.

I don’t even remember the last time I used my ‘laugh-o-meter’ but ‘Hall Pass’ scored a respectable 44 – with many of those hard, out loud laughs. Is it possible that the next time I view this film I won’t find it nearly as humorous – sure – but for right now, I have to be honest & say it made me laugh frequently even though the humor was definitely of the ‘low brow’ quality. It’s no ‘Hangover’ by any means, but it’s probably the funniest movie I’ve seen since that already classic comedy. & if nothing else, holey moley, guys, Nicky Whelan is worth the price of admission alone – I’m talking mega-adorable & like a good sport, she takes her top off. If she hadn’t, do you think I’d be praising this stupid movie as much as I have???

BARNEY'S VERSION

2011-02-21T05:05:00.000-08:00

“BARNEY’S VERSION” (Paul Giamatti & Dustin Hoffman)

At first, I thought this was going to be a dark comedy/murder mystery (due to the title) after Barney Panofsky (Paul Giamatti) is confronted by a homicide detective in a bar who tells him he’s a murderer and when the body is found it will prove his guilt. But this isn’t just Barney’s version of what happened when someone close to him is missing and Barney is found past out with two bullets missing from the gun he was holding – the film is actually Barney’s version of his life. The make-up crew should be credited as Giamatti does seem to age several years as the story is told.
What is hard to believe is that three semi-gorgeous women fall in love with and marry short, frumpy, baggy-eyed alcoholic Barney during his lifetime. But then again, since this IS Barney’s version, perhaps the wives weren’t really as attractive as the women Barney conjures up to play them in his ‘version’.
Thinking that way helps to buy the premise.
It opens in present day as we discover that Barney has an ex-wife and two grown children. He works at a television studio called ‘Totally Unnecessary Productions’ where they product totally unnecessary products (apparently)
Marc Bolan & T. Rex introduce the first flashback to 1974 where Barney & his drunken cohorts, Boogie, Leo & the black guy are carousing with the ‘1st’ Mrs. P. whom Barney married because he knocked her up. When their stillborn child comes out dark skinned, pow! there goes the black friend. And soon afterward, the 1st Mrs. P.
On to Montreal in 1975 when Barney meets an out of his league Jewish Princess (played by Minnie Driver) who for some unknown reason falls in love with & marries Barney. At their wedding reception, Barney meets his true love, Miriam Grant (Rosamund Pike)
When Barney asks who the guy with Miriam was, the 2nd Mrs. P. tells him he’s her gay cousin who pretends to be straight so he doesn’t embarrass the family.
“Better to live a lie rather than embarrass the family, sure,” Barney mutters.
So newlywed Barney begins to shower Miriam with gifts & flowers because she wrote down the score of the Stanley Cup finals game that Barney was missing due to his wedding.
Watching this tale, I knew I didn’t like Barney, I didn’t like his in-laws; his friends were hard-core alcoholics & I simply couldn’t buy into the concept that Minnie Driver would fall in love with a drunk that looked like Paul Giamatti (Even with the cute French-inspired wig)
Still, I wasn’t disliking the movie – I credit the witty dialogue. These people weren’t likable, but they said some clever snappy lines that kept me interested.
The one redeeming character was Barney’s dad, Izzy (Dustin Hoffman) an ex-cop that pokes fun at the exasperatingly Jewish In-Laws and defends his son against the homicide detective obsessed with charging Barney with murder.
Barney, it turns out, despite being a raging alcoholic that never seems to think he has a 'problem', has an extremely lucky life - for a loser.
I think I liked this movie for it's uniqueness - it reminded me at times of Michael Douglas's 'Solitary Man', except Barney is a schlub who obtains a comfortable living by lucking out.
There were a few questions I had at the end of the film, which I won’t relate here since they’d give away the ending so I’m hoping they’ll be answered in the sequel when he hear ‘Fred’s Version’.

IF I PICKED THE OSCARS . . .

2011-02-08T01:11:00.000-08:00

SICKEL & EGGBERT – IF WE PICKED THE OSCARS...

BEST PICTURE NOMINEES . . .

FAIR GAME
The FIGHTER
GET LOW
The GHOST WRITER
IRON MAN 2
The KING’S SPEECH
NOWHERE BOY
RABBIT HOLE
SECRETARIAT
SHUTTER ISLAND

BEST ACTOR NOMINEES . . .

LEONARDO DICAPRIO (Shutter Island)
MICHAEL DOUGLAS (Solitary Man)
ROBERT DUVALL (Get Low)
AARON ECKHART (Rabbit Hole)
COLIN FIRTH (King’s Speech)

BEST ACTRESS NOMINEES . . .

CATE BLANCHETT (Robin Hood)
ANNE HATHAWAY (Love & Other Drugs)
NICOLE KIDMAN (Rabbit Hole)
DIANE LANE (Secretariat)
NAOMI WATTS (Fair Game)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR . . .

CHRISTIAN BALE (The Fighter)
PIERCE BROSNAN (Ghost Writer)
BILL MURRAY (Get Low)
SAM ROCKWELL (Conviction)
GEOFFREY RUSH (King’s Speech)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS . . .

AMY ADAMS (The Fighter)
HELENA BONHAM CARTER (King’s Speech)
ANNE MARIE DUFF (Nowhere Boy)
MELISSA LEO (The Fighter)
KRISTEN SCOTT THOMAS (Nowhere Boy)
BEST DIRECTOR . . .

TOM HOOPER (King’s Speech)
JOHN CAMERON MITCHELL (Rabbit Hole)
DAVID O. RUSSELL (The Fighter)
MARTIN SCORSESE (Shutter Island)
SAM TAYLOR-WOOD (Nowhere Boy)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

DESPICABLE ME

AND THE WINNER’S ARE . . .

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS – ANNE MARIE DUFF
(runner up Melissa Leo)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR – CHRISTIAN BALE
(runner up Geoffrey Rush)
BEST ACTRESS – NICOLE KIDMAN
(runner up Naomi Watts)
BEST ACTOR - COLIN FIRTH
(runner up Leonardo DiCaprio)
BEST DIRECTOR – DAVID O. RUSSELL
(runner up the other 4 nominees)

BEST PICTURE - SHUTTER ISLAND
(runner up The King’s Speech)

COMPANY MEN

2011-02-07T07:55:00.000-08:00

“COMPANY MEN” (Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper, Maria Bello, Kevin Costner & Craig T. Nelson)

Having been a victim of ‘downsizing’ a couple of years ago I thought I would relate very closely with this film... Didn’t happen.
I’ve always gotten a chuckle out of those who make the claim that ‘Hollywood doesn’t connect with the common man’. I’ve always found there to be an abundant supply of moronic films specifically made for the common American male. But this time its true – If Hollywood (in this case writer/director John Wells) thinks that the average American that lost his job in the last few years and is struggling to make ends meet these days can relate to these $100,000+ salaried corporate bigwigs & smug board room jackasses, they (he) are (is) sadly mistaken - At least from the opinion of this struggling American male.
Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) saunters into a conference room bragging about the game of golf he played that morning (Yawn!) so it was hard to feel sorry for this arrogant jerk when he gets the axe. These bozos think they’re so important that the company couldn’t survive without them so they continue living high on the hog despite being in a country where the economy is in a definite meltdown mode.
Tommy Lee Jones plays Gene McClary – best friend of the CEO of GTX (Craig T. Nelson) Gene is indignant when Bobby is let go, but when 60 year old buddy Phil (Chris Cooper) is dismissed, Gene doesn’t seem to care that much... possibly due to the fact that his best friend also fired Gene on the same day.
There’s a scene where Gene’s wife asks if he could get one of the corporate jets to fly her girlfriends to Florida to play golf. After Gene stares at her for a reply, she says, “Fine, we’ll fly commercial.”
With a story like this, isn’t it imperative that the audience feel bad for these people?
Gene seems like a decent guy until we discover that he’s cheating on his wife & when we find out who he’s cheating with, it makes him even more unlikable (& a cringing little prick for staying with the girlfriend) Gene introduces this less-than-half-his-age woman to his grown son. “Boy, dad,” the son says, “she’s young enough to start another family with!” Then in the next sentence bemoans the fact that ‘mom’s having a rough time and is being forced to sell the house.’
Not only are these sleazy jerks hard to take, their offspring are pathetic and heartless as well..
Gene laments how he misses ‘$500 lunches & $3,000 hotel suites’... Yeah, me too... A**hole.
Meanwhile, Bobby is attending job interviews with the swagger of the guy who is actually doing the hiring; “I was making $120,000 at GTX, but I’d be willing to start for $110,000 as long as there are bonus clauses involved.”
The day after Bobby’s $30,000 severance package runs out he sells his Porsche (& we’re supposed to get teary-eyed over this?) His son has to sell his X box – How does someone making $120,000 a year not have enough in the bank to afford a game for his kid? Shortly after this, Bobby & his family move in with his mother & father – I mean, holy crap, how much does a round of golf cost these days?
Phil is the only nice guy in this mess, but he becomes a bitter drunk, thus turning him into a rather depressing character.
The only redeeming character is Kevin Costner as Bobby’s brother-in-law; a carpenter that is hard on the outside but with a soft, marshmallow center.
Being fired is a very humbling experience but it takes Bobby a long time to finally realize that he isn’t the greatest thing since 2-ply toilet paper so that even when he does turn the corner and starts becoming ‘human’, I still didn’t feel happy for him. I was glad that he finally wised up, but still felt that underneath it all was a jerk waiting to pounce yet again...

The WAY BACK

2011-01-30T21:03:00.000-08:00

“The WAY BACK” (Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris, Colin Farrell & Saoirse Ronan)

‘The Way Back’ is based on a true story – a story that sounds like it would make a fascinating movie – but the problem is, despite the remarkable feat the characters accomplish, the translation to film is kind of boring.
Based on a book titled, “The Long Walk”, that is precisely what you get here – 40% of the film is simply scenes of guys walking; walking over snowy mountains, walking thru forests, walking across deserts. They walk and they walk and they walk for 4,000 miles.
At the beginning of the film we are told how seven men escaped from a Siberian gulag in 1940 and that three of them made it to India. If we do the math that means four will perish - Except, that’s not what happens. And for me that lessened the achievement of the three that ‘survived’ the entire trek from Siberia to India.
It starts off strong, the film’s central character, Janusz (Jim Sturgess) is given up as a spy to the Nazi’s in Poland by his wife, who was obviously tortured into betraying her spouse.
Janusz is sent to Siberia. As they parade the new prisoners into the gulag they are told that escape is futile since even if they make it past the guards, there is nothing but a barren wilderness for thousands of miles and any villagers they come upon will kill them to collect a bounty on political prisoners.
In the gulag, Janusz befriends an American named Smith (Ed Harris) when asked for his first name, Smith replies, “Mister.” Getting up there in age, Smith does not want to die in prison so he joins Janusz in plotting an escape because of the Polish man’s weakness – kindness.
Also joining the party is a violent Russian thief named Valka (Colin Farrell)
When the first member of the escapees meets his demise, Valka scoffs, “Heh, one less mouth to feed.”
The other members of the group include a man with night blindness from working in the mines - along with a cook, an artist & the last man they called the jokester, though I don’t ever recall him saying anything humorous (Must have been that Polish humor that I don’t get)
You’ll enjoy this film if you like looking at scenery – which doesn't cut it for me. Although the feat is remarkable, it is still just a group of guys walking... and walking... and walking... etc, etc, etc...
Other than the elements of weather, they are never endangered. Even when a group of Huns rides down around them on horseback, the fear that something bad may happen is quickly squelched.
The group is also joined by a Polish girl, Irena (Saoirse Ronan) who tells each man a different story as to how she became lost in the forest.
‘The Way Back’ is basically ‘The Incredible Journey’ without the talking dogs & cat.
The acting is fine, with the exception of Farrell who resorts back to his pre-‘In Bruges’ style of hammy, bug-eyed acting.
I’d say part of the problem is that it’s too long (2:13) but then again, would the viewer really get the full effect of the effort if it were clipped down to 20% scenes of walking and walking and walking?
If someone were to tell me this story – taking 15-20 minutes to tell it all, I know I’d find it fascinating to listen to, but unfortunately saying someone walked 4,000 miles to freedom is much more interesting than actually watching them do it...

NO STRINGS ATTACHED

2011-01-26T09:10:00.000-08:00

“NO STRINGS ATTACHED” (Ashton Kutcher & Natalie Portman)
This is the perfect date movie . . . if you want to end the relationship.
Adam (Kutcher) meets Emma (Portman) at summer camp when they’re in their early teens. After she consoles him for being treated like a geek by the other kids, he asks her for an uncouthed favor and she simply says 'no'.
They meet again in their late teens & since Ashton doesn’t look like such a geek anymore, Emma invites him on a date. We then see Emma’s mother, a grieving widow at her husband’s gravesite, surrounded by mourners dressed appropriately in black – Except Adam who is wearing bright yellow sweats with Michigan Wolverine lettering. Some audience members snickered at this – It turned me against this film and I knew the thing didn’t stand much of a chance of winning me back. That scene wasn’t funny because NO ONE WOULD EVER DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. This (supposedly) young woman PURPOSELY RUINED HER FATHER’S FUNERAL – Made a complete mockery of her father’s death while showing a complete disregard for her mother’s devastation. Making Emma one callous bitch.
The film then turns into an episode of ‘Glee’ as we discover Adam’s job is as an assistant on the Ivan Reitman-directed TV show of singing and dancing high school students. The joke being that Reitman is the actual director of the movie. First James L. Burrows releases a total piece of crap & now Reitman sinks to his lowest level with this garbage.
By the time Adam & Emma reach their mid-thirties (& the actors actually start looking their age) they still behave like teenagers. This isn’t funny either, it’s more sad than anything else. ‘No Strings Attached’ is as meaningless as the casual sex these two immature airheads are constantly having as ‘friends with benefits’.
And the writing doesn’t help matters; within a two minute span each of the main characters asks someone, “What up?”
Whilst dining with Adam’s father (Kevin Kline as an over-the-hill one-time child star of an early 70’s sitcom called ‘Great Scott!’) Emma then has the gall to tell dad & his girlfriend (an ‘ex’ of Adam’s) that THEY’RE behaving like children.
Throughout the film Adam acts as though he can’t stand his father - hooking up with his ex-girlfriend was the last straw - yet when he hears that his father has OD’d on cough syrup, a panic-stricken Adam immediately rushes to the hospital, dumping Lucy, the well-built production assistant (Lake Bell) that adores him.
They try to make dad seem... well, I don’t know what Reitman was going for when he filmed a scene of dialogue where Kline states that he’s "58 years old and has 6 pictures of his (penis) on his phone – plus two others of someone else’s (penis)". . . I don’t normally like to use ‘text speak’ when I write, but after hearing this line I did think, “WTF?”
The only entertaining moment came for me when Adam burned a ‘period’ CD for Emma to play when it was her ‘time of the month’ – as Emma was reading off the titles, I felt certain that the obvious choice, Alice Cooper’s “Only Women (Bleed)” would start playing, but it didn’t – wasn’t even on the mix! So, to compensate, I started playing the song in my head – the long version – it was the best 5 minutes of the film.

The SOCIAL NETWORK

2011-01-24T04:15:00.000-08:00

“The SOCIAL NETWORK” (Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield & Justin Timberlake)

I was told to expect to dislike Jesse Eisenberg’s true-life character Mark Zuckerberg within the first 5 minutes of ‘The Social Network’, but that didn’t happen... it took about 2 minutes to just dislike him which gradually turns to a deep seeded hatred as the film progresses.
The Nerd Zuckerberg is shown conversing with a young woman in a pub. Zuckerberg talks at a rate of 2,000 words per minute and says virtually nothing. As he bounces from subject to subject without slowly his breakneck speaking speed I wondered why this girl would subject herself to this inane torture. I assumed she was a student Zuckerberg was tutoring so she had to associate with this clown – when it is revealed that the couple are dating, I was more appalled by her than him – Why didn’t she simply get up and walk away from this jackass?
I worked at a sportsradio station for 18 years in Seattle, so when Zuckerberg ‘invents’ Mitch’s Bigger Dance (Matching two females against one another & voting which one is hotter) I wasn’t impressed – Mitch was doing it years before Zuckerberg & although I like him, I would never consider Mitch to be a ‘genius’ for coming up with this idea – the boys at Harvard, however, would.
In the first half hour or so of ‘The Social Network’ I knew what was going on, but I really didn’t care – it was meaningless to me. ‘Inventing’ a website similar to several others didn’t strike me as brilliance – it was boring.
The younger generation that actually uses these communication sites to post unnecessary communiqués might have been fascinated by it – but I couldn’t fathom why – it really isn’t a mind-numbing or world changing invention, so what’s the big deal? (& I’m talking about websites where people post what they’re having for lunch & what they’re planning to have for dinner later on – not the entire www . world)
The characters were speaking English, but I didn’t understand half of what they were saying – I began to realize why no one wanted to bad mouth this film – they were afraid it would make them appear to be stupid... I don’t have that problem. I often found myself thinking “Who Cares?” after most scenes because I certainly didn’t.
So the actual inventing (or ripping off the idea) of Facebook is, as I expected, a dull, uninteresting story – what saves this film from being a complete disaster is what happens afterward; when The Nerd Zuckerberg goes from being an annoying know-it-all into a complete Douche Bag (& yes, I meant to use capital letters because this is what I would have nicknamed Zuckerberg if I had known the guy – D. B. for short)
The story perks up when Nerd Zuckerberg interfaces with another professional rip-off artist, Sean Parker (Dusty Craterlake) and they begin to scheme as to how to totally screw over the only friend Zuckerberg had, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield)
Fellow Harvard student Eduardo provided the financial backing for Zuckerberg’s dream of ripping off the Winklevoss Twins’ idea of creating a social network on the internet. In D. B.’s mind the fact that he ‘tweaked’ the Winklevoss plan made it his domain.
The movie bounces between flashbacks and a deposition involving Douche Bag’s & Saverin’s lawyers – That wasn’t annoying, in this case it helped the viewer figure out what was going on. At times, Zuckerberg actually shows some slight compassion for the friend he completely f---ed over, but those moments are brief and don’t erase the fact that Zuckerberg is, underneath that mindless nerdy chattering robot brain, still a Douche Bag.
His ex-girlfriend (the one from the opening scene, and another victim of D.B.’s egomaniacal callousness) tells him when he attempts to win her back, “You think everything you have to say is so brilliant that it must be shared by everyone.”
Which perfectly describes this guy. Sure, his knowledge of computers and hacking and the fact that his fingers go whizzing across a keyboard almost as fast as he talks is impressive, but what did he actually ‘invent’? Something that was already available - which he stole, tweaked & used to make himself one of the world’s wealthiest Douche Bags.
And it all started from blogging . . . something HAS to be done to stop these guys from just writing whatever they feel about people... what they’re eating... or movies that they’ve seen. It just isn’t healthy for society to be hanging on these jerks every word. . .
So I’m thinking Taco Time for lunch. Do you LIKE THIS? Do you want to leave a COMMENT?

RABBIT HOLE

2011-01-18T04:30:00.000-08:00

“RABBIT HOLE” (Nicole Kidman & Aaron Eckhart)

This film broke my cardinal rule of ‘if you can’t relate to the characters, it is difficult to care about what happens to them’ because I couldn’t relate to this couples’ situation & yet I became emotionally involved in their predicament.
I’d say the main reason for this phenomenon was the acting – Nicole Kidman has never been better, she replaces Naomi Watts as my frontrunner for Best Actress with her magnificent portrayal of Becca Corbett; a woman that 8 months prior to the beginning of the film tragically lost her 4 year old son, Danny, when the youngster chased after his dog when he ran into the street.
The story centers on Becca and husband Howie (Aaron Eckhart – also in a career best performance) but includes a small circle of supporting players, the most significant being the teenaged boy, Jason (Miles Teller) that, through no fault of his own, struck and killed little Danny.
Becca and Howie deal with the death separately in almost every fashion – Howie enjoys viewing the last video he made of Danny on his phone; Becca wants to remove any reminders of Danny’s existence because it's simply too painful for her. Howie desperately tries to ‘get past’ the tragedy while Becca distances herself from him and attempts to display a cold veneer from everyone in her life.
Dianne Wiest plays Becca’s mother and she too is perfectly cast – she lost her son/Becca’s brother when he was 31, but in no way as painfully as her daughter. Still, mom insists on bringing up ‘Arthur’ whenever Danny’s passing is mentioned.
Howie wants to put their lives back together, while Becca seems to want to embrace the misery.
Becca agrees to attend a group therapy meeting with other couples that have lost a child. As one couple struggle to talk through their method of coping by saying “God needed an angel so he sent for our little girl” – Becca breaks out in a mocking laugh, espousing, “Why do you feel the need to say that? Why doesn’t God just make another angel? After all, he’s God!” . . . needless to say Becca doesn’t attend anymore meetings.
But Howie does and he gravitates toward Gabby (Sandra Oh – Should I say it again? -Clearly her best performance, though that’s not saying much)
Becca meanwhile begins stalking a young boy she sees on a school bus but the puzzling behavior is soon revealed (& it isn’t because she thought the boy looked like an older version of Danny)
“Rabbit Hole” packs an emotional wallop because these characters are so expertly portrayed they force you to care about them even if you’ve never lost a child. Throughout most of the film I felt empathy for Howie as he tries time and time again to both get passed the tragic event and yet still keep Danny’s memory alive while his spouse is taking the complete opposite route; putting up a stoic front while wallowing in pain on the inside and trying to erase Danny from their memories.
Yet, I cared about them both.
There were times when I wanted to hold Becca & times when I wanted to slap her. When she verbally attacks her mother for lumping Arthur’s death with Danny’s, I was behind her 100% - but when she confronts a mother in a supermarket for not caving in to the child’s candy demands, I was – at first shocked - & then displeased with her reaction.
Howie doesn’t skate through without his moment of despicable behavior either when he encounters the kid that accidentally ran over Danny – Mind you, this boy is pretty much blameless for the accident; he was just driving down the wrong street at the wrong time when a dumb kid darted in front of him – the way Howie treats this poor guilt ridden kid made me want to punch his lights out.
It’s an emotional ride that flies on different levels but each scene seemed to have meaning; each conversation seemed poignant – there were no wasted scenes. Unlike ‘Blue Valentine’, I CARED about these people. I WANTED a happy ending for them, though that didn’t have a chance in hell of happening.
When the film ended I sat in my seat unable to speak. My wife looked at me waiting for my comments and all I could utter was, “I can’t talk right now.”
If you want to see a very real uncompromising drama about a very human couple go see “Rabbit Hole”
I hope you have the same reaction that I did because just thinking about the ending – and the film in general - has my eyes welling with tears and a lump crawling up my throat...
& I couldn’t ‘relate’ to these people at all.

127 HOURS

2011-01-11T00:53:00.000-08:00

“127 HOURS” (James Franco)

“Well, there’s 127 hours of my life that I’ll never get back.”
That was my comment to Alan Smithee and his ‘partner’ when ‘127 Hours’ mercifully reached its conclusion.
James Franco one of the favorites for Best Actor? Are you joking? Where’s the acting challenge? He stands in front of a rock for an hour babbling to himself as he stares at his mini-camcorder. And he doesn’t say anything all that interesting. The one moment I went ‘Hey, that was cool – I liked that!’ lasted for less than a fraction of a second. A flash of lightning reveals a blow-up doll in the likeness of Scooby-Doo and I got excited that something humorous or interesting might take place... but it didn’t.
I had little interest in seeing this film, but I decided I had to see James Franco's performance so I would know whether ot not it was Oscar worthy.
Franco plays Aron Ralston, a true life arrogant airhead without much of a personality and obviously no friends or acquaintances that care about him (other than the mother he ignores)
The opening sequence was one of the most annoying ever; loud headache inducing ‘music’ invades your ears while the screen fills with annoying scenes of bright flashing lights & super-fast motion cars driving at night with their headlights glaring in your face. Then we see Aron, a grown man riding his bike like a child; a dumb, ignorant child at that – and of course, the musical noize continues to grate on one’s nerves. The musical selections/score never improves so I certainly hope that whoever had the job of picking the music for this never gets hired again – at least not for any project I might want to see.
Aron is so in love with himself he comes across as pathetic – he is constantly taking pictures of himself as he bikes and hikes his merry way thru a lonesome, useless life.
As everyone knows, the title comes from how long Aron was trapped in a crevice with his arm wedged between a solid wall of rock and a large boulder. Most of the film consists of extreme close-ups of arrogant Aron talking into his camcorder.
Once in a while, a girl appears – the one that got away – but we were never introduced to her so she means nothing to the viewer.
The extreme close-ups used here didn’t bother me as much as they did in ‘Blue Valentine’ because Aron isn’t conversing with anyone else – what bothered me was that he was just as bland and boring as the couple in ‘B. V.’
A comparison can be made between this & ‘Into The Wild’ (another true story from a couple of years ago starring Emile Hirsch) in that they are both about idiots who put themselves in dangerous situations. The difference being (& the reason I liked ‘Into The Wild’ and hated this) Sean Penn told the whole story – we were shown why Chris McCandless left home and the interesting people he encountered along his way ‘into the wild’ – All we find out about Aron Ralston is he’s an immature loser who has one undeniable talent – He knows what kind of batteries last the longest because his camcorder doesn’t go dead until hour 120-something!
Emile wasn’t even nominated for Best Actor despite putting himself thru torture to achieve a realistic look as to how his character appeared by the end of his journey – All Franco had to do was stop using Chapstick for a few weeks. Every person in our party noticed that after 5+ days of being trapped in a canyon, Aron’s beard didn’t grow at all – His lips got chapped, but the beard refused to cooperate with reality.
As Alan Smithee’s learned ‘partner in life’ commented; “The movie glorified cockiness and stupidity – how is that a good message to send?”
Besides commenting on why I decided to make him sound gay, I’m sure Mr. Smithee will entertain us with his comments on this ‘disaster’ flick.
THIS time I’m not alone in my opinion that this so-called Oscar caliber film sucked donkey balls. So those of you that are going to challenge me for disliking this movie, be prepared - for I have backing this time and you can’t say it’s just because Reid dislikes everything the American sheep likes.
I get chastised for seeing garbage I know will be crap and how I should be seeing ‘quality’ films like ‘Black Swan’, ‘Inception’ & ‘127 Hours’. Well, I gave those 3 Oscar contenders a D-, D & D+ which pretty much assures that all 3 will be in my Bottom 10 for 2010; right down there with ‘The Bounty Hunter’, “The A-Team’ & ‘You Again’.
So I guess the old saying is true – Crap is in the eye of the beholder (& ‘Critics don’t know crap’ also applies)
Oh, and A. Smithee’s ‘partner’ is the very lovely and upbeat Dr. P. – One of the most cheerful people I know. But this dreadful tale even brought her down. I just said it stunk, while she said it ‘F-ing’ stunk!

BLUE VALENTINE

2011-01-11T00:38:00.000-08:00

“BLUE VALENTINE” (Ryan Gosling & Michelle Williams)

This is the type of project you wonder why anyone would green light.
It is sad, depressing, poorly told & relatively boring.
Once some dreary executive gave it the thumbs up, they bring in a director who decides practically every scene should be shot in EXTREME close ups & I do mean extreme; most conversations are filled with the face of the speaker from the eyebrows to lower lip portions of their faces. It gave this very realistic film an unrealistic feel because people don’t have conversations fractions of inches away from their companions’ faces.
Then they bring in another annoying habit – let’s bounce around in time so no one knows when each scene is actually taking place in chronological time. This is a very simple story of a couple from courtship to break up & yet for the first half-hour or so, I had no idea what was going on. My wife, who rarely utters a word during a film, turned to me & said, “I’m confused.” And all I could do was shrug my shoulders in agreement, even though I had caught on to the pre-marriage/post-marriage flip flopping by looking at Ryan Gosling’s hairline – Receding, they are a married couple – Full head of hair, they’re back in time to when they were dating. So the story gets jumbled as well - you see one scene where they appear to care for one another a great deal and Ryan’s character, Dean, is a sweet guy who’d do anything for Michelle Williams’ Cindy – to a balding, bitter, chain smoking resentful Dean that has a quick temper and blames Cindy for everything that goes wrong in their lives. Cindy, on the other hand never really commits to Dean so she goes from ‘needing’ him but not sure if she wants him to being unsure as to whether or not she needs him, but very sure of the fact that she doesn’t ‘want’ him anymore. So they cohabitate basically for the sake of a child that Dean knows isn’t biologically his. The little girl doesn’t know this, of course, since her mother married Dean while pregnant with her.
Then let’s bring in my old friend Mr. Boredom. In the first half hour of ‘Blue Valentine’ the family dog is missing, Dean gets a job, then the dog is found... that’s about all that happens – In the FIRST HALF HOUR. I began thinking of better titles and came up with ‘You Are Wearily Numb’ – or ‘YAWN’ for short.
The movie basically consists of one boring bland conversation/argument after another. The lone highlight is a funny, but sick little joke that Cindy tells Dean to prove she has a sense of humor (During one of their dating-era scenes)
To describe this film scene by scene it would go – Here’s a dysfunctional couple / Now they’re in love / Now they’re dysfunctional / Now they like each other, sort of... Repeat a dozen times – The End.
The acting isn’t bad – Gosling rises above the material, but despite a valiant effort, I don’t think he should be considered for a Best Actor nod because the film is such a let down. Other than the joke she tells, Cindy doesn’t emote much; I truly thought she was going to wind up committing suicide because she seemed to get no enjoyment from life. By the film’s end I felt that bad things kept happening to Cindy because Cindy doesn’t attempt to get any fun out of life. This is the kind of person most of us would rather not have to socialize with – so why make a movie about such a person? Watching her purposely suck all the joy out of life made me so depressed, I almost forgave Dean for becoming the jerk that resorts to violence at the film’s climax.
“Blue Valentine” is bland, boring and extremely depressing to watch – What’s not to love? I wondered if they shot it realistically (no extreme close-ups) & told it as it happened; cute couple fall in love without really having anything in common and then the nice guy who weds the pregnant girl slowly watches his marriage disintegrate – If THAT would have made it more interesting and less depressing?
But since it is mostly uninteresting and depressing, I don’t think so...
The pedophile joke was funny though.

MEGAMIND / LEGEND Of The GUARDIANS

2011-01-11T00:33:00.000-08:00

“MEGAMIND” / “LEGEND OF THE GUARDIAN (The Owls That Give A Hoot)”

Two cartoon movies that I went to see but didn’t have much to say about;
‘Megamind’ is okay – I gave it a C. It isn’t all that funny, but it isn’t exceptionally dumb – or terribly unfunny like ‘Shrek 4ever After’ or the ‘Madagascar’ films.
Younger children should enjoy it – it’s aimed at them. Although it followed the same path as ‘Despicable Me’ it doesn’t come close to being as entertaining because it has no adult lines.
Will Ferrell’s bad guy, the alien known as Megamind decides to change his stripes when Brad Pitt’s MetroMan (think ‘Superman’ clone) is accidentally incapacitated
by one of Megamind’s villainous plots. Realizing it’s no fun being evil when there’s no good guy to counteract his schemes, Megamind secretly turns into a hero only to find he’s somewhat of a failure at that as well. Like I said, it’s OK, but if you’re 12 or older, don’t expect to laugh that much.

I gave ‘The Cartoon Owls That Give A Hoot’ a higher grade of C+, probably because it was a more serious cartoon than ‘Megamind’. Slights can be made since it follows the same premise as ‘Avatar’ (which was a rip-off of ‘Ferngully’) in that a ‘tree’ represents a heavenly safe haven and evil owls are plotting to over take it.
I liked the storyline better here, possibly because it was filled with talking owls, which I felt was a bit of a novelty; but also it was ‘classy’ – the animation was excellent – I didn’t think a cartoon about owls would work since they don’t have a lot of movement in the facial area. They made each owl different somehow so you could tell them apart – sort of like the minions in ‘Despicable Me’ except the birds weren’t the least bit funny (But they were fluffy!)
So ‘The Legend Of The Guardians’ is worth seeing if you’re a fan of good animation – about halfway thru the film I had to remind myself that these weren’t real owls! The story is an uplifting one – yes, it’s your usual good-vrs-evil fare - but hey, they’re owls and they’re talking with English accents! That’s the best way to describe it, really – it’s a quality animated film that you really can’t say anything bad about.
Though I wouldn’t call it exceptional, it was a pleasurable enough experience viewing the cartoon owls that gave a hoot. By the way, I call it that because I don’t know how to spell or pronounce Ga’hoole...

The KING'S SPEECH

2011-01-06T02:52:00.000-08:00

“The KING’S SPEECH” (Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush & Helena Bonham Carter)

When I first heard about this film (from dbm) I thought it would be the type of ‘art house’ rubbish that apparently I can’t stand (according to movie luva)
In some ways it is that – any story involving Britain’s royal family is going to be snobbish, there’s no way around it – and in the beginning I didn’t like Helena Bonham Carter’s Duchess of York, nor Colin Firth’s Duke. They thought they were better than everyone else. ‘Common’ people shouldn’t even be allowed to gaze upon them, let alone associate with someone of their superior bloodline. So when Elizabeth (Bonham Carter) engages Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) to be her husband’s speech therapist and help to cure his stuttering problem, she acts as though Mr. Logue should be honored to help a member of the royal family and not expect to be paid for his efforts. I sneered at her every time she stuck her snooty nose in the air as though Lionel’s abode had a distasteful odor that her pristine nostrils shouldn’t have to inhale. I then prepared myself to dislike this film as much as I disliked the Duchess.
Then Colin Firth appears as the Duke, second son of King George V and he’s an even bigger snob than his stuck-up wife... until he speaks. ‘Bertie’ (as Lionel calls him, much to his dismay) has a very pronounced stutter. “Know any jokes?” Lionel asks.
“T-t-t-timing isn’t my s-strong s-s-suit,” the Duke replies. Suddenly, the Duke appears human and almost likable.
That’s what separates ‘The King’s Speech’ from other ‘historical’ films involving the Royal family – it has a very pronounced sense of humor – One might even call it a snob/com.
Lionel bets the Duke that he can have him reciting Shakespeare without stammering during their first lesson. He hands his royal highness a copy of ‘Hamlet’ (Piglet’s father) and then places a set of headphones upon the Duke’s head with loud orchestral music playing.
“I can’t hear a bloody word I’m saying!” Bertie yells.
“Surely a Prince’s brain knows what its mouth is doing?” Lionel asks.
“You’re obviously not well acquainted with Princes, are you?” the Prince smirks.
Firth and Rush are outstanding; especially Colin as the stuttering ‘man who would be king’ – they play off of one another effortlessly. When the future King tells Logue he’s ‘peculiar’ – Lionel responds, “I’ll take that as a compliment.”
This film works because the ‘common’ speech therapist doesn’t accept that members of the royal family are any better than anyone else – Yet, at the same time, he WANTS to help the Duke conquer his impediment because that is what he’s paid to do.
Slowly, begrudgingly, ‘Bertie’ sees that Lionel is not only an excellent speech therapist, but an advantageous advisor as well – Did the royal family begin to lose a bit of that snootiness because King George VI brought Lionel Logue into the palace to guide him through his many speeches during WWII?
Sure, it’s reminiscent of ‘Driving Miss Daisy’ in storyline, but that film overcame its title character’s prejudice to make her lovable as well.
My complaints are few and miniscule; Guy Pearce seemed quite bland as King George V’s eldest son who gives up the throne after his father’s death to marry a divorced American woman (Gasp!) For all the controversy surrounding King Edward’s promiscuous behavior which leads to his abdicating of the throne, Pearce didn’t play the role with any pizzazz. And Timothy Spall played Winston Churchill like he was channeling the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock instead. I kept waiting for him to drawl, “Good evening...”
Yes, the critic that hates ‘art house’ movies found one he enjoyed thoroughly in ‘The King’s Speech’ and the chief reason is the humor.
I have been accused lately of not liking the movies that EVERYONE else likes.
I recently read a list of the top grossing films of 2010 & yes, I thought most of them were junk – I don’t see how anyone could think that ‘Toy Story 3’ is a better cartoon than “Despicable Me’, but I guess that’s what separates me from the sheep.
It wasn’t my idea to start writing movie reviews – I was asked to do it at the radio station I once worked for to simply add a little substance to the station’s website. From the beginning I said that I wasn’t a professional critic – I’m a normal movie fan that isn’t going to favor foreign films or stuffy crap that usually wins Oscars (Hoity Toity art house flicks and those dreadful musicals) I wanted to write for the ‘commoner’ – to give an honest opinion on the types of movies we regular schmucks go to see. Along the way I’ve been enticed to see films that I normally would avoid because ‘someone’ wants to see what I would write about it (thank goodness I never gave in & paid money to see ‘Borat’)
But I have learned that I’m not a commoner; Commoners like car chases & explosions & movies that look keen. So instead I present my thoughts using my own unique niche (I hope) and even though you may totally disagree with what I’ve said about a film you enjoyed, you still came to this blog to see what I had to say about it because you’re not going to get your run-of-the-mill review. I appreciate comments from my regulars and encourage anyone that hasn’t added their opinion to please do so.
Movie Luva is probably my favorite because she has on more than one occasion said that she went to see a film based on what I had written about it (& enjoyed them)
So I have a question for her – You wrote that you knew if I went to see ‘Black Swan’ that I wouldn’t like it – Did you think that I would love ‘The King’s Speech’? Because, until I saw the trailer, I had no interest in it whatsoever – Now, I hope it wins Best Picture. Because it’s the only one being touted as a contender that I liked; along with ‘The Fighter’ – but I was more impressed with Christian Bale’s acting than I was in the overall film. And I would be shocked if Colin Firth doesn’t win for Best Actor & Geoffrey Rush should finish second (behind Bale) for Supporting Actor. So, M. L., did you see THAT coming?

BLACK SWAN

2011-01-03T00:48:00.000-08:00

“BLACK SWAN” (Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Barabara Hershey & Vincent Cassel)

I can describe this film perfectly in just two words; Awe & Full.
This is the worst movie of 2010, hands down – it is one of the biggest loads ever to be shoved into a dumpster & the critics are all raving it as a Best Picture contender?
It’s because it’s snooty – It’s about snooty ballerinas & the snooty ballet & there isn’t much more to it than that.
I was bored 1 minute into it watching Natalie Portman’s Nina Sayers tie on her snooty ballerina slippers - & this isn’t a one time occurrence, we have to sit thru quite a few scenes involving Nina and her slippers.
Other than some snooty French guy (Vincent Cassel) putting together a stripped down version of ‘Swan Lake’, there is no storyline – Just skinny women flitting around on their toes pretending to be birds. Note to the filmmakers – birds don’t have toes & even if they did they wouldn’t waste their lives standing up on the tips of them – they’d fly off; especially if they were cast in this piece of s---.
From the beginning Nina always looks frightened and on the verge of tears – In EVERY FREAKIN’ SCENE she’s this way – so when she starts to ‘melt down’, there really isn’t much of a change. I found Portman’s acting in this so bad it was laughable. This film is like ‘Showgirls’ with ballerinas instead of strippers. & the worst part is – there’s no nudity!
Nina is void of a personality – always looking frightened & on the verge of tears tends to make a person unpleasant to be around. She has no life – she lives with her overly protective mother (Barbara Hershey) who treats her like a 10 year old. Someone like Nina would never reach any level of success as this story suggests because she’s too high strung and unable to control her emotions under any circumstance. She’s sad, pathetic and creepy.
We’re supposed to feel Nina’s torment because the overly dramatic score tells us ‘Oh My Gawd, This A Poignant, Dramatic Moment!’
Nina enters the hospital room of Beth (Winona Ryder) an over-the-hill ballerina that was hit by a car. Nina lifts the covers as Beth lies sleeping and sees a brace on her leg – the loud score builds momentum as Nina lifts another section and sees . . . a laceration!!!!
Nina flees from the hospital looking frightened and on the verge of tears while the score pounds in our ears that this is indeed a horrifying moment and we all need to hold our breath until Nina reaches safety – Oh, the brace... oh the laceration...
oh the humanity!
How much more of this can she (& we) endure?
Then there’s the dance rehearsal scenes; I counted 171 of them before I became bored and stopped counting. I believe ‘Black Swan’ just might be the dullest movie ever made.
About an hour into this travesty, there’s a scene involving an old man on a bus that made me laugh. Then dance rehearsal scene #88 followed and I was bored again.
Then to relieve the viewer of the monotony of dance rehearsals, they throw in a disco scene involving a long sequence of strobe light dancing. Wonderful! Now I’m bored AND I have a headache...
Mila Kunis, as in all of her movies, is the best thing about this film. The problem with Mila Kunis’ film career? She’s yet to make one decent movie. She’s great, but the films suck. (Book Of Eli, Date Night, Forgetting Sarah Marshall... am I forgetting anything good she’s been in?)
Now the weird mother-daughter relationship that develops here might have been interesting in a different, less boring setting but with all the elements (meaning; dance rehearsal scenes) the extremely uncomfortable ‘Mommie Dearest’ plot becomes boring as well. But Nina’s revolving door of traumatizing scenes that may or may not have actually taken place happen so frequently it reaches the point where the entire plot seems like a drug induced fairy tale and it fails to excite because it’s all so stupid.
There’s one scene where Nina rushes into the bathroom and tries to puke, but can’t...
I could relate because I felt the same way.
Anyone that thinks this dance rehearsal deserves an Oscar nomination is obviously a fan of watching other people dance and I just don’t understand how anyone could find that entertaining. And the fact that Natalie Portman is supposedly the ‘favorite’ to win Best Actress is utterly ridiculous – Personally, I thought she laid an egg.

TRUE GRIT

2010-12-27T09:22:00.000-08:00

“TRUE GRIT” (Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon & Hallie Steinfeld)

Remaking ‘True Grit’ wasn’t a bad idea in my mind – it would be nice to see what actors that could actually ‘act’ could do with those roles – but when I saw the trailer for the Coen Brothers ‘take’ on the horribly acted 1969 western, I was unimpressed. Most of the scenes in the preview were the same as the ‘69 version – virtually word-for-word.
Still, I was assured that this would be ‘better’ than the original because the Coen’s were going to stick closer to the novel from which it came.
When the film ended, my wife said, “I don’t remember if I've ever seen the original...” And I said, “You just did.”
The trailer wasn’t misleading – this is the same story, same dialogue – Yes, the only improvement is the acting is better – but not THAT much better. With the notable exception of Bridges over John Wayne – but we all knew that was going to be significant.
What I discovered however is that I had been misguided in my harsh criticism of Glen Campbell’s performance as LeBoeuf, the Texas Ranger. In the early scenes, Matt Damon seemed just as uncomfortable as Campbell and I realized, it wasn’t just bad acting on Glen’s part - it was bad acting combined with bad dialogue. Now, something different happens to LeBoeuf mid-way thru the re-make and Damon up’s his performance in the second half of the film – but the problem with this entire project is poorly written dialogue and an unrealistic main character with 14 year old Mattie Ross (played this time by an actual 14 year old, Hallie Steinfeld)
It would be stretching it to say that a 21st century 14 year old girl could speak as eloquently and with such a wide breath of knowledge as Mattie (she knows Latin too!)
but this story is set in the 19th century which makes the character implausible. Yes, it’s cute and clever when Mattie talks over the heads of every adult she encounters but it isn’t realistic. Her droning way of speaking doesn’t lend itself to a child either. I kept wondering, ‘Are all of the children in Yell County this uber-intelligent?’
The only part that worked for me and that would make me say it’s worth seeing is Bridges’ take on Rooster Cogburn – though the character wasn’t too far removed from The Big Lebowski’s ‘Dude’ – Jeff is still fun to watch as the drunken one-eyed U.S. Marshall whose theory is ‘bringin’ ‘em in dead is much easier than bringin’ ‘em back alive’.
Josh Brolin as the ‘coward’ Tom Cheney and Barry Pepper as ‘lucky’ Ned Pepper pretty much say & do the exact same things that the original characters said & did, so why even mention them?
One thing that struck me as odd – In the original there’s a scene where one bad guy chops off the fingers of another bad guy (Moon & Quincy, but don’t ask me which was which) I remember the scene being very graphic as they showed the blade slicing off the fingers. In the re-make, 40 years later, how sad is it that they had to cut away from the ‘gory’ part of the scene in order to maintain a PG-13 rating.
This is another thing that made me leery of this version – If they were really going to tell the true gritty story using Jeff Bridges as the drunken disagreeable Marshall, shouldn’t it have an ‘R’ rating so Cogburn could let the curse words flow? Even though Bridges is entertaining in the second coming of Rooster, I felt it would have been more so if they had allowed him to be more ‘realistic’. I seem to be finding a lot of films that irritate me by not being ‘real’. Some would argue that you go to films to lose yourself in the make believe worlds of celluloid heroes, so I guess that I just go against the grain because I’m not sheep-ish. If you’re going to tell a story about real people living in the real world, then by Gawd you’d better make them believable, dammit!
Famed bad director Alan Smithee had a problem with Rooster’s treatment of Little Blackie at the end of the film – it wasn’t logical for the Marshall not to realize by doing what he did, he’d end up carrying the girl for several miles and she was more likely to die that way. But I’d argue that it made some sense because of how the horse swam across a river with the girl in tow – Blackie, like Cogburn was going to do whatever it took to get the girl to safety. Because of that, it isn’t a bad story – sure, I got emotional watching the tough as nails Marshall doing whatever it took to save ‘sister’ (as he called Mattie, completely dissing John Wayne’s Cogburn who called her ‘little sister’) but then the Coen’s added an epilogue that didn’t make any sense at all and as Mr. Smithee pointed out the ‘25 years later’ span they added meant that Matt Damon’s LeBoeouf was in his mid-to-late 40’s at the time of the ‘trek’ to bring in Tom Cheney. I didn’t mind there being an epilogue, in fact, I welcomed it as something ‘fresh’ but it was so poorly thought out it became a stupid addendum.
One of the biggest jokes in Oscar history came when they gave John Wayne the Best Actor award for ‘True Grit’. Since Jeff Bridges played the role a thousand times better than Wayne, he should be a sure thing to win back-to-back Oscars, right?

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

2010-12-27T09:15:00.000-08:00

“HOW DO YOU KNOW?” (Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson & Jack Nicholson)

How do you know if the movie you’re about to watch sucks? You’ll know when you see ‘How Do You Know?’
How do you know when one of your favorite actors, an iconic actor’s actor has lost his touch? You’ll know when you see ‘How Do You Know?’
How do you know when a movie that’s advertised as a comedy isn’t the least bit funny? You’ll know when you see ‘How Do You Know?’

Oh, how do I loathe thee, ‘How Do You Know?’ Let me count the ways...

At first I thought perhaps I’d set my expectations of being entertained by this cast too high but when I realized more than a half an hour had gone by and I hadn’t laughed at a single line - didn’t even cracked a smile, I knew I was watching a crappy film. With James L. Brooks at the helm, it was reasonable for me to expect, at the very least, a mildly amusing film.
Paul Rudd’s likeability rating plummets here – in the past he’s had an uncanny ability to raise the bar on the material he’s given just because the guy is so darned likeable, but an even bigger disappointment is Jack Nicholson. It seems as though after being snubbed for Best Supporting Actor in ‘The Departed’, Jack has taken the stance of ‘F’ all of you, I’m not even going to try anymore! He wanders into scenes looking like he’s forgotten his lines. A possible reason for this is he remembers that the lines he was given to say aren’t humorous so he’s trying to think of something witty to say on the fly but since his character is such a bland butthead he can’t come up with anything appropriate.
The main problem here are the unrealistic characters – they all have strong ‘quirks’; which is normally a good thing, you want your characters to be unique – but none of these characters behave like actual human beings so they aren’t relatable.
Paul Rudd is George. In the opening scenes George is dumped by his girlfriend and loses his lucrative job with his father’s company because his ineptness has lead to a fraud indictment. Dad (Jack) seems torn because he wants to help his son, but can’t because he is forbidden by the company lawyers from having any contact with him.
Reese Witherspoon’s Lisa is even more pathetic; she’s a 31 year old whose ‘job’ is playing for the USA’s women’s Olympic softball team... I wasn’t aware that you could make a living by playing non-professional women’s softball. Her life is shattered when she doesn’t make the final cut and is kicked off the team. I’m sorry, but I had zero sympathy for this woman – besides the unrealistic fact that there isn’t a single woman in America that makes a living from playing on the Olympic softball team – I’m quite certain that in the real world those ladies all have actual jobs where they earn enough money to survive and the softball team is more or less their hobby - but to still be having softball as your ‘occupation’ at age 31? They could at least have shown her endorsing a product or two to make it more believable.
Owen Wilson plays Matty (not Alou) a relief pitcher for the Washington Nationals.
Lisa meets Matty shortly before going on a blind date with George. Shortly after her blind date with George, Lisa accepts Matty’s invitation to move in with him. This is a man she barely knows, yet is willing to become his live-in lover at the drop of a hat.
Even more bewildering is the blind date with George – they’re both miserable, so Lisa comes up with the brilliant suggestion that they not speak during their date – Just eat and call it a night. George ACTUALLY thinks this is brilliant and he falls hopelessly in love with Lisa simply because she didn’t want to hear about his troubles because she had so many of her own. Like I said, quirky people, but not funny nor entertaining.
The one time I chuckled was when Matty comes home to find Lisa in their apartment with George. Matty, in his boring babbling way, tells Lisa he’s not happy with her bringing strange men into ‘his’ apartment. Lisa storms out leaving the two men standing in the doorway. Matty says, “I think I just blew it.” George replies, “Not from my point of view.”
That SHOULD have been the springboard to turn this story into something interesting by developing a grudge match between the men as they try to one-up each other to impress and win Lisa – Instead they just go about their boring little lives being milquetoast pansies.
How do you know you should avoid this movie? You’ll know when you finish reading my review of “How Do You Know?” Which you have.

The FIGHTER

2010-12-20T02:55:00.000-08:00

“The FIGHTER” (Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams & Melissa Leo)

Once every few years (or so) an actor comes up with a performance that transcends your ‘normal’ great performances – When the screen went blank at the end of ‘The Fighter’, I asked my wife, “Do you thin we just watched an Oscar winning performance?” & her answer was, “I thought Amy was good.” - which brought me back to realizing that no one else seems to view films the same way I do. The regular commentators on this blog are much better-rounded than I am in what they look for in a film – they’ll make comments on the cinematography and the lighting of scenes – even the director matters more to them than it does to me. I can’t see the director, so why do I care who he is?
My biggest criteria are acting & story; and what blows me away is when an actor ‘becomes’ his character and yes, the further that character is from the actor’s natural persona (& voice) the more impressive it is to me. Early on in ‘The Fighter’, Christian Bale, as ex-boxer Dicky Ecklund, is seen walking the streets with his younger half-brother, Micky Ward (Wahlberg) It is clear that Dicky isn’t ‘right in the head’ as he does most of the talking and he doesn’t articulate one single intelligent thought. My wife
whispered to me, “What’s wrong with him?” I replied, “he’s Australian.”
I said that because I wanted to remind her that the man playing Dicky, the All-American crack addicted braggart speaks with a very thick Australian accent in real life.
When the film ended and she guessed that Amy gave the Oscar winning performance, I told her Amy was good – a supporting actress contender – but she spoke in Amy Adams’ voice – Wahlberg spoke in Mark’s regular voice – Christian not only became that unreliable crack head loser Dicky, he did so while using a voice that wasn’t anywhere near the way he normally spoke – that’s impressive. I heard that Christian’s performance in ‘The Fighter’ SHOULD garner him his first Oscar nomination – those people are wrong – it SHOULD net him his first OSCAR. I cannot heap enough praise upon Bale – rarely does an actor WOW me the way he did as Dicky Ecklund. An incredible acting feat from an actor that seemed to me to give up a promising career to go ‘franchise’.
When my wife remembered that Bale was also ‘Batman’, she commented, “That guy sure didn’t look like ‘Batman’.” Didn’t look, act or talk like Batman or Christian Bale... well, except for the temper tantrums.
So, what about the film? It’s good. The entire cast elevates the material (I actually thought Melissa Leo was more impressive than Adams as well) & Wahlberg fit because his character was the easiest to play from an acting standpoint (Don’t get on my case for not realizing how much work it took to get into fighting shape)
Another ‘based’ on a true story, “The Fighter” tells the tale of a family that brings a bad name to the phrase ‘trailer trash’. Micky Ward is trained by his drug addicted brother, Dicky and managed by his chain smoking, tough talking, Dicky-loving mother, Alice (Leo) And always lurking in the background are Micky & Dicky’s seven ‘lovely’ sisters... I’d like to know where they found these 7 broads – I’m guessing there was a trailer trash sale at ‘Skanks ‘R’ Us’.
Micky is the only member of the clan that has a chance to make it out of the ‘slum’ Alice has raised them in & seems very content to keep ‘the family’ together.
When bartender Charlene (Amy Adams) comes into Micky’s life he begins to yearn for a better life. Charlene pushes him into dumping his brother and mother as trainer and manager and hired ‘legit’ professionals.
This sets up a good vrs. evil scenario; on the good side, Charlene, Micky’s father George, who runs like a scared bunny every time his wife loses her temper (Which is frequently) and police officer Mickey O’Keefe – a good friend that helps Micky W. with his training.
On the bad side – everyone else in Micky’s family; Mom, Dicky & the Seven Deadly Sisters.
Still Micky is in conflict over dumping his family and thus threatens to break up the good thing he has with Charlene and his new associates.
This movie isn’t pleasant to watch (unless like me, you become completely enthralled by Christian Bale’s performance) it is gritty and hard-core (language-wise, there’s no nudity, damn it!) These are the type of people that if you were in a bar and they walked in, you’d get up & leave immediately because you know something distasteful is bound to happen with this group of sleaze-bags.
It doesn’t give you anything new as far as boxing stories are concerned - it is the relationship between Alice and her two sons that propel this film. And trust me, you’ll WANT to forget that you ever meet Alice & Dicky but I doubt that you’ll be able to do so.

The TOURIST

2010-12-11T00:28:00.000-08:00

“The TOURIST” (Johnny Depp & Angelina Jolie)

Sometimes there’s a fine line between clever and stupid. Case in point; the final scenes of ‘The Tourist’ – I’m sure the three screenplay writers thought they were being witty with their surprise twist of an ending, but I thought it totally ruined an otherwise pleasurable film. I shan’t reveal the twist, of course, but now you know there is one & it’s ridiculously stupid & ruins the movie.
I liked ‘The Tourist’ up until the final scenes – in that way it’s akin to ‘Inglorious Basterds’, except that it wasn’t nearly as much fun as ‘I.B.’ leading up to the disappointment.
One thing that was odd about the pairing of Depp & Jolie – very little chemistry develops. Yet, I liked Depp as the Wisconsin math teacher on vacation in Italy & Jolie as the love interest of the mysterious Alexander Pearce; a man that embezzled over 2 billion euros from a ruthless drug dealer. Together they worked when Depp’s naive Frank Tuppalo was obviously awe-struck by Jolie’s Elise Ward. With the exception of her fat-assed lips, Jolie is dazzling throughout ‘The Tourist’ – whether walking solo thru the streets of Venice or in a crowded fancy ballroom, Elise stands out, not just from the other humans but from the scenery as well. Depp, on the other hand, looks disheveled most of the time; & not at all like someone the glamorous Elise would find the least bit interesting.
Her reason for approaching him in the first place made sense, but when she checks into a luxurious hotel with him as ‘husband & wife’, it starts to look a little fishy. It’s when they start to make it appear as though Elise isn’t just ‘using’ Frank, but desires him that they just don’t mesh. It was weird. They had chemistry when chemistry wasn’t called for & had none when it was needed.
‘The Tourist’ starts off interesting; gains momentum with Frank’s arrival and then peters out to a sputtering, idiotic climax.
It starts with Elise going out for her morning coffee being watched by every possible surveillance device known to mankind. When she receives a letter from a courier, those spying on her go nuts; arresting the kid that delivered the message and saving the ashes from the note after Elise burns it, as instructed.
The letter is from A. P. who tells Elise to catch a certain train and then find someone with his height & build and then make ‘them’ believe he’s me. Naturally Elise finds Frank and the wheels of an intriguing entertaining tale of mistaken identity is set in motion.
Unfortunately the wheels go flat with the appalling finale.
There are some whimsical lines, mostly Frank’s, but it wasn’t nearly as funny as I hoped it would be. The best line was revealed in the preview; “No, when you downgrade murder to attempted murder it doesn’t seem like that big of a deal, but when you upgrade it from room service it becomes quite serious.” & Frank’s continual use of Spanish, thinking it’s close enough to Italian that the inhabitants should be able to understand him bring a few chuckles = but there aren’t any, & I hate to use this expression, ‘laugh out loud’ moments. It was enjoyable, but a fun ride that ends with dissatisfaction is worse than a slow ride that ends with a bang – because as I walked out of the theatre I felt cheated by the writers for making me think I was going to enjoy their show and then performing a cheap, seen-it-a-thousand-times before card trick that sent me home feeling disappointed.

NEXT THREE DAYS

2010-12-09T08:50:00.000-08:00

“NEXT THREE DAYS” (Russell Crowe & Elizabeth Banks)

Russell Crowe is losing his ‘sure thing’ quality – Not that I didn’t like ‘Robin Hood’, but I can’t remember the last time he made a movie that REALLY impressed me. This one, is probably his lamest effort since ‘Beautiful Mind’ (Sorry,Oscar voters, but it stunk)

I would say that if you like the TV series ‘Breaking Bad’, you’ll like this film – it is just as absurd; here, a mild mannered English teacher becomes a criminal mastermind with the ability to murder practically overnight.

Comparisons have to be made to ‘Conviction’ and I wondered why they didn’t hold off releasing ‘Next 3 Days’ for another 3 months or so since ‘Conviction’ was still fresh in my mind. In ‘N3D’ Russell Crowe’s John Brennan studies to become a notorious criminal capable of breaking his ‘wrongfully convicted’ wife out of a maximum security prison instead of taking the long way by taking 12 years to become her lawyer.

Although it was cleverly executed with some believable touches (i.e., picking up the elderly couple on their way to Buffalo) the script was holier than my favorite pair of underwear. Undermining all the ingenious details John preps for is the fact that he’s an English teacher – a humble, law abiding, loving husband & father that should have never put his wife & son in the dangerous position he puts them in.
That thread kept me from ‘going along for the ride’ – the character John Brennan,
as laid out for the viewer, never WOULD have done the things that adapted- writer/director/producer Paul Haggis has him do. When John buys the gun he needs to break his wife out of jail he picks it up and asks, “Show me where the bullets go.”
That alone tells you this guy is too naive to pull off a caper of this magnitude. Yet, there’s John a few scenes down the road, murdering drug dealers and threatening to kill innocent doctors & nurses that were actually trying to help his wife... To quote South Park’s version of Johnny Cochran, “That does not make sense!”
If they had made John an ex-prison guard turned English teacher, I’d have bought the premise, but it was too far-fetched to believe.

Elizabeth Banks continues to not impress after a promising start in ’40 Year Old Virgin’.
Her character, John’s wife, Lara, should be memorable, but instead she’s quite bland and forgettable – or maybe it’s just because her hair gets darker with each subsequent scene she’s in & I’m partial to blondes so that irked me...

Liam Neeson... boy, talk about bland, unbelievable characters – he’s become the king of those recently – but in ‘N3D’ he only has one scene & he pulls it off nicely. As the ex-con expert at breaking out of prisons, his instructional speech to John is probably the best part of this film.

Then there’s Nicole (Olivia Wilde) an unmarried mother that clearly likes John. Nicole is beautiful, friendly and her daughter & John’s son are best buddies. Personality-wise, Nicole is the complete opposite of the hot tempered, bitchy Lara. Any sane man would have rejoiced that this gorgeous woman entered his life, but not John – he uses her in his attempt to break his convicted murderer wife out of prison. Of course, if he had done the sane thing and dumped Lara for Nicole, it wouldn’t have been much of a story would it? Unless, the insanely jealous, fiery-tempered Lara breaks out of prison by herself and comes after the happy couple... at least it would have made more sense that way.

LOVE & OTHER DRUGS

2010-11-27T04:35:00.000-08:00

“LOVE & OTHER DRUGS” (Jake Gyllenhaal & Anne Hathaway)

As a light hearted ‘rom-com’, “Love and Other Drugs” made me chuckle frequently.
As a depressing medical drama, “Love and Other Drugs” made me get a bit emotional (Bringing out my rarely seen girlie-man side)
As an ambitious story of a young man that discovers his niche in life and suddenly starts climbing the corporate ladder to success, “Love & Other Drugs” didn’t bore me to tears.
So there’s a lot going on in this movie – A sh**load, in fact – and it’s all over the place in trying to decide what it wants to be when it grows up.
If someone were to tell me they didn’t like it because of that, I wouldn’t argue with them, but somehow the variety of styles worked all right for me & I would recommend ‘L & O D’ as a worthwhile diversion from the depression that is upon us... & by that I mean the ‘holiday’ season.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays Jamie Randall; a likable sleazy womanizer. Jamie is likable because he comes across as being sincere – he isn’t just adding notches to his bedpost, he beds women because he’s a good looking guy that women throw themselves at & he simply obliges them. But unlike most walking hard ons, Jamie doesn’t have to turn on the fake charm to suit his prurient interests - he appears to be naturally debonair.
When Jamie lands a job as a pharmaceutical rep for Pfizer he uses his boyish charm to smooze his way into places he should never be allowed. While posing as an intern for a horny MD (Hank Azaria as Dr. Stan Knight) Jamie is present when a young Parkinson’s patient comes in for an exam (Anne Hathaway’s Maggie) and Jamie is immediately smitten.
This is where ‘Love & Other Drugs’ takes on another film style – pornography.
I can’t remember the last time I viewed this many nude scenes in a mainstream film. I never watched the ‘Princess’ films Anne made with Mary Poppins, so it wasn’t a shock to me to see her cavorting about au naturel.
Even though it was shown in the trailer, a scene where Maggie comes into Jamie’s apartment dressed only in a raincoat made me laugh – I have to say that it was from actually seeing her naked when Jamie’s dorky little brother sees her that made it funnier than the preview version.
I’ve always been a fan of Oliver Platt and he makes a nice comeback of sorts here as Jamie’s supervisor, Bruce. When given decent material, Platt can deliver and he does so here with many humorous lines.
But be prepared, the light ‘n’ breezy chick flick material gets brushed aside when “Love & Other Drugs’ decides to become a heavy medical drama.
Jamie’s annoying little brother, Josh is inserted at this time to try to provide comedic relief – maybe it was due to the fact that the film took a depressing turn that I found the chubby whiner more amusing during this stage than when he first appears.
Despite being the ‘downer’ character, Hathaway’s Maggie gets the lion’s share of the smart-alec quips as she seems to be the indifferent one that only wants to have sex and not a relationship. It becomes clear that as Jamie falls for Maggie, she wishes that he wouldn’t.
In the beginning, Jamie allows Maggie to control their relationship but as she becomes a walking mass of depression, he switches into protective lover mode
and Maggie rejects him.
I’ve always said the best movies for me are the ones that can make you feel a gamut of emotions, but I normally like things mixed up more than they are in ‘L & O D’. But I’d still say it is worth seeing as long as you’re aware that it isn’t your typical ‘rom-com’ –
it’s R-rated (& if you find nudity distasteful, consider it to be NC-17)
it’s full of immature boner humor (When Jamie starts selling Viagra)
and it takes that dreaded ‘dramatic’ turn.
Whereas Gyllenhaal & Hathaway had no relationship as a married couple in their first film together, the sex scenes in this are so graphic even I felt a bit uncomfortable ‘peeking’ in on their private intimate moments. But I’m betting that Jake had more fun filming these scene with Anne than he did with the late Heath Ledger in ‘Ride ‘Em, Cowboy Mountain’.

UNSTOPPABLE

2010-11-26T09:16:00.000-08:00

“UNSTOPPABLE” (Denzel Washington, Chris Pine & Rosario Dawson)

I wasn’t too keen on seeing this – the preview seemed to advertise, ‘You’ve seen this film before, you’ve seen Denzel play this character before, so save it for the $3 theatre or HBO’. But fellow critic Alan Smithee told me it was both exciting and humorous, so we decided it would make a good Thanksgiving Day flick. It was – though I’m not as exuberant as Mr. Smithee, basically because it IS another runaway train flick which means numerous useless scenes of trains rolling along their tracks and I HAVE seen Denzel play this character before.
What I thought was a ‘terrorists’ plot for a plot turned out to be erroneous on my part and I was happy to see that the runaway train was an accident, rather than a fiendish ploy by some radical organization or religious sect. The train (777, to his friends & co-workers) is sent on it’s destination to disaster by two numbskull railroad employees. One, (Ethan Suplee) too fat and stupid to know not to leave a moving locomotive; the other (T.J. Miller) too lazy to set the air brakes on a train they’re about to move.
Denzel plays Frank Barnes, a 28 year vet of the railway. He is given the assignment of basically training his replacement, though Frank isn’t ready to retire. Chris Pine (Captain James T. Kirk II, to his friends & co-workers) is Will, the ‘kid’ Frank is forced to show the ropes to as they head out in train 1206 for a routine run.
“Unstoppable” works for 3 reasons – Washington & Pine develop a believable bond as they spend the day getting to know one another after starting off on the proverbial wrong foot / The fact that the runaway train is unmanned rather than being ‘used’ as a weapon made the story realistic / & Kevin Dunn’s Galvin, a corporate dunderhead making all the wrong decisions was easy to dislike (providing a ‘realistic’ villain, though he was just trying to do his job under a stressful situation)
Rosario Dawson played Connie, the person at the helm of the control center and who ultimately over-rides Galvin’s decision by allowing Frank to ‘go after’ train #777 in order to divert a catastrophe.
All-in-all it was an entertaining ride. It wasn’t a great film. It would have been better if Frank’s daughters had bigger boobs (They worked at Hooters!) But other than that, it was a mildly tense, mildly amusing enjoyable experience. The only thing missing was a scene with a television showing ‘The Mask’ and Jim Carrey exalting, “Somebody STOP me!”

WALL STREET : MONEY NEVER SLEEPS

2010-11-26T09:14:00.000-08:00

“WALL STREET : MONEY NEVER SLEEPS” (Shia Lebeouf, Carey Mulligan, Michael Douglas & Josh Brolin)

Somehow I don’t have as much trouble with sequels that take a decade or two to appear. I liked the first ‘Wall Street’, but didn’t have a lot of interest in this sequel only because I’m ignorant of the subject matter. I don’t care about Wall Street, I don’t own any stocks and even though I liked ‘Trading Places’, I still have no idea why Don Ameche screamed ‘turn those machines back on’ at the end of it.
The problem with long-awaited sequels is that the original isn’t fresh in your mind. So when Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox makes a one scene cameo, it didn’t really click for me because I had forgotten exactly what took place 20-some years ago in a film I only watched once.
The addition of the kid who stars in the toy robot trucks movies didn’t exactly lure me into the theatre either. We waited until it came to the $3 theatre, and, as usually is the case, it was worth the price of admission. But I was also glad I didn’t pay full price to see it a month or so earlier.
It is full of witty banter & boring presentation speeches. It has some well acted scenes & a few that made me cringe. & since I hadn’t heard any David Byrne songs for a while, the soundtrack, featuring nothing but the Ex-Talking Heads frontman’s music was acceptable to my ears.
‘Wall Street 2’ usually worked when Michael Douglas was onscreen recreating his Gordon Gekko character; or secondary, Josh Brolin’s even greedier character Bretton.
When it didn’t click was when Shia & Carey appeared. Labouf played Wall Street whiz kid, Jake, who asked his girlfriend Winnie (Mulligan) to marry him minutes after receiving some tragic news about his mentor. Winnie‘s last name being Gekko, daughter of Gordon, recently released from prison for insider trading.
The ‘love interest’ portion of the film fell flat for me because it seemed as though Mulligan has tears rolling down her cheeks in practically every scene she was in – it became monotonous; “Alright, ya big cry baby shut off the waterworks & stop whining about your past!”
So Jake loves Winnie, who hates her father. Jake introduces himself to future father-in-law Gordon & falls in love with him as well. Jake tries desperately to bring father & daughter together, but for what reason? It seems, so he can get in good with ‘dad’ so they begin working as a team in cheating other people out of their money. We’re suppose to feel good about their greed because they are going after other greedy j*ck-offs, but with too many characters not worth caring about, there’s really no point to this film Other than the lesson that money, like rust, has insomnia.
That’s not to say ‘Wall Street 2’ wasn’t entertaining – Bretton is the person that ratted Gordon out which led to Gekko’s 7 year stint in prison; so Gordon approaches Breton at a fundraiser and he tells him, “You stop telling lies about me & I’ll stop telling the truth about you.”
So the easy to follow lame love story dragged the film down, while the ‘I have no idea what these people are talking about’ stock traders made it work.
I liked the fact that 111 year old Eli Wallach was in several scenes and the old guy remembered his lines & the fact that Jake’s cell phone’s ring was the ‘Theme from the Good, the Bad & The Ugly’, which made me wonder if Eli even knew was a tribute to him.
Early on Gordon tells Jake, “Money is a bitch that never sleeps.” & yet, it is abundantly apparent that Gordon loves money more than anything else – so why would he call his one true love a bitch? & why did Lou (Frank Langella) have a bag of potato chips as his last meal? Surely there was a decent donut shop nearby. Sometimes stock brokers just don’t make sense...

FAIR GAME

2010-11-16T00:24:00.000-08:00

“FAIR GAME” (Naomi Watts & Sean Penn)

I shouldn’t watch movies like this because they make my blood boil and I already have high blood pressure, but I will TRY to set my beliefs aside long enough to give you an insight as to why you should see this film.
Based on the true story of C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame Wilson – some portions that we know to be true and the credits acknowledge books by both Valerie and husband Joe as chief references – but this is Hollywood, stretches and embellishments will be made.

I kept hoping that the part that made my blood boil was ‘made up for dramatic effect’ that it didn’t really happen, especially the way they say it did in the film... I’m debating to myself whether or not revealing the circumstance would be too much of a spoiler, so I’m better off just moving on...

The first half of the film is spent setting up the dramatic second half (In other words, don’t quit on it if it seems boring to you) Multitudes of characters channel in & out of scenes as the filmmaker tries to sum up Valerie’s 18 year career as a C.I.A. agent and what led to her being asked if her ex-diplomat husband would be interested in going to Niger to act as an ambassador to the U.S. and report on a rumor that the government had sold 50 tons of yellow-cake uranium to Saddam Hussein.
Joe Wilson’s report declares there is ‘almost’ a 0% possibility that this event took place.
This does not please the White House, so they garner ‘different’ data that backs the sell and leak the info to the press. When Joe reads this he tries to find out why they would come to this unlikely conclusion (& why the hell did you guys send me over there then?)
Joe is shut out. So he writes his own column and the White House responds by ‘outing’ Valerie as an Intelligence agent; Karl Rove is credited with first saying Valerie was ‘fair game’ and they had every right to mention her by name. They did not. And so ‘Scooter’ Libby was dismissed as the fall guy.
This is when the film takes off; Sean Penn and Naomi Watts, in their third film together, shine as Valerie and Joe – though with Sean, it seemed he was playing ‘himself’ at times. So even though he’s my favorite actor, I have to say he can’t really be a shoe-in for an Oscar nod. The reason I love Sean is due to his ability to become his character (My #1 criterion for great acting) but here, I never lost sight of Sean Penn because I’ve seen him behave the same way & say the same things that he was saying as Joe Wilson. Still, two scenes stand out – One, where he calls a female reporter that disrupts a business meeting he’s holding, a ‘hack’ and one where he argues with Valerie over whether or not they should ‘fight back’ against the Bush administration; “If I talk LOUDER than you, Valerie – Does that make me right?”
But this excellent film is carried by Naomi Watts. She does seem to bring her ‘A’ game when working with Sean. Believable as a tough talking C.I.A. agent in the first part of the film as well as the housewife on the verge of a nervous breakdown after the White House destroys her career; which leads to a major strain on her marriage, relationships with family and friends as well as having to deal with ‘death threats’ from morons who believe politicians don’t lie to get what they want. Why Naomi isn’t being touted as a major contender for Best Actress baffles me – She’s my runaway pick right now.
As far as the section of the film that irked me so? We can discuss it in the comments section for those of you that have seen ‘Fair Game’. For those of you that have not – See it. See it & then tell me these war mongers are the kind of people you want running our country. Because THAT part of the film we KNOW actually happened. . .

CONVICTION

2010-11-16T00:15:00.000-08:00

“CONVICTION” (Hilary Swank, Sam Rockwell & Minnie Driver)

This is a good film that was hard to like. There’s only one likeable character (Minnie Driver’s Abra Rice) and she’s not a major player. This story centers on a love affair between Kenny Waters and his sister Betty Anne. I’m sorry, there’s no better way to describe it than that – it’s the reason I found the movie hard to like – it make my skin crawl and left a distasteful flavor of incest in my Puritan throat. (Do I hear snickering?)

Well acted, because I hated Kenny and found his sister to be excessively creepy, and well told – they didn’t hold back any punches in making Kenny look like the disgusting alcoholic criminal he was – and yet I walked out of the theatre not caring for it all that much.

Basic plot; Kenny Waters (Sam Rockwell) is arrested for murdering an elderly woman due to his history of arrests for violent behavior & two witnesses that come forth & say that Kenny told them he killed her. When Kenny is found guilty & sentenced to life in prison, his devoted-beyond-reason sister, Betty Anne (Hilary Swank) a high school drop out, decides to go to law school, become a lawyer & get his conviction over-turned.
For me, there was that gnawing feeling that Kenny actually killed the woman & even if he didn’t, the world was a safer place with a hot tempered a**hole like Kenny behind bars.
In the opening scenes Kenny brings his infant daughter into a stink-hole bar, gets drunk and belligerent, fights with a guy that HE bumps into and then gets up on stage and strips totally nude with his baby daughter & adoring sister looking on. Kenny is scum.
When he makes the statement “Cops are drawn to me like bees to honey.” I laughed out loud. Kenny has no remorse – He isn’t the reason he keeps getting arrested for violent acts perpetrated upon innocent people that happen to get in his way – the COPS are just ‘out to get him’. I was glad to see this scum put away & I didn’t care if he was guilty or not.
Although Betty Anne is basically a nice person, she does come across as being simple trailer trash in many scenes. Her unhealthy attachment to Kenny notwithstanding, Betty Anne eventually neglects her own family (2 sons and a husband) to fight for her douche bag of a brother. When she applies for law school she uses ‘Waters’ for a last name instead of her married name – I could only surmise that she did this because she ‘wishes’ she were married to Kenny.
At law school, fellow ‘elderly’ student Abra (Driver) befriends her – In fact Abra goes above & beyond the call of duty in helping Betty Anne get through school and with gathering information on Kenny’s case. When Abra merely ‘suggests’ that she not get her hopes too high because the evidence might prove Kenny's guilt, Betty Anne orders her to leave. It made me wonder what she would have done to me, because I wouldn’t have ‘suggested’ anything, I’d have told her to give it up because he WAS guilty & prison is where he belonged!
At one point Betty Anne makes the statement that Kenny had been in prison for 6 years and ‘MY family really wants him home’. No, they didn’t. Her family abandoned her because of her obsession.
When Betty Anne tries to enlist the help of Kenny’s daughter, Mandy (the baby he took to the bar) I wanted to hogtie her & throw her in the mud. This young girl was obviously better off without an alcoholic violent father in her life – leave her alone!
So I didn’t like the Waters; I could care less if Betty Anne could find a loophole that would gain Kenny’s release – I wanted that jerk to stay in prison. Which, I guess means, congratulations to Swank & Rockwell for ‘becoming’ their characters, but I can’t recommend this film because I just didn’t find much to like about the ‘subject’ matter.

MORNING GLORY

2010-11-12T00:42:00.000-08:00

“MORNING GLORY” (Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford & Diane Keaton)

If they had tweaked this just slightly they could have gotten away with calling it “The Mary Tyler Moore Show Movie”. And that isn’t a bad thing - ‘MTM’ was one of the best TV series ever. But Rachel McAdams’ Becky could just as easily been called Mary Richards; Harrison Ford’s Mike Pomeroy could have been grumpy Lou Grant & weatherman Ernie (Matt Malloy) becomes Ted Baxter. Make Diane Keaton slutty Sue Ann Nivens & Patrick Wilson writer Murray Slaughter & there you go! Of course seeing Mary sleeping with Murray would have been a little hard for us older folk to handle, but hey, if Uhura can sleep with Spock then anything’s possible.
In fact, this film came so close to resembling ‘MTM’ that I thought they should have included a scene where Mike Pomeroy smiles at Becky and says, “You’ve got spunk!”
Then frowns as he adds, “I hate spunk!”
This works as a rom/com becomes it isn’t much of a rom/com – like MTM it’s the story of a newsroom (Or in this case ‘studio’) that is taken over by a young, spunky executive producer (Becky) It then becomes about her life; the fact that she falls for a producer that works on a different show (Patrick Wilson’s Adam) is almost incidental. The meat here is her relationship with the grouchy Pomeroy.
Shortly after being hired by Jerry (Jeff Goldblum) to revitalize morning show ‘Daybreak’, Becky is told that she has to get the ratings up quickly. She makes a major change her first day on the job & then pulls legendary ‘hard news’ reporter Mike Pomeroy into the co-host seat where he doesn’t want to be – but his contract doesn’t contain the loophole needed to get out of the job. Unfortunately for Becky the off air banter between Mike & long-time hostess Colleen (Diane Keaton) is more lively than the on air babble (Mike answers Colleen’s first question by saying, ‘Yes’)
The entire cast plays together well, but Matt Malloy’s dorky weatherman Ernie steals the show when Becky decides to stop playing it safe by putting Ernie in undesirable positions; his first, going for a ride on the world’s fastest roller coaster is absolutely hilarious. Then Colleen tells Becky she wants in on the goofy antics as well & the show’s ratings begin to climb – but will they rise fast enough for everyone to keep their jobs? That, as expected, comes down to whether or not Becky can get Mike to play ball. Just when she thinks she has him in the right frame of mind, he turns the tables on the young producer by coming up with a ‘hard news’ story.
Patrick Wilson plays Becky’s love interest with just enough sarcasm to make him likable & ‘real’. When Becky happens to bump into Adam & Mike in the elevator after her job interview & she gushes over Pomeroy, Mike asks, “Is she one of yours?” & Adam responds, “No, I’m just here to show her how to work the elevator.”
Adam & Mike have a history; Adam repeatedly calls him ‘The Third Worst Person In The World’.
Sure, it’s light & breezy & Rachel plays Becky like someone who could turn the world on with her smile, but the dialogue is often witty & when you see half of Becky’s naked butt poking out from her lingerie you realize this is one chick flick that us dudes can appreciate as well.
It’s been a while since I’ve enjoyed a Rachel McAdams project this much, but with “Morning Glory” I’d sing to her – “You’re going to make it after all” . . . .

Meow.

YOU AGAIN

2010-11-08T07:38:00.000-08:00

“YOU AGAIN?” (Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis & Sigourney Weaver)

Let’s take a look at the leading candidates for WORST MOVIE OF 2010, shall we?
The films I gave ‘D’ ratings to are; “The BOOK Of ELI”, “The BOUNTY HUNTER”,
“SHREK 4-EVER AFTER”, “INCEPTION” & “The A-TEAM”
Add “YOU AGAIN” & you have 6 nominees.
Now the question is – who is the leading candidate?
Not ‘ELI’ because Mila Kunis was in it & she was enjoyable to look at.
Not ‘BOUNTY HUNTER’ though it was total crap, but Jennifer is still enjoyable to watch.
Not “SHREK 4” because Donkey was in it & I DO like looking at a nice ass.
That leaves Inception, A-Team & You Again. I know the masses would howl if I picked ‘Inception’ but it’s because that crummy film was hailed as being great that I came to loathe it more & more.
So it’s down to ‘The A-Team’ & ‘You Again’. Makes sense - they’re the only two I gave D-minuses.

I don’t want to hear from the guys chastising me for going to see it in the first place, it was one of those my wife wanted to see & I’ve already played the “let’s wait until it’s at East Valley” card too many times this year. And then the film doesn’t come to the $3 theatre & my wife is disappointed. So it was either this, or the Katherine Heigl ‘baby’ flick.

I don’t know what it is with Kristen Bell – she’s not unattractive; the thin nose makes her look cross-eyed sometimes, but I’d still say she was ‘pretty’. But she is quickly becoming the Queen of disaster flicks – Just recently seeing ‘When In Rome’, which I gave up on after 15-20 minutes – I felt the same way about ‘You Again’ but I’ve never walked out of a film in a theatre & I’d like to keep that record intact.

The premise was semi-intriguing; Marni (Bell) returns home for her older brother’s wedding & discovers he’s marrying the b*tch that tortured her throughout high school. They explain that Joanna went by ‘J. J.’ back then so Marni is caught off guard.
Then Joanna’s Aunt Ramona (Sigourney Weaver) shows up & we discover that she & Marni’s mom (Jamie Lee Curtis) were best friends as children but had a blow-up in high school that separated them. Throw in Betty White as Grandma Bunny & you actually have a promising set up. But instead of being a little dark, they go a lot stupid and make J. J. over-the-top mean in both flashbacks & in the way she treats Marni behind her family’s backs.

The reason this movie sinks even lower than your normal crappy chick flick is the soundtrack – Never have I been so disappointed that I didn’t have to go take a whiz as when J. J. started rapping in her old cheerleader costume – that wins most annoying scene of the year hands down... well, Robert Downey, Jr. spitting on a defenseless dog was disgusting, but ‘Due Date’ was an otherwise ‘decent’ film.
When the bride & groom-to-be started caterwauling “Kiss On My List”, I prayed that I would go temporarily deaf. In a desperate attempt to connect with one of my favorite chick flicks, “(500) Days Of Summer”, where “You Make My Dreams” was used perfectly, You Again’s use of a Hall & Oates song is irritating.

And let’s stop putting Betty White in movies – she works on TV – she’s one of the best TV actresses of all-time; if you haven’t seen “Hot In Cleveland”, try to catch it – In almost every episode Betty comes up with at least one funny memorable line. But even the cameo of another Mary Tyler Moore Show cast member couldn’t save ‘You Again’ from being one of the two leading candidates for worst film of 2010.

DUE DATE

2010-11-06T08:40:00.000-07:00

“DUE DATE” (Robert Downey, Jr. & Zach Galifianakis)

There are almost enough funny lines and sight gags in “Due Date” to make up for what is wrong with it. . . I said ‘almost’.
Robert Downey, Jr.’s character, Peter, is such a despicable human being that anyone who likes or relates to him obviously has acute character flaws. So ‘Due Date’ is a great date movie if you’re going out with a guy you’re just not sure about. It’s okay to say, ‘that movie was pretty funny’, but if they say Peter’s behavior was acceptable – dump him, he’s a turd.
I’ve read two reviews that go on & on about how tired they already are of Zach Galifianakis. I didn’t have a problem with Ethan (Zach’s character, a wanna-be ‘Hollywood’ actor) he was annoying, but had a good heart. Peter, if you’ll pardon the expression, was a dick.
Unfortunate comparisons must be made to two comedy classics; “The Hangover” & “Planes, Trains & Automobiles” because this film was co-written & directed by Todd Phillips (of ‘Hangover’ fame) & the premise is – It’s Tuesday and Peter is in Atlanta. His very pregnant wife (Michelle Monaghan) is in L.A.; her ‘due date’ is Friday. Even though Peter is boarding a plane on Tuesday to take him back to L.A., the expectant mother calls him, worried that he won’t make it home on time. A series of screwy, unexpected events leads to Peter being forced to drive across southern America with an effeminate, would-be actor (Ethan Tremblay) along with his masturbating French Bulldog, Sonny, and a coffee can containing the ashes of Ethan’s recently deceased father. So it is virtually a ‘remake’ of ‘P, T & A’ (A good looking businessman needing to get home to his attractive wife by a certain day & an overweight, over-bearing but likeable misfit who carries the burden of a recently deceased loved one – Ethan even secretly uses Peter’s credit card to pay for the used car they drive in the beginning of the journey)
‘Hangover’ was great because it was not only hilarious, it was also a mystery; what on earth happened to Doug? The only mystery in ‘Due Date’ is; will Peter ever stop being such a turd?
In ‘P, T & A’, one of the many funny bits is how the pair of traveling companions gradually destroy the used car they’re driving; In ‘D D’ the car is fine until a horrendous, unquestionably fatal crash totals the rental in the blink of an eye (or 40 winks, as the case may be) With Sonny (the dog) sitting on the back seat, Ethan falls asleep at the wheel; when they land, the back of the car is completely demolished so naturally we reach the conclusion that the little mutt that enjoys pleasuring himself has been crushed to death. As far as the humans go, it would be highly unlikely that both would survive. But no, we forget that this is a ‘comedy’ so the gratuitous crash scene was simply added to enhance the premise by putting another obstacle in the trio’s path.
At times the humor sinks to ‘dumbed down’ levels as well – Not to say that there was anything ‘high brow’ about ‘The Hangover’, but the way it was set up worked to perfection. Here, when wheelchair bound Danny McBride beats ‘customer’ Peter with a club, we’re suppose to find that humorous?
Where this film goes wrong is easily traceable to Peter – not Robert Downing, Jr. – Peter.
He has a quick temper which, when it flares, is downright abusive. Being a dog lover, I was appalled when he gathers up a wad of mucus and spits in Sonny’s face while the ‘injured’ pup is wearing an Elizabethan collar (after the near death experience in the rental car) Peter is mean. Peter seems to live for moments when he can lash out & hurt someone in any way he can. He goes off on a shouting rant at Ethan for saying he wants to go to ‘Hollywood’; “Nobody calls it Hollywood! It’s freaking L.A.!” Peter, as I concluded early on in this film & review, is a dick. So anything bad that happens to Peter is well deserved and thus the humor takes a backseat to our dislike of the lead character. Knowing his hair trigger temper explodes in violent outbursts I worried about the safety of his wife & child when they finally reach their destination. If you view this film & you feel all warm & gooey over Peter’s determination to be there to witness the birth of his first child – think about what an ass he has been to Ethan & Sonny – How could anyone want this turd to have a happy ending? If he had redeemed himself at the closing by saying he’s decided to go to anger management class, I’d still wonder about his sincerity. Phillips goes the route of ‘we’ll make him likeable by injuring him severely’ . . . Doesn’t work, Todd – I’m in my 50’s now & I’ve been saying this for over 30 years because it has always rung true – Once a dick, always a dick.
But it DID make me laugh frequently... weird, huh?

NOWHERE BOY

2010-11-03T01:59:00.000-07:00

“NOWHERE BOY” (Aaron Johnson, Kristin Scott Thomas & Anne-Marie Duff)

Confession time. When I was growing up my two best friends were my dog Laddie & someone I had never met in my life. Weird kid, right? My other best friend was John Lennon. I knew quite a bit about John’s life & he knew nothing of mine. So he wasn’t the greatest friend in the world, but I still admired the guy – Even when he started acting goofy during his peace protests with his even stranger Japanese wife, I was in simpatico with the message he was sending out – War Sucks, Give Peace A Chance.

I know his story from interviews and genuine autobiographies. Not after-the-fact tabloids written by someone just trying to make a buck off of his name.
I have always said, no matter how old I’m getting to be, I’m grateful to have been born in 1955 since I was alive when The Beatles came to America (I was 8) I was able to witness the phenomenon, & quite frankly was confused by it – Yes, the music was different, but I never understood the ‘mania’; I never attended a Beatles concert because I wanted to hear the music, not a din of maniacal screaming girls.
So I bought the records. The first song I bought was “A Hard Day’s Night”, the first album I bought was “Revolver” & the first book I bought was the Authorized Biography of The Beatles by Hunter Davies which came out in 1968 when they were still together. It delved deeply into each member’s childhood, especially John’s. Reading it, I saw similarities between John’s childhood and mine. He was my favorite Beatle because I liked his songs the most & obviously ‘something’ about him came across the airwaves that I connected with – after viewing this film I realize now what it was – sarcasm.
One of those things that can’t be taught – you either have it or you don’t. Something unusual that John & I shared. Maybe that’s why I made him my ‘real, yet still invisible’ best friend.
I tell you all of this to help you understand why I was reluctant to see this movie. I thought for sure they would get it wrong – they would ‘make up’ crap that didn’t happen to sensationalize the story when, if they did it proper, it would be a powerful ‘family’ drama and an insight into what made John Lennon an icon. I’m here to tell you that they did this story proper – as uneasy as it was to watch at times, it is a great film – and remember I’m speaking as a disciple of Johnny & The Moondogs & The Quarrymen. I would be very interested in hearing what you youngsters think of this movie – I hope you’re able to catch it because I’d like to know if it hits any of you like I think it might – It is simply a heartbreaking story of a young man who is made to feel ‘unwanted’ by his own family. Even if you can’t relate to that, I think you’ll feel empathy for the lad. My wife is not a Beatles fan so I went to ‘Nowhere Boy’ alone. I wish she would have come with me because I think she would have related to his childhood as well & would appreciate his music more because of it. She’ll see it eventually, but it would have been nice to share the first viewing together. & we would have had the theatre all to ourselves as I was the lone audience member. On the plus side, it was as if I was getting to know my old buddy all over again; Just me & John. Pete & Ivan. & those two little guitar playing twerps, Paul & George.
I’ll start with the negatives & get the nit-picking out of the way. It bothered me right off the bat that Aaron Johnson (Lennon) had blue eyes – that should have automatically dismissed him from the role, but the rest of the 1950’s Lennon-look he had down pat, so I was able to put that annoyance behind me. They sugar-coated his temper - Which made sense because you do need your lead character to be likable; hence they heavily leaned on John’s sarcastic side. For some reason they renamed John’s father ‘Alf’ (It was Fred) For most of the film I thought they made John’s Aunt Mimi (Kristin Scott Thomas) too mean – To make John look better, I thought, & I didn’t like that angle. But in the end you understand why Mimi acts the way she does – when the flashback to when John was 5 & his parents made him choose between them is shown, Mimi becomes the heroine. & if that scene doesn’t bring moisture to your eyes, then I don’t think anything can. I knew it was coming, of course, but I realized as I watched these actors playing it out in front of me that I’d only pictured it in my mind – it packs a powerful emotional impact when you see it ‘for real’ on the big screen. And it stirred flashbacks from my own childhood, just to let you know why it got to me.
Sounds like I’m through nit-picking since I’m singing its praises now, so here’s what I loved about ‘Nowhere Boy’... Oops, one more complaint – I hate that title, basically because John dismissed ‘Nowhere Man’ as ‘crap’ & a much better title would have been ‘In My Life’. Also, the omission of eventual first-wife, Cynthia Powell, was a bit of a mystery, but then again to add her into the later stages would have been overkill, so I don’t have a problem with it, just a little curious as to why she was left out. It was refreshing to see something about John that didn’t have Yoko’s greedy handprints all over it!
What I loved most was Anne-Marie Duff as John’s mother, Julia. An incredible performance of a difficult role – Julia was an enigma; a ‘hot mess’ (as they would say today) of a mother, but a woman who outwardly seemed to have a fervent love for life &, when John comes back into her life in his teens, a rather uncomfortable feeling for her son – to call it borderline ‘lust’ isn’t stretching the truth at all (She calls him her ‘dreamboat’) In a year where Supporting Actress roles are even slimmer than usual, I’m declaring Ms. Duff MY winner in this category.
The name ‘The Beatles’ is never mentioned; this story takes place during The Quarrymen years – John’s meetings with Paul & George are displayed accurately & I appreciated that. The fact that they have him giving jealous, almost scornful looks toward Paul & George as they play onstage were exaggerated, but since they toned down his temper it was an appropriate addition to help capture the ‘essence’ of John.
Kristin Scott Thomas deserves recognition as well, but her role was much easier to portray since Mimi is pretty much a cold fish throughout the film, but she is superb at relaying the fact that she seems to hate the fact that she has to be that way in order for John to have a ‘proper’ upbringing – You realize after the film that if it wasn’t for Aunt Mimi, John may have never formed a band & that would have left me without a make believe, yet human best friend during my childhood.
I don’t know if this was filmed in sequence, but it seemed as though Aaron Johnson ‘became’ John Lennon as the story progressed. I liked the little nuanced clips relating to The Beatles; John rides his bike past the orphanage ‘Strawberry Field’, under-aged John tries to sneak past the bouncer at The Cavern Club and is told to ‘beat it’; on a couple of occasions they have Johnson ‘pose’ in ways familiar to those of us who were members of the fan club & had seen the pictures they were recreating (& when far enough away to not tell that his eyes were blue, looking eerily like the real thing)
With all the junk that’s been written about John since his murder I never thought a film like this could be made, but thank you, Sam Taylor-Wood for the fairly accurate depiction of the fifteen year old in Liverpool who would eventually go on to change the world by asking if he could ‘hold our hand’ and made ‘goo goo ga-joob' sound like a phrase that actually meant something...

HEREAFTER

2010-10-28T00:58:00.000-07:00

“HEREAFTER” (Matt Damon & Cecile De France)

I’ve enjoyed Clint Eastwood more as a director than an actor. In other words, I like elderly Clint much more than Spaghetti Western Dirty Harry With An Orangutan Clint. His first match-up with Matt Damon was the rather disappointing ‘Invictus’, but ‘Mystic River’, ‘Gran Torino’ & ‘Million Dollar Baby’ are among may favorite films of the 21st century. I guess I’m setting this up because I have mixed feelings about ‘Hereafter’; parts of it I liked - parts of it I did not.
I don’t believe in a ‘hereafter’, but I do enjoy a good fantasy tale if woven intelligently. ‘Hereafter’ is woven intelligently but that doesn’t mean it works in every aspect.
Time for another set up; I don’t go to the movies to read. I read in bed to prep my mind before attempting to shut it off. So when a film forces me to read the dialogue, my brain thinks it’s sleepy-by time & starts to doze off.
Warning – 1/3rd of ‘Hereafter’ is in French & 1/3rd of it is in that ‘Cockney’ British language – they provided subtitles for the French third / none for the Cockney.
Now, to the actual film. It opens with a fairly impressive tsunami sequence which makes you think you’re about to see another '2012'. I remember thinking, “I never expected to see anything like this in a Clint Eastwood film”.
Marie Lelay (Cecile De France) a French woman on vacation with her boyfriend/boss is swept away by the catastrophic waves and drowns. So much for Marie’s segment.
George Lonnegan (Matt Damon) is a construction worker who looks a little too clean & polished to be an actual construction worker. That’s because George is trying to lead a normal life after spending too much of it contacting dead people... Think of George as Haley Joel Osment from the ‘Sixth Sense’ all grown up. 2 TV actors show up at George’s doorstep (Jay Mohr & Richard Kind) George’s brother, Billy (Mohr) begs him to give the guy who’s had to settle for a career in commercials a break by contacting his dead wife.
The third plot is set in England where young twin brothers Marcus & Jason (Frankie & George McLaren) ‘care’ for their drug addicted mother by trying to keep Child Protection Service workers from removing from the hubble that passes for the apartment they live in. Death pays a visit to the twins as well, thus setting up the trilogy of stories that take place simultaneously during ‘Hereafter’.
The part that didn’t capture my interest at all is the one with the most intriguing opening; after Marie’s near-death experience she decides to write a book about it that no one seems to be interested in. I don’t blame them, this segment is what causes the story to drag.
The one I liked the best throughout most of the film was George’s (Maybe due to the fact that it was the only one I could understand, thanks to the characters speaking in American) But no, it wasn’t just that - I was extremely impressed with the pairing of Damon with Bryce Dallas Howard – two actors that I never would have called ‘impressive’ prior to this. Adequate, competent, but not ‘great’. Their chemistry sparkled in every scene they were in and I had never seen Howard more relaxed and natural in any previous role.
George meets Melanie at cooking class where the teacher (‘The Sopranos’ Steve Shirripa) matches them as class partners. When Melanie turns to shake George’s hand, he pretends not to notice the move since touching someone’s hands is how George makes a connection to their dead loved ones. When Melanie discovers this, she thinks it would be ‘fun’ to have him ‘do’ her. You soon learn that Melanie was thinking George’s ‘reading’ would be a hoax; “You will meet the man of your dreams in cooking class...”
But the storyline that slowly becomes the most effective belongs to the English twins. It is downright heartbreaking to watch what Marcus goes through.
Despite a very hokey intertwining at the end, I still felt ‘over-all entertained’ by ‘Hereafter’ for some rather odd reasons – It didn’t follow the path I expected (which has been a staple of Eastwood’s better films) and at first I was disappointed, but soon realized that by not following the formula, Clint has created something unique. Even though he does take the route to hokum-ville to wrap the three tales together, But by the time he does that, I was thinking, “Well, I never expected Eastwood to do something as corny as that!”
So once again, he threw an unexpected twist at me by playing the time worn intersecting trilogy ploy...
In a very weak year, I have 'Hereafter' in my Top 5, but I don't expect it to stay there.

SECRETARIAT

2010-10-13T12:59:00.000-07:00

“SECRETARIAT” (Diane Lane & John Malkovich)

I was going to like this movie no-matter-what. I was on the verge of turning 18 in May of 1973 when Secretariat began his historic run to the Triple Crown & had been a horse racing fan for a little over a year. What has bothered me about other reviews I have read has been that they tell the reader in detail ‘how’ he did it (& no, it wasn’t ‘Impossible’ as the ad campaign emphasizes because he DID IT, you morons) Like everyone planning to see this movie was alive & cognizant in 1973 & knows all the details of Secretariat’s amazing feat. True, I knew & it didn’t bother me ‘BECAUSE’ I witnessed it as it happened – what Secretariat did in the Belmont was, to this writer, the most incredible athletic feat I have ever seen in my lifetime & I’m relatively sure I’ll never see anything close to topping it. That was all that needed to be revealed to those who only knew the name ‘Secretariat’ was one of the most beloved in all horseracing.
To the movie itself – I was apprehensive about 2 things; it being a ‘Disney’ production; and the fact that John Malkovich would be acting in a ‘Disney’ production (The 2 just didn’t seem to go hand-in-hand, if you know what I mean)
Malkovich playing disagreeable trainer Lucien Laurin would seem to be a good fit in an R-Rated version, but ‘Disney’? John pulls it off though, he is the obnoxious, bull headed, do it my way or the highway French Canadian trainer without resorting to colorful curse words & phrases. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been a better film with them, but Malkovich’s performance almost makes you certain that he did drop several expletives during the film.
Pretty much everyone else is cookie-cutter characterizations & that suits this story just fine – the stars are the horse & the owner & in that this movie hits the mark to perfection.
Diane Lane as Penny Tweedy should get an Oscar nomination – Not that she showed outstanding acting abilities but because she ‘added’ to the story instead of detracting from it by being the ‘simple homemaker from Colorado who takes over her dad’s horse breeding farm once her mother passes away & dad begins to lose control of his mental faculties’. Even though I thought the film should have been called “The Penny Chenery Tweedy Story” instead of “Secretariat” for the first hour or so – Once the gates open for the Kentucky Derby & Secretariat ‘does what he was born to do’ the film will bring back grand memories for all of those who witnessed it originally & hopefully for those who weren’t around, they’ll get an idea as to what a marvelous experience it was.
‘Big Red’ wasn’t ‘just another racehorse’ in the same sense that Muhammad Ali wasn’t ‘just another boxer’ – when they say in the movie that Secretariat is ‘posing’ for photos, that isn’t made up – that’s exactly what he would do. Other horses would trudge out onto the race track – Secretariat ‘strutted’ onto the track with his head up high & ears pricked.
Don’t be too quick to dismiss people who say, “Secretariat KNEW what the Triple Crown was - & he KNEW how important winning the Belmont Stakes was. I believe he did. I also believe he is the only horse to EVER know those things, so I’m not just some horse lover that thinks they’re ‘special’ animals – just THIS ONE was.
And the irony of it all is that I have no interest in horseracing anymore. Haven’t for many, many years, though I spent a great deal of my late teens & early twenties at Longacres (Where I witnessed the Belmont in 1973)
There were a few instances that soured me on the sport of kings, but I believe one of the reasons I stopped attending the races is due to the fact that I knew I had seen the greatest horse run the greatest race of all time and there was nowhere to go but downhill from there. And the one thing that makes this film spectacular are the recreation of those races, especially the Belmont – it was eerily similar to what was going on in the lower clubhouse at Longacres as everyone crowded around the television sets to witness history. The comments from the crowd in the movie were the same that were made in the clubhouse. When the crowd went silent in the movie & jaws began dropping open; ditto the clubhouse. Jaws dropped. Followed by tears of joy. And guttural screams that one emits when one has witnessed something miraculous. It was one of the most memorable days of my life – and trust me, THAT horse knew what he was capable of doing. And he did it. Impossible? No. Amazing. Incredible. Unbelievable. Insurmountable. UNFORGETTABLE? Indubitably.

IT'S A FUNNY KIND OF STORY

2010-10-13T12:54:00.000-07:00

“IT’S A FUNNY KIND OF STORY” (Keir Gilchrist, Zach Galifianakis & Emma Roberts)

Good title. It IS a funny kind of story. Funny on different levels though. It isn’t funny that the lead character, Craig (Keir Gilchrist) is a teenager who contemplates suicide on almost a daily basis so he checks himself into a mental ward instead of riding his bike to the bridge and jumping off like he planned that morning. But it IS funny when the first person he comes in contact with is a scruffy looking doctor whose questions become more odd as the ‘interview’ proceeds. When said ‘scruffy’ doctor turns out to be a patient named Bobby (Zach Galifianakis) you realize that you’re not going to be viewing your ‘normal’ teenager-with-an-I don’t-fit-in-complex tale.
Craig, put in with the ‘mentally disturbed’ adults because the teenage wing of the hospital is being renovated, quickly decides he made a poor choice & asks to leave. He is informed that once you check yourself in as a potential suicide victim, you’re locked in for five days. “But I have an important test at school tomorrow,” Craig whines. “Should have thought of that before deciding to end your life,” his ‘Doctor-while-committed replies.
Without going into detail, I can relate to this situation – not having suicidal tendencies, but being labeled ‘emotionally disturbed’ when I was 15 & being sent to a ‘home’ for such – So I enjoyed this film quite a lot, though I could easily see where ‘normal’ people may not be able to relate to it as well. So as I go singing the praises of everything about it, keep that in mind – I don’t want anyone telling me ‘you’re nuts for liking this movie so much!’ – I’m already aware of that fact, thank you.
Emma Roberts plays Noelle, another suicidal teen kept in the adult ward, who bonds with Craig after the boy makes a generous offer in an attempt to help Bobby. She mopes and does her best Kristen Stewart impersonation, but then she actually snaps out it and becomes sweet & likeable (Which is why they didn’t hired ‘one-note’ Stewart for the role)
Lauren Graham & Jim Gaffigan play Craig’s parents, who, if anything, are the complete opposite of the type of parents you would expect to raise a suicidal kid.
The only actor that didn’t impress me much was the Oscar nominated (for ‘Doubt’) Viola Davis. She plays Dr. Minerva, the in-house psychiatrist and I thought she misfired on practically every scene she was in. Inappropriate grins are what annoyed me the most. Okay, WE know ‘it’s a funny kind of story’, but as a shrink dealing with people that have suicidal tendencies, you shouldn’t be so amused by your clients when they’re spilling their guts out to you... Another of those little tidbits that bugged me.
I actually believe that Zach Galifianakis will receive an Oscar Nod for his performance here; not that he stood out all that much, but SOMEONE from this cast HAS to get a nomination & he was the best of an excellent bunch.
And Gilchrist will be interesting to watch – this is HIS movie and the kid held his own, though Craig doesn’t change all that much, it’s the people he comes in contact with that make him see his worth – for a young actor to carry a good film in virtually every scene is impressive.
To express the one thing that I felt the film lacked would be a complete spoiler, so it’s best that I leave that criticism out. Just remember, I liked this film a lot... but I was also once cuckoo for Coco Puffs...

CATS & DOGS 2: The REVENGE OF KITTY GALORE

2010-10-13T12:50:00.000-07:00

“CATS & DOGS 2 : The REVENGE OF KITTY GALORE”

While I thought ‘Marmaduke’ was unfairly bashed by critics, this one pretty much deserved the trashing it took. The original was a heartwarming story with a cute puppy that finds himself in the middle of a dog vrs. cat war that secretly rages on without human awareness. The remake offers Chris O’Donnell instead of a young boy and instead of an adorable beagle puppy, the hero is an adult German Shepherd... loses major points in cuddle-ability with that switch.
Although I liked it, the original was only brought back to mind by viewing a replay on TV – Oh yeah, NOW I remember, the one where Jeff Goldblum played a scientist that was trying to find a cure for dog allergies! It was then I realized that the villain cat was called Mr. Tinkles, not Kitty Galore – So the title of the sequel confused me.
Mr. Tinkles has a cameo in #2 which only served to remind me how much better at being annoying he was than Kitty Galore (voiced by Bette Midler)
Next to nothing works, even on a kiddie-flick level here – the dogs aren’t ‘cute’ because they’re almost totally CG’d – ‘Lou’ the original beagle is back, but they didn’t put any effort whatsoever into making him look like the dog from the first movie – they didn’t even try to get someone who even vaguely sounded like Tobey McGuire to voice him.
& speaking of voices – Nick Nolte as Butch, the lead spy dog, sounds like he should be in a rehab kennel detoxing instead of saving the world from a bald pussy. A new character is a ‘stool’ pigeon that acts so 1940’s ‘Negro’, there should have been 2 of them & they should have been called Amos ‘n’ Andy – it was that embarrassing to listen to.
The cuteness factor they decided on was to have Diggs, the German Shepherd (A washed out police dog that is given a second chance as a spy) partner with a female cat – the premise being dogs & cats must join forces to stop the dreadful Kitty Galore (A shaved pussy owned by an inept carnival magician) Being a ‘dog person’ I can tell you straightaway – it doesn’t work – it should be dogs vrs. cats & never the twain shall meet...
The fact that they end with a ‘Silence of the Lambs’ parody which hints there will be yet another sequel showed that the filmmakers were optimistic about #2’s success at the box office (I wonder if those plans have been squelched yet?)