“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!
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
UNKNOWN
“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.
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.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
ARTHUR - The Remake
“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.
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.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
The LINCOLN LAWYER
“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.
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.
Monday, April 4, 2011
PAUL
“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.
There 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.
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.
There 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.
Monday, March 14, 2011
ANOTHER YEAR
“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.
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.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The DILEMMA
“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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)