“LOVE HAPPENS” (Aaron Eckhart & Jennifer Aniston)
The character Aaron Eckhart played in ‘Thank You for Smoking’ would have kicked ‘Love Happens’ Burke Ryan’s ass. Unfortunately, Burke (also played by Eckhart) doesn’t get his ass kicked though I kept hoping his Ex-Marine Father-In-Law (Martin Sheen) was going to show up & do just that – Instead, the one time Jarhead shows up & starts weeping like a 6 year old girl who just had her pigtails pulled by the class pigtail puller... That’s not to say this movie totally sucks – In fact, if promoted properly this film would be receiving a more favorable review, but I don’t see how anyone that bought tickets for this ‘Romantic Comedy’ on opening weekend could walk out of the theatre feeling anything but confused on how it was marketed. First, there’s the light & breezy title; which sounds like the theme song should be sung by Peter Cetera(or someone equally wimpy) Like the promos, it is misleading – the storyline has virtually nothing to do with ‘love’ or how it ‘happens’ - I thought of 2 more suitable titles; “Death Becomes Him” or “Sham Wow!” - because this film is about a man (Eckhart’s Burke Ryan) who uses his wife’s death to scam people that have recently lost a loved one due to tragic circumstances. Burke is one of the most unlikable people you’d ever want to meet, & yet those responsible for the writing & creation of this movie expect audiences to root for him to succeed in finding happiness with Seattle flower shop owner Eloise (Jennifer Aniston) I guess by promoting the film as a ‘romantic comedy’ & using the sappy title ‘Love Happens’ they figure they’d bring in the classic chick flick crowd & they would look past Burke’s obvious disgusting flaw & just go “Aww, the poor man lost his wife & Jennifer is just too adorable for words, I sure hope they end up together – that would be sooo sweet!”
If I reveal too much about the plot in this review, well, tough – if you’re thinking about seeing this tearjerking weeper, at least I’m giving you a realistic viewpoint on what to expect.
Now the older couple that sat in front of us, laughed & clapped their way thru this from start to finish, so they were ‘getting’ the jokes that apparently were escaping me. But this film is about as comedic as ‘7 Pounds’, ‘Atonement’ or ‘I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry’.
However, as J.K. Simmons made ‘Extract’ likable, John Carrol Lynch saves ‘Death Becomes Him’ with a marvelous performance as Walter from Billings, Montana.
I guess I’d better expand on the plot so you understand why Walter saves this from being a complete failure.
After losing his wife in an automobile accident(3 years prior) Burke writes a book called “A-Okay” about coping with the loss – it becomes a best seller & Burke’s sleazy agent (Dan Fogler) decides he should give seminars to cash in on the book’s popularity. Seattle is one of the stops booked for the scam, er, I mean seminar & it just so happens to be where Mrs. Ryan was killed. The dupes, er, I mean audience that pay for the seminar are mostly made up of senile old women & assorted dimwits eager to part with their money for a ‘get well quick’ scheme after losing someone tragically – with the exception of Walter who tells Burke he was coerced by his sister to attend. Walter has lost someone special as well, but he’s smart enough to realize that Burke is just out to make a buck & immediately asks for his money back – con artist Burke knows exactly how to play Walter & talks him into ‘hanging in there’. When Walter refuses to go along with a hokey confidence building routine, I found someone I could relate to. Early on, Burke takes the group of misfits to the roof of a Seattle skyscraper – I remember thinking, even in those early stages, that if these people were smart, they’d all jump off the side of the building & put themselves out of their collective miseries... (Spoiler Alert - they don’t)
I suppose you’re wondering where co-star Jennifer Aniston fits in? Well, that’s another problem with this film – she doesn’t – or I should say – she shouldn’t. This film should have been about redemption; Burke’s & Walter’s – it would have been an improvement.
& I’m not saying Jennifer is awful – she does well in this role & the material/dialogue she’s given. She doesn’t have great acting chops, but she’s just so darn cute & cuddly she’s hard not to like. When she feigns being deaf in order to reject Burke’s initial ‘come-on’, I thought that was clever. Until the a—hole discovers he was duped & confronts her for stooping so low as to pretend to be handicapped just to get out of having a conversation with a fellow human being. I hated to admit it, but the jerk was right; thus spoiling the first light-hearted moment of this dreary tale.
As much as I disliked Burke & this film in general – the damn thing did eventually win me over (But you weren’t expecting that line, were you?) & once again, I can’t tell you why I ended up liking the film because that would be an actual spoiler, giving you no reason to see it yourself. Let me just say that Walter’s story was the backbone & the fact that Eloise’s tight jeans kept my interest peaked (& Eloise wears those jeans throughout the entire movie) Although they lost me momentarily with a moronic, contrived attempt at comedy with the Rocky the cockatiel routine, even that stupid moment had a nice payoff in the end. So what can I tell you?
I hated ‘Love Happens’ for better than 3/4ths of the film & then it turned my disgruntled frown into a satisfied smirk proving yet again, it is better to have a welcomed ending than it is to get off to a great start & then fizzle out. Just know that ‘Death Becomes Him’ (AKA ‘Love Happens’) is NOT a romantic comedy.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
EXTRACT
“EXTRACT” (Jason Bateman, Mila Kunis, Ben Affleck J.K. Simmons &
Clifton Collins, Jr.)
Why would someone who hated ‘Beavis & Butthead’ & can’t stand ‘King Of The Hill’ go to a movie written & directed by Mike Judge? The answer is simple – the alternative was “All About Steve”.
My reason for choosing ‘Extract’ was simple – If I’m going to be insulted by dumbed-down comedy, I'd rather look at the exceptionally hot Mila Kunis instead of the over-the-hill Sandra Bullock.
When I saw Mila in ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ I was stunned at how attractive she was. I tuned into a ‘That 70’s Show’ rerun to see how I could have missed such a gorgeous female & didn’t find her overwhelmingly pulchritudinous. Was it the transference of her beautiful brown eyes to the big screen that did it – or did she simply grow up & blossom since the series ended? Either way, Mila has now become one of those actresses I will pay money to see in a film simply because she is so adorable she’s worth the price of admission alone. Plus, she shows a bit of range in her role here by playing the ‘bad girl’ that preys on the type of losers that appear in Mike Judge productions.
So how bad was ‘Extract’? Well, thanks to J.K. Simmons it earned an 18.5 on the laugh-o-meter, making it a mild surprise.
The plot revolves around Jason Bateman’s character, Joel, who runs a company that produces various ‘extract’ flavors. Ben Affleck plays his best friend Dean. J.K. Simmons is Brian (Co-owner of the company, I believe – or his manager) Clifton Collins, Jr. is ‘Step’ an employee. Kristen Wiig plays his frigid wife, Suzie, and David Koechner his annoying next door neighbor.
An accident at the factory leaves Step with only one testicle & that’s where con artist Cindy (Mila) comes in. Cindy seduces Step as he recovers, talking him into suing Joel & the plant. She then takes a job at the plant & comes on to Joel.
There’s your basic plot & character list; now, what made this film work was Brian. When J.K. Simmons gets the right role he can steal a movie with one scene (As he did at the end of ‘Burn After Reading”) Here he does it with his flawless delivery of calling every employee at the plant ‘Dinkus’ (Except when referring to ‘Boy Genius’)
I anticipated every scene involving Brian & that alone makes this a film worthy of viewing.
Because of the lack of attention he gets from his wife, Joel starts planning ways of seducing the new girl, Cindy; to make this acceptable to Joel, his friend Dean tells him to hire a male gigolo to seduce Suzie, so he can have an affair with Cindy as an act of revenge.
As you can see, ‘Extract’ isn’t your run of the mill comedy & for that, Judge is to be commended. The characters are both unique, yet mainstream (if that makes sense) In other words, they have quirks, but are relatable – You should recognize these Dinkus’s from your own life, be they co-workers, family or friends (Or that ‘Boy Genius’ friend of a friend you’re acquainted with)
There is one exception to the ‘pleasant surprise’ of this film & that is the unfortunate inclusion of Gene Simmons as shyster lawyer Joe Adler... I couldn’t really tell you which annoyed me more – the fact that ‘this’ Simmons simply can’t act – or the fact that he looks like he’s made of plastic. Stay in the realm of ‘reality TV’ Gene, you’re annoying enough just being yourself – Oh, & good luck selling all those Kiss coffins...
Clifton Collins, Jr.)
Why would someone who hated ‘Beavis & Butthead’ & can’t stand ‘King Of The Hill’ go to a movie written & directed by Mike Judge? The answer is simple – the alternative was “All About Steve”.
My reason for choosing ‘Extract’ was simple – If I’m going to be insulted by dumbed-down comedy, I'd rather look at the exceptionally hot Mila Kunis instead of the over-the-hill Sandra Bullock.
When I saw Mila in ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ I was stunned at how attractive she was. I tuned into a ‘That 70’s Show’ rerun to see how I could have missed such a gorgeous female & didn’t find her overwhelmingly pulchritudinous. Was it the transference of her beautiful brown eyes to the big screen that did it – or did she simply grow up & blossom since the series ended? Either way, Mila has now become one of those actresses I will pay money to see in a film simply because she is so adorable she’s worth the price of admission alone. Plus, she shows a bit of range in her role here by playing the ‘bad girl’ that preys on the type of losers that appear in Mike Judge productions.
So how bad was ‘Extract’? Well, thanks to J.K. Simmons it earned an 18.5 on the laugh-o-meter, making it a mild surprise.
The plot revolves around Jason Bateman’s character, Joel, who runs a company that produces various ‘extract’ flavors. Ben Affleck plays his best friend Dean. J.K. Simmons is Brian (Co-owner of the company, I believe – or his manager) Clifton Collins, Jr. is ‘Step’ an employee. Kristen Wiig plays his frigid wife, Suzie, and David Koechner his annoying next door neighbor.
An accident at the factory leaves Step with only one testicle & that’s where con artist Cindy (Mila) comes in. Cindy seduces Step as he recovers, talking him into suing Joel & the plant. She then takes a job at the plant & comes on to Joel.
There’s your basic plot & character list; now, what made this film work was Brian. When J.K. Simmons gets the right role he can steal a movie with one scene (As he did at the end of ‘Burn After Reading”) Here he does it with his flawless delivery of calling every employee at the plant ‘Dinkus’ (Except when referring to ‘Boy Genius’)
I anticipated every scene involving Brian & that alone makes this a film worthy of viewing.
Because of the lack of attention he gets from his wife, Joel starts planning ways of seducing the new girl, Cindy; to make this acceptable to Joel, his friend Dean tells him to hire a male gigolo to seduce Suzie, so he can have an affair with Cindy as an act of revenge.
As you can see, ‘Extract’ isn’t your run of the mill comedy & for that, Judge is to be commended. The characters are both unique, yet mainstream (if that makes sense) In other words, they have quirks, but are relatable – You should recognize these Dinkus’s from your own life, be they co-workers, family or friends (Or that ‘Boy Genius’ friend of a friend you’re acquainted with)
There is one exception to the ‘pleasant surprise’ of this film & that is the unfortunate inclusion of Gene Simmons as shyster lawyer Joe Adler... I couldn’t really tell you which annoyed me more – the fact that ‘this’ Simmons simply can’t act – or the fact that he looks like he’s made of plastic. Stay in the realm of ‘reality TV’ Gene, you’re annoying enough just being yourself – Oh, & good luck selling all those Kiss coffins...
Thursday, September 10, 2009
TAKING WOODSTOCK
“TAKING WOODSTOCK” (Demetri Martin, Imelda Staunton & Henry Goodman)
“It’s getting to the point where I’m no fun anymore; I am sorry...”
Stephen Stills sang that line at Woodstock in 1969 & now, 40 years later, it perfectly describes the movies of 2009. Even though this film was ‘all right’, it wasn’t anything special – unlike the event which inspired its making. I liked most of it, up until the ‘festival’ got started & they then turned it into a long, boring acid trip (just to let everyone know that it was as much about drugs as it was about peace & music?)
Yet another ‘Daily Show’ contributor tries his hand at acting & although Demetri doesn’t ruin the film, he doesn’t add much to it either. I look at his contribution in two ways – One positive; his normal persona fits the character he’s playing – plus it’s the peripheral
characters that are meant to bring some spark to the table, not his – but he becomes a negative because he has to carry the entire film – the film is his story so the camera basically follows him around showing just what He went thru to help make Woodstock happen & what He did during the 3 days of peace, love & music (& DRUGS!) So if you’re expecting to see actors playing your favorite artists & see what sort of backstage shenanigans took place, you’ll be disappointed – there is NONE of that. & that’s why I used Stephen’s line – in the end, ‘Taking Woodstock’ wasn’t as much FUN as I hoped it would be.
Demetri plays Elliot Teichberg; living in Bethel, N.Y. with his aging parents (Staunton & Goodman) helping them run their dilapidated hotel & wishing he had the guts to leave home & get out on his own.
Probably due to the fact that no one else wanted to bother to do it, Elliot heads the city council & every year he helps put together the summer music festival which usually consists of a couple of high school bands. Still, Elliot needs a permit & approval from the council to set this miniscule shindig in motion, so when he learns that the people of Walkill drove the ‘Woodstock’ festival out of their town Elliot contacts Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) & suggests holding it in Bethel. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that Groff was ‘created’ as a clone of the late T. Rex frontman, Marc Bolan.
Eugene Levy plays Max Yasgur, the dairy farmer who initially rents his farm to the festival for $5,000 – until he learns how massive the event was becoming & suddenly his asking price skyrockets.
Liev Schreiber plays Vilma, the ‘person’ in charge of security at the hotel. Playing a transvestite isn’t easy to pull off & sometimes Schreiber hits & sometimes he misses, but I still looked forward to every scene in which he appeared just because Vilma was such an unusual character.
& I hate to say it, but once again, Paul Dano becomes the biggest bummer in a movie by playing a groovy, peace-loving stoner without much conviction. I liked the film up until Dano shows up – then it bogs down with a totally NON mind-blowing LSD trip. I guess Ang Lee wanted to give those in the audience the experience of taking a trip on acid with silly 60’s style artistic images that quite frankly bored me. I wanted Elliot to get to the festival & go behind the scenes – meet Pete Townshend who would abruptly turn around & say, “Get the (bleep) off my stage!” SOMETHING involving some of the acts that performed. Even a contrived meeting with Stephen Stills; Elliot could meet him just as he, David & Graham are about to go onstage & ask how he felt. “How do I feel?” Stills could reply incredulously, “I’m scared sh*tless!” To which Graham could remark, “Hey Stephen, you should use that to introduce us!”
But no, there’s nothing like that – the music is barely heard at all except in the distance. The artists take a back seat in this ‘Woodstock’ & that’s a total bummer, man.
Knowing this would have helped me enjoy the film more, because I did enjoy seeing how the event unfolded & came into being – I just wished they would have left Elliot & his first experiences with sex & drugs behind while we got to peek backstage & watch the professionals have sex & drugs instead of the novices...
“It’s getting to the point where I’m no fun anymore; I am sorry...”
Stephen Stills sang that line at Woodstock in 1969 & now, 40 years later, it perfectly describes the movies of 2009. Even though this film was ‘all right’, it wasn’t anything special – unlike the event which inspired its making. I liked most of it, up until the ‘festival’ got started & they then turned it into a long, boring acid trip (just to let everyone know that it was as much about drugs as it was about peace & music?)
Yet another ‘Daily Show’ contributor tries his hand at acting & although Demetri doesn’t ruin the film, he doesn’t add much to it either. I look at his contribution in two ways – One positive; his normal persona fits the character he’s playing – plus it’s the peripheral
characters that are meant to bring some spark to the table, not his – but he becomes a negative because he has to carry the entire film – the film is his story so the camera basically follows him around showing just what He went thru to help make Woodstock happen & what He did during the 3 days of peace, love & music (& DRUGS!) So if you’re expecting to see actors playing your favorite artists & see what sort of backstage shenanigans took place, you’ll be disappointed – there is NONE of that. & that’s why I used Stephen’s line – in the end, ‘Taking Woodstock’ wasn’t as much FUN as I hoped it would be.
Demetri plays Elliot Teichberg; living in Bethel, N.Y. with his aging parents (Staunton & Goodman) helping them run their dilapidated hotel & wishing he had the guts to leave home & get out on his own.
Probably due to the fact that no one else wanted to bother to do it, Elliot heads the city council & every year he helps put together the summer music festival which usually consists of a couple of high school bands. Still, Elliot needs a permit & approval from the council to set this miniscule shindig in motion, so when he learns that the people of Walkill drove the ‘Woodstock’ festival out of their town Elliot contacts Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) & suggests holding it in Bethel. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that Groff was ‘created’ as a clone of the late T. Rex frontman, Marc Bolan.
Eugene Levy plays Max Yasgur, the dairy farmer who initially rents his farm to the festival for $5,000 – until he learns how massive the event was becoming & suddenly his asking price skyrockets.
Liev Schreiber plays Vilma, the ‘person’ in charge of security at the hotel. Playing a transvestite isn’t easy to pull off & sometimes Schreiber hits & sometimes he misses, but I still looked forward to every scene in which he appeared just because Vilma was such an unusual character.
& I hate to say it, but once again, Paul Dano becomes the biggest bummer in a movie by playing a groovy, peace-loving stoner without much conviction. I liked the film up until Dano shows up – then it bogs down with a totally NON mind-blowing LSD trip. I guess Ang Lee wanted to give those in the audience the experience of taking a trip on acid with silly 60’s style artistic images that quite frankly bored me. I wanted Elliot to get to the festival & go behind the scenes – meet Pete Townshend who would abruptly turn around & say, “Get the (bleep) off my stage!” SOMETHING involving some of the acts that performed. Even a contrived meeting with Stephen Stills; Elliot could meet him just as he, David & Graham are about to go onstage & ask how he felt. “How do I feel?” Stills could reply incredulously, “I’m scared sh*tless!” To which Graham could remark, “Hey Stephen, you should use that to introduce us!”
But no, there’s nothing like that – the music is barely heard at all except in the distance. The artists take a back seat in this ‘Woodstock’ & that’s a total bummer, man.
Knowing this would have helped me enjoy the film more, because I did enjoy seeing how the event unfolded & came into being – I just wished they would have left Elliot & his first experiences with sex & drugs behind while we got to peek backstage & watch the professionals have sex & drugs instead of the novices...
Sunday, August 30, 2009
JULIE & JULIA
“JULIE & JULIA” (Amy Adams & Meryl Streep)
Five and a half hours of cooking food, eating food, talking about food, writing a blog about food and compiling a cookbook - This may well be the dullest movie ever made & a shoe-in to make my 10 Worst of 2009 list.
How could the two female leads of “Doubt” produce such dreck? This film is awful. I cannot fathom how anyone would find anything in this story even remotely interesting.
It is, in a word, B-O-R-I-N-G, with a capital BORE.
When I heard about this film I thought it couldn’t possibly be as bad as the plot would lead you to believe – but it’s even worse than I could have imagined. For those of you who may not know, this is the 'tales' of 2 women leading exceptionally boring lives & boring us with their unfathomably boring exploits in which absolutely nothing interesting happens to either person. To add to the misery everyone they know & come in contact with is also a boorish boring bore.
To give you an idea as to how terrible this film is the lone highlight involved a SNL rerun involving Dan Ackroyd. The only deserving Oscar nomination from this pile of rubbish should go to Ackroyd for Best Supporting Actress. In my last review I took a shot at ‘Inglourious Basterds’ for stooping to a low level by including Mike Myers; Here, the only scene worth viewing WAS an actual SNL skit!
Amy Adams plays Julie; a boring woman with a boring job who has aggravatingly pretentious friends whom we are forced to endure during a ‘lunch’ scene in which the two most insufferable of these friends spend more time on their cell phones talking to their assistants than they do with their dining companions. Having to sit with a pair of boring, insufferable bitches is not my idea of entertainment – It’s ANNOYING!
When Julie finds out one of her boring friends is having her blog turned into a book, she decides she can do the same – after all, she’s just as boring as they are & not nearly as pretentious or insufferable. Unfortunately Julie decides to blog about cooking every meal in Julia Child’s French cookbook... Scene after scene of cooks cooking & bloggers blogging; how could the script not be jam packed with excitement?
The film then shifts back & forth from Julie’s boring exploits as a cooking blogger to how Julia Child actually came to write a boring cookbook with her boring ambassador to France husband (boringly played by John Tucci)
Let’s pick on Julie first, shall we? We are forced to sit thru a scene with Julie & her husband eating dinner & both continuously talking with their mouths’ full - & what are they talking about? Well, the food they’re eating, of course! (Why did you even bother to ask?) So not only are these people boring, they have deplorable table manners as well.
An early entry in Julie’s blog reads, “Yesterday, I poached an egg...”
Fascinating reading, is it not?
Since I am a notorious nit picker, here’s a little snippet about Julie that annoyed me as well; after inviting friends over to have one of her fabulous French meals, Julie greets her female friend with a warm hug – she then addresses her friend’s male companion as “Hey, You.” I hate that. It is so rude & condescending. ‘Hey You’ is what you call someone when you can’t remember their name or feel they are so insignificant you don’t give a crap what their name is... Bloggers are such bitches.
Now, I’ll switch gears to the fascinating world of Julia Child before she ‘changed the world’ with her cookbook... Yes, they actually say this woman ‘CHANGED THE WORLD’ with a COOKBOOK.
As Julia attends a cooking class in France, we get to see her & several other chefs on the brink of changing the world as we know it by chopping onions... Not content with showing us the one scene of onion chopping, we are then shown a scene of Julia chopping onions at home (going solo – must have been that extra effort that helped her to change the world so dramatically) We then are taken back to cooking class where we see... you guessed it, future French chefs standing around a table chopping even more onions. If viewing a circle-onion-chopping-jerk is your idea of great filmmaking, you WILL shoot a load while watching ‘Julie & Julia’.
Julia tells her husband, “All I think about is food – All I DREAM about is food...” & all she ever talks about is food! They couldn’t have written these characters any more boring even if they had used actual corpses to play the roles.
Also Julia & her husband are chain smokers – in the 136 scenes of Julia & her non-morbidly obese husband having dinner, they both are shown smoking cigarettes & cigarette smoke is swirling in big puffy clouds all about them... I grew up in a family full of chain smokers – You can’t taste anything but smoke when you eat around them & this pair of nimrods are so infatuated with food that it’s all they think & DREAM about?
Their taste buds are covered with tar & nicotine! They can’t taste anything but ashes!
The usually scene stealing Jane Lynch plays Julia’s sister, Dorothy & when I realized it was Jane playing the role, I actually got my hopes up that this film was finally going to entertain me briefly... Don’t ask me how they did it, but they even made Jane Lynch boring!
There was one scene that made me smile (Aside from the SNL rerun) At Dorothy’s wedding, Julia touches her sister’s arm while dancing with their spouses. Dorothy reaches out & touches Julia back. It was a sweet moment, a tender moment & a wonderfully welcomed moment... Because No One Was Talking About FOOD!
Other than my mind shouting to me, “Hey, look, its Cliff Clavin’s ‘ma’!” this film was void of any memorable scenes.
I’ll quote my favorite quotable character to end this review – As Homer Simpson said to Tom Petty after Tom told the wanna-be rockers at the Rolling Stones Rock’n’Roll Fantasy Camp how hard it was to come up with a set of truly meaningful lyrics . . .
“B-O-R-I-N-G!”
Five and a half hours of cooking food, eating food, talking about food, writing a blog about food and compiling a cookbook - This may well be the dullest movie ever made & a shoe-in to make my 10 Worst of 2009 list.
How could the two female leads of “Doubt” produce such dreck? This film is awful. I cannot fathom how anyone would find anything in this story even remotely interesting.
It is, in a word, B-O-R-I-N-G, with a capital BORE.
When I heard about this film I thought it couldn’t possibly be as bad as the plot would lead you to believe – but it’s even worse than I could have imagined. For those of you who may not know, this is the 'tales' of 2 women leading exceptionally boring lives & boring us with their unfathomably boring exploits in which absolutely nothing interesting happens to either person. To add to the misery everyone they know & come in contact with is also a boorish boring bore.
To give you an idea as to how terrible this film is the lone highlight involved a SNL rerun involving Dan Ackroyd. The only deserving Oscar nomination from this pile of rubbish should go to Ackroyd for Best Supporting Actress. In my last review I took a shot at ‘Inglourious Basterds’ for stooping to a low level by including Mike Myers; Here, the only scene worth viewing WAS an actual SNL skit!
Amy Adams plays Julie; a boring woman with a boring job who has aggravatingly pretentious friends whom we are forced to endure during a ‘lunch’ scene in which the two most insufferable of these friends spend more time on their cell phones talking to their assistants than they do with their dining companions. Having to sit with a pair of boring, insufferable bitches is not my idea of entertainment – It’s ANNOYING!
When Julie finds out one of her boring friends is having her blog turned into a book, she decides she can do the same – after all, she’s just as boring as they are & not nearly as pretentious or insufferable. Unfortunately Julie decides to blog about cooking every meal in Julia Child’s French cookbook... Scene after scene of cooks cooking & bloggers blogging; how could the script not be jam packed with excitement?
The film then shifts back & forth from Julie’s boring exploits as a cooking blogger to how Julia Child actually came to write a boring cookbook with her boring ambassador to France husband (boringly played by John Tucci)
Let’s pick on Julie first, shall we? We are forced to sit thru a scene with Julie & her husband eating dinner & both continuously talking with their mouths’ full - & what are they talking about? Well, the food they’re eating, of course! (Why did you even bother to ask?) So not only are these people boring, they have deplorable table manners as well.
An early entry in Julie’s blog reads, “Yesterday, I poached an egg...”
Fascinating reading, is it not?
Since I am a notorious nit picker, here’s a little snippet about Julie that annoyed me as well; after inviting friends over to have one of her fabulous French meals, Julie greets her female friend with a warm hug – she then addresses her friend’s male companion as “Hey, You.” I hate that. It is so rude & condescending. ‘Hey You’ is what you call someone when you can’t remember their name or feel they are so insignificant you don’t give a crap what their name is... Bloggers are such bitches.
Now, I’ll switch gears to the fascinating world of Julia Child before she ‘changed the world’ with her cookbook... Yes, they actually say this woman ‘CHANGED THE WORLD’ with a COOKBOOK.
As Julia attends a cooking class in France, we get to see her & several other chefs on the brink of changing the world as we know it by chopping onions... Not content with showing us the one scene of onion chopping, we are then shown a scene of Julia chopping onions at home (going solo – must have been that extra effort that helped her to change the world so dramatically) We then are taken back to cooking class where we see... you guessed it, future French chefs standing around a table chopping even more onions. If viewing a circle-onion-chopping-jerk is your idea of great filmmaking, you WILL shoot a load while watching ‘Julie & Julia’.
Julia tells her husband, “All I think about is food – All I DREAM about is food...” & all she ever talks about is food! They couldn’t have written these characters any more boring even if they had used actual corpses to play the roles.
Also Julia & her husband are chain smokers – in the 136 scenes of Julia & her non-morbidly obese husband having dinner, they both are shown smoking cigarettes & cigarette smoke is swirling in big puffy clouds all about them... I grew up in a family full of chain smokers – You can’t taste anything but smoke when you eat around them & this pair of nimrods are so infatuated with food that it’s all they think & DREAM about?
Their taste buds are covered with tar & nicotine! They can’t taste anything but ashes!
The usually scene stealing Jane Lynch plays Julia’s sister, Dorothy & when I realized it was Jane playing the role, I actually got my hopes up that this film was finally going to entertain me briefly... Don’t ask me how they did it, but they even made Jane Lynch boring!
There was one scene that made me smile (Aside from the SNL rerun) At Dorothy’s wedding, Julia touches her sister’s arm while dancing with their spouses. Dorothy reaches out & touches Julia back. It was a sweet moment, a tender moment & a wonderfully welcomed moment... Because No One Was Talking About FOOD!
Other than my mind shouting to me, “Hey, look, its Cliff Clavin’s ‘ma’!” this film was void of any memorable scenes.
I’ll quote my favorite quotable character to end this review – As Homer Simpson said to Tom Petty after Tom told the wanna-be rockers at the Rolling Stones Rock’n’Roll Fantasy Camp how hard it was to come up with a set of truly meaningful lyrics . . .
“B-O-R-I-N-G!”
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
“INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS” (Brad Pitt, etc.)
Is ‘Inglourious Basterds’ the best movie of 2009 so far? Well, to quote a character from the film, “NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!”
Is it an entertaining ‘farce’? Oui.
Probably Brad Pitt’s most memorable performance on film; clearly a break out for Christoph Waltz & a surprisingly excellent performance by Diane Kruger (Who knew she could act?)
So why did it leave me with such a distasteful load of hokum in my mouth?
The ending just flat out sucks. You base a film on actual historic events & then you change history just to be ‘whimsical’, you’re a cheater in my book. Anyone who gave Tom Cruise crap for speaking ‘American’ in “Valkyrie” better not dare say anything positive about this film – At least the story of Valkyrie stuck to the truth!
The very final scene could have been left intact & I would have loved “Inglourious Basterds”, but what happens just prior to it is so absurd, it makes a farce of the farce and 'basterdizes' the whole movie. Now I know why QT misspelled the words in the title – Nothing about this story is ‘right’. Despite the fact that they start off by telling you events that everyone ‘should’ know to be true (Be you old enough to remember the actual events or spent any inkling of time studying a history book) Tarantino ‘invents’ this band of Jewish/Americans that call themselves the Basterds. You’ve probably seen clips of Brad Pitt’s Aldo Raine ‘addressing’ his troops and demanding that each of them deliver 100 Nazi scalps, as well as The ‘Bear Jew’ that brings a baseball bat to ‘interrogations’ & the aforementioned ‘Hitler’ quote, “NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!”
My first warning to you is that there are subtitles galore; French, German, Italian & English are switched back & forth within the same scenes. There is a continuity problem so obvious in the opening scene that the director HAD to have done it on purpose (I refer to the movement of the glass of milk on the table) I’m sure he did it to let you know there’s nothing in this film that should be taken seriously. I guess you have to give QT originality points for presenting a ‘real life’ historical situation & re-writing history to please the huddled masses... perhaps the Basterds traveled back in time to correct that which had once gone wrong? THAT would have been more plausible to me because I wouldn’t have felt hoodwinked by the director for enjoying his film up until he went totally batsh*t with the ending!
The acting here is very impressive; the lone disappointment to me was the inclusion of Mike Myers playing a cheeky monkey of a British officer – it gave the film the feel of a SNL skit. That was yet another warning to not take anything that happens in this film seriously; Austin Powers playing a General?
But I don’t like being played for a fool & having the wool pulled over my eyes; if there had been a warning at the beginning of the film saying ‘The following events are based on conjecture of what ‘might’ have happened had there been an actual group of ‘Basterds’ on the loose in France during WWII’ I would have been able to sit back & enjoy the film more & gone along with the goofy ending.
As it was, I DID enjoy ‘IB’ despite the over-the-top violence (Which I expected, but doesn’t mean I liked seeing it) because it presented some interesting characters & situations.
Told in Chapters; the opening introduces the most fascinating character in the film – the scene stealing Christoph Waltz plays Nazi Colonel Hans Landa; nicknamed ‘The Jew Hunter’ by his countrymen because of his uncanny ability to ‘sniff out’ Jews in hiding.
As Landa interrogates a French dairy farmer in his home, the tension builds – similar to the coin flipping scene in ‘No Country For Old Men’ with Javier Bardem’s assassin, Anton & the old man at the gas station.
Chapter 2 introduces the ‘Basterds'.
Chapter 3 is the interrogation scene; both brutally violent & laugh out loud funny I’d have to call it the best scene in the film.
The following chapters tell the story of Joseph Goebbels’ plans to premiere his film about a Nazi sharpshooter that killed hundreds of Allied men from a turret. Goebbels, played by Sylvester Groth, comes across as being a bit fruity & so I didn’t buy him as the monster he was in real life (Another ‘wink, wink, this isn’t a true story’ clue from QT?)
Martin Wuttke plays Hitler as a hotheaded paranoid nimrod, which I believed for a brief while, but not as he sat chortling and clapping like a mentally challenged individual watching Goebbels’ film, “Nation’s Pride”.
Kruger plays actress Bridget von Hammersmark & almost steals the film from Pitt & Waltz with her amazing performance. I call it amazing because she has been nothing but eye candy in every movie I’ve seen her in.
The only major character I haven’t mentioned is Melanie Laurent’s; I omitted writing about her because to do so would give too much of the plot away. Although I had no problem with Laurent’s performance, I will let you know if you need to take a bathroom break during this 2 ½ hour film, do it while David Bowie’s “Cat People” is inexplicably playing under a scene where Laurent is applying make-up. Just don’t dawdle in the head; you won’t want to miss Lt. Raine’s first face to face meeting with Landa while pretending to be an Italian film director (because Aldo is the most affluent member of his squad at speaking Italian) But you will want to have an empty bladder prior to viewing the scene as it may cause you to wet yourself with laughter.
Yes, a very good film, & I’m sure when I view it again, I’ll be able to appreciate it more because I’ll know going in that it has absolutely nothing to do with HISTORY as we know it...
Is ‘Inglourious Basterds’ the best movie of 2009 so far? Well, to quote a character from the film, “NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!”
Is it an entertaining ‘farce’? Oui.
Probably Brad Pitt’s most memorable performance on film; clearly a break out for Christoph Waltz & a surprisingly excellent performance by Diane Kruger (Who knew she could act?)
So why did it leave me with such a distasteful load of hokum in my mouth?
The ending just flat out sucks. You base a film on actual historic events & then you change history just to be ‘whimsical’, you’re a cheater in my book. Anyone who gave Tom Cruise crap for speaking ‘American’ in “Valkyrie” better not dare say anything positive about this film – At least the story of Valkyrie stuck to the truth!
The very final scene could have been left intact & I would have loved “Inglourious Basterds”, but what happens just prior to it is so absurd, it makes a farce of the farce and 'basterdizes' the whole movie. Now I know why QT misspelled the words in the title – Nothing about this story is ‘right’. Despite the fact that they start off by telling you events that everyone ‘should’ know to be true (Be you old enough to remember the actual events or spent any inkling of time studying a history book) Tarantino ‘invents’ this band of Jewish/Americans that call themselves the Basterds. You’ve probably seen clips of Brad Pitt’s Aldo Raine ‘addressing’ his troops and demanding that each of them deliver 100 Nazi scalps, as well as The ‘Bear Jew’ that brings a baseball bat to ‘interrogations’ & the aforementioned ‘Hitler’ quote, “NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!”
My first warning to you is that there are subtitles galore; French, German, Italian & English are switched back & forth within the same scenes. There is a continuity problem so obvious in the opening scene that the director HAD to have done it on purpose (I refer to the movement of the glass of milk on the table) I’m sure he did it to let you know there’s nothing in this film that should be taken seriously. I guess you have to give QT originality points for presenting a ‘real life’ historical situation & re-writing history to please the huddled masses... perhaps the Basterds traveled back in time to correct that which had once gone wrong? THAT would have been more plausible to me because I wouldn’t have felt hoodwinked by the director for enjoying his film up until he went totally batsh*t with the ending!
The acting here is very impressive; the lone disappointment to me was the inclusion of Mike Myers playing a cheeky monkey of a British officer – it gave the film the feel of a SNL skit. That was yet another warning to not take anything that happens in this film seriously; Austin Powers playing a General?
But I don’t like being played for a fool & having the wool pulled over my eyes; if there had been a warning at the beginning of the film saying ‘The following events are based on conjecture of what ‘might’ have happened had there been an actual group of ‘Basterds’ on the loose in France during WWII’ I would have been able to sit back & enjoy the film more & gone along with the goofy ending.
As it was, I DID enjoy ‘IB’ despite the over-the-top violence (Which I expected, but doesn’t mean I liked seeing it) because it presented some interesting characters & situations.
Told in Chapters; the opening introduces the most fascinating character in the film – the scene stealing Christoph Waltz plays Nazi Colonel Hans Landa; nicknamed ‘The Jew Hunter’ by his countrymen because of his uncanny ability to ‘sniff out’ Jews in hiding.
As Landa interrogates a French dairy farmer in his home, the tension builds – similar to the coin flipping scene in ‘No Country For Old Men’ with Javier Bardem’s assassin, Anton & the old man at the gas station.
Chapter 2 introduces the ‘Basterds'.
Chapter 3 is the interrogation scene; both brutally violent & laugh out loud funny I’d have to call it the best scene in the film.
The following chapters tell the story of Joseph Goebbels’ plans to premiere his film about a Nazi sharpshooter that killed hundreds of Allied men from a turret. Goebbels, played by Sylvester Groth, comes across as being a bit fruity & so I didn’t buy him as the monster he was in real life (Another ‘wink, wink, this isn’t a true story’ clue from QT?)
Martin Wuttke plays Hitler as a hotheaded paranoid nimrod, which I believed for a brief while, but not as he sat chortling and clapping like a mentally challenged individual watching Goebbels’ film, “Nation’s Pride”.
Kruger plays actress Bridget von Hammersmark & almost steals the film from Pitt & Waltz with her amazing performance. I call it amazing because she has been nothing but eye candy in every movie I’ve seen her in.
The only major character I haven’t mentioned is Melanie Laurent’s; I omitted writing about her because to do so would give too much of the plot away. Although I had no problem with Laurent’s performance, I will let you know if you need to take a bathroom break during this 2 ½ hour film, do it while David Bowie’s “Cat People” is inexplicably playing under a scene where Laurent is applying make-up. Just don’t dawdle in the head; you won’t want to miss Lt. Raine’s first face to face meeting with Landa while pretending to be an Italian film director (because Aldo is the most affluent member of his squad at speaking Italian) But you will want to have an empty bladder prior to viewing the scene as it may cause you to wet yourself with laughter.
Yes, a very good film, & I’m sure when I view it again, I’ll be able to appreciate it more because I’ll know going in that it has absolutely nothing to do with HISTORY as we know it...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
DISTRICT 9
“DISTRICT 9” (Sharlto Copley & Some Prawns)
It gets originality points, but the first half hour is very tough to weather, I almost turned to my wife & told her ‘If you want to go, I don’t have to see the rest of this’ - & that’s something I’ve never done. But I didn’t do that & the film did get better as it abandoned the ‘documentary’ style & turned into an actual movie with a decent storyline.
Sharlto Copley plays Wikus Van De Merwe; employed by a company called MNU & given the job of overseeing the evacuation of ‘Prawns’ from ‘District 9’ in South Africa.
He is given this task not because he’s a capable employee, but because his father-in-law runs the company.
As explained during the ‘documentary’ portion of the film (which is never totally abandoned, but has the decency to get out of the way so the interesting moments can take place) ‘Prawns’ are aliens from another galaxy that have more or less ‘crash landed’ over Johannesburg – though their spaceship doesn’t ‘crash’ to earth, it has merely run out of gas & hovers over the city like a dark foreboding cloud of metal.
The ‘Prawns’ are gathered up & put in what becomes a ‘slum’ known as ‘District 9’ (Pretty much the same set that Slumdog Millionaire used except with slumfishyaliens instead of dogs)
One rather odd revelation is that the Prawns have ‘extreme’ weaponry but since they didn’t come to attack earth, I guess they decide not to use them on us even after we treat them like they’re the scum of the universe. Another little quirk, these handheld WMD’s can only be fired by a Prawn; they won’t fire if a human pulls the trigger.
Wikus is called on the lead the evacuation of Prawns to an even more remote & unlivable situation (District 10, if I remember correctly) being filmed as he goes from shack to shack requesting each aliens ‘signature’ to properly ‘evict’ them.
While snooping thru the Prawn called Christopher’s quarters, Wikus discovers a large metal vial. He tries to open it & it spits out a black liquid that splatters on his face & hand. Almost instantly Wikus doesn’t feel well, but he keeps on making his rounds.
I won’t go any further in telling you what happens next, but it IS when the story began to catch my interest.
I am kind of surprised that there’s been a lot of good buzz about this film since it's just ‘okay’.
The Prawns are inventive beings, but they do look like they’d be more comfortable in an aquarium than a spaceship. But I can’t believe that no one has voiced their disapproval of the film’s anti-human slant. We, the earthlings, are the bad guys in this film – We’re, to quote Daffy Duck, ‘desssspicable’!
Pretty much every human except Wikus is a horrible person & the Prawns are innocent victims of our inability to NOT be racists. Now, I have no problem with this concept at all, I’m not a big fan of the human race as a whole either – I just don’t understand where all the nutjobs are in regard to this anti-human being flick. All I can figure is that they agree with everything the government of South Africa does to these creatures, so they’re all hunky dory with the story...
It gets originality points, but the first half hour is very tough to weather, I almost turned to my wife & told her ‘If you want to go, I don’t have to see the rest of this’ - & that’s something I’ve never done. But I didn’t do that & the film did get better as it abandoned the ‘documentary’ style & turned into an actual movie with a decent storyline.
Sharlto Copley plays Wikus Van De Merwe; employed by a company called MNU & given the job of overseeing the evacuation of ‘Prawns’ from ‘District 9’ in South Africa.
He is given this task not because he’s a capable employee, but because his father-in-law runs the company.
As explained during the ‘documentary’ portion of the film (which is never totally abandoned, but has the decency to get out of the way so the interesting moments can take place) ‘Prawns’ are aliens from another galaxy that have more or less ‘crash landed’ over Johannesburg – though their spaceship doesn’t ‘crash’ to earth, it has merely run out of gas & hovers over the city like a dark foreboding cloud of metal.
The ‘Prawns’ are gathered up & put in what becomes a ‘slum’ known as ‘District 9’ (Pretty much the same set that Slumdog Millionaire used except with slumfishyaliens instead of dogs)
One rather odd revelation is that the Prawns have ‘extreme’ weaponry but since they didn’t come to attack earth, I guess they decide not to use them on us even after we treat them like they’re the scum of the universe. Another little quirk, these handheld WMD’s can only be fired by a Prawn; they won’t fire if a human pulls the trigger.
Wikus is called on the lead the evacuation of Prawns to an even more remote & unlivable situation (District 10, if I remember correctly) being filmed as he goes from shack to shack requesting each aliens ‘signature’ to properly ‘evict’ them.
While snooping thru the Prawn called Christopher’s quarters, Wikus discovers a large metal vial. He tries to open it & it spits out a black liquid that splatters on his face & hand. Almost instantly Wikus doesn’t feel well, but he keeps on making his rounds.
I won’t go any further in telling you what happens next, but it IS when the story began to catch my interest.
I am kind of surprised that there’s been a lot of good buzz about this film since it's just ‘okay’.
The Prawns are inventive beings, but they do look like they’d be more comfortable in an aquarium than a spaceship. But I can’t believe that no one has voiced their disapproval of the film’s anti-human slant. We, the earthlings, are the bad guys in this film – We’re, to quote Daffy Duck, ‘desssspicable’!
Pretty much every human except Wikus is a horrible person & the Prawns are innocent victims of our inability to NOT be racists. Now, I have no problem with this concept at all, I’m not a big fan of the human race as a whole either – I just don’t understand where all the nutjobs are in regard to this anti-human being flick. All I can figure is that they agree with everything the government of South Africa does to these creatures, so they’re all hunky dory with the story...
The TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE
“The TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE” (Rachel McAdams & Eric Bana)
It didn’t take Eric Bana long to wear out all of the accolades I laid upon him for his appearance in 'Star Trek' – seeing ‘Un-Funny People’ & this film on back-to-back weekends really pointed out how ‘stiff’ an actor he is when not playing an evil alien leader. & once again we are slapped in the face with yet ANOTHER time traveling escapade that wears out ITS welcome long before the ending credits begin to roll.
Bana plays Henry, who has been ‘afflicted’ with a time traveling gene since childhood. Henry bounces back & forth thru time confined by the years of his own life. In the opening scenes (Stop here if you don’t want to know how the story begins – since it happens in the first 10 minutes I figure its all right to relate) Henry is a small boy sitting in the back seat of a car driven by his mother. Mom is trying to encourage little Henry to sing with her but he is reluctant. It is a snowy night & the roads are icy. As an out of control truck slides into their lane, Henry’s mother slams on her brakes & the boy vanishes from the back seat. Henry reappears naked by the side of the road just as his mother’s car collides with the truck (& the obligatory fiery explosion occurs) Eric Bana, as grown up Henry suddenly appears beside Henry with a blanket to wrap around his younger self. He tells himself “You just time traveled, but don’t worry, you’ll get used to it.”
So right off the bat, I have a big problem with this story. Little Henry didn’t ‘time travel’, he was ‘beamed’ out of the car & transplanted to safety - & I know Scotty didn’t do it because he hates Romulans & wouldn’t save ones life for all the Scottish whiskey in the universe.
The story then begins to focus on Claire (Rachel McAdams) the time traveler’s wife-to-be. This film has to be her weakest performance to date – she seems to let her dimples & high cheek bones do all her acting for her. Yes, she’s cute & adorable whenever she shines the coy smirk, but that’s about All she does in this - & she’s the Title Character!
One of the problems with this film is casting – McAdams & Bana have zero chemistry (My choice would have been to replace Bana even though Rachel was disappointing, perhaps she would have sparkled more with a different co-star)
In fact, the only chemistrial* spark that lights up is in the scenes between grown up Henry & Claire as an elementary school child – which is ‘ultra-creepy’ when you realize Henry is going to have sex with the little cherub later on in her life. (*Yes, I made up my own word, it fit, so why not?)
I’d call this a ‘low-brow’ ‘Curious Case of Benjamin Button’ in that an interesting story could have been made from this premise, but it isn’t the one the filmmaker chooses to tell. & I don’t mean to over-praise ‘TTW’ or slam ‘CCoBB’ by comparing the two – they are both based on characters with an oddity. & I thought ‘Benjamin Button’ should have focused more on how Benjamin dealt with his situation rather than turn it into a sappy romance - & the same goes here. Henry’s troubled existence opened up a wide variety of interesting paths to take – Instead they center on his affair with Claire, bringing nothing new to the table; Claire is like a jilted wife being cheated on by her ‘never there when she needs him’ husband.
& I won't get into the lazy make-up departments piss poor job of aging both Bana & McAdams as they play their characters from early 20's into their 40's & the only way to tell that Henry is older is due to a few streaks of grey in his hair & McAdams doesn't change at all except she is given a long haired wig to wear to represent Claire in her late teens.
& my final problem with this story is that after they lay out the rules of Henry’s time traveling abilities, they break them without any explanation as to why he was able to appear in years that didn’t fall within his lifetime. As if we, the audience, are just supposed to sit there & go “wasn’t that sweet?” Well, I didn’t go ‘Wasn’t that sweet?’
I went ‘Huh???’
It didn’t take Eric Bana long to wear out all of the accolades I laid upon him for his appearance in 'Star Trek' – seeing ‘Un-Funny People’ & this film on back-to-back weekends really pointed out how ‘stiff’ an actor he is when not playing an evil alien leader. & once again we are slapped in the face with yet ANOTHER time traveling escapade that wears out ITS welcome long before the ending credits begin to roll.
Bana plays Henry, who has been ‘afflicted’ with a time traveling gene since childhood. Henry bounces back & forth thru time confined by the years of his own life. In the opening scenes (Stop here if you don’t want to know how the story begins – since it happens in the first 10 minutes I figure its all right to relate) Henry is a small boy sitting in the back seat of a car driven by his mother. Mom is trying to encourage little Henry to sing with her but he is reluctant. It is a snowy night & the roads are icy. As an out of control truck slides into their lane, Henry’s mother slams on her brakes & the boy vanishes from the back seat. Henry reappears naked by the side of the road just as his mother’s car collides with the truck (& the obligatory fiery explosion occurs) Eric Bana, as grown up Henry suddenly appears beside Henry with a blanket to wrap around his younger self. He tells himself “You just time traveled, but don’t worry, you’ll get used to it.”
So right off the bat, I have a big problem with this story. Little Henry didn’t ‘time travel’, he was ‘beamed’ out of the car & transplanted to safety - & I know Scotty didn’t do it because he hates Romulans & wouldn’t save ones life for all the Scottish whiskey in the universe.
The story then begins to focus on Claire (Rachel McAdams) the time traveler’s wife-to-be. This film has to be her weakest performance to date – she seems to let her dimples & high cheek bones do all her acting for her. Yes, she’s cute & adorable whenever she shines the coy smirk, but that’s about All she does in this - & she’s the Title Character!
One of the problems with this film is casting – McAdams & Bana have zero chemistry (My choice would have been to replace Bana even though Rachel was disappointing, perhaps she would have sparkled more with a different co-star)
In fact, the only chemistrial* spark that lights up is in the scenes between grown up Henry & Claire as an elementary school child – which is ‘ultra-creepy’ when you realize Henry is going to have sex with the little cherub later on in her life. (*Yes, I made up my own word, it fit, so why not?)
I’d call this a ‘low-brow’ ‘Curious Case of Benjamin Button’ in that an interesting story could have been made from this premise, but it isn’t the one the filmmaker chooses to tell. & I don’t mean to over-praise ‘TTW’ or slam ‘CCoBB’ by comparing the two – they are both based on characters with an oddity. & I thought ‘Benjamin Button’ should have focused more on how Benjamin dealt with his situation rather than turn it into a sappy romance - & the same goes here. Henry’s troubled existence opened up a wide variety of interesting paths to take – Instead they center on his affair with Claire, bringing nothing new to the table; Claire is like a jilted wife being cheated on by her ‘never there when she needs him’ husband.
& I won't get into the lazy make-up departments piss poor job of aging both Bana & McAdams as they play their characters from early 20's into their 40's & the only way to tell that Henry is older is due to a few streaks of grey in his hair & McAdams doesn't change at all except she is given a long haired wig to wear to represent Claire in her late teens.
& my final problem with this story is that after they lay out the rules of Henry’s time traveling abilities, they break them without any explanation as to why he was able to appear in years that didn’t fall within his lifetime. As if we, the audience, are just supposed to sit there & go “wasn’t that sweet?” Well, I didn’t go ‘Wasn’t that sweet?’
I went ‘Huh???’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)