Chris' Cinema Center

Cancer, Muppets, and Ghostface, Oh My! The Best Films of 2011

2012-01-25T15:45:00.012-05:00

2011 certainly isn’t my favorite year for movies, but I manged to find a handful of really enjoyable films. There were lots of movies I liked but not many movies that I really truly LOVED. But there are definitely some keepers. Without further ado here’s my list of my favorite films of 2011:

1) Bridesmaids

Unjustly referred to as the female “Hangover,” “Bridesmaids” is an altogether different beast. “Bridesmaids” actually has a sweet story of friendship at the center of the raunchiness (and really the Bridal Shop scene is the only real/literal potty humor in the whole thing) – it’s about dealing with those around you moving on with their lives and what it can sometimes do to your psyche. The story of Annie (Kristin Wiig, funny as ever), as she tries to deal with her best friend Lillian’s (Maya Rudolf) engagement and the rivalry that begins between her and Lillian’s new friend Helen (a standout Rose Byrnes), is altogether hilarious and sweet. There are too many standout scenes to mention here, but this is a wonderful and heartfelt comedy with a standout cast, endlessly quotable dialogue (“I cracked a blanket in half”) and one of the most humorous supporting performances of the year by Oscar-nominee and scene stealer Melissa McCarthy. This is a hilarious movie worth watching over and over again. It’s the best of the year.

2) 50/50

Cancer has had an interesting ride at the movies. Sometimes they’re award-winning crowd pleasers like 1983’s “Terms of Endearment” or sometimes they’re raunchy Seth Rogen comedies like this year’s wonderfully funny yet moving “50/50.” Screenwriter Will Reiser tells the semi-autobiographical story of Adam (a sublime Joseph Gordon-Levitt) a 27 year old who is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer. His odds are 50/50 according to the Internet and he must begin chemotherapy. The film follows Adam as he learns to deal with his prognosis and how it affects his relationship with his girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard) and his best friend (Rogen). This is such a wonderful film that deserves to be seen. It tells such a touching story of friendship and while it may make you reach for a Kleenex it refuses to delve into schmaltzy overdramatic territory. A Nicolas Sparks adaptation this is not.

3) Shame

It’s too bad this wonderful (though NC-17 rated) film failed to earn one single Oscar nomination because it’s one of the most well-made films of the year. Director Steve McQueen tells the story of Brandon, a Manhattan single man in his 30s who harbors a dirty secret: he’s a sex addict. Whether you agree that sex addiction is a real psychological disorder is irrelevant – this is a compelling story of a person dealing with something he cannot control. His constant need to feel pleasure is counterbalanced with a desire that usually steers him in the completely wrong direction. He must take time from his workday to “pleasure himself” in the bathroom. He sits alone in his apartment watching porn. He hires prostitutes. Things start going wrong when his rambunctious sister decides to crash at his place for a few days. This is such a lovely story about siblings and their need and dependency on one another. A beautiful film with beautiful performances.

4) Scream 4

If you’re a die hard Scream fan like me, then you either supremely loathed or absolutely loved this fourth entry. The film’s setting returns to the familiar town of Woodsboro with a bunch of new teenagers to slaughter. Dewey, Gale, and Sidney, who are probably some of the greatest characters ever written for a slasher film return to the meta world of the franchise where seven Stab films have been released and a new set of horror movie “rules” have been established. I just simply loved the banter of the new and old characters, who mesh very nicely together. There are some great kills (that bedroom kill is gruesome and reminiscent of Wes Craven’s own A Nightmare on Elm Street) and great laughs, as the humor dial is turned up to 11, perhaps too high for some. A wonderful return to form for Craven and Kevin Williamson, and a real treat for slasher freaks like me. So what if it bombed horribly at the box office, it reinvigorated one of my all-time favorite movie franchises.

5) Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

Who knew that the fourth film in the Mission Impossible franchise would be the best? And who even wanted a fourth Mission: Impossible movie?? Animation director Brad Bird breaks out into live action with this terrifically filmed action flick with one jaw-dropping sequence after another – including a scene set on the outside of the tallest building in the world no less. Much of the movie was filmed with IMAX cameras and to see it all up on that huge screen is a wonder to behold. Tom Cruise has never been more likable and he’s surround by such wonderful actors including Paula Patton (from “Precious”), Jeremy Renner (from “The Hurt Locker”), and Simon Pegg (from “Shaun of the Dead”). This is big budget Hollywood Blockbuster filmmaking at its best.

6) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Leave it to David Fincher to have a movie about a woman killing rapist be one of the best of the year. Yeah the subject matter is rather intense, but this is one of the most compelling and flat-out interesting and stylistic films of the year. Fincher, who has made a few departures from his trademark gritty style in the past couple years returns to form telling the story of a journalist (Daniel Craig) who partners up with a goth computer hacker (Oscar nominee Rooney Mara) to help solve a murder mystery. The film has an appropriately cold look and feel, yet the relationship that develops between these characters is so well developed, they practically cause sparks. The film features a brilliant score from the guys who made last year’s brilliant Oscar-winning score for “The Social Network” and it features one of the coolest opening title sequences of all time. A must see.

7) The Muppets

Are you a man or a Muppet? That is the question. Those fun-loving furry friends are back in “The Muppets” a wonderful throwback to the days when puppets ruled the TV set. The lovable characters created by the late, great Jim Henson are back in their first big screen adventure since the 1999’s “Muppets from Space.” This time the Muppets play themselves as they try to reunite to save their beloved Muppet studio from a greedy oil tycoon (played by Chris Cooper of course). Jason Segal, known for his raunchy comedies, co-wrote and stars in this fun adventure with the wonderfully wide-eyed Amy Adams (who was born to star in a Muppet film) are a couple who help the Muppet gang back together. A new Muppet is introduced – Gary, (Segal’s onscreen brother) is a welcome addition to the roster of colorful characters you know and love so well. There are many tremendously fun songs to be had here. Just good plain family fun.

8) Hugo

Leave it to Martin Scorsese to make a big-budget 3D family adventure about film preservation into a brilliant piece of entertaining filmmaking. Hugo, based on the popular young adult novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” tells the story of a young orphan boy (young Elijah Wood look-a-like Asa Butterfield) who lives in a Paris train station where he works on a and fixes clocks. He uncovers a mechanical man invention who may hold a secret message from his dead father and it eventually leads him on a magical journey of discovery. Ben Kingsley gives a great performance as Georges Méliès a founding father of cinema. The craft here is impeccable. The set design and the costumes and the wonderful 3D cinematography from master Robert Richardson is unmatched. It’s truly a fun and enjoyable family friendly adventure.

9) Insidious

“Insidious” is simply one of the scariest movies I’ve ever seen in a movie theater. I can’t even tell you how creepy this film is until you see it yourself. It dares to go places you haven’t seen before – and I’m not talking about blood and guts – which is ironic seeing as thought the guys who started the “Saw” franchise made this thing. Sort of like a modern day “Poltergeist” the story is about a young couple Rose Bryne and Patrick Wilson – whose son becomes “lost” in another dimension. It seems an evil force has take over him. This “evil force” is one of the more creepy and disturbing horror movie characters I’ve seen in recent memory. The “lipstick face demon” as he’s known in the film’s closing credits is an image you won’t soon forget. He’ll haunt your dreams. This is good old-fashioned suspenseful haunted house fun that’s not to be missed.

10) Rise of the Planet of the Apes

This is the movie that surprised everyone. No one epected this big-budget August release to be anything special. Sure it featured cool-looking motion capture effects, but no one was aching for a follow-up to Tim Burton’s miscalculated (but still enjoyable) “Planet of the Apes” remake. Starring James Franco as a brilliant scientist, of course, this “Apes” prequel tells the story of Cesar a generically altered intelligent chimpanzee (played by the mo-cap vet Andy Serkis) who leads a uprising against the human race. This is a surprisingly emotionally nuanced and fun film that takes its time getting to the money shots of apes taking over San Francisco. The effects are spot on and the performances are great and the action is exciting. What more can you ask for in a summer blockbuster?

Honorable Mentions: Young Adult, The Artist, Final Destination 5, Drive, Horrible Bosses, X-Men: First Class, The Help, Moneyball, Captain America: The First Avenger, Contagion

And here's a tribute to the year that was 2011:

Maggie Mia! Meryl Streep Fully Embodies Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady”

2012-01-23T22:08:00.003-05:00

The musings you’ve heard are true: “The Iron Lady” is worth seeing for Meryl Streep’s brilliant and uncanny performances as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. To say she gives an Oscar-worthy performance is an understatement. The film isn’t as horrible as some would have you to believe, but you probably won’t leave the film knowing that much more about Margaret Thatcher than you knew going in. It really just skims the surface of her life, spending a majority of the screen time exploring Thatcher’s sad slip into dementia. And that’s where the film just feels like a big budgeted Lifetime movie searching for a reason to playing on the big screen.

Director Phyllida Lloyd, I’ll admit, seems a strange choice to bring the story of Margaret Thatcher to the screen. Known primarily for her theatre work, the woman has only directed the Meryl Streep film musical “Mamma Mia!” which is presently the highest grossing film ever in England. And when that happens, you can direct any freaking movie you want. She makes some odd directorial choices, which to be fair, were most likely found in Abi Morgan’s screenplay (who’s much better work can be found in the brilliant film “Shame”). I was surprised to find out a majority of the film is actually set in the present, as an Margaret Thatcher (Streep) deals with her wandering mind. She has visions of her late husband, who she doesn’t always realizes isn’t really there. Her husband Denis is portrayed by Jim Broadbent, who provides some awkward comic relief. He almost seems to belong in a different movie – although his overacting fits with the increasingly deteriorating mind of the film’s main subject.

Then there are scenes of middle aged Thatcher as she begins her political career by finding a seat in the House of Commons among all those stuffy British men to Leader of the Conservative Party and eventually as the first (and only) female Prime Minister. The film refuses to really take a side on Thatcher’s conservative politics, but it doesn’t skimp on showing the outpouring of dislike amongst the lower class. The film eventually depicts the Brits entering the Falklands War and Thatcher’s involvement in the conflict. Those expecting a history lesson here will be disappointed as the film is more interesting in showing the elderly Thatcher deal with these memories, instead of making a political statement about them.

Like I said, and many other have as well, the main attraction here is Streep’s magnificent performance. In her scenes as the younger Thatcher she commands the screen similarly to how she did in “Doubt” and “The Devil Wears Prada.” I found it interesting that Thatcher had to go through vocal coaching which helped her get noticed in a room full of shouting men. If you can forgive Thatcher for her politics, you’ll see the story of a woman trying to make it in a world run by men. But the real showcase here is the elderly Thatcher which, with the help of a tremendously convincing make-up job, is just fascinating to watch. Streep gets every nuance right. She really moves and acts like an old woman; it’s almost disturbing.

“The Iron Lady” isn’t the most in-depth bio pic I’ve ever seen as it’d rather spend time showcasing Streep’s wonderful talent of acting like an elderly old lady who’s losing her mind. The film feels almost too self-important to be completely involving, but Streep’s performance is pretty hard to dislike. She never needs to overact which is good. “The Iron Lady” at times sort of feels like it should be a musical (in the way the film relies on montages to skim over history that would otherwise be explored further in a different film), but the scenes with song were cut at the last minute. I think that’s due to the limitations of its director and I can’t say I know that much more about Margaret Thatcher after seeing this movie, but that shouldn’t prevent you from witnessing one of the best screen performances of the year. GRADE: B

Don’t You Forget About Me: The Worst Oscar Snubs According to Me

2012-01-23T14:50:00.036-05:00

Tomorrow the Oscar nominations for the 84^th annual Academy Awards will be announced. I took it upon myself to make a list of some of the Oscars snubs that I’ve been personally offended by. This is by no means an exhaustive list of traditional Oscar “snubs.” I don’t really care that Jimmy Stewart wasn’t nominated for “Vertigo.” This is a list of people and films in categories that I personally thought should have at least been nominated. Some are more obvious than others. Even with all of the following snubs there are still plenty of things the Academy gets right, but sometimes they need a push in the right direction. All of the following people and films could have been nominated, believe it or not, if other factors played a part, but unfortunately they're relegated to a list like this instead. Onward and upward!

Michael Fassbender, Best Actor - Shame

The newest member of the Snub Club is Michael Fassbender who had a simply terrific year in 2011. He starred in several films and played various characters ranging from Magneto in “X-Men: First Class” to Brandon the sexaholic in “Shame.” His emotionally wrought, super-acclaimed performance in this wonderful film should not only have been nominated for an Oscar, but it should have WON an Oscar. And now he won’t even have a chance. I’m wondering if the Academy felt their own shame and refused to watch the film – NC-17 rated films are notorious for getting the snub. The Academy likes happy, not depressing (tell that to Ellen Burstyn). At the end of the day, Fassbender was an actor that was respected I’m sure, but not enough for the Actor’s branch to get behind. At least he joins an eclectic list of performers and filmmakers whose work, although not nominated, still ranks as award-worthy.

Amy Adams, Best Actress – “Enchanted”

It’s the general consensus that performances in “family films” rarely get nominated and that’s true. The Academy loves Amy Adams (they’ve already nominated her three times) but they didn’t love her enough to nominate her for her outstanding lead performance as a cartoon princess come to life in the wonderfully witty “Enchanted.” Hey, if Julie Andrews can WIN an Oscar for “Mary Poppins” then why couldn’t Adams at least be nominated for this?

Jamie Lee Curtis, Best Actress – Freaky Friday

I know what you’re thinking, I’m crazy. This is another one of those, “it can’t be a good performance because it’s a Disney kid’s film.” Not true. Curtis (who got a Golden Globe nod) has never been better playing basically two roles in one. She plays a busy mom trying to take care of her kids while dealing with getting remarried after her husband has recently passed away and also playing her own rebellious teenage daughter after they switch bodies by opening a cursed fortune cookie. She’s never been more charming, likeable, silly, and just downright perfect.

Bernard Herrmann, Best Score – Psycho

I can almost forgive the Academy for not nominating “Psycho” for Best Picture because it wasn’t exactly the most well-received film upon its initial release. However, I can’t fathom in what alternate universe the members of the Music Branch were living in when they snubbed Herrmann’s classic strings only score for “Psycho.” Perhaps, Herrmann didn’t submit the score? There has to be a rational explanation, right? This is one of, if not, THE, most recognized pieces of film music in all of cinema.

Christopher Nolan, Best Director – Inception

A lot of people understandably made a big hubbub about The Dark Knight getting snubbed for both best picture and best director in 2008. I wasn’t so shocked since Batman movies never exactly fare well with the Academy. But I was truly shocked two years later when Christopher Nolan failed to make the list of five Best Directors for “Inception.” I figured not only was it one of the most visually interesting and intricate films of the year, but it seemed like Directing was an award it had the most chance of being recognized for. Until it was announced that it didn’t get an editing nomination either. What gives Academy?

Eddie Vedder, Best Original Song – Into the Wild

“Into the Wild” was my favorite film of 2007, so I wanted it to be nominated in every single category. I don’t know how but I figured it could find a way to make it into Best Foreign Language Film or Best Documentary Short. But all it did was come up short on nomination morning, earning two measly (but deserving) nominations for Best Supporting Actor (Hal Holbrook) and Best Editing. However, I was completely shocked that none of Eddie Vedder’s haunting songs failed to make the cut. Did the Music Branch have their hearing aids turned down or something? Never have so many original songs been so well integrated into such a moving piece of filmmaking. WTF Academy!

Anthony Perkins, Best Actor – Psycho

Ok I’m a big fan of “Psycho” obviously. It’s one of the few films made over fifty years ago that I can watch over and over again. And that’s probably because it was way ahead of its time and is considered the grandfather of the Slasher Film. The fact that it’s a “horror film” is no excuse for not nominating Anthony Perkins for his career best performance as Norman Bates (don’t forget Janet Leigh was nominated). I’d like to assume the Academy was confused and wasn’t sure if he was lead or supporting which split all of his votes – it’s very possible. Category placement aside, it’s one of the best performances in all of cinema.

Catherine O’Hara , Best Supporting Actress – For Your Consideration

I think the Academy felt that Christopher Guest’s hilarious Hollywood satire “For Your Consideration” was a big F. U. to them. I disagree, I think it’s a wonderful tribute to moviemaking and it lovingly pays homage to the idea of “Oscar buzz” that mystical thing that leads many actors and filmmakers to be recognized for their artistic work – even if they don’t always totally deserve it. O’Hara plays the appropriately named Marilyn Hack, who becomes the subject of Oscar buzz on the set of her pretty awful looking film “Home for Purim” which causes a stir among the cast and crew. What a funny and silly movie-but what a great standout performance from one of the best character actresses out there. Winning a supporting Oscar for a comedic role is not unheard of however – Marisa Tomei pulled the upset of all upsets back in the 90s for “My Cousin Vinny.”

Billy Murray, Best Actor – Groundhog Day

The lack of Oscar love for Billy Murray in general is due most likely due to the fact that mostly appears in comedies. That was righted with a nod for “Lost in Translation,” but his best work remains in “Groundhog Day” a funny time warp comedy in which Murrary’s cynical weatherman Phil Connors is stuck repeating the worst day of his life in the worst place ever: covering the unveiling of the groundhog in Punxsutawney, PA. A story in which a character relives the same events over and over would seem redundant and boring, but Murray makes it fascinated to watch as his character constantly grows and changes while everyone around him stays the same.

Naomi Watts, Best Actress - Mulholland Dr.

The Academy loves nominating hot, fresh faces and discovering new talent - as does the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn – yet both groups failed to recognize Naomi Watts for her glowing performance as a wide-eyed naïve actress in “Mulholland Dr.” Her performance is just simply radiant. And just when you thought it couldn’t get any better, director David Lynch changes things up more than halfway through the film, and Watts plays an entirely different character. I’d like to think the reason for the lack of love for Watts was due to the confusing and ultimately mindboggling nature of the film. Just as bizarre as the film itself Lynch was the film’s sole nomination (for directing). Also, Ms. Watts should have been nominated for "King Kong" as well.

Steven Spielberg, Best Director – Jaws

There’s a video floating around – on YouTube – of Steven Spielberg watching the live Oscar nomination announcement waiting for his name to be called for Best Director. It didn’t happen. “Oh I didn’t get it! I didn’t get it! I wasn’t nominated!” proclaims. How embarrassing for him. But also, how embarrassing for the Academy to snub the director of the most popular film of that time. They showed their artistic side and went with Fellini instead. It’s not that much of a loss since Spielberg would go on to be nominated six times for Best Director –winning twice – and a bunch more for producing (He was snubbed again for The Color Purple after it was nominated for 11 Oscars including Best Picture). Before the film was released Jaws was thought to be a horrible failure with an over budget production and a mechanical shark that hardly worked right. But after the film’s release it was clear that Spielberg was a filmmaking talent to be reckoned with. Let’s face it, he was just too young (only 29 at the time) and there were far too many old codgers in that Director’s Branch.

Jim Carrey, Best Actor – The Truman Show

What does a comedic actor need to do to get an Oscar nomination around here? You need to star in a drama of course! And “The Truman Show” was the perfect vehicle for comedian Jim Carrey (known for raunchy humor in Dumb & Dumber and Ace Ventura) to breakout and show his serious side (and I’m not talking about his buttocks which he always seems to be talking out of). “The Truman Show” a disturbingly wonderful satire about the country’s obsession with reality TV (before it was even as obsession) was nominated for three high profile Oscars – but Carrey didn’t make the cut. And he won this award at the Golden Globes. Carrey has been snubbed many times since, including “Man on the Moon” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” For shame!

Scott Neudstater & Michael H. Weber, Best Original Screenplay – (500) Days of Summer

This one stings the most because not only was the wonderfully original script for “(500) Days of Summer” practically a lock for a nomination, but it had a very good shot of going all the way. Of course all of that ended when nominee announcer Anne Hathaway failed to cite the film as a nominee. It seems indie favorite “The Messenger” had taken its place and 500 Days of Summer’s chances at being an “Oscar nominated film” were over. I was crushed as it was my favorite film of the year and remains as one of my all time favorites. I guess I just have to be content with it being a Golden Globe nominated film instead.

Ryan Gosling, Best Actor, Lars and the Real Girl

Ryan Gosling always gives riveting performances, but he’s rarely rewarded as a result. He gives one of his most compelling, comical, and heartfelt performances in “Lars and the Real Girl” in which he plays a slightly delusional young man who orders a sex doll off the internet and begins introducing it to his family and the townsfolk as his girlfriend. The script was justly rewarded with a Screenplay nod, but Gosling was shut out and left scratching his head wondering if he’d ever be nominated after his awesome performance the year before in “Half Nelson” an achievement that has eluded him ever since. Whether you think him not being nominated for “Lars” was a snub or not check this out – he was nominated for a Critics Choice Award, a Golden Globe and a SAG – to be left out at that point was definitely a snub.

Thelma & Louise, Best Picture

"Thelma & Louise" is not one of my all time favorite movies, though I like it very much. The sheer fact that it failed to get a best Picture nomination has nothing to due with it being one of my favorite films. And I only bring this one up for one reason – take a look at all of the other nominations the film received, and tell me it shouldn’t have also been nominated for Best Picture. It was nominated for Directing, Writing, Editing, Cinematography and twice for Acting. Like the recent film “The Diving Bell & the Butterfly” it had all the other key nominations right, but failed to make it to the top. It’s too bad because both films deserved to be recognized as one of the five best of the year.

David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, & Jerry Zucker, Best Original Screenplay – Airplane!

This is just sheer travesty. A script that is not only side-splittingly funny but intelligent and even ended up creating an entirely new genre of comedy failed to make it to the big party. It won a Writers Guild Award and was even nominated for a Golden Globe for best comedy or musical (it’s actually both). Just because it’s my own personal favorite film of all time doesn’t mean it didn’t deserve some love. And I'm not even sure it would be considered Original since it's based on a crappy made-for-TV movie called "Zero Hour!" Surely, the Academy has realized was a big mistake they made… (I’ll let you finish the joke)

James Newton Howard & Hans Zimmer, The Dark Knight – Best Original Score

Say all you want about “The Dark Knight” getting snubbed for Best Picture – the film was nominated eight times deservedly so but failed to make the cut in the most deserving category – Best Original Score. For some reason, the Academy’s music branch deemed the score ineligible. I have no idea why to this day – but the film’s music remains one of its great strengths. Seriously, the music branch needs to open their freaking ears sometimes.

Best Sound Editing – Twister

Granted the summer blockbuster “Twister” isn’t typically the type of film the Academy enjoys rewarding but even they recognize good filmmaking crafts when they see some. Twister was nominated for Best Sound that year (which includes the overall mixing of sound in a film including dialogue and score… usually the louder the better for them). But it failed to get nominated for the craft category it most deserved – Sound Editing. Sure, most people can’t tell the difference between this two “boring” categories, but as someone who knows the difference I can tell you that it deserved to be cited here. Sound Editing has to do with recognizing the people who make all of the sound effects found in a film – and Twister has some amazing effects. They used so many different types of sounds for those scary tornadoes – including a camel – and all those sounds of metal scraping and debris being dropped to the ground deserved to be recognized.

Henry Thomas, Best Actor – E.T. The Extra Terrestrial

The Academy is notorious for snubbing child actors. Most of the time they move them to the Supporting categories as not to upstage the grown up actors. Henry Thomas, who dominated nearly every frame of Steven Spielberg’s wonderful sci-fi drama as Elliot the boy who befriends an alien from outer space, completely deserved to be recognized for his amazing performance. And it was his first! He was just too young and we couldn’t have such a newbie upstaging Mr. Gandhi himself Ben Kingsley. There was no way the Academy could justify putting this kid in the Supporting category since he’s so obviously a lead role that instead he was placed no where, instead being having to live with the fact that even though he was nominated he to this day has given one of the best child performances of all time. This incident was repeated in 2000 when Jamie Bell wasn't nominated for "Billy Elliot."

John Williams, Best Original Score – Jurassic Park

John Williams almost gets nominated for every film he scores and with five wins and a countless amount of nominations failing to get recognized is hardly a snub. But his score for Jurassic Parks is one of the most memorable of his entire career. The film isn’t usually the type that gets nominated for awards beyond categories like Visual Effects or Sound, but even crappy movies get nominated for Best Score – like “The Village.” There was no reason Williams – who was nominated that year and won for “Schindler’s List” – shouldn’t have been a double nominee.

Reese Witherspoon, Best Actress – Election

It’s hard enough to be nominated for giving a lead performance in a comedy, it’s even harder to be recognize for a film as sharp and acidic as “Election.” Based on the book of the same named, “election” gives a backstage look at high school politics told from several characters’ points of view. The best is that of overachiever Tracy Flick who will stop at nothing to be elected Student Body President. It’s a wonderfully wicked satire and it’s script was deservedly nominated (and remains Alexander Payne’s best film to date) but the fact that Witherspoon was looked over is just sad. Fortunately, Witherspoon would go on to great success after this breakout role and win an Oscar for playing June Carter in “Walk the Line” – a much more Oscar-friendly film.

Danny Elfman, Best Original Score – every Tim Burton movie except “Big Fish”

If there’s a polar opposite of John Williams it would be Danny Elfman. Not a classically trained musician at all, Elfman’s scores are well known for their fun, quirky sounds, but they’re no less catchy and fun to listen to. Almost all of his work with frequent collaborate Tim Burton has gone unnoticed – safe for a nomination for his must un-Elfman like score for “Big Fish.” It’s just jaw dropping how many times this composer has been snubbed. He’s received three other nominations – for “Good Will Hunting,” “Milk” and his most Burton-esque, “Men in Black” – it’s a shame that he’s not as recognized as often as other composers.

Hitting the Sheets: “Shame” is an Artistic, Engrossing Look at Sexual Addiction

2012-01-22T19:42:00.002-05:00

Perhaps “Shame” is called “Shame” because most people will feel dirty going to see an NC-17 rated film about a man with a sexual addiction problem. And the rumor is true – the film is filled with nudity and sex that will probably make your parents blush. But you know what? It’s never gratuitous or pornographic, it’s merely adult material and isn’t something young children should be watching and that’s all. It’s simply a movie that deserves to be seen because it’s one of the best films of the year. Michael Fassbender, who seems to be in every movie this year, gives an amazing performance that is certainly Oscar worthy. Not only does he appear fully nude on screen but he’s psychologically naked as well and give such an introverted, emotional performance you wonder how the guy was able to go back home to a normal life after filming this thing. “Shame” is directed by Steve McQueen (no not that one, he’s dead) who made a splash with the indie film “Hunger” also starring Michael Fassbender. Here he takes an art house look at a man named Brandon (Fassbender) who lives a simple life in his sterile Manhattan apartment. He’s nice and quiet; you could even call him charming. But he’s harboring a horrible, painful secret: he’s addicted to sex. Not just sexual intercourse, but whatever means is necessary to achieve sexual satisfaction, whether it’s with a partner that’s been paid or alone in the bathroom stall at work. He hoards pornography material at home, and even on his computer at work. He’s shut off from most of society except for his boss David (James Badge Dale) whom he goes to singles bars with. David tries to hard to meet women, but somehow Brandon’s skills in this department seem effortless. Someone keeps calling his home and cell, leaving messages for him to call her back. He never does.

Finally, Brandon’s quiet, borderline pathetic lifestyle is thrown a curveball when his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) comes for an unexpected visit of indeterminable length. At first we don’t know they’re siblings, you might even suspect she’s an old girlfriend. But soon the nature of their relationship is slowly revealed, and we learn Sissy is nearly as scared as Brandon. She is a needy person, who always seems to count on Brandon to get by. Brandon just wants to be alone, left with his addiction that can’t do much about. He can deal with that, but dealing with Sissy too is almost too unbearable. We learn very little, if anything, about these siblings’ past.

McQueen (who also scripted with Abi Morgan) has crafted such a surprisingly beautiful film, it’s almost a shame (ha!) that is carries such a restrictive rating. This is a film that should be more accessible, and I feel that most people could watch it without that feeling of overbearing depression that came with that other intense movie about addiction, “Requiem for a Dream.” “Shame” is not shocking or disturbing, but rather lyrical and beautiful. Sure it has some images you won’t necessarily find in a more mainstream film, but it’s not dirty or offensive. You can’t make a movie about a man with a sexual addiction problem and not show him in various sexual situations. I feel, like “Midnight Cowboy,” the film is destined for classic status, in the mold of European-influenced 1970s cinema.

I want to call Fassbender’s performance “brave” because it requires him to perform in a way that would scare most other actors off. It’s true, but Fassbender isn’t risking his life to play this role. He just gives a downright wonderful performance (as does Mulligan) that deserves to be seen. McQueen’s direction is wonderful as well, and he makes such wonderful choices whether it’s a beautiful tracking shot of Brandon has he jogs, which foreshadows a later scene in which Fassbender is running for a different reason, or the beautifully haunting music (by Harry Escott) that orchestrates the inter turmoil going on in Brandon’s head. The opening of the movie almost works like a silent film as we see Brandon’s daily routine of finding various ways to get off. While this might be pleasurable for people without this problem, here it’s treated as something he just has to cope with because based on the facial expressions Brandon makes, through Fassbender’s terrific performance, pleasure is certainly the last thing he’s experiencing. GRADE: A

Woman on the Verge: “Haywire” Features Some Cool Fights but Not Much Else

2012-01-20T18:04:00.002-05:00

Sometimes sports stars – wrestlers, fighters, basketball players, etc – make good transitions to film. Of course, by good I mean, they get audiences in the seats but critics are forced to watch movies like “Kazaam” or “The Tooth Fairy.” But sometimes, just sometimes, these people find just the right material. Now it’s time for a female to find a role that makes people question her acting abilities. Gina Carano, a Mixed Martial Arts star (who also appeared as Crush on the new and short-lived American Gladiators) stars in “Haywire” as a black ops super soldier. She fights a lot and mostly kicks dudes’ asses which she’s rather good at – although I’m skeptical whether she could ever play a role that doesn’t require her to punch and kick.

Steven Soderbergh has been rather busy for a man who has declared that he’s retiring from filmmaking. I feel like I’ve just seen a Soderbergh movie recently. And that’s true because the pandemic thriller “Contagion” was released just this past September and he has three movies slated for release within the next two years. Soderbergh uses his trademarked low budget look on “Haywire” which sort of feels like an independent version of “The Bourne Identity.” It still features an all-star cast – Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Bill Paxton, Channing Tatum, Ewan McGregor, and the “I’ve been in every movie this year” Michael Fassbender. It remains a great showcase for some new female kickass talent and Carano is certainly up to the task, although I still don’t think she has the necessary charisma and acting ability to be a breakout star.

“Haywire” doesn’t really add anything new to the assassin thriller. Carano is Mallory and as the films opens she seems like something horrible has happened and she must try to clear her name. She has a pretty impressive fight scene with Channing Tatum and it’s wonderfully choreographed. Soderbergh refuses to go in for close-ups and doesn’t shred the sequence to death with quick edits. Of course in this scene – once you realize that Mallory is pretty much guaranteed to always get the upper hand, you never quite feel that she’s in much danger. Soon we learn about what lead up to the encounter as she explains her dilemma to a young guy who she’s just carjacked. We learn she’s been double crossed by the guy who runs the independent firm she works for. Lots of fights ensue.

If there’s any real reason to see “Haywire” it’s to witness what Soderbergh does with this type of material. It’s material we’ve seen countless times, however in the hands of a guy who’s not afraid to do something different it feels more fresh. It’s interesting to see his choices and how he stages certain sequences. While other filmmakers would choose to shake the camera and barely show you anything, Soderberg actually lets the actors do the work. After all, you don’t hire an MMA fighter and then not show her doing what she does best. By doing so Carano can do what I assume is most if not all of her own stunts. But like I said, I don’t think she’s completely capable of carrying the entire film. I found her to be rather bland and her mediocre line readings didn’t quite help. And I found myself strangely unengrossed in her dilemma – and that’s probably because I never felt she was in that much danger.

“Haywire” offers some good fight choreography –the sequence with Carano and Fassbender is particularly impressive. Soderbergh remains a fascinating director and can always gather an impressive cast. The film is something to check out if you like less traditional action thrillers, but otherwise this feels like an art house “Bourne” movie and nothing more. GRADE: B-

2012 Oscar Nomination Predictions

2012-01-19T15:34:00.013-05:00

Updated Tuesday morning: So the nominations have been revealed and the Academy refused to be boring and decided to throw in a few curve balls (some borderline predicable curve balls, but curve balls nonetheless). The Tree of Life and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close are now Best Picture nominees. Who would have thought? Max Von Sydow made it into Supporting Actor, bumping out hopeful Albert Brooks. Supporting Actress was predicable; I'm glad Melissa McCarthy made it in! The biggest surprise I'm most disappointed by is Michael Fassbender surprisingly not making into Best Actor for "Shame." Not that I'm THAT surprised considering the film's content. Gary Oldman is finally an Oscar nominee. They Academy liked Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy more than most people thought they would. George Clooney is a double nominee for Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay for The Ides of March. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo failed to a Best Picture nom, but Rooney Mara benefited (knocking out Tilda). And A Separation made it into Original Screenplay (as did Margin Call) bumping out yet another Joseph Gordon Levitt movie (50/50). It turns out there were nine Best Picture nominees, and yet, it still feels like there are some filler nominees in there. War Horse made it, yet it failed to get another major nomination.. it was nominated for five other technical awards. "Hugo" leads the way with 11 total nominations, with "The Artist" right behind it with 10. I correctly predicted five categories right: Director, Supporting Actress, Costume Design, Cinematography, and somehow Foreign Language Film. See the full list of nominations here.

Tuesday the 24th is Oscar nomination day and it's the second greatest day of the year (the first is the Oscars on February 26th). Holy crap. How strange is it that we not only have to try to predict which films are nominated for Best Picture, but HOW MANY get nominated as well. The Academy changed the rules (yet again) so that there can be either five Best Picture nominees or ten Best Picture nominees – or any number in between. A film has to receive AT LEAST one first place vote to at least be considered – there go your chances “Human Centipede 2” – and must receive 5% of first place votes to be nominated. So depending on how many votes particular films get there can be anywhere from five and ten films nominated for Best Picture. So let’s get to it!

Best Picture
The Artist

The Descendants
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

War Horse

I believe there will be about 7 or 8 nominees, but wouldn’t be absolutely shocked to only see 5 or 6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was on a sort of Guild Award roll the past couple weeks which significantly helped its chances in the overall race – I think it can get in, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see it left off. It would certainly fit into the Academy’s recent trend of rewarding gritty, violent fare – although it would have zero chance to win. But the academy loves them heart tugging as well which is why movies like The Artist, The Help and even War Horse feel like guarantees – although War Horses chances have been waning and I wouldn’t be shocked to see it miss here. But I think this list of 8 is the most likely scenario. If this was the old days, and there were only five nominees they would most likely be The Artist, The Descendants, The Help, Hugo, and Midnight in Paris.

Best Director
Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”
Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”
Terrance Malick, “The Tree of Life”
Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”
Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”

Ugh, I’ve toyed with this category for too long, and I’m still not 100% happy, oh well. With a very high chance of more than five best picture nominees, it seems odd that a director would be nominated without at least its film not making it into best picture – but the one director where I can see that happening is with Terrance Malick. “The Tree of Life” is one of the most divisive films of the year – heck, of the decade. Love it or hate it, no one will deny it’s sheer scope and vision, even if you think it’s the most self-indulgent piece of over-praised pretentiousness you’ve ever seen. His DGA is kind of surprising – until you remember that a majority of the membership is part of the TV community and tend to favor less epic works (which is why Spielberg was snubbed there too). I’m not exactly sure who will be left off, but my guess, and it’s merely a guess is that the Academy will favor Malick over Fincher. Spielberg could easily show up here – but I still find the guilds’ lack of War Horse love kind of surprising.

Best Actor

George Clooney, “The Descendants”
Leonardo DiCaprio, “J. Edgar”
Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
Michael Fassbender “Shame
Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”

I’m pretty confident in this list, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see a surprise nomination for that foreign guy from “A Better Life” who got a SAG nod, Gary Oldman for “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” or even Michael Shannon, who loves to show up unannounced (“Revolutionary Road”). If anyone seems vulnerable it’s got to be Fassbender or even DiCaprio, who’s had to deal with his film being critically maligned over the past month.

Best Actress

Glenn Close "Albert Nobbs"

Viola Davis "The Help"
Meryl Streep "The Iron Lady"
Tilda Swinton "We Need to Talk About Kevin"
Michelle Williams "My Week with Marilyn"

I’m even more confident in this list than with the actors. Unfortunately both Charlize Theron and Rooney Mara will have to settle for at least getting Golden Globe nods.
PS – I know the eventual race is between Meryl Streep and Viola Davis - but what if, just what if, the “young pretty thing” Michelle Williams pulls off a big upset?

Best Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh, “My Week with Marilyn”
Albert Brooks, “Drive”
Jonah Hill, “Moneyball”
Nick Nolte, “Warrior”
Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Oh dear Lord this is the weirdest category to call. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Academy came up with five completely different actors. Various groups have spread the wealth for this year’s supporting actors which has made for an interesting if not difficult to predict award season. Plummer is definitely in – it’s practically his to lose. I never really thought Jonah Hill could go all the way, but it seems like he will after getting nominations from all the requisite groups – BFCA, Golden Globes, SAG, and BAFTA. At this point if he didn’t make it (like Mila Kunis last year) it would definitely be a snub whether he deserves it or not.

Best Supporting Actress
Bérénice Bejo, “The Artist”
Jessica Chastain, “The Help”
Melissa McCarthy, “Bridesmaids”
Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs”
Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

BAFTA placed Bérénice Bejo in the lead category, but I think she’ll end up here. The big question remains whether Melissa McCarthy will be nominated for her hilarious turn in “Bridesmaids” a type of film that is usually way off the Academy’s radar. She is wonderful in the film (as is everyone) so if she does get nominated it won’t just be for “shitting in a sink.” Unfornately a nod for her means the young Shailene Woodley who is really good in “The Descendants” will be left out – unless she takes Janet McTeer’s place which could very well happen.

Best Adapted Screenplay
The Descendants

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball

This is a category – like many this year – which feel like it has four definites and one that can go any which way. That spot would be the one I feel will be occupied by “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” assuming that it gets nominated for best picture. Of course “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” could get in there and would be guaranteed if it was Most Confusing Adapted Screenplay.

Best Original Screenplay

The Artist

Bridesmaids
50/50
Midnight in Paris
Win Win

If the Academy nominates the above five films for Best Original Screenplay it will be one of the rare occasions in which the five screenplays nominated would all be comedies. In fact, after checking the Academy’s database it seems this could be the first time – although some of these films have elements of drama, they’re mostly comedies. And how awesome would it be for Kristin Wiig – the Target Lady herself – to be an Oscar nominee? If anything gets bumped out it’ll be for Diablo Cody’s wonderfully witty and acidic script for “Young Adult” – although I’m wondering if foreign film frontrunner “A Separation” could squeeze out one of these five comedies. The writer’s branch is notorious for including foreign films in this category.

Best Art Direction

Anonymous

The Artist
Hugo
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
Jane Eyre

Best Cinematography

The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Best Costume Design

Anonymous
The Artist
Hugo
Jane Eyre

W.E.

Best Editing

The Artist

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Moneyball
War Horse

Best Makeup

The Artist
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
The Iron Lady

Best Original Score

The Adventures of Tintin

The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
War Horse

Best Original Song

“Coeur Volant” from Hugo

“Lay Your Head Down” from Albert Nobbs

“Life’s a Happy Song” from The Muppets
“The Living Proof” from The Help
“Pictures in My Head” The Muppets

Best Sound Editing

The Adventures of Tintin

Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Super 8
Transformers Dark of the Moon
War Horse

Best Sound Mixing

The Artist
Hugo
Super 8
Transformers Dark of the Moon
War Horse

Best Visual Effects

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Tree of Life

Best Animated Feature Film

Cars 2
Kung Fu Panda 2
Puss in Boots
Rango
Rio

Best Documentary Feature

Bill Cunningham New York
Hell and Back Again
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Pina
Project Nim

Best Foreign Language Film

Bullhead (Belgium)
Monsieur Lazhar (Canada)
A Separation (Iran)
Footnote (Israel)
In Darkness (Poland)

The Parent Spat: “Carnage” is a Decet but Stagey Ensemble Comedy

2012-01-16T13:41:00.003-05:00

The sight of Kate Winslet projectile vomiting is worth the price of admission to “Carnage.” As an actress known for her more dramatic work, it’s always fun to see her let loose a little, kinda like Meryl Streep. But besides the rare comedic side of the British actress, “Carnage” remains a mostly awkward and unrealistic comedy about parents to quickly delve into absurdly childish behavior. The film is based on the play "Le Dieu du carnage" (The God of Carnage) and all takes place in real time with just four characters over a swift 80 minute runtime. Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly are the Longstreets and Christophe Waltz and Winslet are the Cowans. The Cowans’ son hit the Longstreets’ son with a stick, which resulted in some tooth damage, and the two couples have meet up at the Longstreets to work it out. What follows is four adults to become increasingly childish over the next hour as the four people air dirty laundry and other personal quirks which become apparent. It’s amusing and all expect for one big problem: there is no reason for the Cowans to hang out with the Longstreets for such a long period of time.

And thus lies the inherent problem with adapting a stage play that only features four characters in one location. How do you get them to stay together? In the fantasy world of live theater this works; on film however, it can be uncomfortable. Director Roman Polanski, known for films like “Rosemary’s Baby” and “The Pianist” is obviously fascinated with directing four actors in such close quarters and he makes things as visually interesting as he can (some cool shots with mirrors ensue). However, you have to look at this first and foremost as an actor’s piece, which is obviously what drew all of these wonder actors to the project in the first place. Foster is a slightly uptight, micromanaging mother and her husband is more of laid back type of guy. The cracks in their marriage become more pronounced as the film progresses. Winslet and Waltz are your average uppity snooty couple who think they’re better than everyone else – although they’re initially apologetic about their son’s violent act – after awhile they realize how tempting it was to hit a Longstreet in the face.

The film begins with a brief scene that –without words – shows us the adolescent spat in the park and cuts to the New York City loft where the two sets of parents are composing a document about their son’s incident. The Cowans have been invited over and are apologetic, but Penelope (Foster) seems rather hurt, as any mother would be, that her son was attacked. The Cowans, in any other reality, would leave the apartment rather quickly at the conclusion of this meeting – but Penelope and Michael (Reilly) insist they stay and have some apple and pear cobbler. Soon after Nancy (Winslet) develops a bit of a stomach ache and then vomits all over the coffee table, nearly ruining Penelope’s art books. This incident sets into motion the next hour of bickering and childish actions that take over once the adults begin blaming each other for their sons’ behavior.

I still think that after projectile vomiting all over the living room Nancy and Alan (Waltz) would want to get the heck out of their. And besides Alan is such a busy man – he’s a lawyer – he keeps getting important calls on his cell – which naturally ends up in a water filled vase, if he had just left the apartment, there wouldn’t be much of a movie. I still maintain that this story is better left to the confines of a stage rather than endless possibilities of film. I applaud the wonder ensemble and their interesting performances – although some might complain Foster is a bit over the top, I found her delightful if a bit caustic. Everyone gets a moment to shine but the best one here is Winslet – she’s reason alone to see it. Polanski co-wrote the film with the play’s original writer Yasmina Reza and result is an obviously good attempt to bring the hit play to the world of cinema – but overall it feels like a slight misstep. GRADE: B-

Where Credit is Due... My Favorite Opening Title Sequences

2012-01-14T11:35:00.018-05:00

Now that the opening title sequence from David Fincher’s wonderful adaptation of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has officially hit the internet (legally I believe) I must admit it’s quickly become one of my favorite opening title sequences of all time. I am a big fan of cool and innovative title sequences. When a movie misses an opportunity for a good one (like the recent Alice in Wonderland for instance) it almost makes me dislike the movie. Title sequences serve several purposes and the most important is helping set the particular tone of the film you’re about to watch. Sometimes they’re so good they can stand on their own as brilliant short films. Sometimes they’re good because they feature a great song or particularly catchy music score or sometimes the imagery is just interesting that you forget to even bother to care about who the production designer, editor etc is. Some filmmakers are known for their plain, yet comfortably practical titles – such as Woody Allen’s familiar Windsor EF light condensed text – and others are known for their more elaborate designs – like Fincher. Here is a collection of some of my person favorites. (Some sequences have been embedded here, others just have a link to youtube.)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
I’ve read some people complain that the film’s title sequence bares little resemblance to the movie that follows it. I disagree. The melty, gothic imagery here is all part of heroine Lisbeth Salander’s nightmare (although it feels more like a goth T-1000’s nightmare). Hello, did this sequence’s detractors even watch the movie? Even if most of the imagery here is computer generated, it features such strange and smooth textures I’m almost tempted to reach out and grab some of that black, icky goo. The wonderful cover of “immigrant Son” blaring on the soundtrack fits perfectly with the weird images that parade across the screen. Simply outstanding. click here

Watchmen (2009)
The graphic novel adaptation “Watchmen” delievered an epic title sequence featuring a wonderful mix of history of sci-fi. Set to Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a-Changin,'” the sequence reimagines famous historical events (ranging from JFK’s assignation to the opening of Studio 54) but with the film’s superheroes added. It’s all filmed in slow motion, which is perfectly paced with Dylan’s song. This is what I mean by some title sequences feeling like a short film. You could turn off “Watchmen” after this sequence and feel completely satisfied – but the rest of the film is still good. click here

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
It comes at no surprise that I’m a big Tim Burton fan (just keep reading). “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” features one of my all time favorite Danny Elfman themes and it’s paired with a scrumdiddlyumptious title sequence that takes us inside Willy Wonka’s magic chocolate factory. It borrows heavily from the 1971 film, but it’s much more elaborate – and CGI heavy which may dismay many. But it’s lavish and perfectly sets up the entire quirky personality of not only the candy man himself but of the entire movie. It’s as mouthwatering as it is fun. click here

Lord of War (2005)
Even bad movies can have spectacular opening titles. Nothing is more true than with the Nicolas Cage film “Lord of War.” Granted the movie isn’t particuraly horrible, it’ just not one of my favorites, but the opening title sequence, which follows the “life” of a butllet is simply amazing. Set to the tune of Buffalo Spingfield’s 1967 song “For What It’s Worth,” the sequence follows a bullet as it’s manufactured and shipped off and ends up in the rifle of a war lord and ends up in some innocent child’s head. It’s an altogether fascinating sequence and ends in a tragically ironic – but not too surprising – way. click here

Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Steven Spielberg is one of the most popular filmmakers of all time. And yet very few of his films actually have full title sequences. Sometimes he’s just too eager to get into the story – but he changed that with 2002’s fun caper dramedy “Catch Me If You Can.” The film is a wonderful throwback to the types of tiles Saul Bass would have designed. Backed with John Williams wonderfully jazzy score, the sequence includes animated characters running about while the credits form and morph around them. It’s a wonderfully fun and catchy sequence that perfect sets the tone for the rest of the film. Spielberg, stop holding out on us and deliver more sequences like this – with his most recent example being 2011’s “The Adventures of Tintin.” click here

Panic Room (2002)
Another David Fincher film – one of his more underrated efforts – begins with a wonderfully simply but no less enjoyable title sequence with beautiful shots of New York City with big white titles placed randomly… seemingly floating. The letters even cast shadows and what seems like simplicity was actually a lot of work for the creaters of this sequence which can be further explored in the film’s special edition DVD bonus features. The sequence features a superb theme from composer Howard Shore which gets more and more menacing as it progresses and helps us settle into the story of one particular house in the big scary city. Many of the shots remind me of the opening aerial shots from Hitchcock’s “Psycho” – which completely makes sense since the film is entirely Hitchcockian. The film is often unjustly overlooked, but this title sequence should definitely not be. click here

Mars Attacks! (1996)
Another fun title sequence from another fun Tim Burton movie. This is probably one of Tim Burton’s least popular films – and properly so since it’s just an over budgeted B-movie homage that was obviously inspired by the subject of his previous effort “Ed Wood.” But even lesser films can have wildly entertaining title sequences (see “Lord of War”). Set in outer space during an alien invasion, the sequence features another winning Danny Elfman score that perfectly sets up the campy fun the audience is about to experience. If you think this sequence is super lame, you might as well just turn the movie off right then and there. click here

Seven (1995)
David Fincher’s serial killer opus “Seven” features not only one of the most famous opening titles in modern cinema, but definitely one of the most unsettling. It completely sets up the film’s creepy and tone. Arguably it’s the scariest part of the movie and certainly helps get the mood and setting disturbing right by giving you a first glimpse at a serial killer who we won’t even meet until the film’s third act. This title sequence was so popular it’s influenced countless other films in the genre with equally strange titles. One could easily argue that this is the best title sequence of all time. click here

Beetlejuice (1988)
The main reason why I love the Beetlejuice title sequence so much is because it’s 100% a gigantic tease. The whole time you think you’re sweeping over a New England town in an elaborate helicopter shot and ending with a creepy spider crawling on the roof of a house. At first you might think this is a giant spider movie, until you realize you’ve been duped and it’s just in fact a scaled down model. It’s a model of an entire town, which will actually play an important role in the film. Not to mention another classic Danny Elfman score. Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! click here

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988)
The most flat-out hilarious sequence on this list is definitely “The Naked Gun” which proves that even comedies can have awesome titles as well. The sequence which perfectly captures the wonderfully zany tone of the entire film follows the point-of-view of a police cruiser as it makes its way down a city street… and proceeds to increasingly stranger and stranger locations. It starts off by going through a car wash, drives through a family’s house, a woman’s locker room, a roller coaster, and finally ended up in front of a donut shop – of course. Each of the film’s sequels – parts 2 ½ and 33 1/3 – feature even more bizarre sequences which are just as hilarious. These are sequences fans of ZAZ comedy know all too well. click here

Psycho (1960)
Forget “Vertigo,” this is where it’s at. Graphic designer Saul Bass was a master of the title sequence and a frequent collaborator with Alfred Hitchcock. One of their most recognized sequences is for Hitchcock’s most famous film “Psycho.” It’s a simple sequence with gray lines streaking across the screen – in time with those screeching violins – wiping the credits on and off. It’s an eerie sequence which perfectly sets up the tone of the movie that you’re about to watch. Bernard Herrmann’s classic score (which was criminally not Oscar nominated) is one of his most famous scores of all time. If black & white isn’t your thing, check out the 1998 remake’s striking green version. Why green? Like the remake itself, I have no clue. Also, see the little seen thriller “Vacancy” for a wonderful Saul Bass-like title sequence with an equally catchy and creepy score. click here

The 1998 remake version:

And the wonderful "Vacancy" opening titles:

It’s Complicated: Espionage Thriller “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” Remains Entertaining Despite its Density

2012-01-10T21:40:00.001-05:00

Truth be told I didn’t follow much of what was going on in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” and that’s fine with me because odds are you didn’t get most of it either. Heck, it even confused Roger Ebert. But what small pieces I could put together worked so well and the film as a whole is such a wonderful nostalgic work of 1970s American New Wave cinema (despite the fact that it’s not even American) that I found myself being sucked in by artistic merit even if I had no clue what exactly was going on. Some confusing movies are so complicated that even the visuals don’t make much sense (like “The Good Shepherd” for instance). But “Tinker Sailor Soldier Spy” is so rich in atmosphere and good performances that I still managed to enjoy myself.

I’m not really going to attempt to rehash this film’s overly complicated plot, but I can at least try. The film is set in the early 1970s during in Britain. The film follows characters who work for British Intelligence (referred to as “the Circus”) during the Cold War. A failed mission in Hungary reveals that one of the higher ups in the agency might actually be a mole working with the Russians. “Control” (played by John Hurt) assembles his team of men, one of whom he suspects is the spy. They consist of George Smiley (Gary Oldman), Percy Alleine (Toby Jones), Toby Esterhase (David Dencik), Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds), and Bill Haydon (Colin Firth). Control and George were “dismissed” after the Hungarian incident, but Control forces George out of retirement to smoke out the mole. And there you have it! That’s the plot of the movie! If it was only so simple. There’s way much more going on here and it’s all fascinating to watch even if it takes awhile to sort out. There’s many more characters were that came from including Mark Strong’s Jim Prideaux who was sent on that failed mission, George’s right hand man Peter (Benedict Cumberbatch), and fellow agent Ricki Tarr played by the up and coming Tom Hardy.

So what makes “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” the most confusing spy thriller since the original “Mission Impossible?” Many factors. The script by the late Peter Straughan (who also co-wrote the similar but less confusing “The Debt”) and the late Bridget O’Connor weave many characters into their story and director Tomas Alfredson (“Let the Right One In”) and his editor have decided to unfold the story in a nonlinear way. There are present day scenes and flashbacks and sometimes it’s hard to figure out which is which. Characters (and there relation to each other) and events are referred to even if we don’t know who or what they’re talking about. Miss the quickest line of dialogue and be lost forever. But even if you’re confused about what is specifically going on, the general overall story of “who is the mole” is always something to come back to and enjoy. It can be a fun mystery. Oldman does a great job as a weathered old man who quietly goes about his duty to find the mole. The film doesn’t rely on action the way other films in the genre do and the quieter scenes make the few moments of graphic violence all the more shocking.

Now onto what “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” gets absolutely right and that is its 1970s look and feel. If you showed me the film and I knew nothing about it or who any of the actors were, I would have guessed the film was originally released in the 70s. From the use of the zoom and telephoto lenses to its use of brown and tan hues to its accurate art direction and production design; it’s all impeccably crafted, but not particularly flashy. There are shot and plot details in the film that could have been lifted directly from movies like “The Godfather,” “All the President’s Men,” and “Midnight Express.” The scene on the tarmac in particular is one of the more memorable uses of a telephoto lens I’ve seen in quite some time. Simply great work from cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema can be found here.

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is a thoroughly dense film that definitely requires several viewings to comprehend its intricate plot. It's unnecessarily complicated, though I would have no problem revisiting the film because it was so enjoyably atmospheric. For a film as slow-placed and calm as this one, it features some decent suspense and is never ever boring or dull. I can’t imagine everyone getting out of it what fans of this type of film would get, but it’s worth the work required to get through it. GRADE: B

May the Horse Be with You: “War Horse” is a Powerful, if Sometimes Schmaltzy War Pic

2012-01-02T19:10:00.001-05:00

It’s hard to imagine Steven Spielberg making a bad movie. I didn’t particularly care for “The Adventures of Tintin” and his latest “War Horse” still feels like a disappointment after waiting three years for him to make another movie (his last having been the fourth Indiana Jones film). “War Horse” kind of feels like “Babe” meets “Saving Private Ryan.” In that it’s a powerful war film, but one of the main characters is a four-legged animal (though to be fair he doesn’t talk). It’s sort of an odd combination and overall the film feels sort of overly sentimental, especially since Spielberg had been trending toward the dark side in the past decade (with gritty stuff like “War of the Worlds,” “Munich” and “Minority Report”). Spielberg makes powerful war films; the footage in “Saving Private Ryan” is some of the genre’s best, but having a story about a teenage boy’s horse weaved in sort of feels overly cheesy. And like I said, at least the horse doesn’t talk.

At first glance, I wasn’t particularly thrilled with the overall look of “War Horse.” Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography seemed way too bright and stagey. But then since knowing “War Horse” is also a stage play I was willing to forgive it. He achieves a darker, more cinematic look as the film progresses. And there certainly some luscious shots here; some are even worth framing. The look and feel of the World War I setting seem right. The music from John Williams is wonderful, if not particularly memorable and the sets and costumes appear authentic. This is a top notch production for a movie that only cost about $60 million to make. But something about the story itself just didn’t captivate me the way the director’s other films do.

Albert (Jeremy Irvine, sort of wooden, but still impressive for a newcomer) is a teenage boy who lives on a farm with his mother (Emily Watson) and his father (Peter Mullan). Albert’s father comes back from an auction with a wimpy horse. Albert’s mother is furious because the horse seems too small to pull the farm plow. Albert insists that he will train the horse to pull the plow. As you can imagine Albert becomes extremely attached to the horse who he names Joey. Unfortunately, since the family is in desperate need of money for rent, Albert’s father sells the horse to a Captain as the war begins, where he’s shipped off to France. And so Joey Forrest Gumps his way through the war from owner to owner as we try to figure out how in the world Albert will ever be reunited with his horse. Eventually Albert does join the army where it only seems natural, however unlikely, that the two will meet again one day.

The film’s script was written by Lee Hall (Billy Elliot) and Richard Curtis (Love Actually) so I’m surprised to find moments of lightheartedness and even comic relief. The comic relief was supplied by non other than a duck on Albert’s family farm, which is why the film’s first quarter felt more like a family talking animal movie than anything else. The film’s most successful moments are the war scenes which are staged so perfectly and beautifully you’d think Steven Spielberg had actually fought in WWI. One of the film’s standout scenes involves two enemies coming together to help free Joey after he’s caught in a mess of barbed wire. I was also equally impressed with the performance of the horse. I imagine it took a lot of work and training to get scenes just right. Spielberg does a good job of making us see this war through this horse’s point of view.

"War Horse” is a Steven Spielberg film I never thought I would see. It’s a war film that feels overly sentimental. Spielberg has always taking his serious projects with a disturbing dose of reality – depicting battles with gruesome and disturbing violence. Here he makes things much more family friendly. And that makes sense since the original novel is in fact a children’s novel. While it feels like an odd mix, overall the film is powerful and engaging enough to warrant a recommendation, but still feels like a lesser achievement for one of best directors of all time. GRADE: B

Silence is Olden: The Silent Film Homage “The Artist” is Simply Charming

2011-12-23T23:23:00.004-05:00

If you had told me months ago that I would go see a silent movie in the theater and also enjoy it I would have said you’re crazy. Silent films are so last century. But somehow the wonderful silent film “The Artist” manages to not only be entertaining, but a fascinating look back at an important era in cinematic history. Nostalgia has been a strong theme this year with films like “Hugo” and “Midnight in Paris,” and the “The Artist” is no exception. Watching the film was like a miracle – me, sitting there, not completely bored out of my mind - without a line of audible dialogue uttered.

Just like “Singin’ in the Rain,” “The Artist” is set back in the day when silent films began transitioning to sound. Jean Dujardin (a definite Best Actor nominee if not winner) is the movie star George Valentin. He is silent movies. However, for some reason, once “talkies” become all the rage, it’s out with the old and in with the new. A young up and coming actress named Peppy Miller (the bubbly Bérénice Bejo) becomes the hot new item in cinema. It’s the perfect story to tell for this kind of format, which to be frank, feels like it should be extremely gimmicky, but somehow manages to overcome this trickery. You quickly get over the fact that you’re watching a black & white silent film with modern day filmmaking techniques, and you lose yourself in the story and characters.

French director Michel Hazanavicius (who also wrote the film) has crafted an utterly entertaining, and purely delightful tale. His movie is downright funny – and it features one of the best performances by a dog ever captured on film. His film is completely devoid of pretentiousness. He just wants to tell the story about a silent film star using silent film as a medium to do it. Nothing more, nothing less. His actors – some of which are completely recognizable – give it their all. It was great to see people like John Goodman and James Cromwell – heck even that lady from “Speed” who always shows up in things – getting paid to be expressive and hone their non-verbal acting skills.

What is truly great here – besides all the wonderful technical aspects (like wonderful cinematography and production design, and a pretty cool dream sequence) is the dazzling performances and chemistry of the two lead performers. Dujardin first of all just looks like an actor from the 1920s, which helps; he gives such an animated and heartfelt performance, it’s amazing to realize you never actually hear him speak. The same goes for Bejo who, like her leading man, is able to emote feelings of sadness or glee as if it were as easy as tying her shoes. Ludovic Bource’s wonderful film score is also a wonderful character in the film. I would have to assume that Hazanavicius is an expert in silent cinema, or at least a huge fan, as he directs their performances with great precision and yet makes it seem like an effortless breeze.

“The Artist” was a film I was prepared to dislike since it’s made in the style of film that I’m not particularly a fan of (although Penelope Ann Miller from “Adventures in Babysitting” always helps). I’m sure there are plenty of people my age who would rather go to church than sit through a silent film, but this is the rare exception. I doubt it’ll start a new wave of silent filmmaking – and I don’t know that it’ll be that well remembered years from no – but I’ll be damned if it isn’t simply one of the most charming movies of the year. GRADE: A-

Animal Kingdom: The Sometimes Sappy “We Bought a Zoo” is Sort of a Miss

2011-12-23T16:42:00.001-05:00

Who doesn’t like cute animals? You’ll get a lot of them in “We Bought a Zoo” a kind of sappy end of the year feel good family dramedy about a single dad who moves his family to a wildlife preserve. He wants to “start over.” His preteen son is having trouble in school (he draws violent images which the school is concerned about but they still hang it up in the hallway regardless). He also has a cute little girl. She’s really cute, almost too cute. Benjamin’s wife has previously passed away. It’s hard on him and his family as would be expected. I’m not sure if moving to a zoo is really the answer, but it is for him. He’s a writer and used to crazy things. He flew into a hurricane with a storm crew. The zoo comes fully staffed one of those people is Scarlett Johansson. You can kind of predict everything that will happen next. But at least it has cute animals.

“We Bought a Zoo” tells a real life story about Benjamin Mee (who’s book this film is based on) a single dad struggling to deal with the aftermath of losing his wife. He has two kids to take care of. His young daughter Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones), who’s probably no older than 6 is observant though: her dad is the only one with a full head of hair, so there’s still hope for him in the romance department. He also has a troubled son Dylan (Colin Ford). Lucky for him, Elle Fanning works at the zoo too. Benjamin picks up and sort of hesitantly moves his family to a struggling wildlife preserve which he plans on renovating. There are lions and tigers and a grizzly bear, oh my. It also staffs about 8 or so people, all of with varying degrees of personality and character development. It’s kind of a pathetic lot, one that I wouldn’t necessarily trust taking care of animals with sharp teeth and claws, but I digress. At least they mean well. The most important one though is Kelly Foster( Johansson). Kelly and Ben kind of have a thing going.

So the majority of the film deals with Benjamin’s attempt to renovate not only the zoo, but his family as well. And that’s about all we get really. Cameron Crowe likes making sort of sappy romances and this time it involves fuzzy animals. There’s even a little monkey that is trained to slap his own forehead. Cue audience laughter. If the film has any problem really, it exists somewhere in the script. Aline Brosh McKenna and Crowe, who co-wrote, can’t really find much for these characters to do except deal with opening the zoo. Benjamin mopes around, as does his son, who begins a mostly awkward teenage romance with Fanning’s character, who is sort of creepy in her own way. Every time I thought maybe things were being wrapped up, the movie kept going and going. And then there’s Christopher Guest staple John Michael Higgins playing a goofy inspector that the zoo staff despises. God forbid there be strong safety regulations at a wildlife park that houses animals that could kill human beings with one bite or pounce.

“We Bought a Zoo” will probably satisfy the late December “I want something sappy” crowd. It has all the perfect requirements of such a film. The movie isn’t really bad in any particular way. It’s just not all that interesting or innovative. The performances are decent. Maybe I just didn’t quite buy Matt Damon as a single father of two. I’m sure the family audience at which this film is directed at will be more than satisfied, but I found it to meander too much with not much interesting conflict. But at least it has cute animals. GRADE: C+

The Canine Mutiny: Steven Spielberg Takes a Crack at Motion Capture in “The Adventures of Tintin”

2011-12-22T23:26:00.003-05:00

Where’s Janusz Kaminski when you need him? The wonderful cinematographer has given each one of Steven Spielberg’s it’s trademark look since 1993’s “Schindler’s List” and for the firs time since then he hasn’t been needed because “The Adventures of Tintin” is the director’s first (and hopefully last) foray into the world of 3D motion capture filmmaking. I don’t know if I just don’t “get” motion capture, but it tends to not work (in Robert Zemeckis’ recent films) more than is works (James Cameron’s epic “Avatar”). There’s something about having “animation” so realistic that just doesn’t quite make perfect sense. I’d rather just see live images than computer images that looks really lifelike. This style of filmmaking caused hollow gap between me and film which made me feel distant. There’s something about watching CGI characters get into life threatening situations that just isn’t all that exciting or suspenseful, not matter how well Spielberg stages them.

If you’re like most Americans, than you probably don’t know much about Tintin. That’s because it’s way popular in England and not very popular here. It’s a comic book series by Belgian artist Hergé about a young reporter named Tintin (I thought he was just a young teen but perhaps he’s in his twenties) and his trustworthy dog Snowy. They go on fun adventures together and solve mysteries. In the film, Tintin (Jamie Bell) purchases a model of a three mast shipped called the Unicorn. Of course, he’s not the only one who wants it – the bad guys want it to. It turns out that this model ship (and two others) are hiding clues to a hidden treasure. In turn, Tintin is shot at and eventually kidnapped, and put on a cargo ship where he meets up with the drunken Haddock (Andy Serkis). They’re able to escape, but in hot pursuit while they get caught up in wild action scene after the next. The script (by Steven Moffat and Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish) is really just a series of fast-paced action scenes with hardly time to get a chance to care about anyone but the dog.

I’m actually surprised that I found all of this adventure stuff to be rather uninteresting, as Spielberg has yet to make a “dull” adventure film. I think most of that has to due with the motion capture aspect of the film because I just didn’t find the characters or locales to be particularly engaging. I never once felt for the character’s lives - Tintin never seemed in danger to me, and he was way too brave. In fact, Snowy, the cute Wire Fox Terrier, definitely had the most personality. I would watch an entire spin-off film about him. The film just relied too much on action set-pieces that weren’t all that exciting – or impressive – because they were animated. If this had been an actual live action film, it would have been astonishing. And I realize that’s the point – because you can accomplish certain shots with animation that you can’t accomplish in live action. But if anyone could, couldn’t Spielberg?

“The Adventures of Tintin” is not a bad movie by any means – it’s beautiful to look at – although I’m not even sure why it needed to be seen in 3D – but something about it left me cold. I felt disconnected from the adventures occurring onscreen. Too much time was spent on a plot I didn’t find particularly interesting or characters I didn’t find particularly appealing. The film is a technical achievement (Weta Digital does it again) and it features another enjoyable John Williams score. But had I not known who directed this film going in, I might not have even realized Steven Spielberg was involved. I missed the trademark look of a Spielberg film, which is why at least I’ve got “War Horse” to look forward to. GRADE: B-

Home Swede Home: The Excellent “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Truly is the Feel Bad Movie of the Christmas Season

2011-12-20T23:06:00.004-05:00

Here’s the David Fincher I’ve been missing! The director known for such dark and gritty fare like “Fight Club” and “Seven” has finally returned to gloomy form after a few attempts at breaking out into the mainstream with Oscar favorites like the strange period drama “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and the mildly overrated “The Social Network.” Here he tells his version of the popular Swedish crime novel “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (originally titled “Men Who Hate Women”)about a journalist who teams up with a young goth computer hacker to help solve a murder mystery. The world has already given us one film adaptation merely a year and a half ago, but this material was made to be turn into a Fincher masterpiece. It’s cold, stark atmosphere and disturbing mix of violence and sex are weaved into a fascinating, if sometimes complicated, story of vengeance and murder.

Let me attempt to make sense of this complex plot and all those Swedish names. Henrik Vanger’s (Christopher Plummer) great niece Harriet disappeared from her rich family’s estate 40 years ago. There’s been no trace of her. Henrick believes she’s been murdered and he suspects one of his family members. He hires journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) to research his family’s history and try to help figure out what happened to Harriet. Mikael is in some trouble of his own after he’s caught up in a libel suit at “Millennium” magazine where he works. Since Henrick is offering lots of money and some possible insider info about the rich businessman suing him, Mikael hesitantly accepts the job where he stays in a drafty cottage while he meets the extended family and tries to put pieces of the puzzle together. Meanwhile, a young socially reclusive woman named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara, who took on another iconic female role in the “Nightmare on Elm Street” remake), who’s an expert computer hacker and heavily pierced, is hired to do a background check on Mikael, and once he discovers how easily she’s able to find info on him, insists that she come work with him to help solve Harriet’s possible murder.

That’s the basic gist of the plot, but there’s so much more. Lisbeth is a pretty interesting character and that’s mostly because we learn that she’s had a rather difficult upbringing and unfortunately her financial assets are locked away, where her sleazy financial guardian makes her perform grotesque sexual acts. This includes a disturbing rape sequence that Fincher doesn’t shy away from. This stuff is hard to watch and feels almost manipulative to get you to side with this character and force you to become implicated in her equally disturbing revenge, where she ties up her attacker, sodomizes him, and tattoos “I am a rapist pig” on his chest. This later helps her sympathize with Mikael’s quest to find out what happened to Harriet and lots of other tortured and murdered women. And of course things get lonely for Mikael and Lisbeth, so eventually they “get together.”

Besides telling a rather absorbing story, which has already been told twice before, so it’s all new to me, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” also offers many great reasons to classify this as brilliant filmmaking. The acting is superb. Mara totally takes command of her role. She’s sort of cold and withdrawn, but feisty enough to be likable and sympathetic. I imagine most young actresses who would take on the role would do it serviceable justice, but Mara completely transformers herself not only emotionally but physically. Craig is good as well, in a less flashy role, and Plummer has a few good moments as well. Overall the ensemble is impressive. Fincher’s trademark bleak style fits perfectly with the story and his cinematographer captures his vision wonderfully. This is simply a film that feels as cold and isolated as it looks. Oscar winners Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ terrifically cold and mechanical score helps tremendously. And probably the coolest sequence in the entire film is the opening titles, set to Karen O’s wonderful cover of “Immigrant Song” with such strange and mind-bending images; it’s a Fincher standout and certainly a worthy rival to “Seven’s” notoriously creepy titles.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is wonderful filmmaking all around. Does this movie need to exist? No. But what movie really needs to exists after all? This movie should exist because it deserves to be made by someone of Fincher’s unbridled talent. It offers everything a fan of his work would want and it’s arguably as good as any of his earlier work. Sure some parts sort of went over my head, but that’s what Wikipedia is for. And if it makes someone want to go back and see the original Swedish version, or even read the book then it has every reason to exist. It certainly won’t warm your heart this holiday season; that’s what war movies about horses are for.GRADE: A-

Going Rogue: You Should Definitely Choose to Accept “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol”

2011-12-18T01:45:00.002-05:00

All four “Mission: Impossible” films have taken on various forms over the years. They’ve all had four different directors and have resulted in varying degrees of success. The first movie, with its overly complicated plot was a fun spy thriller directed by Brian De Palma. The second entry went into silly full-fledged action mode with director John Woo. Things got brought down a little in the much better third entry directed by J.J. Abrams. And strangely enough Brad Bird, known for directing animated films, makes his live action debut with Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol and it’s probably the best entry in the series. Of course most of that had to do with filming many scenes with the large format IMAX film which create such beautiful, breathtaking and sometimes vertigo inducing shots. This fourth entry is made to be seen on IMAX screens where it belongs and is one of the most fun and all around awesome film going experiences I’ve had all year.

Yes Tom Cruise is getting older. But he still has some Ethan Hunt left in him. This time he’s broken out of a Moscow prison by Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg). He’s recruited to infiltrate the Kremlin to extract some information about an assassinated fellow agent (played briefly by Josh Holloway). Unfortunately things go horribley wrong when another team piggybacks on their frequency and sets off a massive bomb that blows up the Kremlin, and Hunt’s team is targeted as the culprits. The president then issues “ghost protocol” which basically shuts down the IMF, leaving Hunt and his team to go rogue and clear their name. Like all of the Mission Impossible films, the movies contain plot elements that can sometimes be difficult to follow, yet are constantly entertaining if you can’t quite follow along perfectly.

So what’s so great in “Mission Impossible 4”? The actions scenes – and maybe it’s because I was in the second row of a giant IMAX theater – are mind-blowingly intense. Part of the team’s mission brings them to Dubai where Hunt must climb the outside of Burj Khalifa which just so happens to be the tallest building in the world. There are aerial shots that are almost nauseating to watch, in a good way of course. Hunt wears gloves that stick to the windows and one eventually goes kaput. Even though you know Tom Cruise won’t die in the middle of his movie, the level of suspense is almost unbearable. And Bird even stages an entire sequence during a violent sandstorm which was probably not too much fun for cinematographer Robert Elswit (who shoots all of PT Anderson’s films) who had to shoot action that was able to be seen through basically a brown, dirt covered lens. There is some rather impressive stuff going on here.

The film benefits greatly from some great additions to the cast. Patton who is known for quiter material such as “Precious” really gets to get into the fun and even has a nice fight scene with a fellow female assassin. Jeremy Renner who was an IMF secretary and former field agent gets into the fun as William Brant. He can hold his own against Cruise in the action hero department – and even has some good comic timing. And speaking of which, Pegg is also wonderful in an expanded role now that his character has been promoted to the field. He makes some mistakes unfortunately for the team, but comically for the audience’s benefit.

“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” is just simply a perfect action film. There’s nothing negative to be said about any of it. Every technical aspect from the music to the camerawork is simply flawless. And I bet they had some kickass craft services as well. Bird certainly came through and crafted a wonderfully entertaining action film that never feels the need to sacrifice story or character for the sake of action, even thought there’s plenty of it. This is a film made to be seen on the big screen because it’s a spectacle – and the bigger the better. Get to an IMAX theater now. This review will self-destruct in five seconds. GRADE: A

NOTE: “The Dark Knight Rises” footage is pretty spectacular as well.

Season of the Bitch: Charlize Theron Humanizes the Girl You Hated in High School in “Young Adult”

2011-12-16T21:01:00.003-05:00

“Juno” had a warm fuzzy pop cultured heart at the center of its story of a high school outcast. “Young Adult” is its darker, more cynical cousin that tells the story of an aging former popular high school girl whose life isn’t nearly as awesome as her old classmates would assume it’d be. Charlize Theron is a wonderful actress who can transform physically for a great performance – like in "Monster" – but here she looks like herself. She’s beautiful and fit. It’s her facial expressions and mannerisms that she nails completely. She can articulate emotion (although her character hardly knows the meaning of the word) with just a simple expression or scrunch of her face. She can tell you what she’s thinking without saying a word. That’s great acting. And it helps when you have a sharp and acidic screenplay by Oscar-winner Diablo Cody and assured direction from Jason Reitman.

I can’t imagine that “Young Adult” is going to be a crowd pleasing hit the way “Juno” was. “Young Adult’s" main character is a selfish, self-destructive alcoholic nobody who only cares about her own needs. I’ll tell you right now she doesn’t change much throughout the film which might irk some people. But why should she change? This isn’t a life lesson movie or a traditional Hollywood story. This is the story of a woman who was a mean girl and still is at age 37. But Theron is so good in portraying her that I cared just enough about this despicable human being. And that’s the thing: you get to sort of care about a horrible person, which can sometimes be fun.

So who exactly is this horrible person anyways? She’s Mavis Gary. She’s from a small town in Minnesota. She was the popular Prom Queen with the perfect jock boyfriend. She left her tiny town to pursue big things in the big city – Minneapolis. Not LA, not New York. She became the author of a popular young adult series. Well actually she’s a ghost writer. And the series isn’t doing well and has been canceled and she’s working on the last book. She overhears dialogue and gets insight from the teens she observes daily. She drinks a lot, her super nice condo is basically a dump, and she lounges around in over-sized sweatpants and Hello Kitty t-shirts. This is certainly not the life she envisioned for herself. Besides, how often do we achieve the goals we set for ourselves? But if the popular girl ends up like this, what does that mean for the rest of us nerds? She hears about her ex-boyfriend’s new baby daughter, and even though he’s married with a new family, she insists on going back to the stinking town and steal him back. What a skank!

Mavis packs a suitcase and her tiny dog and hits the road. She has a new goal in life: steal back her ex. Lofty ambitions indeed. She stumbles into town where she confronts a former classmate named Matt (Patton Oswalt) who was in a completely different circle in high school and paid for it badly: he was severely beaten by bullies which left him physically scared. Matt and Mavis form one of the more unlikely pairings in recent memory. I’m surprised she even talked to him for as long as she did, but once she found out he made his own booze at home, that’s all she needed to know. Matt, being the voice of reason, insists that trying to steal back Buddy Slate (Patrick Wilson) is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Mavis clearly hates everything about this town whether it’s the kitschy local bars or the Kentucky Fried Chicken/Taco Bell/Pizza Hut or having to run into her own parents. And then there’s the look of pure disgust on her face when she gets a first look at Buddy’s new baby in person. While most humans smile with joy at seeing an infant, Mavis looks like she just got selected for jury duty. And Theron sells it.

Diablo Cody is a great writer and she makes a wonderful team with Reitman’s great direction. Cody tones down the pop culture savvy dialogue, but her trademark wit is there front and center. It’s cool to see the darker side of both artists and it’s obvious with the success of their other films that they pretty much have free reign to do whatever they want. “Young Adult” is truly a fascinating look at a woman who never quite grew up. She’s stuck in this eternal young adulthood, having to literally write for years about teenagers. As the film progresses you realize that she’s not just a teenager in a woman’s body, but a seriously flawed and psychologically damaged individual, and since I’m not a horrible, evil person, I can even find sympathy for people like Mavis Gary. GRADE: A-

2012 Golden Globe Nomination Predictions

2011-12-15T08:25:00.003-05:00

the nominees: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/12/15/golden-globes-nominations/

Best Picture – Drama
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
Moneyball
War Horse

Best Picture – Musical/Comedy
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Midnight in Paris
The Muppets
Crazy Stupid Love

Best Actor – Drama
George Clooney – The Descendants
Brad Pitt – Moneyball
Leonardo DiCaprio – J. Edgar
Ryan Gosling – Drive
Michael Fassbender - Shame

Best Actor - Musical/Comedy
Joseph Gordon-Levitt – 50/50
Jean Dujardin – The Artist
Johnny Depp – The Rum Diary
Owen Wilson – Midnight in Paris
Steve Carrell – Crazy Stupid Love

Best Actress – Drama
Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady
Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis – The Help
Tilda Swinton – We Need to Talk About Kevin
Rooney Mara – The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Best Actress – Musical/Comedy
Michelle Williams – My Week With Marilyn
Julianne Moore- Crazy Stupid Love
Charlize Theron – Young Adult
Kristen Wiig – Bridesmaids
Cameron Diaz – Bad Teacher

Best Supporting Actor
Christopher Plummer – Beginners
Kenneth Branagh – My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks – Drive
Jonah Hill – Moneyball
Patton Oswalt – Young Adult

Best Supporting Actress
Jessica Chastain – The Help
Octavia Spencer – The Help
Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids
Shailene Woodley – The Descendants
Berenice Bejo - The Artist

Best Director
Steven Spielberg - War Horse
Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
Martin Scorsese - Hugo
Alexander Payne – The Descendants

Best Screenplay
The Descendants
The Artist
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
Young Adult

Best Score
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
War Horse
The Adventures of Tintin
The Artist
Hugo

Best Original Song
“Man or Muppet” – The Muppets
“Life’s a Happy Song” – The Muppets
“Pictures in My Head” – The Muppets
“The Living Proof” - The Help
Star Spangled Man - Captain America

Best Animated Film
Kung Fu Panda 2
The Adventures of Tintin
Rio
Rango
Puss in Boots

A Clockwork Orphan: “Hugo” is a Perfectly Crafted Ode to Movie Magic

2011-11-26T15:55:00.003-05:00

Silent movies don’t really "do it" for my generation. We’ve been raised to watch movies with talking and sound effects. Hey, it’s not my fault I wasn’t born in the early 20^th century. However, it is possible for someone of my generation to at least appreciate where movies started. If that’s what you’re looking for you need not look any further than “Hugo,” Martin Scorsese’s terrific adaption of the young adult novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret.” The story, set in 1930s Paris, follows a young orphan named Hugo who lives within the walls of a Paris train station where he secretly maintains all of the mechanical clocks. He hopes to unlock a secret message from his recently deceased father, and a young girl who he meets one day just might have the key that he needs.

“Hugo” tells a wonderful story in a wonderful way: we slowly learn about the main character and what motivates him. Hugo Cabret (played by Asa Butterfield who disturbingly channels a young Elijah Wood circa “The Adventures of Huck Finn”) has been raised by his clockmaker father (Jude Law). His father dies in a mysterious father and he’s left in the care of his alcoholic uncle and learns how maintains all of the clocks at the railroad station. When his uncle seemingly disappears, Hugo continues to live in the walls and maintain the clocks. He steals food to eat. And he must much out for a pesky security guard played perfectly by Sacha Baron Cohen who likes rounding up orphan children who loiter. In the meantime, Hugo attempts to steal gears and other parts to fix his father’s mechanical man invention, which he hopes to complete one day. He also must deal with a grumpy toy shop owner who will turn out to be more important than Hugo could have ever imagined.

A story about an orphan boy who fixes clocks doesn’t exactly seem like a wonderful tribute to the birth of cinema. And that’s because the story slowly unfolds and we learn more. We learn that Hugo’s father used to take him to the movies. His father was particularly fond of the films of Georges Méliès, who directed the famous silent film “A Trip to the Moon” and many others. Hugo’s father’s mechanical man invention will lead Hugo on a wonderful adventure with a new friend named Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz). Isabelle’s godfather is the disgruntled toy shop owner, who is played by Ben Kingsley. John Logan’s script follows with what has to be some of the most touching and affecting tributes to the era of silent cinema in recent memory.

Martin Scorsese who is no stranger to gritty, violent cinema, takes a complete departure from the movies that made him famous to give us a family friendly ode to the magic of movies. It’s so obvious that Scorsese is a lover of cinema and he knows it so well it’s almost disturbing. He is able to capture such beautiful images and the work of his cinematographer Robert Richardson (who also shot his gorgeous film “The Aviator”) is simply a standout. The use of colors and the stylistic elements completely transport you to another time and place. There are some truly wonderfully tracking shots that are a trademark of Scorsese’s work. And working with 3D for the first time, the filmmaker takes full advantage of the technology to completely immerse you in this world. When Cohen’s menacing face slowly leans into the frame towards our young heroes (and the audience) you react by moving your own head back even further. There are just some truly jaw dropping visual moments.

I can’t say enough good things about “Hugo.” The entire film is filled with the work of true artists. Everything from the sets to the costumes to the performances; everything feels authentic. It’s a truly wonderful escapist entertainment that can be enjoyed by children who no nothing about the time period in which it’s set and yet can be enjoyed by film history fans. “Hugo” reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place. Like we could ever forget? GRADE: A-

Paradise Lost: “The Descendants” Features Great Performances But Remains Rather Bland

2011-11-26T01:12:00.002-05:00

Alexander Payne is an expert in extracting comedy in awkward and dramatic situations. He has told stories that take place in high school and vineyards. In his latest film “The Descendants” he takes us to Hawaii to tell us a story about a middle-aged man who’s dealing with his wife tragic boating accident. She’s in a coma and now he’s forced to deal with the possibility of raising his two daughters by himself. This man is Matt King and he’s brought to life by the always reliable George Clooney. Matt soon learns a secret about his wife that forever changes his relationship with her, but she’s in a coma and there’s nothing that can really be done. A movie about a woman in a coma sounds rather maudlin and doesn’t seem ripe for comedy, but Payne manages a few great laugh-out-loud moments. Unfortunately, these laughs don’t come nearly as frequently as they should, and therefore I was left wanting more from a director I know is usually pretty reliable.

The thing with Alexander Payne is though, sometimes his movies tend to feel rather slow. There’s never really anything that interesting visually, which is fine when you have an interesting story and fascinating characters. And that was the main problem I had with his previous effort “Sideways.” I didn’t like those characters and I don’t really know much about wine, so to me I felt rather disconnected. “The Descendants” is much improved and what I did like most about it was how much you get a sense of Matt’s wife Elizabeth (played by Patricia Hastie) even though she spends the entire movie in a coma. The script (co written by Payne and Nate Faxon and Jim Rash) is rich with character development and what I liked most about the story was Matt’s relationship with his two daughters.

Shailene Woodley plays Alexandra King Matt’s rebellious teenage daughter, and she gives a surprisingly strong performance for an actress her age (she just turned 20). Having to deal with her mother’ accident and her wishy washy father is hard on her. Sometimes she’s left to look after her younger sister Scottie (Amara Miller in her feature debut) who’s rather rebellious herself. Scottie likes throwing the lawn furniture in the pool for no clear reason except that it’s just something to do. Alexandra also amusingly insists on dragging around her surfer dude guy friend around played by Nick Krause; let’s just say he doesn’t get along with Alexandra’s grandfather.

Matt soon learns a secret about his wife from Alexandra: Elizabeth had been having an affair and was planning on leaving him. This throws a much needed comic spin on a truly dire situation. Matt’s best friends, a couple played by Rob Hubel and Mary Birdsong, have known about this and tells him about the man she’s been seeing. He’s played by Matthew Lillard, who probably has his best role since the original “Scream” from 1996.

“The Descendants” is really about the journey of a man who has to deal with a situation that no one really wants to face. He wanted to be a better husband and he wants to tell his wife, but he can’t. And it seems like her prognosis is not good. It’s important to know that the people we love won’t be around forever and we don’t usually get a second chance. The Hawaiian setting works because, like Matt’s opening narration reminds us, this island community isn’t always just paradise. Sure there are sandy beaches and beautiful locations. But it’s still a place where bad things happen. No one here in “paradise” is immune to the pains of life. And I think that’s where the film lost me: I don’t think the movie’s quite as funny as it could have been. The film would rather be a drama with a few moments of comedy, but those few moments almost feel out of place in such a dramatic setting.

“The Descendants” features great performances and a richly developed script, but I found the opportunity for humor rather lacking. The film feels too slow and dramatic to be truly funny. Payne knows how to make dramatic situations funny, but I think something about the way he handled the film’s story left me wanting a little bit more. It’s a film that I’m sure the Academy will surely eat right up, but for me maybe a second viewing will be required. I think I just might have missed something along the way. GRADE: B-

No Strings Attached: The Magic is Back with the “The Muppets”

2011-11-23T23:17:00.003-05:00

Has it really been twelve years? Everyone’s favorite felted friends are finally back on the big screen in the wonderful Muppet reboot appropriately titled “The Muppets.” Long-time Muppet fans Jason Segal and Nicholas Stoller (who both worked together on the hilarious “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) have brought the magic of the Muppet characters back after a too long silver screen absence. All hope seemed lost after the so-so reception of “Muppets from Space” back in 1999 which explored the origins of the big-nosed chicken-loving Gonzo. That movie was alright but not up to par with the gang’s previous efforts; that movie’s cameos were reduced to D-list stars like Kathy Griffin and Hulk Hogan. “The Muppets” is definitely up to par with the best of the Muppet films. It might even be better than the original “The Muppet Movie.”

The film stars Jason Segal as Gary. He’s dating Mary (Amy Adams), but Mary sometimes feels neglected because of Gary’s close relationship with his brother Walter (Peter Finz). Walter is a new felted friend who is one of the Muppet’s biggest fans. He feels a closeness to the likes of Kermit, Miss Piggy and Gonzo, etc because he feels different. He lives in Smalltown, USA and his biggest dream is to tour the old Muppet Studios in Hollywood, California. So the trio takes a trip to California, where they learn that an evil oil tycoon played by Chris Cooper is planning on buying the studios so he can tear them down and dig for oil. You know he’s evil because he forces his Muppet minion to do a maniacal laugh. Their only hope is to reunite the Muppets, who have since disbanded, and have them raise money to save their old stopping grounds.

Anyone who is expecting Kermit and the gang to be onscreen from the start will be disappointed, but that’s not really a problem. Segal has come up with such a fun story about getting the gang back together that is really the only story that could possibly make sense following the Muppets’ long hiatus. Segal and Stoller have wisely created a very tongue-in-cheek story. You may even call it meta-Muppet. The film takes place in a world where “The Muppet Show” was an actual network program. But now in a world filled with stupid realty television, like the almost too real seeming “Punch Your Teacher,” the Muppets need all the help they can get to seem relevant again. A TV executive played by Rashida Jones reluctantly gives Kermit and the gang a chance to put on a show. They need a celebrity to help them out, so they kidnap Jack Black.

“The Muppets” maintains the spirit – and, most importantly, the strange quirkiness and comedy- of the previous Muppet films while finding its own way in a world where family entertainment is dominated by beautiful CGI creations. It’s amazing how well the puppeteers and voice actors make these pieces of felt and fur come to life and that’s because of the genius of Jim Henson. Even though he’s no longer around, it’s wonderful how the company he started is able to make such fun and memorable characters. Even after decades of entertaining the world, they’ve proven there is still a place for these fun-loving characters. There are even memorable musical numbers featuring songs written by Bret McKenzie of “Flight of the Conchords” fame. Director James Bobin couldn’t have asked for a more terrific feature directorial debut. He has worked the smart and sassy script into such a wonderful and joyous film filled with colors and music and magic you’d have to be Oscar the Grouch not to be moved by it all. GRADE: A

Gato Superstar: “Puss in Boots” is a Surprisingly Fun Adventure

2011-11-19T23:11:00.003-05:00

I wasn’t too excited to find out that the Shrek character Puss in Boots was getting his own big screen romp. It felt like stale and worn out territory destined for the Direct-to-DVD litter box. Especially after the 4^th Shrek movie was so desperate for a story that they had to use the filler “it was all a dream” plotline. Puss in Boots was a fun addition to the series but not exactly a character I personally went gaga over. I guess I’m more of a dog person. However, “Puss in Boots” is a unexpectedly fun and fresh take on the French fairy tale character that no one really knew about until he was added to the cast of “Shrek 2” and reimagined as a Zorro-like swashbuckling feline fighter voiced by Antonio Banderas.

“Puss in Boots” works as a prequel to the Shrek films and explores Puss’ origins. In keeping with the style of the Shrek films, Puss in Boots takes place in a fairy tale world. As a child in an orphanage Puss befriends Humpty Dumpty (voiced by Zach Galifianakis). There the whole “Humpty Dumpty had a great fall” legend is worked into the story as the point where Puss and Humpty become estranged. When they’re reunited later on Humpty enlists his old friend to find the magic beans that will lead to a golden egg. Cue Jack and the Beanstalk.

The film weaves in familiar fairy tales stories and characters much like the Shrek films without ever becoming too obvious or redundant. There’s not an overabundance of pop culture references that sometimes tend to be relied upon by DreamWorks. Who have actually had a rather good track record as of late. Of course, this is no “How to Train Your Dragon” but it can’t be compared to that. Although, and this isn’t say much, it’s extremely better than “Cars 2.”

One of the better ideas besides having Humpty Dumpty as a character, is having another female feline character who could play off Puss well – and that’s Kitty Softpaws voiced by Salma Hayek. They play rather nicely off each other that was enjoyable and fun. I also like that they were able to mash up the Jack and the Beanstalk characters with that of the Jack & Jill rhyme, where Jack and Jill here are big scary ogre-esque rednecks voiced by Billy Bob Thorton and Amy Sedaris.

“Puss in Boots” features some truly wonderful computer animation (although Pixar is still tops in this department) and it has some truly memorable characters. It’s a movie that can be enjoyed by kids and adults alike and whether or not you got sick of the Shrek movies like I did, you’ll most likely find something to enjoy here. GRADE: B+

The Mathletics: “Moneyball” Hits a Home Run

2011-11-19T17:28:00.002-05:00

“Moneyball” is a great movie. And I know why. It achieves something only great movies can: it turns a subject that I’m not interesting in and makes it fascinating. Baseball fans, and sports fans in general, will like “Moneyball” because it’s about a subject that interests them. I’m not a sports nut and yet I found “Moneyball” to be an engrossing, moving, smart and well-made film that solidly hit every base a good movie should. It sort of felt like “Jerry Maguire” but without that dopey love stuff.Filmmaker Bennett Miller’s last directorial effort (which was his first if you’re keeping track) was the Oscar-nominated “Capote” which netted him a direction nomination (and star Philip Seymour Hoffman an Academy Award). That was a biopic that was fascinating because it was about an eccentric character. Here we get the true story of Billy Beane who was a Major League baseball player who eventually ended up as general manager of the Oakland Athletics (the A’s for short). He was arguably a much more successful manager than ballplayer. How do you make your movie’s main character instantly likeable? You case Brad Pitt, who gives a subtle but nuanced and extremely good performance as Beane, a man who is determined to turn his team around.

The film begins with the A’s losing to the Yankees in the postseason in 2001. The majority of their star players have been traded to better teams. And they have an extremely low budget. Beane cannot afford to spend millions of dollars getting top baseball talent on his team. A trip to Cleveland lands a chance meeting with a young Yale graduate named Peter Brand (Jonah Hill). Brand is a based on a real guy, but his name is not Peter Brand. Brand was an Economics major and he has a sort of unorthodox way of drafting players in that he focuses on players ability to get on base. He doesn’t look at the traditional things that scouts and managers generally look for. He has some kind of fancy mathematical equation that you and I cannot understand, but it makes sense to someone who majored in Economics at Yale. Beane, who I truly believe was at his wits end hires Brand and wants him to use his magical mathematics to make the A’s a strong team. He does so but recruiting players that no other team really wants including a pitcher who “pitches funny” and a guy let guy from the Red Sox who couldn’t really throw a ball because of an injury. This new strange method of recruitment is met with appropriate reluctantly from the other managers and scouts Beane works with. Beane truly wants to believe that this is going to work.

Anyone who knows a lot about baseball and this team in general knows the whole story. But there are people out there who don’t know this story. Myself included. And I found it simply fascinating. It’s usually difficult for me to root for a sports team mostly because to me I don’t really see what the big deal is. It’s just a bunch of guys playing a game. Why should I care whether a team wins or loses? It’s hard to become emotionally involved in sports, but it’s a lot easier to become emotionally involved in a film. And that’s where the movie succeeds. Pitt and Hill are great at getting viewers to care about them. Pitt is so determined that he’s a substitution for any time in our lives we’ve wanted to succeed so badly. Miller, working with a screenplay from Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin wisely intercuts moments from Beane’s past as a young college baseball star having to make a tough decision: go to Stamford on a full scholarship or sign a deal to play for the New York Mets. Towards the end of the film Beane has to make a similar decision and we’re on pins and needles the whole time.

“Moneyball” is a sports movie for people who don’t really like sports movies. Maybe I liked it because it was as much about math as it was about baseball. Sports fans will love it yeah, but it’s wisely made with the non-fan in mind. It doesn’t use fancy lingo we don’t understand (the way Sorkin’s script for The Social Network did) and it presents us with characters worth caring about. I particularly enjoyed Chris Pratt’s portrayal of Scott Hattenberg. And while the film isn’t all that particularly flashy it includes some great work from cinematographer Wally Pfister. “Moneyball” is a winner through and through. GRADE: A-

Time Bandits: The Stylish and Fun “In Time” is Certainly Worth Your Time

2011-11-15T21:46:00.001-05:00

Finally we have a wonderfully original film that isn’t based on a book or another movie, or a sequel or even a true story. Heck, it’s not even based on a short story. It’s got to be the work of one Andrew Niccol, a talented filmmaker who constantly churns out highly original works every single time he steps behind the camera. “In Time” takes place in a Philip K. Dickian dystopian future where the currency of dollars has been replaced by time. Right, overpopulation has lead to humanity coming up with a concept that humans are genetically modified to stop aging at 25. If you want to live longer, you must work for additional time. If you want a cup of coffee, instead of paying a few bucks, you pay with a few minutes. Everyone’s time appears as a green digital countdown on their forearm. Once the numbers count down to zero, you “clock out” aka you die instantly. There are those poor individuals who work all day just to gain a few extra hours of life, while those who are rich have decades and decades of time. In essence you can live forever, unless you get reckless and you die by other means – or if someone kills you of course. It’s a wildly fascinating concept that gets immediate praise for this great idea alone.

We’re introduced to Will (Justin Timberlake). His mother Rachel is played by Oliva Wilde. You may notice that Wilde looks no older than say 28. And that’s because she is. While technically her character is about 50, no one in this movie ages past 25, which makes this film ideally a film filled with attractive actors in their mid twenties. Those who are able to get more time will have that amount of time, but their body will no longer age. Of course Rachel and her son are poor, living in a ghetto “time zone” called Dayton. Rachel only has a few hours left to live. While at a bar with a friend that evening Will comes across a 105-year-old “billionaire” named Henry Hamilton who flaunts the fact that he has over 100 years left on his clock to the poor bar patrons. Henry is played by Matt Bomer (and his piercing baby blues). Henry is accosted by a gangster named Fortis (Alex Pettyfer) who wants to steal his time, but Will saves him and brings him to an abandoned warehouse where he confesses that he’s tired of living and would rather just “expire.” He transfers the rest of his time to Will while he sleeps and then commits suicide. The police force known as the Timekeepers believe Will is responsible for Henry’s death. Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) is hot on Will’s trail, who decides to use all of new time to infiltrate the rich folks over in the New Greenwich Time Zone and hopefully help redistribute all the their hoarded time.

That’s a lot to process for a fun action thriller staring the former lead singer of N Sync. Somehow this high concept really works well. It’s simply fascinating to see how one person can “transfer” their time to another by simply grabbing onto the other person’s wrist. While in the rich high society Will comes across a young woman named Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) who seem to be into each other, and he ends up taking her hostage to that her rich daddy played by a creepy Vincent Kartheiser (doing a terrific job playing an 80-year-old in a 25-year-old’s body). The two are soon on the lame as both Leon and Fortis are after them and their time. There are several suspenseful sequences in which the characters literally have minutes or seconds left to live and we watch as they scramble to find more time – including pawning off Sylvia’s diamond earrings for a meager two days of time. And no character is really safe in this movie as anyone’s clock could tick down to zero at any moment.

Andrew Niccol proves to be a wondrous storyteller having delivered some very intriguing screenplays like The Truman Show and Gattaca. He’s even proven himself to be somewhat of a auteur behind the camera as well, as each of his films have a distinct visual style. They’re always so meticulously art directed and appropriately colorful. I loved Roger Deakin’s photography (his first digitally shot film) and beautiful use of shadows and silhouettes. Here Niccol is able to make a dystopian future without hardly any use of computer effects. There’s no need to have sweeping shots of CGI buildings or flying cars, when cars that drive on the ground will do. Heck, people even use payphones in this society. And his films always have such a stylish and lavish feel; it sort of feels like a futuristic James Bond spy thriller with a touch of “Bonnie & Clyde” thrown in. It’s just soft of, cool.

“In Time” is a highly original and chic motion picture that brings up some pretty interesting issues about class warfare and about society in general. And it’s all packaged in the style of a futuristic thriller. It features great performances – like it or not Justin Timberlake has acting talent – and such an interesting premise that it’s certainly not a waste of your time. GRADE: B+

F.B.Sigh: “J. Edgar” Doesn’t Quite Gel Into the Powerful Biopic It Could Have Been

2011-11-13T19:59:00.002-05:00

“J. Edgar” stars Leonardo DiCaprio and rubbery make-up as John Edgar Hoover, the man who established and ran the Federal Bureau of Investigation until his death in 1972. With a strong pedigree of past Oscar champs - director Clit Eastwood and screenwriter Dunstan Lance Black) – “J. Edgar” should have been the biopic to end all biopics and instead it’s just a sort of average movie with good performances, ok old-age make-up, and a rather confusing and hokey narrative structure that felt unnecessary. Eastwood remains in prime directorial form, but his latest effort feels less compelling than his last effort the unjustly Oscar-has been “Hereafter.”

“J. Edgar” has some positives and that starts with a great performance by Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio is simply getting better with age. And that’s mostly because his boyish looks has always felt rather strange to me and depending on the role, makes him less convincing. Although I thought he was wonderful in movies like The Aviator, Revolutionary Road and Blood Diamond, he just seemed too young for those parts. Here he ages from 25 to 65 with the help of some prosthetics and they’re mostly convincing (more on Armie Hammer’s awful rubber mask in a moment). DiCaprio can act the part of an aged man well; he has the proper mannerisms and vocal inflections. I think he deserves an Oscar nomination, but it’s not actually as flashy a performance as one would think. Him and Judi Dench - playing his domineering mother - work well together.

But performances aren’t the only aspect of a film, there has to be a story and this one presents us with a disjointed one for sure. Black, who’s screenplay for “Milk” provided an interesting back and forth narrative structure which worked rather well and was never confusing, employs the same technique here with varying degrees of success. The film cuts back and forth between old J. Edgar (taking place around the early 1960s) and young J. Edgar (around the 1920s). Early J. Edgar is instrumental in forming what later became the FBI. He was appointed as head of the Bureau of Investigations and was actively involved in using modern scientific methods to catch criminals – including fingerprinting and gathering important evidence from crime scenes. As the head of this organization he worked under several presidents whom he has varying political relationships with; the film has some trouble clarifying those relationships. He was as odds with then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and in one strange scene makes a personal call to RFK after his brother John is shot to death in Dallas. Some of his political motives and positions are made rather unclear, or rather confusing with some many jumps back and forth in time. The film, like most of Eastwood’s recent successes, should have been compelling and involving as it went on, but the disorganized narrative sort of make things unintentionally stale.

The film’s most interesting aspects definitely come from what most are interesting in learning about – J. Edgar’s private life. There have been varying stories from various people in Edgar’s life about whether he was gay or not. He has a deputy working for him Associate Director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer who’s also forced to wear rubbery old age make-up which makes him appear 95 when he’s only supposed to be in his 60s) who seemed to catch Edgar’s fancy from the moment he saw him. There was an unspoken connection between the two men, which many saw has a harmless friendship, while others insist they were in fact secret lovers. There is much unknown about this relationship (and whether Edgar was a cross dresser, which one scene does imply) and Black has made it clear that he wanted his script to be factual rather than speculative. Eastwood sort of dances around the issue in a way another more liberal director might not have, but it’s addressed enough to the point that you can draw your own conclusions.

I expected much more from “J. Edgar” than I was given. With top Hollywood talent at work in front of and behind the camera, the film sort of feels like a let down. The odd narrative style sort of kept me distant from what should have been rather intimate and moving material. Edgar was an interesting, and important, man and the film does a decent job of presenting us that man. DiCaprio gives the movie some life – I wish I could say the same for those prosthetics. Naomi Watts is good in otherwise bland and uninteresting role which felt like it could have been played by anyone. The film does bring up a good question however – where the heck has Lea Thompson been? GRADE: B-

The Tree of Strife: “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas” is Not the Holly Jolly Christmas Movie I Expected

2011-11-05T20:50:00.004-04:00

Wow it’s sad when a robot toy named Waffle-Bot barely saves your movie. That movie would be “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas.” Or maybe the movie should have been called “Harold & Kumar Need a Christmas Tree.” Cause that’s all it is. And you know what? That you used to be what was great about Harold and Kumar: the simplicity of the story and the unpredictable nonsense that came from it. In the first film best friends/stoners Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) just wanted to eat at White Castle after getting high one evening. That led them on a hilarious adventure. Neal Patrick Harris even showed up playing wildly against type. They upped the craziness in part 2 when Harold & Kumar were mistaken as terrorists aboard an airplane and sent to Guantanamo Bay which lead to some hilarious misadventures as they made their way along the Southern US (and onto George W. Bush’s Texas estate). Now things are as gimmicky as ever (in glorious or should I say crummy-looking 3D) as Harold must find a Christmas tree to replace the one that Kumar accidentally burned down before Harold’s in-laws get back from midnight mass.

The problem with “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas” isn’t the fact that it’s utterly stupid (because the other two were as well). It’s that most of the jokes fall completely flat and instead were left with boring scene after another. It turns out that Harold and Kumar haven’t talked to each other in a long time ever since Harold settled down and got married. Kumar is still getting baked and his ex-girlfriend doesn’t really want anything to do with him. A mysterious package is left on his doorstep that’s addressed to Harold (who hasn’t lived there in a couple years) and so he decides to drop it off at his house. Harold’s wife’s family is visiting for the weekend and that includes his scary Christmas-obsessed father-in-law played by Danny Trejo (sporting a fine-looking Christmas sweater). He gives his daughter and son-in-law a Christmas tree he grew himself (took him eight years) and 10 minutes later Kumar unintentionally sets it on fire with a massive joint. Now it’s a race against time to find a new tree on Christmas Eve before his wife and her dad finds out.

This brief plot set-up leads to some rather disappointing endeavors which include stopping by Kumar’s friend Adrian’s online girlfriend’s house where he hopes to deflower her. Kumar and Harold must play a game of beer pong with a boy who says they can have his family’s tree if they win. Of course the kid’s father is a Russian mob boss which isn’t a good thing for Harold and Kumar. Harold’s friend Todd (Thomas Lennon) is also along for the ride with his infant daughter who manages to get high on weed and cocaine (and eventually ecstasy) all in the same movie.

But all that stuff is just filler until we wait for Neil Patrick Harris to show up (even though he was killed in the second movie) so that he can liven things up. He plays a funny riff on his widely known gay persona (which in the film is just an act so he can get more female tail). Harris is funny but he doesn’t quite save the movie. No, that job goes to a little fictional toy robot named Waffle-Bot. He’s the film’s hot selling Christmas toy. He makes fresh, delicious waffles and don’t get him started on how much he hates pancakes. He ends up saving Harold and Kumar and end up barely saving the film as well. A well-placed Waffle-Bot commercial featuring a boy getting electrocuted by his toaster is utterly hilarious in a movie that should have been filled with utterly hilarious moments, but alas I really only chuckled that one time.

Perhaps the writers Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg who also penned the other two installments are just running out of ideas. And that’s not surprising since really how many gross-out misadventures can you give these characters? Director Todd Strauss-Schulson doesn’t really know what he’s doing either cause he’s made a pretty ugly film that looks miserable when looking through tinted 3D glasses. The 3D effects are fun and gimmicky which is how 3D should be used in a movie like this, but for such a fun and happy and jolly Christmas stoner movie things look so dank and dismal. I am a fan of Harold & Kumar but this third entry was a major disappointment. Here’s hoping that Harold and Kumar can at least have a more entertaining Martin Luther King Day. GRADE: C-

Real Steal: “Tower Heist” is a Funny, Well-Cast Comedy Caper

2011-11-04T23:38:00.001-04:00

It should be noted that “Tower Heist” is not “Ocean’s Eleven” (although it’s way better than Twelve and Thirteen if you’re keeping track). The suave charm of Clooney, Pitt and Damon here are replaced by Ben Stiller, Matthew Broderick and Eddie Murphy. And yet Brett Ratner, apparently the worst thing to happen to the film industry since television was invented, manages to keep thing lively, fresh and just plain fun. The important thing to note is that even though Mr. Ratner has helmed the film, the script was written by comedy caper extraordinaires Ted Griffin (Ocean’s Eleven, Matchstick Men) and Jeff Nathanson (Catch Me If You Can). The script and the cast is the real winner here as “Tower Heist” proves to be an entertaining yarn about decent, regular people who are fed up with white collar crime. Who wouldn’t root for these guys?

Ben Stiller is Josh Kovacs the manager of a fancy Columbus Circle high-rise building known as “The Tower.” The building’s owner is Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). The two seem to have a nice boss-employee relationship as part of Josh’s daily tasks include making sure Mr. Shaw has the right type of cheese to go with his wine. The building is home to the rich and fancy and the workers are the typical blue-collar types. The new elevator operator is Enrique (Michael Peña), the concierge is Charlie (Casey Affleck), Odessa is a rotund Jamaican maid (Gabourey Sidibe) and the friendly doorman is Lester (Stephen Henderson). Things seem to be going well in The Tower, but soon Shaw is arrested on multiple counts of white collar crimes such as fraud. He maintains his innocence which Josh wants to believe, but then it turns out the entire staff’s pensions have been invested by Shaw and now it’s gone. All gone. There’s nothing left for Josh to do but hire the neighborhood crook (and a childhood friend) named Slide (Eddie Murphy “returning to form”) to storm Shaw’s penthouse and steal the millions of dollars that is supposedly hidden there.

It’s great how the film doesn’t just delve completely into the heist part of the story right away. It takes its time trying to develop the characters first and actually allows enough time to buy the fact that Josh and his buddies are willing to actually become criminals just to get their savings back. It’s obvious that these guys are not thieves. In one great sequence Slide makes Josh, Enrique, Charlie, and Mr. Fitzgerald (a down on his luck former tenant who’s been squatting in The Tower played by Matthew Broderick), steal fifty dollars worth of merchandise from the mall. I guess it proves that anyone could be a criminal, but sometimes it’s fun to root for the little guy, even if he’s just ripping of Victoria’s Secret. Meanwhile, Claire (Téa Leoni, where has she been??), an FBI agent who’s in charge of Shaw’s arrest, becomes interested in Josh and she has her own quirky personality: she’s the one that no-so-subtly gives Josh the whole idea to “storm Shaw’s castle.”

“Tower Heist” for the most part seems believable until things begin to get slightly crazy in the third act, which seemed rather hard to swallow, but you have such a fun time watching everything come together that by then it doesn’t really matter. The film works mostly because it’s established early on that these are people you want to root for. And the film couldn’t arrive in theaters at a more convenient time. With tall that “Occupy Wall Street” stuff going on, who wouldn’t want to rob a rich dude’s penthouse?

Don’t let the fact that Brett Ratner (who is not nearly as bad as he’s made out to be in my humble opinion) directed this thing fool you. It’s a fun, breezy movie with funny performances and an appealing story. It works mostly due to its great cast and they all work surprisingly well together. Broderick, Murphy and Stiller are all wonderful together it almost makes you wonder why they hadn’t been in anything together before this. “Tower Heist” is pretty much the definition of escapist, fun movie going. It’s not stupid enough that you have to turn off your brain, but it’s not trying to be anything more important that it actually is. It certainly won’t rob you of your time. GRADE: B+

Demon Night: Things Go Bump in the Night Again in “Paranormal Activity 3”

2011-10-21T19:44:00.002-04:00

Sometimes the third part of a horror franchise is great (here’s looking at you “Dream Warriors”) and sometimes it can be just bad (“Halloween III” anyone?). Ok they’re mostly just bad. Scary or not, the third entry always begins to show some signs of fatigue and an overwhelming sense of “been there done that.” That’s mostly true with the latest shot-on-video-cause-we-love-reality-TV scary movie “Paranormal Activity 3.” Here’s the bottom line, right up front: this movie sort of has a “we’ve seen this stuff before” vibe but it still remains a pretty tense experience. It’s not exactly as outright nightmare inducing as the first entry, but it still maintains a superior level of suspense amongst the freaky ghostly goings on. And in fact, it does a great job of expanding on the story and characters established in the first two entries.

In the first film a young couple is being tormented by a spirit. Katie and her boyfriend Micah set up cameras to capture the paranormal phenomenon. In the end Katie becomes possessed and kills her boyfriend. In the second film, which is actually a prequel, we’re introduced to Katie’s sister Kristi. Apparently both girls had a run in with a spirit when they were children and this time the ghost seems to be after Kristi and her newborn son. Now in this new entry we flash back via VHS to 1988 when Katie and Kristi are young girls. Katie is played by Chloe Csengery. Kristi is played by Jessica Tyler Brown. Both girls turn in marvelous performances. You don’t see them acting because they’re disturbingly realistic. They’re so good in fact I’m wondering whether they knew they were going to be in a movie at all. Kristi and Katie’s mom is Julie (Lauren Bittner) and she’s now married to wedding videographer Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith).

The family notices a few strange noises and Dennis decides to set up some of his video equipment to see what exactly is going on. The film wastes no time getting to the creepy stuff as we almost instantly begin to see signs of very weird activity. Some evidence is so obviously paranormal that you wonder why Dennis and Julie don’t grab the girls and get the heck out of the house right away. There are creepy moments with a babysitter, and Dennis’ camera buddy that all point to “this house is definitely haunted.” Dennis pushes on and even though there’s plenty reasons to suggest something unworldly (such as young Kristi having full on conversations with a presence named Toby that can’t be seen) they stick it out. And a game of Bloody Mary doesn’t exactly end well. It’s sort of made unclear but it seems that Dennis literally wants to see a demon walk across the TV before he’ll do anything. Eventually they can’t take it anymore and go to stay at Julie’s mother’s house, which, without giving too much away, ends up being the worst idea of all.

The movie employs the same scare techniques as the first two films. We get steady shots of the couple and children sleeping and then scary things begin to happen. Dennis even rigs a camera to an oscillating fan that pans back and forth, which is used rather effectively in several scenes. There were parts in this film where I was pretty scared, but not outright terrified. And the audience seemed to be having a good time. Besides now it’s obvious that when you see a “Paranormal Activity” movie you pretty much know what you’re getting and that’s enough for me. The film does give another layer to a growing mythology with these characters and it’s pretty fascinating what screenwriter Christopher Landon has came up with. It’s obvious that he’s more influenced by “Rosemary’s Baby” than just some gore fest. The film was directed by the two guys (Henry Joost & Ariel Schulman) who were responsible for the “is it real or not?” documentary “Catfish” and they certainly lend a realistic hand to the third entry of this surprisingly good trilogy.

If you enjoyed the first two films, you’re more than likely going to like this one as well. Maybe you won’t jump as much as you did with the other films and the scares won’t keep you up at night, but this is a scary movie franchise that relies on good old fashioned foreboding tension and atmosphere to create fear, not blood and guts (not that there’s anything wrong with that). After having to endure seven “Saw” flicks, the new “Paranormal Activity” franchise is certainly a breath of ghostly fresh air. GRADE: B

500 Days of Cancer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt Simply Shines in “50/50”

2011-10-18T23:12:00.007-04:00

Cancer sucks. Unfortunately just about everyone knows someone who has been affected by this horrible disease. There are people who survive it and there are those who don’t. Sometimes it’s hard to tell a story about someone getting cancer without coming across as a disease-of-the week TV movie. There are some that just work on a cinematic level, such as the Oscar-winning tear jerker “Terms of Endearment.” And now for the Judd Apatow crowd we have the exceptional comedy-drama “50/50” which follows a twenty seven year old man who is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer and how it affects him and those around him. It’s a movie that’s all at once sad and humorous and is told with 100 percent honesty and it completely earns whatever tears you may shed for it.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, who at the beginning of the film is complaining of back pain and night sweats. He sees his doctor and much to his surprise a tumor is found on his spinal column. He’s in shock as he should be since he’s only twenty-seven years old. He’s a young guy who’s supposed to be in the prime of his life, but unfortunately cancer can affect anyone, even those who don’t drink or smoke or care about the environment enough to recycle. Adam is dating Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) and when he tells her you can tell from her reaction that she’s not exactly ready to be Adam’s caregiver. And why should she be. Sure she cares about Adam, but they aren’t a married couple and taking on the responsibility of looking after a cancer patient is something no one in this world would ask for. It puts a strain on their relationship to a point where, as she’s only human, Rachael begins seeing another man. Adam tells his mother (played briefly but wonderfully by Anjelica Huston) and his father (Serge Houde) who’s suffering from Alzheimer’s. We get to learn a lot about Adam and his relationships to the people in his life and it’s made clear that the closed relationship he has is actually with his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen doing his best Seth Rogen).

Adam begins his cancer treatments which rightfully begin to take a toll on him physically and emotionally. He connects with some older cancer patients played by Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer. They offer him pot macaroons. He also begins seeing a therapist named Katherine who much to Adam’s surprise is much younger than him. She’s played by Oscar-nominee Anna Kendrick who just simply radiates charm whenever she’s onscreen. Its quickly revealed that she’s a newbie and Adam is in fact only her third patient (she’s working on her doctorate). This situation is new for her and it’s new for Adam. There scenes together begin to indicate that perhaps Katherine and Adam have more than just a doctor-patient relationship, but the focus of the film remains about Adam’s having to deal with cancer and strains it puts on his life. The film’s main focus remains his friendship with Kyle and how something so serious can affect a typical “bro” relationship. Kyle insists that Adam’s cancer can be used to help the guy get laid and he’s certainly loving being able to get high with his buddy with medicinal marijuana. Adam’s prognosis seems worse than anticipated (he reads online that he basically has a 50% survival chance) and he learns that he must have surgery as his tumor has not been responding to the chemotherapy. This puts a whole new strain on things and leads into an extremely heart wrenching and powerful third act.

The film was actually written by comedy writer Will Reiser, a close personal friend of Rogen’s in real life who insisted he tell his own story about getting cancer at a young age and being able to make a full recovery. You can tell that the relationships in the film feel genuine, the laughs are funny (a reference to the late Patrick Swayze is actually pretty hilarious) and help release the dramatic tension and have a level of authenticity that is nearly unheard of in films like this. Director Jonathan Levine, having a strong independent background gives the film an intimacy that makes you feel a part of the characters life. It’s realistic, funny and painful. The actors’ performances, especially Gordon-Levitt are on a level beyond what words can describe. The emotions translated through his performance are just simply astonishing.

“50/50” is a just simply a terrific little film. It’s comical and yet dramatic and balances the two perfectly well. The emotions you’ll feel are extremely well-earned and will resonate with anyone who has every known someone affected by this horrible disease. It’s a wonderful story about the power of friendship in a time of grief and what's it's like for a young person to stare death in the face. It's a movie that will resonate long after it's over. GRADE: A

Dance Dance Revolution: In Defense of the “Footloose” Remake

2011-10-15T20:50:00.003-04:00

The new “Footloose” movie is a lot better than it has any right to be. And that’s not because it’s remake of a movie. It’s because it’s a remake of a movie that was bad to begin with. I mean honestly, the film’s story just doesn’t make any sense. A town where dancing is banned? Dancing! Banned? A few kids get killed in a car accident after dancing (and drinking) and apparently the dancing caused them to crash, not the elevated alcohol levels. It was lame and cheesy even for an 80s movie, so therefore this story, which is basically the exact same thing, should make even less sense taking place in the age of iPods and “Dancing with the Stars.” And thankfully there are no references to Twitter or Facebook. Therefore, I present the idea that this new “Footloose” is not only a decent and fun movie, but it might even improve upon its original inspiration.

Is Herbert Ross’ “Footloose” really all that special? Sure it helped launch Kevin Bacon’s career (which actually started four years earlier in “Friday the 13^th“) but what has really stuck are those catchy tunes that make their appearances every now and then at weddings and other social gatherings that involve (legal) dancing. Kenny Loggin’s title track is infectious and it’s even more so in the new film’s opening credit sequence which also follows many happy feet as they bust a move. Except this time the characters know the song and sing along as if they all had seen the original film and maybe that’s possible because I think every teenager in this movie could probably win “So You Think You Can Dance.” But then tragedy strikes and public dancing is made illegal for anyone under the age of 18.

The town of Bomont, Georgia is a religious town and its bible thumping preacher Rev. Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid) is part of the board which made dancing (and playing loud music) a criminal offense much to everyone’s chagrin including his own teen daughter Ariel (Julianne Hough). Shaw’s own son was one of the kids killed in the car wreck and he’s vowed not to let it happen again. That is until new kid Ren MacCormack (Kenny Wormald) swaggers into town to live with his aunt and uncle. He’s from Boston and this supposed bad boy doesn’t get how dancing can be illegal. He butts head with the local deputy who gives him a citation for cranking up some tunes too loud in his VW Beetle, he catches the attention of Ariel even though she’s in a doomed to fail relationship with a creepy redneck guy, and befriends Willard (Miles Teller) who effortlessly steals every scene he’s in. Seriously, Mr. Teller is a great and charming actor. He was also great in “Rabbit Hole” which you should go out and rent right now if you haven’t seen it. Some scenes involve Ariel clashing with her dad because when you restrict teens from being able to dance it can cause some seriously deviant behavior (like dating creepy redneck guys). It’s only a matter of time before Ariel and Ren join forces to rebel against the oppressive elders.

But let’s get to the point, why does one see a movie called “Footloose”? The dancing! Except that since it’s illegal in this movie there’s not exactly a lot of it, but when it happens it’s great. There’s some pretty great choreography going on here. Ren can certainly bust a move (he was on the gymnastics team at his old high school, if that’s not badass I don’t know what is) and when he gets angry and frustrated he lets it all out in a recreation of Kevin Bacon’s famous “angry abandoned warehouse dance.” It was corny then and it’s still corny now. Some cheese is simply timeless. I really enjoyed a sequence where Ren takes Ariel, Willard and Willard’s girlfriend Rusty (Ziah Colon) to a line dancing bar in the city a couple hours outside of town. It’s revealed that Willard just might be the only person in Bomont who can’t dance. And afterwards Ren makes it his mission to teach this goofy kid some moves. Set to “Let’s Hear It for the Boy” of course.

Yes this whole thing is utterly ridiculous and I still insist that the story would make way more sense set in the 1950s or some other oppressed decade. Or it would work as a flat out musical where silly laws (like having to pay to go to the bathroom) just feel more natural. But alas director Craig Brewer who brought some southern twang charm to “Black Snake Moan” (and the Oscar-winning “Hustle & Flow”) has somehow managed the impossible: to take a movie that’s pretty lame and make it not quite as lame while being set in modern day). I think I honestly believed the characters and their wanting to express themselves and the two newcomer leads are actually pretty decent. Let’s face it, we could have easily been stuck with the likes of Miley Cyrus and a Jonas brother. While this new film sill has its corny moments, they feel sort of sincere and the movie has a more mature feel than I was ready for. This isn’t “High School Musical.”

“Footloose” honestly surprised me. It should be bad bad bad, but I found myself enjoying it. The dancing is impressive, the cast is charming and I found myself tapping my foot more than once. “Footloose” purists might scoff, but this is probably the best they could have done with the material. The original film in my opinion just doesn’t hold up well today and feels extremely dated. The defense rests. GRADE: B+

In Cold Blood: “The Thing” is a Prequel Worth Seeing

2011-10-14T22:43:00.002-04:00

Let it be known that weather the alien creature in “The Thing” was achieved using practical effects or computer effects it was going to be awesomely gross no matter what. Having said that, there is a lot of CGI in this new prequel to the John Carpenter’s 1982 cult classic “The Thing,” but we can work through it together. However it’s important to note, that while most of the effects are not practical like in the original, they achieve a certain level of grossness that was surprisingly enjoyable (assuming you like that sort of thing). There are plenty of disgusting tentacles and wormy appendages that will most likely give those sensitive to such images the willies. The best thing that can be said about this new “Thing” is that while nowadays remakes, prequels, and reboots are all the rage, this movie – which doesn’t quite match the power or sheer innovation of the 1982 film – still manages to work as a nice companion piece and gives us a glimpse of that scary creature as it assimilates and systematically kills off an entire Norwegian research facility before making its way to a beardy Kurt Russell (who sadly makes no cameo if that’s what you were hoping for).

The film begins just a few days before the events of John Carpenter’s film. It’s 1982 and it’s wintertime in Antarctica. It’s freaking cold. Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has been asked to take a look at an extraterrestrial spacecraft that has apparently crash-landed thousands of years earlier. They remove a frozen alien being from the ice and prepare to thaw it out. However, if these scientists had seen “Encino Man” they would probably realize that when ancient creatures are frozen in ice, they’re rarely dead. Kate joins an entire Norwegian research facility filled with men (and just one other woman) who are pretty difficult to tell apart. But there’s a few attempts at character development so that we at least get to know some of them before they’re slaughtered. Of course, since we know the entire facility is mysteriously wiped out (and everything pretty much charred) we know these people won’t be sticking around for very long, save for two non-speaking Norwegians who don’t speak English who appear at the beginning of the 1982 film. It’s here that the plot of this new film, like the creature itself, begins copying its processor’s plot: the creature is very much alive and begins to “absorb” the scientists and then “mimic” them one by one. It sort of works like a virus and it’s difficult to know who is human and who is not which appropriately creates extreme paranoia within the group. Kate, being a practical woman, quickly grabs a flamethrower and begins torching anyone who doesn’t seem quite human.

“The Thing” will not become a horror classic the way the Carpenter’s remake became a horror classic, but there are still plenty of things I enjoyed here. Both films share a similar visual style that helps connect the films. There’s nothing particularly flashy about the photography even though a European has directed the film (Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.) Heijningen is a proclaimed fan of the original film and it shows because people who know the first film well will be able to see the small connections and the film’s ending leads wonderfully into the opening of the 1982 film. The film works despite its heavy use of CGI effects, but the creature is so disturbingly disgusting it’s hard to find fault with the effects. There’s just no way that modern filmmakers will use animatronic effects like they used to and it’s time for all of us to accept it. And I liked the slow build up. The film could have easily just started with a typical scene of someone being attacked by an unseen monster but luckily we don’t get any of that. I thought the performances were good even though writers Eric Heisserer and Ronald D. Moore don’t particularly flesh out any characters very well. Kate isn’t exactly Ripley, but Winstead plays her with an intelligent spunk which I liked. And there are some good jump scares that help lighten the tension.

Remember this is the type of movie that we’ve all seen a million times before but there’s a reason why movies like this work. It’s fun to be scared. “The Thing” works as a nice companion piece to the 1982 film, it’s similar in style and structure and while most will call it just a “copy” of that film I think there’s enough new material here (and nods to the original like nice tributes to Ennio Morricone’s terrific score) that fans of the first film will find something to like about it. Of course nothing will ever top the gross spider head, but this alien is still one of the most enjoyably disgusting creatures put on film. Sure this new film may not exactly be out of this world, but it’s certainly a welcome addition to the scary movie holiday season (and ten times better than having to sit through another “Saw” sequel). GRADE: B

My Faris Lady: “What’s Your Number?” is Clichéd Rom-Com Junk Food

2011-09-30T22:13:00.002-04:00

Romantic comedies are like horror films: both are typically riddled with clichés. They always tend to follow the formula yet people turn out for them over and over again. There’s a reason: they work. Why mess with a particularly successful formula? Sure once in a while a movie breaks the mold and tries something new. The latest rom-com starring perennially funny girl Anna Faris does not break the mold. In fact, it rarely deviates from the mold. Here we have a pretty girl, who has had lots of relationships, yet they all never work out. What’s a hot chick like Anna Faris to do? Maybe the equally hot guy across the hall that looks a lot like Chris Evans is the man of her dreams? No way, he’s a womanizing jerk! How could they ever be the perfect match? Oh the clichés, let me count the ways.

A romantic comedy’s success firmly stands on how well the romantic leads work together. If there is no chemistry between the actors there can be no chemistry between the characters. There is something between Anna Faris, who plays Ally Darling and Chris Evans who plays Colin Shea. Ally is in sort of a rut. She’s just been fired from her marketing job and then she makes the biggest mistake a woman her age can make: she follows advice from one of those girly magazines. She realizes that she’s slept with way too many guys (the national average is apparently 10.5) and her friends tell her that if she keeps having failed relationships she’s doomed to never settle down and get married. This begins a whole crusade to track down her ex-boyfriends in hopes that perhaps one of them has changed enough to be her dream man. Spoiler alert: he’s actually waiting across the hall. Ally enlists the help of her too-jock-like-to-be-a-struggling-musician across the hall neighbor Colin (Evans). Apparently Colin knows how to get dirt on people since he used to go on stakeouts with his cop dad. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that Colin and Ally will end up together in the end (but not before a temporary setback in which they have an argument or fight and then one of them seeks the other out to professes their love to the other in which the other one realizes they love the other one too and then they kiss and live happily ever after).

To be honest, I rooted for Ally and Colin but that’s mostly because I find Faris and Evans to be some of the most charming actors working today. They’re so likable you forget that the script refuses to let them be together until the last 15 minutes or so. And Ally is such an beautiful girl you wonder why she’s attracted so many losers. These include a puppeteer played by Andy Samberg, her creepy ex-boss played by Joel McHale, and a former fatty but newly svelte and engaged guy played by Faris’ real life beau Chris Pratt. With all these obvious losers behind her, I’m not quite sure why Ally wouldn’t just immediately throw herself at Colin, but I guess even some women who’ve slept with 20 guys have some standards. Meanwhile, there’s a subplot involving Ally’s younger sister Daisy’s (Ari Graynor) wedding and her attempts to avoid her overbearing mother played wonderfully by Blythe Danner.

I think one of the major flaws of the film is its attempts to be just plain filthy. Ally, Daisy, and their friends talk about sex and vaginas and penises, and while it’s refreshing to here women talk about this stuff rather than men, it felt rather forced to me. It was as if they were trying to compete with movies like “Bridesmaids” in the raunch department. Screenwriters Gabrielle Allan and Jennifer Crittenden (and director Mark Mylod) seem more interested in finding ways to get Colin and Ally undressed than to have any character say or do anything remotely profound. And the comedy part of this romantic comedy sort of lacks too. Faris is hilarious and she has a few standout moments and lines, but otherwise she’s playing it remotely safe. She’s as likable as ever, but she has yet to find a starring role that really plays to her brilliant comedic talents.

Ally and Colin belong together, but the script says they can’t be together until the end of the movie. Meanwhile we have to sit through lots of jokes about creepy guys sniffing their own crotches, a neighbor who supposedly has sex with his dog and a completely random game of Strip HORSE at the TD Garden arena. “What’s Your Number?” adds nothing new to a repeatedly worn out genre and can only be redeemed because of the two completely likable leads. One day I believe Faris will get the script she truly deserves, but until then I guess this will have to do. GRADE: C+

A Cult Above the Rest: Kevin Smith Gets Preachy in “Red State”

2011-09-24T09:35:00.001-04:00

If you don’t like political views being shoved down you’re throat then you probably shouldn’t see “Red State.” You also probably shouldn’t see it if you don’t like watching people being violently executed while bound to a crucifix. Kevin Smith no stranger to controversy in the cinematic world has unleashed a new kind of film that is unlike anything he has done before. And people thought “Cop Out” was uncharacteristic. “Red State” is not a comedy whatsoever. It’s about a religious cult somewhere in Middle America who persecute all types of sexual deviancy including what they see as the ultimate perversion: homosexuality. These fundamentalists see themselves as some kind of martyrs whose job it is to destroy these sinners all the while they, the last time I checked, committing a sing themselves BECAUSE THEY ARE MURDERING PEOPLE.

The film starts off similarly to movies like “Hostel” where horny teenage boys set off to have some promiscuous sex and instead find themselves being bound and gagged and tortured. Jared (Kyle Gallner) and his two buddies visit a sex internet site with the intention of having sex with an older woman. They drive out that night to meet up where they encounter Sarah Cooper (Melissa Leo). She offers them some beer first. What teenage boy wouldn’t accept beer from a middle aged woman in a trailer? As soon as they begin stripping off their clothes it’s revealed they’ve been drugged and unfortunately sex is the last thing they will be getting this evening. Jared wakes up in a metal cage where he witnesses a preacher named Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) giving a hate-filled sermon about the evils of homosexuality and other sexual abominations. Good thing Jared is not a homosexual right? Wrong.

This is where the film sort of lost me because having three straight teenage boys being persecuted by this “Five Points Church” religious cult didn’t quite make too much sense to me. The film opens with these people protesting a gay teenager’s funeral. There is so much debating and discussions revolving around the idea of homosexuality that I thought it was strange that the main characters being attacked by these people aren’t even homosexual. Sarah and Abin’s excuse for targeting these boys is that they were willing to all have sexual relations with Sarah all at once, which makes it even worse apparently. I don’t know, that all seemed fishy to me at best. I can imagine that kind of heat Smith would have taken if he actually had gay main characters being bound and gagged. What kind of example could he be setting? He’s obviously not on the fundamentalist side, but that would have been much too hard to witness.

The actual filmmaking here itself feels sort of shotty at best. Smith came from his gritty, independent roots and he definitely returns to them here. The film has a very low budget, digital look and feel but instead of giving the film a grainy look, it really just feels “direct-to-video” instead. I’m not quite surprised the film wasn’t picked up for theatrical distribution after premiering at Sundance. And I’m not even really quite sure what to even classify this thing. I would assume it’s supposed to be horror and while it has shocking parts, I was never that quite scared. The idea of a group of people seeking out “deviants” and executing them for their “sins” is scary itself, but I think the execution here is a little off. The film goes from being “Hostel” to being a hostage shootout movie once the film shifts to John Goodman’s character an AFT agent who becomes aware that these church freaks not only have hostages, but entire machine gun arsenal.

I know Kevin Smith is a talented guy, I’ve never been his biggest fan, but he certainly has a strong cult following. I appreciate him wanting to break away from his more standard gross out comedies. I mean what film fan wouldn’t want to direct their own horror movie? This is his. I can’t quite say it’s completely successful, but it’s not bad for a filmmaker who has never worked in this genre before. The film features some good performances (especially Leo who nails every movie she’s in) but the film’s odd tonal shifts and low budget feel sort of work against it. GRADE: C+

Man of the House: James Marsden Searches for his Masculinity in the New “Straw Dogs”

2011-09-22T19:27:00.002-04:00

Alexander Skarsgård certainly has come a long way since playing a ditzy male model in “Zoolander.” The charming Swedish “True Blood” star gives a terrific performance as Charlie, a creepy but charismatic red neck southerner who makes a perfect foil to timid screenwriter David Sumner (played by James Marsden). “Straw Dogs” is a remake yes, and sure it basically has no reason to exist, but here’s a theme that is worth revisiting: regaining masculinity through violence. It’s a subject ripe for discussion and even if this a typical glossy remake that isn’t particularly memorable or original, it still evokes the power and tension of the original film, right up until the end when a mousy man must brutally slaughter half a dozen other guys just to prove he is, in fact, a man.

David Sumner (Marsden) is a Hollywood screenwriter who moves with his TV actress wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) back to her hometown in Blackwater, Mississippi. There he plans on finishing up his script, while Amy can oversee fixing up her late father’s farm property. She hires her old friend Charlie (Skarsgård) and his crew of sloppy, greasy buddies to fix up the barn’s roof which was damaged in a recent hurricane. There’s an immediate culture clash between David and the locals, where the tension builds for nearly the entire length of the film. David is the LA type; he drives a fancy car, wears nice clothes, is well-groomed, doesn’t “get” religion and cares more about cell service than anything else. He’s not a cocky guy or dislikable by any means, but Charlie and his friends are immediately turned off by the very presence of this metrosexual. Especially since Amy and Charlie used to have a thing together back in the day. Amy immediately begins to flirt with Charlie and it begins to send him over the edge. It seems as though Amy wants a real man and David may just may not be man enough for her. A sexual attack eventually takes place and it’s the fascinating ambiguity in Amy’s reaction that drives the film forward.

The original 1971 “Straw Dogs” has always been a notorious film fitting in with the likes of “A Clockwork Orange” as a brutally violent film that met controversy the moment it was released. Many have been confused about the depiction of violence in the film as glorifying horrible acts and cheering violence as a valid form of vengeance. I don’t think the film glorifies violence at all and neither does this new film. The acts of violence are supposed to be shocking although in this day and age it’s much harder to be. Writer/director Rod Lurie, like Sam Peckinpah, builds the tension through the whole film before giving us anything very shocking. When that rape scene occurs it feels earned, not out of place, and it’s as difficult to watch as any rape scene should be. The film will also be remembered as statement that violence helps a man regain his masculinity. In the original film Dustin Hoffman is a nerdy mathematician, here he’s a screenwriter. He’s not tough; Charlie looks down on him as much as Amy does, and he’s always being stepped on. But like the tagline reminds us, everyone has a breaking point.

“Straw Dogs” features some great performances, especially from the three leads. I was particularly impressed with Bosworth if simply because I’ve always found her sort of bland and uninteresting. Marsden, an arguably masculine guy does will against type here and does mousy surprisingly well. Skarsgård is particularly impressive. And James Woods gives a disturbing performance as a pent up overprotective hothead. “Straw Dogs” won’t erase the existence of the original film and if this makes those unfamiliar with it add it to their Netflix cue than that’s a good thing. I’m not exactly an avid fan of the original film but I found this a worthy and fascinating enough film that’s certainly worth checking out. GRADE: B

Stunt Trouble: The Exhilarating and Intense “Drive” Will Leave You Feeling Exhausted

2011-09-19T22:58:00.004-04:00

“Drive” isn’t exactly the most fun movie to watch but it’s certainly an intense experience. It’s a movie that is almost as pretty as it is ugly. It shows the dark, seedy side of LA, a side of the city most filmmakers love exposing. It’s filled with grotesque violence, but even the sleek nature of the film doesn’t glorify this violence. It’s brutal and ugly and not fun. You won’t feel good watching Albert Brooks stab a guy repeatedly in the neck. “Drive” tells a dark story about crime through the eyes of a part time Hollywood stunt driver/auto mechanic. Ryan Gosling, as the “driver,” gives another outstanding performance in what can only be described as an art-house heist thriller as filtered through the likes of Martin Scorsese and the Coen brothers.

The film opens brilliantly as it establishes the sheer talent of the unnamed main character "the driver” (Gosling). He works various night jobs as a getaway driver. He gives the robbers five minutes to get into the car and he can avoid and lose the cops faster than you can say “Steve McQueen.” His boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) at the auto shop where he works sets these gigs up. Shannon is involved with a Jewish mob guy named Bernie. And even though Bernie is played by the same guy who voiced a clown fish in “Finding Nemo” (Albert Brooks) he is one mean dude. He’s associated with another scary guy named Nino (Ron Pearlman). Bernie and Nino are the last people you’d want to be associated with as our driver will soon find out. Some of these relationships become a little confusing, but the point is obvious: these are bad fellas. And "driver" begins to become romantically involved with his cute neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) who has a young son. Her husband is being released from prison and he owes a major “debt.” Driver cares just enough for this woman that he’s willing to get involved in a heist that, for lack of better words, goes horribly wrong.

All this mobster and heist and bags of money stuff are familiar elements that we’ve seen countless times before, but somehow Hossein Amini’s script (based on the book of the same name) transcends the genre. There's much more focus on character than is usually found in films like this. There’s minimum dialogue which is put to great use by director Nicolas Winding Refn. He stages the heist sequences with almost unbearable tension and it’s always from the driver’s point of view. The driving sequences are almost so well staged and realistic that those who get car sick might want to bring a barf bag. Speaking of barf bags, the violence here is almost so sudden and unsettling you almost wonder what the ratings board was really thinking. But the violence here, like I mentioned previously, is not cool or entertaining. It is what it's supposed to be: brutal and repulsive. Refn’s use of music and Cliff Martinez’s electronic score is pretty standout and it gives the film a sort of strange 80s vibe (and that wicked pink font helps too). The film overall feels like something from the American New Wave, although comparisons to European cinema are not at all wrong.

“Drive” is so well directed and acted it almost feels like a shoo-in for awards once the time comes. But I wonder if this is a film that’s too edgy for the Academy’s tastes? It’s a sleekly made, visceral film that’s actually pretty difficult to describe. It’s certainly unlike what you may expect. Those expecting something amusing on the level of a “Fast and the Furious” film will be utterly disappointed. Think more “Taxi Driver” meets “No Country for Old Men” with car chases. Although it has action and suspense and drama this is an art house indie film through and through. It’s certainly, and appropriately, not the most entertaining film of the year, but it’s certainly one of the most unforgettable. GRADE: A-

Maid to Order: “The Help” is a Wonderful Ensemble Drama

2011-09-10T15:40:00.003-04:00

I don’t know if “The Help” will be remembered as a landmark in race relations cinema the way “The Color Purple” or “Do the Right Thing” are but darned if it isn’t just a fun, entertaining piece of moving filmmaking (and certainly much lighter and easier to digest). It’s sort of reminded me of a weird hybrid of “Hairspray” (without the songs) and “Steel Magnolias.” It’s definitely the “chick flick” of the summer, but don’t let that scare you away my fellow friends from Mars, “The Help” is a moving piece of work and if you’re a fan of any of the ladies on display you might find yourself getting sucked in to this thing. Deep down it’s essentially a Lifetime movie in big budget clothing, but the actors are so good you might actually forget that you’re most likely completely surrounded by middle aged women.

Being a huge Emma Stone fan I was excited to see her breakout into something more than just silly comedies. Here she does drama straight on as Skeeter, a young aspiring journalist living in 1950s Jackson, Mississippi. She hasn’t been “courting” so naturally her mother (an always wonderful Allison Janney) thinks she’s a lesbian. She’s too busy to meet boys. She’d rather be a career woman which was a big no no in that time. Women’s jobs back then were to be wives and mothers. And the jobs of black women in those days were as maids and servants. This is the story of Aibileen (Viola Davis), a lifelong maid who spends her days working for snobby white women. She practically raises these kids and in fact they look up to her more than their own mother. Skeeter has a crazy idea to write an article the point of view of “the help:” the black maids in town.

This of course is mostly unheard of because as we all recall black and white matters were an extremely hot issue back then and someone like Skeeter could get in a lot of trouble for giving these poor women a voice. One of which is Minny (a radiant Octavia Spencer) who gets a job working for Jessica Chastain’s Celia Foote, a white high society woman who has been ostracized by her fellow bridge club ladies for reasons to be revealed later in the story. It is the relationship between Celia and Minny truly form the heart and soul of this movie. Sure Emma Stone is great and Viola Davis can act circles around anyone who comes near her, but the Celia/Minny scenes truly shine. Spencer, who finally gets a role to sink her teeth into had previously played bit parts such as “troubled woman,” “bank co-worker,” and “big customer.” Here she gives an Oscar worthy performance as a sassy maid who won’t let anything bring her down, even a rivalry with her former employer played with perfect white bitch nastiness by Bryce Dallas Howard.

“The Help” is directed by Taylor Tate (he’s white), who wrote the script from Kathryn Stockett’s novel, and he somehow really gets inside these women. Her certainly seems to have gotten the period details right. Although I can't be certain since this takes place way before my time. On paper most of these roles are simply “the good guy” or “the bad guy” but the actresses make them their own. Stone’s character exists essentially as a plot device: we’re not really sure why she cares for these maids but the other white women don’t so much. She’s so good as a woman determined to make a difference and not care about what others think she almost makes you forget we’ve seen characters like this dozens of times before. Howard, as the mean girl queen bee, is made to be so hateful that even when Minny does a despicable thing, you cheer instead of sneer. Janney’s character who we think is just a racist like all the others even has a chance to redeem herself by the film’s end and forms one of the film’s more satisfying minor character arcs. Even Sissy Spacek is great in a tiny role as Howard’s mother.

If you’re like me, and you’re not a middle aged woman, you probably wanted to see “The Help” because you like Emma Stone or because you heard about Viola Davis’ great performance. Yeah they’re wonderful, but Chastain and Spencer are where it’s at. Chastain is a star on the rise (with two other magnetic performances in The Tree of Life and The Debt) and even though she sound just like Daryl Hannah in “Steel Magnolias” (tell me I’m wrong) she really makes this role her own. And Spencer is just radiant as well, she’s so lovable and easy to root for. Even if it has a fault or two “The Help” was definitely a pleasant surprise. GRADE: B+

The Plague’s the Thing: “Contagion” is a First Class Outbreak Disaster Flick

2011-09-09T23:10:00.002-04:00

One this is for certain: if “Contagion” is a box office success everyone should probably invest in hand sanitizer stock. That stuff is gonna start selling like hotcakes. Just a couple years ago, the “swine flu,” or rather the more PC term “h1n1 flu,” became a hot media sensation when various people all over the country began contracting a new deadly virus. Of course things didn’t turn out like they did in the terrific 1995 thriller “Outbreak” but it was enough of a concern that Purell dispensers were installed all over my work building. Disaster flicks have always been popular in Hollywood and while they’re mostly just fantasy, sometimes some movies come along that are so realistic and well-made they almost seem too real.

“Contagion” is almost so real it’s scary. It’s not exactly the most pleasant movie to sit through but it sure is captivating. As directed by Oscar-winner Steven Soderbergh the film is a well-cast ensemble piece. We get everyday characters like you and me and government officials and various doctors and scientists. The film begins when a woman returning home from a trip to China gets sick. Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) returns home to her family in the States, the next day she begins having a seizure. Her husband Mitch brings her to the hospital, where she unexpectedly dies. Not only is Mitch dumbfounded, but so are the doctors. We see other cases of this disease in other parts of the world where slowly the bug is passed along to a few and then to thousands upon thousands of people. It appears to be airborne.

The movie is shot as if it were “Traffic” meets “Outbreak.” We see the point of view of workers at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Laurence Fishburne is Dr. Ellis Cheever who knows that this is one serious bug and that it’s spreading faster than they can cure it. He enlists the help of Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet) who is an expert in dealing with epidemics. It is through her that we learn some disturbing true facts. Things like we, as humans, touch our face thousands of times and in between we’re touching so many various objects from doorknobs to faucets to other people. Germs are everywhere and once in a while people come in contact with really, really bad ones.

There is a somewhat sterile sheen to the whole proceeding which sort of left me sort of emotionally detached from a majority of what was going on, but I think that works for the film. Sure there were characters I cared about (most notably Winslet’s) but I think we ultimately spend too little time with everyone to become too invested. But we are invested mostly because they’re humans and we’re humans and Scott Burn’s script is so realistic that the film feels more of a documentary with high production value recreations than a traditional narrative. Meanwhile we get some political muckraking in the form of Jude Law’s blogger/journalist Alan Krumwiede who believes the CDC are liars and insist there’s a larger conspiracy going on.

Soderbergh’s trademark style (including those colorful filters) has always been realism, which he founded in the groundbreaking “Sex Lies and Videotape;” it’s a style that has followed him in his career for over two decades. And he’s one of the most diverse directors working today. He can go from churning out Hollywood hits (like Erin Brockovich or Ocean’s Eleven) to tiny indies you probably haven’t even heard of (Bubble or The Limey). Here he fuses them together to gives us an unsettling and realistic look at what would happen if something like this did really happen. It’s scary without being sensationalistic and it features some terrific performances. He even has the balls to kill off Gwyneth Paltrow before you even get a chance to finish your bag of popcorn.

“Contagion” will make you think twice about what you touch and put near your mouth. It’s obviously common courtesy to cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze, but it’s scary to think how many people never do. It’s not exactly a film that is going to scare the living daylights out of people to the point of wanting to become invalids, but it’ll make you wish you hadn’t booked that dream vacation to Hong Kong. GRADE: B+

Lake Flaccid: “Shark Night 3D” Doesn’t Quite Have the Same Bite as Piranha 3D

2011-09-02T18:10:00.006-04:00

I know you’re dying to know whether “Shark Night 3D” is better or worse than last year’s surprisingly fun financial bomb “Piranha 3D.” It’s worse. But it has entertainment value if you enjoy watching hot people being eating by sharks. I can imagine most people being disappointed with the lack of hardcore gore, lack of bare breasts and an unfortunate lack of tongue-in-cheek fun. This is probably what “Piranha 3D” could have been but I’m extremely grateful it wasn’t. Now that’s not to say that “Shark Night 3D” is a total loss, because it’s not. It’s a stupid movie that gets stupider as it goes along and it’s pretty much pure junk but who doesn’t like some cinematic crap every once in a while?

“Shark Night 3D” offers exactly what you expect and nothing more. It has sharks and it takes place mostly at night and it’s in three dimensions. The story, if anyone even cares, revolves around college coed Sara (Sara Paxton showing about a total of 1.5 emotions throughout) inviting her friends to her Louisiana lake house on the bayou. It’s pretty isolated. So isolated in fact that not only do they not get cell service there, but they don’t even have a landline (Heck even the Professor was able to make a phone on Gilligan’s Island I think). Sara and her friends even have to take a speedboat to get to her place. But that’s not before they run into the redneck bayou locals. One of which is way too Abercrombie & Fitch looking to be such a creep. His name is Dennis (Chris Carmack) and it seems he and Sara have a sordid past!

Sara’s friends include people of varying degrees of hotness and handsomeness. Most, however, are of average or below average acting ability. There’s her pre-med guy friend Nick (Dustin Milligan)who just so happens to be attracted to Sara. American Idol runner up Katherine McPhee is there and the token Latina girl and the token Black guy and the skinny goofy guy who somehow thinks he’s a ladies man, and the blonde male model guy (who is literally a male model in the movie). Yes it’s a typical MTV Spring Break down on the lake. Everything is fine until the sharks show up and start eating these folks. There's blood spilt, but nothing too gruesome enough to divert your eyes. This is PG-13 stuff here after all.

Of course after the first attack the best idea would be to not go in the water. But our fearless writers Will Hayes and Jesse Studenberg have found a way around that by having not only fishy CGI villains, but human ones as well. Remember I mentioned those creepy locals? They just might have something to do with sharks hanging around in a lake. And it just might have something to do with Shark Week. But why spoil all the fun?

Director David R. Ellis, who is no stranger to chintzy, silly movies like this having directed two Final Destination films and even Snakes on a Plane, scores points mostly for wanting the title of the film to be “Untitled 3D Shark Thriller.” On a technical level he mostly just gets the job done. He places his camera in the usual spots (lots of shark POVs and lots of ogling of tanned female and male skin) and there are some fun uses of that gimmick known these days as 3D. Nothing too spectacular (nothing has yet to best Final Destination 5 this summer) although the “driving to the lake house” montage had some cool depth perception.

Look, here’s the short of it: This is pretty dumb movie. Ok it’s a very dumb movie. You will probably laugh. At it. You may even jump once or twice (yeah I jumped, sue me) and it has some genuinely scary... opening titles. The biggest problem is that it seems to be taking itself a little too seriously. But if you’re paying to see a movie called "Shark Night 3D," you know what you’re getting into. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. GRADE: B-

True Lies: Helen Mirren & Co Can’t Handle the Truth in “The Debt”

2011-08-31T21:53:00.004-04:00

For the longest time I was trying to figure out what exactly the debt was in “The Debt.” Now that I’ve seen the movie and witnessed all its revelations I now know. And what I definitely know is that the old timers in the Academy are going to eat this film up, as long as they remember it four months from now. It sort of reminded me of “Munich” meets “The Reader” but with enough suspenseful thrills to fill in any lulls the story might have offered. Having premiered at the Toronto Film Festival back in 2010, it is finally available for us fine folks here in the States and is certainly worth the wait.

“The Debt” revolves around three young Mossad secret agents on a mission to find and capture a Nazi war criminal and bring him back to stand trial. The story begins in 1966 as the three agents Rachel (Jessica Chastain), Stephen (Marton Csokas) and David (Sam Worthington) come back from what appears to be a successful mission. Thirty years later (and portrayed by older, different actors) the three retired agents seem to be hiding something. The past is not done with these three. Rachel’s (also played by Helen Mirren) daughter has just published a book about her mother’s successful assignment, but like the scar on Rachel’s cheekbone, memories don't just go away. In fact it’s too hard for David (Ciaran Hinds) so he steps in front of a bus. Rachel and Stephan (Tom Wilkinson) need to get to the bottom of this and go back and confront their past. The story flashes back and forth between the years 1997 and the 60s until it’s slowly revealed what this trio’s mission was all about.

David and Rachel were undercover as man and wife. Their target, Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen) is a fertility doctor with whom Rachel makes regular appointments. She has an entire backstory and her scenes with this man, in a completely vulnerable state with her legs up on stirrups, are just simply fascinating to watch. Jessica Chastain is simply one to watch after already having wonderful roles in The Help and The Tree of Life. Things seem to be going fine for these three young agents until… well that would spoil the fun now wouldn’t it? Let it be said that director John Madden (the guy who made Shakespeare in Love, not that football guy) stages things, sometimes more than once, so well that we’re always aware of what’s going on and is edited to sustain maximum suspense. We get some scenes completely out of context and then are shown them again for the purpose of knowing things now that we didn’t know then.

I was actually pretty impressed with how suspenseful a movie could be when we know that the three heroes make it at least until the year 1997. I mean how enthralling could a story about three agents on a secret mission be if we know they make it out alive? It’s a bold choice for the screenwriters to make. I’m even more impressed to learn two of writers have previously churned out the scripts for “Kick-Ass” and “X-Men First Class.” Those would be Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman. Peter Straughan is credited as well. And not only is the action and drama staged so well, but its all accompanied by another winning score from Thomas Newman. His suspenseful music fits the action extremely well.

I’m not too shocked to learn that “The Debt” is in fact a remake of a 2007 film of the same name from Israel. In an age of remakes and reimaginings and revampings it’s to be expected. But what’s not expected is when a film can be remade for an American audience who would have never even known about its source material. Here is a great film, a wonderful little thriller, who can now be enjoyed by film fans across the country. It offers exquisite performances, terrific suspense, a taught script and a wonderful music to accompany it all. It’s certainly unworthy of its dumping ground release date, but it’s wonderful filmmaking to be sure and that’s that truth. GRADE: B+

Holmes Sweet Holmes: Things Go Bump in the Night in “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark”

2011-08-26T20:47:00.002-04:00

Another weekend, another remake. If there’s anything to be said about Hollywood at least they’re consistent. Now they’re remaking TV movies… but you won’t see a middle aged woman dying of cancer or fighting back against a sexually harassing employer in “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark.” It’s a creepy creature feature based on a telefilm you probably haven’t heard of unless you were born way before the Nixon Administration. Guillermo del Toro who gave us the creepy but beautiful Pan’s Labyrinth produces and co-writes this new flick about evil little creatures who terrorize Guy Pearce, his young daughter and his girlfriend Katie Holmes.

“Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” is an interesting take on the “haunted house thriller” in which people move into a new house and then proceed to be terrorized by unexplained beings. Except this time the beings aren’t ghosts, they’re creature demons! They sort of reminded me of something from The Gate? Remember that one with little Stephen Dorff? That flick could certainly use an update. Guy Pearce plays Alex who works on restoring old mansions. He’s trying to get on the cover of Architect’s Digest even if it means ignoring the painfully disturbing cries of his medicated daughter Sally (Bailee Madison). Sally has sort of been dumped on him by his ex-wife. Neither of Sally’s parents seem like responsible parents. At least there is Alex’s girlfriend Kim (a disturbingly decent Katie Holmes) who Sally acts cold too, but gradually warms up to. Sally spends most of the time moping around the house trying to find something to occupy her time in this gigantic mansion.

Ok so let’s talk about the mansion. I don’t know what person in their right mind would want to stay overnight in this place, let alone hang out there during the day. It’s eerie beyond belief. Let’s thank the wonderful work of the production designer because the mansion is definitely one of the most well defined characters in the film. Alex learns there’s a sealed off basement to the house, which he decides to uncover which is never a good idea. Soon Sally is hearing voices from the basement. Someone wants to be her friend and the kid is so lonely that I’d probably try to make friends with the scary voices in the basement too. We learn the voices belong to miniature demon-like creatures who like feeding on human teeth and enjoy poking at people with pointy objects. They certainly do a number on the bearded caretaker who seems to know a lot more about this place than anyone else.

A majority of the film is spent with Sally trying to figure out what these voices are and once she realizes they are not exactly friendly, she can’t convince her dad or Kim that there’s actually something pretty dangerous going on. Alex just thinks she’s upset (and she is because of a serious lack of decent parenting I’d say) and she has every right to be because demon creatures want to eat her. Apparently Kim comes from a troubled past, which we don’t really learn anything about, so she quickly relates to Sally and begins to investigate. This leads her to discover the mystery of why uncovering that sealed basement was the worst idea in the history of worst ideas.

The film is directed by first time filmmaker Troy Nixey and what an impressive debut it is. He employs the Jaws method and refuses to show us anything up close too soon and lets the creatures be revealed when the time is right. Although del Toro and Matthew Robbins’ script could have used a little more about these creatures. I felt there were too many unanswered questions about them. We spend so much time with Sally that I sort of wished we could see what these demons were all about. But there is so much wonderful gothic imagery and the film is punctuated with disturbing R-rated content (and nary a curse word or naked body part to be found). You have to just respect the fact that it feels like the filmmakers were making something fun and stylish and not just attempting to steal the money from your wallet. I liked the performances even if I didn’t always admire their characters actions. “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” isn’t the scariest movie by a long shot, but it’ll at least give you the willies and in this day and age you can’t quite ask for more than that. GRADE: B

High Stakes: This New “Fright Night” Has Bite

2011-08-19T23:35:00.008-04:00

I might be the only one on this planet who doesn’t make a big deal when Hollywood decides to remake a popular film. Sure there are ones that will most likely never be touched…. “The Godfather,” “Citizen Kane,” “Showgirls” etc. But does anyone really think that remaking the corny but fun cult horror-comedy “Fright Night” is really the end of the world? The last time I watched it I realized that while it’s still extremely entertaining and has some pretty neat effects, it’s altogether aged poorly and is stuck in the cheesy 80s like a bad mullet. It’s only natural that someone out there would want to take this story about a teenager who suspects his suave new neighbor is in fact a blood-sucking vampire. Especially with all that "Twilight" nonsense going around. And who better to play a suave vampire than Colin Farrell, who can take the silliest of roles (like Horrible Bosses) and make it simply fun to watch.

Besides how cool is that someone of Colin Farrell’s stature is appearing in a horror movie remake called “Fright Night?” That alone wins this thing points, as does the always appealing Toni Collette (who really doesn't have much to do here). Anton Yelchin is the new Charley Brewster. He’s a typical teenager: he goes to school, has a former best friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasses aka McLovin) who he has become “too cool” for, and a sweet girlfriend named Amy (Imogen Poots). Things are pretty normal until the new guy Jerry (Farrell) moves in next door. He flirts a little bit with his mom but soon Ed has convinced Charley that Jerry has been killing off their classmates. They live in a Las Vegas suburb so most people don’t even notice when the residents seem to come and go. Charley needs a little bit of convincing, but once he breaks in to Jerry's place and sees him sucking the blood of a stripper he needs no other evidence.

Things are much more (unsurprisingly) quickly paced here than in the original film. Director Craig Gillespie (Lars and the Real Girl) moves things right along. In fact there’s really not even much build up of suspicion between Charley and Jerry. He pretty much sees Jerry take a bite and he then must find a way to stop him. He enlists the help of a boozy Las Vegas showman named Peter Vincent (a marvelous David Tennant who acts circles around his young co-stars). He’s the scene stealer. If Jack Sparrow was a magician, he’d be this guy. He injects some must needed humor into Marti Noxon’s script which just felt a little too rushed to me. I enjoyed how in the original film they slowly built up Charley (and the audience’s) suspicion. This new version though makes good use of its modern day setting and placing the film in and around Las Vegas (where people stay up all night and sleep all day) was a cool move.

“Fright Night” is billed as a horror film and that’s pretty much accurate, although I’d be hard pressed to find anything here that’s particularly scary or suspenseful. Since we see from the opening scene that there’s some kind of monster on the loose it zaps any chance of impending doom. I did enjoy one particular sequence in which Amy, Charley, and his mom escape by SUV after Jerry blows up their house. Jerry hitches a ride under their vehicle and uses his sharp vampire fingernails to make his way inside from underneath. It’s comical and yet exciting and all pretty well staged. Even if all of it had to be seen through murky 3D glasses.

I can’t really see this updated version overwhelmingly pleasing fans of the original film. They take too many liberties with the original’s story and characters, but I think the spirit is intact (and who wouldn't love that Chris Sarandon cameo?). This could have easily been a lot worse and doesn't rely too much on fake-looking CGI. Some advice: You’re most likely going to want to skip the expensive 3D surcharge (even though the film was shot in 3D and not post-converted). In a film that takes place mostly at night, you shouldn't need to watch it through grey lenses. Otherwise sit back and enjoy the fun, it doesn’t suck. GRADE: B

2 Guys, a Hostage and a Pizza Place: “30 Minutes or Less” Doesn’t Quite Deliver

2011-08-16T20:16:00.003-04:00

“30 Minutes or Less” is the second comedy of the summer to make a joke about mistaking a Third Eye Blind song. The other was “Friends with Benefits.” Just an observation, do what you want with it. Perhaps I wouldn’t have even noticed had the jokes in “30 Minutes or Less” been more memorable. Here is a (very) dark comedy about two chuckleheads who force a pizza guy to rob a bank because they need money to hire a hit man. It’s sort of “Fargo” for the “Pineapple Express” crowd. It’s an odd combo that doesn’t quite work.

The sad thing about “30 Minutes or Less” is that the cast is talented and the director knows what he’s doing. Director Ruben Fleischer made overwhelmingly fun “Zombieland” just two years ago and he treads similar territory. He was able to mix dark humor and with graphic violence surprisingly well. Here the humor isn’t that hysterical and the action isn’t that dramatic. It’s just sort of an odd blend like “Kick-ass” that just sort of left a bad taste in my mouth. Like I said the cast is good. Jesse Eisenberg follows up his Oscar-nom with a role that was made for him. A jittery pizza delivery guy slacker. This probably would have been Seth Rogen’s breakout role a few years ago. Parks and Recreation’s Aziz Ansari does good as his equally nervous best friend. Sort of reminded me of an Indian-American Woody Allen.

The plot is where this whole film sort of collapses under its own weight. Danny McBride, a guy who a lot of people find hysterical except for me, plays Dwayne who wants to kill his former Marine father (Fred Ward) so he can inherit his lottery winnings. Him and his doofy best friend Travis (Nick Swardson) plan on hiring a hit man (Michael Peña) but he wants $100,000. So they decide to force a random guy to rob a bank by taking him hostage, slapping a bomb to his chest, and giving him 10 hours to get the money or else. Enter pizza delivery guy Nick (Eisenberg). It’s sort of a funny premise ripe for dark comedy, except that it’s just not funny enough. Dwayne is such a detestable person that any chance McBride had to be funny is wasted. And I couldn’t really buy that Travis was intelligent enough to make such a complex explosive device. These two guys are jerks who really bring down the film’s attempt at being funny. Nick’s friend Chet (Ansari) tags along and helps Nick in this preposterous situation (which is supposed based on a similar true life incident) and most of the comedy is derived from these two ordinary guys in an extremely unordinary situation.

Besides having trouble handling the odd shifts in tone, Fleischer thankfully keeps things at a fast pace (and a short running time) and never really gives us a chance to really think about how ridiculous this whole thing is until it finally ends. And it ends rather abruptly I might add. Lots of people get shot, or caught on fire, and when it was all over I was left wondering what was really the point of it all? Sure it has its moments, but most of that is ruined in attempts to be profane and gross. I’m no prude, but some of the more irreverent humor wasn’t quite earned. The first time screenwriter Michael Diliberti is definitely someone to keep an eye on though.

If anything “30 Minutes or Less” will help you make one of the most important decisions of your day. I had pizza for dinner. GRADE: C+

The Bridge on the River Die: Death Returns in the Eye-Popping “Final Destination 5”

2011-08-13T17:02:00.003-04:00

“Final Destination 5” should have been crap. Fortunately, it turns out it’s actually the installment that fans of this “you can’t cheat death” slasher series have been waiting for. It takes itself seriously, much like the first film, but throws enough winks and gory overthetopness that make this set of films so great. And it’s the second one in 3D and it’s even better than Part 4 which was for some reason titled “The Final Destination.” So what’s so special about Part 5? There is a certain third act twist that is so shocking so sudden and so awesome even people who don’t even like these movies will probably still gasp in surprise and delight. “Final Destination 5” follows the same formula as the previous entries and yet sort of pulls the rug out from under the audience in such a pleasurable way that this is easily the best entry since the first film, which I still find to be one of the best of the post-modern slasher films that had been released since “Scream.”

Pretty much everyone knows the premise the Final Destination films: some kind of tragedy occurs, it turns out to be just the “vision” of the main character, said character then warns his or her friends about the impending disaster, which actually occurs. But of course those people were meant to die, so death comes after them individually in progressively gruesome ways. “Final Destination 5” is no different. This time we get a bunch of paper company office workers on a work retreat. They charter a bus and before you can say “Dunder Mifflin this is Pam” a huge suspension-bridge collapses sending the employees and every other person on the bridge to their deaths. The person with the vision is Sam (Nicholas D’Agosto). He’s able to save his ex-girlfriend Molly (The Walking Dead’s Emma Bell), their co-workers Peter (Tom Cruise look and sound-alike Miles Fisher), gymnast Candice (Ellen Wroe), the nearsighted Olivia (Jacqueline MacInnes Wood), warehouse guy Nathan (Arlen Escarpeta), chubby man whore Isaac (PJ Byrne) and office boss Dennis (Todd Packar himself David Koechner). These characters exists simply to be killed off but writer Eric Heisserer attempts to give them personalities. The gymnast girl dies, you guessed it, in a gymnasium. And even our favorite coroner/grim reaper stand-in Tony Todd returns after being absent the last couple times.

You can’t really look at these types of movies the same way you would other films. A good slasher will have likeable enough characters and watching people die with cool special effects along the way. The fact that the film was actually shot in 3D instead of being post-converted is such a plus. The 3D effects are pretty outstanding, even better than the last installment. Take a look at the opening titles alone. There is so much stuff coming flying at you in the face I almost had to duck. There is nothing really to complain about here. The opening disaster is extremely well-executed and was actually pretty impressive and intense. Nothing will beat the original film’s airplane explosion, but that’s because airline travel is a general fear that most people can relate to. I will say that I probably won’t have any problems driving over a bridge, but I digress. And you’d think that after four films the filmmakers (including newbie director Steven Quale) would have no fresh ideas. Ah but they do. There is no two deaths done alike. The traps that death sets up are pretty wild and never predicable. Even at number five this series manages to come up with some of the craziest death sequences. Perhaps the fact that the writer and director didn’t work on the previous films helps inject some fresh, uh, blood here. It just works.

You have to admire a horror series that tackles themes such as fatalism and predestination. “Final Destination 5” is definitely the movie I’ve been waiting for. I’m so glad that it was everything I could have hoped for. And with “Scream 4” earlier this year, this is certainly a great year for horror sequels. It kind of makes me hopeful that “Piranha 3DD” could actually be outstanding. This flick offers just the right amount of things we expect from this series and just enough surprises to make it one of the best of the entire series. And remember I said there was a twist you’ll never see coming. I just can’t stop thinking about it. GRADE: A-

High Pretension: “The Tree of Life” is an Equally Frustrating yet Beautiful Sprawling Epic

2011-08-09T23:11:00.003-04:00

“The Tree of Life” is probably one of the most confusing, audacious, frustrating, strange, beautiful, tedious, fascinating and pretentious movies I’ve ever seen. It’s a 138 minute experimental art film with big stars (Brad Pitt and Sean Penn) with some of the neatest surrealist imagery I’ve ever seen. It’s unexciting and yet fascination all at once; it will test your time and patience but it will also test your ability to think and ponder about things way behind your comprehension. It’s a movie you have to be in the right mood for. I definitely think it’s the type of movie that Stanley Kubrick would make if he were alive today. The imagery is beautiful and there’s hardly any dialogue. This is a movie that’s really hard to recommend but I suggest sitting through it just to see it for yourself.

Terrence Malick is a pretty interesting filmmaking. Not just because his movies themselves are interesting (like Badlands or The New World) but because he’s interesting himself. A known anti-Hollywood recluse the guy has made only five films in about forty years. He took a twenty year hiatus after Days of Heaven before coming back with the Oscar-nominated “The Thing Red Line.” He turned the Pocahontas story into a beautiful and meditative nature film with “The New World” six years ago, and now he returns with his most bold work yet, “The Tree of Life.” A ponderous, meditative, work of art is a visual fest for the eyes and a test of patience for the easily bored. I was kind of one of them. The film takes a nearly forty minute detour to show us how the entire universe expanded and formed. We see earth come together and then life appears and evolves into fish and then reptiles. Look there are dinosaurs in a Terrence Malick movie! And then an asteroid ruins it all and helps humans show up. The whole sequence sort of works as an entire prequel to the opening of “2001 A Space Odyssey.” It was fascinating (with great effects work by Douglas Trumbull) to watch and you always wonder, why are we seeing this? Beats the hell outta me.

The movie is called “the Tree of Life” of course, so I guess it seems appropriate for us to witness how life first formed on our planet and how it relates to the human story we’re watching. The unconventional narrative begins with the O’Brian family in Texas circa the 1950s. Father is a stern Brad Pitt and Mother is a loving Jessica Chastain. They have three boys. We get to know most about Jack (who is played as an adult by Sean Penn). We see Jack as a baby and then the film begins to finally focus on the beginning of his adolescence (where he’s played by Hunter McCracken). We learn early in the film that one of the brothers has died at age 19 (perhaps in the war) and I take a majority of the film to be Adult Jack’s memories. Most of the time what we see is his summers spent playing and roughhousing. Eating dinner with his family, getting yelled at by his dad and given hugs and tickled by his mom. He becomes rebellious. Almost thinks about hurting his dad. We see the almost mundane lives of these characters but shot through the almost too beautiful and vivid to be true work of cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. The film was written by Malick but there’s hardly any words spoken; this is truly a film where the images tell the story. Meaning is achieved through its editing and visuals; this is a film professor’s dream come true.

“The Tree of Life” is a movie that can easily be found annoying while watching it because you just want to scream at the screen and shout “Oh my God what the heck is going on in this movie?!” But I refrained because it was so sort of captivating. It’s a movie that is probably more fun to discuss than to actually watch, like Hitchcock’s “Vertigo” or “2001.” You have to equally admire Malick for making a movie like this and yet you want to slap the pretentiousness out of him. This is a story about life and while we’re all here as told through the lives of this family. I’m not quite sure I really get any of it, but if you want to be intrigued by the strangeness of it all - and the undeniable cinematic artistry - you should check it out. GRADE: B

It’s Hard out Here for a Chimp: You’ll Go Bananas for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”

2011-08-05T22:35:00.002-04:00

Maybe it was my lack of confidence in this movie, but I didn’t have very high expectations for the seemingly silly “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” I felt weary of any movie that’s main selling point is that it’s “from Weta Digital the visual effects company of Avatar.” Really? That’s all you have to offer me as a viewer? Some cool visual effects? But having a no name director and no name writers and no really big stars (besides James Franco) actually works in its favor. “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is an intelligent and sophisticated and disturbingly realistic “mad scientist” story about the dangers of animal testing and how easily we as humans could loose our position as the dominate species on this planet. Ok sure, it’s all purely science-fiction, but the film’s story is told so well, and such time and care, that it easily earns its right to have some of the coolest and most amazing action set-pieces of the summer blockbuster season.

James Franco, as charming as ever off his Oscar nomination for “127 Hours” and his befuddling hosting gig, is Will Rodman a scientist who’s working a cure for Alzheimer’s. There’s something about scientists working to cure diseases that never really end well, huh? I’m thinking “Deep Blue Sea” specifically. At least here they’re experimenting on chimps and not man-eating sharks. Rodman injects this new virus into a chimp, who gains super intelligence and has it has a baby. He takes home the baby chimp (who they name Caesar) after the mother breaks out of her confines and the program is shut down. As the years progress Will and his Alzheimer’s affected father (John Lithgow) raise the chimp as it were a small child. Unfortunately it attacks one of their neighbors and has to be put away in ape facility run by Brian Cox and his jerk of an employee Dodge played by Harry Potter’s Tom Felton. Soon Caesar who feels rightfully neglected by Will soon helps the other chimps and apes rise up against the humans who have treated them like the animals they are. Meanwhile, this virus that makes these animals super smart is actually fatal to human beings.

I realize just how hokey all of that sound and on paper this is a story that just shouldn’t work. How I managed to watch all of this and just buy it is pretty remarkable but I have to say that film just simply works. It takes its time unfolding its story and making us not only care about the human characters but these animals as well. Andy Serkis, who gave the body and soul to the Gollum character in the Lord of the Rings films, gives a terrific motion-capture performance as Caesar. Even though he’s all CGI you really feel like he has a personality. There is real life behind those eyes. So much so that I found myself getting choked up in certain emotional scenes. And the CGI is just as impressive. I was never quite fooled enough into thinking that Caesar was an actual living thing, but the effects are definitely as good as they could have been. And I had to do a double take a few times because the CGI orangutan, as one of the ape facility’s “prisoners,” looked so real I began doubting myself.

But let’s face it, what is the real reason anyone wants to see a movie called “Rise of the Planet of the Apes?” To see apes take over the planet of course? Well I will say they don’t quite get that far, but they do create quite a disturbance in San Francisco. They break out and rampage all over the city and there’s a pretty neat sequence involving the Golden Gate Bridge. I felt like the film could have easily rushed through the scenes before they break out and just had two hours of mayhem and action. But director Rupert Wyatt refuses to bore us with mind-numbing action. He and his writers Amanda SilverRick Jaffa take there time establishing a real connection between Will and Caesar. Caesar is certainly more of a developed character than Will’s girlfriend (played by Slumdog Millionaire’s Freida Pinto) who is relegated to the “voice of reason” role where she says things like “this is wrong Will” and “some things aren’t meant to be changed.”

Sure there is a message here: experimental testing on animals just never works out. The film never bogs down in morals and ethics but finds a terrific balance of intelligent, thought-provoking science-fiction and great action and spectacle. The special effects are pretty wonderful and the tension that is created between animal and man is pretty earned. The excitement created in the film’s third act is so rewarding you’ll never realize just how much of a good time you actually had. This is truly wonderful, stimulating summer fun. And whatever you do, don't call them monkeys. GRADE: A-

Craig’s Wrist: “Cowboys & Aliens” is the Best Alien Invasion Western Ever Made

2011-08-02T22:42:00.002-04:00

“Cowboys & Aliens” is a lot better than it ever should have been. I mean aliens invading a Western town in the 1800s? That just sounds silly. Westerns that have mixed genres haven’t exactly had the best track record. Remember “Wild Wild West?” It was a bomb. And for some reason some people hate “Back to the Future Part III.” Although to be quite honest I always wondered why alien invasion movies had to take place in either the present day or the future. Why couldn’t aliens invade Victorian England? Or how about an attack during the American Revolution? If alien technology is so advanced in these types of movies why wouldn’t they have attacked years and years ago when we humans wouldn’t have the technology ourselves to defeat them? Maybe I’m thinking about this too hard… in Cowboys & Aliens you won’t have to think too hard, but you’ll sure have a lot of fun.

Daniel Craig gives probably what I think is his most appealing performance in “Cowboys & Aliens.” Sure he’s good as James Bond but I think he has way more presence and charisma as a rugged outlaw. We meet him as a man who doesn’t know who he is in the middle of nowhere. It looks like he’s been attacked and he has some kind of strange metal bracelet on his wrist. Three unruly men stroll up on horses ready to blow his head off when he attacks all three. This guy means business. He strolls into town where we meet the locals. We finally learn this guy’s name is Jake and he’s possibly a wanted man. Then bamb! Aliens show up and start snatching up the townsfolk in one of the summer’s coolest action sequences. It’s sort of a Western version of something from “War of the Worlds.” Of course since this is the 1800s the term “alien” has yet to make itself known and these folks assume they’re some kind of demon race.

Harrison Ford shows up as Woodrow Dolarhyde who’s son (Paul Dano) has been abducted. Him and his men are hell bend on finding these demons and getting their friends and family back. He’s joined by Doc (Sam Rockwell) who runs the saloon and who’s wife has been taken. A mysterious and beautiful woman named Ella (Oliva Wilde) joins these men to find out what these demons really want. You’d think that a bunch of guys on horses with 19th century weaponry would be no match for a highly advanced alien lifeform. But that metal bracelet on Jake’s wrist is actually a deadly weapon that can shoot and kill anyone or anything just with the use of Jake’s thoughts (if I was 10 I would want one). It is cowboys vs. aliens big time.

Now an alien invasion movie is only as good as the alien lifeform we’re presented with. Recent alien flicks “Skyline” and “Battle: Los Angeles” were big disappointments mostly because the aliens were just poorly conceived and executed. The effects were bad and the look of the aliens weren’t very scary or interesting. These aliens are pretty cool and pretty grotesque and I’d be lying if I said they weren’t sort of scary or intimidating. Add to these fine creatures a pretty interesting mystery about what these extra-terrestrials want and how these cowboys intend to get rid of them add up to a great summer action adventure. There’s an interesting mystery to the film’s story (what’s Jake’s deal anyways? Who is this Ella chick?), a terrific sense of time and place and some really great action scenes.

I was pretty surprised by how many solid elements we have here. Jon Favreau, who had such a huge hit with the greatly appealing Iron Man films (but mostly the first one), brings us such surprising fun - from a premise that could have easily been laughable - that I was pretty much delighted by the whole experience. The script is pretty solid and comes from those the guys who brought us things like “Star Trek,” “Lost” and even “Children of Men.” The performances are all very strong, Ford and Craig are a wonder together and the supporting cast is filled with great actors who do the best they can for a movie called “Cowboys & Aliens.” This is just a fun summer movie that has all the elements one could ask for in such a film. No more, no less. GRADE: A-