The Uninvited
Right from the early moments of The Uninvited, something seemed a little off to me. The first sign is that its heroine, a teenager named Anna (Emily Browning), is in a mental hospital. Anyone who has ever watched a thriller where the main character has been institutionalized knows that the remainder of the movie will force us to ask if that character is crazy or not. Wether what he or she is experiencing is real or all in their head. Seeing this right at the beginning of the film made me know that I should not believe everything that I was about to see, as I was certain the movie was going to be trying to throw me off every chance it got.
I was right. The Uninvited wants so much to trick us, it seems almost like an obsession on the part of the screenwriters. But it doesn't do a very good job. Once you understand the movie's motives to throw you curves, it's all too easy to figure out what lies ahead. Anna is picked up by her widower father, Steven (David Strathaim), and brought home. We learn there was a fire roughly a year ago that claimed the life of Anna's mother, who was terminally ill. Anna doesn't remember the details of what happened that night (another red flag), but her doctor has assured her it's time for her to go on with her life and "finish what she started", as he puts it. Anna returns home to find that her dad is already in the process of moving on with his life. For the past couple months, he's been dating Rachael (Elizabeth Banks), the woman who was previously the live-in nurse when her mom was still alive, and has since been helping him cope. Anna eyes her suspiciously, however. Why shouldn't she? Almost every line of dialogue Rachael says is written in such a way to sound innocent, but to easily have sinister undertones. Her lingering and shadowy glances she constantly makes don't help either. And yet, it all seemed too obvious. Like the movie wanted desperately for me to believe that Rachael was up to no good. I just knew it wasn't what it looked like.
Anna's only source of comfort at home comes from her sister, Alex (Arielle Kebbel). She's not crazy about dad's new girlfriend either, and even has thoughts that Rachael may have caused the fire that killed their mother. Anna's been having some spooky visions when she sleeps that seem to back up this theory. She's haunted by the twisted corpse of her mother who screams "murderer", and she also keeps on seeing three creepy ghost children who seem to be trying to warn her about something concerning her future stepmom. The sisters do an internet search, and immediately find some information on an unsolved murder case that may have ties to Rachael. While I was being fed all this information, there was something lingering in the back of my mind the entire time. Why is it that Alex was never seen anywhere except with Anna? Why is it that none of the other family members were addressing the sister directly, or even acknowledging her when she was around? Why is it that Alex conveniently steps away right before someone approaches Anna? When Alex has been injured and Anna goes to talk to the police about it, why did the officer give her such a strange look when she said Alex's name?
The Uninvited wants us to be deceived, but doesn't cover its tracks very well. The movie is well made on a technical level, I guess. The performances are better than the norm, and the cinematography is strong, but so what? If we can figure out what surprises lie in store within the first 15 minutes of the film, there's little to look forward to. This is a movie that still thinks its being clever long after we've figured it out. It's like watching a magic act where the magician doesn't even try to cover up how he's pulling it off, but goes on pretending that he is. We're left to wait for the movie to catch up with us. When it does, it's terribly anti climactic. I didn't want to be right, but as the ending unfolded, it was revealed I had made most of the right assumptions. What I didn't see coming was the bad laugh the movie ends on, when we learn the name of a fellow inmate at the hospital Anna was staying at in the opening of the movie. When the name of this seemingly insignificant patient was revealed, a groan was heard in the audience. I wanted to join that individual.
See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!
As expected, the story is nothing but a hook for which to hang a series of increasingly elaborate and implausible action sequences. Bryan Mills (Neeson) is a retired CIA operative. He used to keep America safe from terrorists and international criminals. Now that he's retired, he's mainly trying to patch up his relationship with his teenage daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), and estranged ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). Kim gets invited by a friend to vacation in Paris. Bryan is not happy about the idea of his only child being on her own far from home, but eventually agrees. Turns out he was right to worry, as mere moments after Kim and her friend Amanda (Katie Cassidy) step off the plane, they are both kidnapped by Albanian criminals with ties to drug and prostitution rings. What's a concerned dad with military training and knowledge of every fighting style known to man to do? Catch the next flight to Paris, try to get some answers as to where his daughter is, and kill anyone who gets in his way.
After about 20 minutes of set up, Taken pretty much turns into an extended action and chase sequence that seldom slows down, except for when Bryan asks the bad guys some questions in-between beating them within an inch of their lives. The film's director, Pierre Morel (a cinematographer making his English language directing debut), certainly knows how to stage an impressive, if not ludicrous, action sequence. The stunts are brutal, and the editing is fast-paced but not choppy. The big surprise here is Neeson himself. I've regarded him as a fine actor for a while, but have never seen him as much of an action star. He definitely throws himself into every fight sequence and chase scene, while squeezing what little humanity he can out of his character. Bryan is not a human tank. He's simply a caring father who just happens to be an expert at multiple martial arts, deadly weapons, and torture methods. It may be ridiculous, but Neeson is a strong enough of an actor that he is able to sell the material.
Everything else about the movie is a bit of a harder sell. It's not just the fact that Taken is completely superficial, all thrills and no substance entertainment. I can enjoy that to an extent. What I could not get into was how careless everything seemed. Bryan is able to come upon the information he needs so quickly, and stay ahead of his pursuers so easily (both the criminals and law officials who want to reign him in and send him back to America), that I never felt any real tension in the story. In order for a story like this to work, the hero needs some kind of moment where it feels like all hope is lost. Even during the sequence where he is strung up and being tortured, he is able to free himself in mere seconds, and clear the room of every living soul in less time than it takes most people to wake up in the morning. Would it be too much to ask that after gunning down and stabbing half a dozen faceless henchmen that he at least lean against a wall to catch his breath for a moment? There were a number of times I wished the movie would slow down and let me take in what I was seeing.
Is it because this is the fourth movie I've seen in about three months that dealt with the Holocaust? I know that Hollywood loves to tap into World War II stories during the "award season", but after The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Valkyrie, Defiance and now this, I'm feeling a little tapped out. To be fair, the movie is not set during the Holocaust like those other films. It's set about a decade later, and deals with the emotions that came afterward. The story opens in the late 1950s, and a teenage boy named Michael Berg (David Kross) is struggling to make it home from school as a serious illness overtakes him right there on the street. Winslet's character is the Good Samaritan who looks after him during his walk home. She's Hanna Schmitz, a no-nonsense woman in her mid thirties who lives alone. When Michael recovers, he returns to her place to thank her for her kindness. An attraction builds quickly between the two, and before long, they're making love. Another part of their relationship is that Michael reads to her from classic books. We sense early on that Hanna herself is illiterate. When they go to a restaurant during one of their dates, she glances nervously at the menu, almost in tears, then tells him to order for her. The private affair carries on during the course of the summer, until one day Hannah disappears without a trace or a word.
Winslet's performance is not only the best thing about The Reader, but her character is also the most fascinating and challenging. Hanna Schmitz is a complex character, worthy of discussion and thought long after the movie is over. Is it odd that she seems to be more ashamed over the fact she can't read or write than the fact she caused the deaths of innocent people? Her years working at the camp was merely a job for her. She was an uneducated woman, and she needed the opportunity. Michael tries to understand her actions, even well into middle age, but he doesn't get any closure. The movie doesn't give us any, either. These are the moments when the film is at its best. When it's asking tough questions about moral responsibility, The Reader is engaging. Hannah's main crime is revolved around an incident involving a church fire that claimed the lives of hundreds of people who were under her watch that night. When asked why she didn't unlock the door and let the people out, she coldly replies "there would be chaos". It was her job to keep the people in order. Hearing the story of what happened that night also gives special poignancy to a scene earlier in the film when Hannah steps inside a church to hear a children's choir singing, and begins to tear up.
If the story had been about Hannah and told from her point of view, I have no doubt you would be reading about a very powerful and thought-provoking film. Unfortunately, this is Michael's story, and he just is not very interesting. Not as a teenager, where he seems lacking in personality, and especially not as an older adult, where Ralph Fiennes does what he can with the role, but suffers mainly because the movie doesn't give him enough material. He gets one good scene where he speaks with a survivor of the concentration camps, and is forced to ask himself if he is making excuses for Hannah because of his personal connection with her. The rest of the time, his scenes are clumsily inserted throughout the central story, and never seems to go anywhere. As the younger Michael, David Kross has strong chemistry with Winslet, a good thing since many of their scenes are intimate and sexual. But once again, the dry character does the performance no favors.
This causes an uneasy balance that the movie never recovers from. Sometimes The Reader is masterful and suspenseful, but most of the time, it's meandering and somewhat dull. Every time Kate Winslet is on the screen, the movie comes alive. I was grateful for these moments, but I wanted more. I wanted the story to captivate, and I wanted to become involved. The storytelling is too choppy to make us truly care. The film is based on a novel by Bernhard Schlink, and although I have never read the book, the script often sounds like screenwriter David Hare went through the book, picked out the major sequences, and cared little about lead-in between them. It's a "Greatest Hits" of moments. I was especially disappointed with the scenes that took place after the trial, which seem to kind of lose all sense of purpose, and just kind of drag themselves out for an extra 40 minutes or so until the movie is done.
It's been said that when the author was originally writing the stories, she had Brendan Fraser in mind as the lead hero, so it's probably fitting that he plays Mo Folchart here. As the film opens, Mo and his preteen daughter, Meggie (Eliza Bennett), have been traveling the world searching for a rare and out of print piece of fiction called Inkheart. They've been searching antique book stores the world over, though Meggie has never quite understood why her father is so obsessed with finding it. She gets her answer when they are confronted by a mysterious man named Dustfinger (Paul Bettany) during their travels. Dustfinger just so happens to be a character in the book they're searching for. He's been trapped in our world for the past 10 years, and wants Mo to send him back into the book where he belongs. Mo, you see, is a "Silvertongue". He possesses the unique ability to draw characters from the books he reads out loud into our world. There's a drawback to this gift, however. Every time a character from the book enters our world, someone from our world has to enter the other world of the book.
That's how this all began. Years ago when Mo was reading Inkheart, he released some of the characters, but managed to lose his wife and Meggie's mother when she disappeared into the book. Dustfinger is not the only inhabitant of the book who is now living amongst us. The story's central villain, Capricorn (Andy Serkis), crossed over as well, and has no plans to return to his rightful world. He's been hunting down and destroying all the copies of the book to make sure he never has to return, while also bringing over villains from his own story and other books to create an army of underlings. Mo and Meggie are teamed up with Dustfinger, as well as Mo's stuffy and book-loving Aunt Elinor (Helen Mirren), in their search to restore order to both worlds. Their only hope is to track down the novel's author, Fenoglio (Jim Broadbent), and convince him to hand over the original manuscript.
Although it doesn't exploit it nearly enough, Inkheart does have some fun with its idea of literary characters entering our world. (Toto the dog and the flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz both play roles in the plot.) With a premise like this, it's disappointing that they couldn't fit more characters in. The film's budget certainly seems healthy enough. Most of the literary references are unfortunately reserved for throw away gags, though, such as the fact that Capricorn's main chamber are filled with items from books he's pulled over with the aid of another Silvertongue who works for him, including Cinderella's glass slipper, the Sword in the Stone, and Ebenezer Scrooge's tombstone. Even if the movie isn't nearly as smart as it could have been, there is some intelligence to be found. The special effects and set designs are strong, there are some dry and subtle one-liners thrown into the dialogue, and a lot of the actors (especially Helen Mirren, Jim Broadbent, and Andy Serkis) seem to be enjoying themselves, and approach the material with the right attitude of straight-laced goofiness.
The cast is really the key ingredient that winds up making the film semi-successful. Brendan Fraser is surprisingly low key here, a departure from his wise-cracking adventurer persona from the Mummy films that I was expecting. As his daughter, Eliza Bennett seems to be a bit too old to be 12, but she still manages to be a likable and strong young heroine. She actually winds up playing a larger role in the story than he does, especially when it's discovered she's inherited her father's abilities. Paul Bettany also surprised me, giving his character a somewhat somber and heartfelt tone. His character wants to return to the book and be reunited with his wife (played by his real-life wife, Jennifer Connelly, in an uncredited cameo). In fact, the film's entire tone caught me off guard, as it's surprisingly serious and not the fun-filled family romp I imagined. While there is nothing here that offends, the movie does often delve into dark and scary territory, and the laughs are kept kind of light. Adults will probably enjoy this approach, but some small children may wish they were watching Hotel for Dogs.
The movie chronicles the beginnings of the war between the vampires and the Lycans, beasts that look like werewolves, but mainly behave like targets in an action video game as they spring up in front of the camera to be decapitated or stabbed by the vampires. The vampires keep some of the Lycans as slaves in their gloomy fortress. The lead Lycan in the story is Lucian (Michael Sheen). He's different from the others, because he can take the form of a human, and change into wolf form at will. He is still a slave, but is treated slightly better than his brothers by the cold ruler of the vampires, Viktor (Bill Nighy). We learn early on that Lucian is involved in a secret and forbidden love affair with Viktor's daughter, Sonja (Rhona Mitra). Sonja is a rebellious girl, who does not wish to live the life her father has planned for her. We never really learn how or why their love came to be, and we only learn of their affair when they both sneak off to have some hot vampire/Lycan sex one night. Those of you interested in what would happen if a vampire and a werewolf made love, you'll be disappointed. We just get a lot of panting, and some close ups of the actors' bare bodies.
These early moments seemed to be leaning to a sort of gothic Romeo and Juliet story, and it at least had my attention. I wouldn't have bothered getting my hopes up if I knew the movie had no intention of following this idea or their relationship. Lucian is tortured and locked up when he disobeys Viktor's orders and uses his Lycan powers to save Sonja. While in his cell, Lucian rallies his fellow Lycans to fight back and escape from the castle. Of course, Viktor eventually finds out about his daughter's affair, and puts her life in danger. This supposedly sparks an eternal war between the two races, but I found it hard to care about anything, because the movie doesn't care. Director Patrick Tatopoulos (a special effects artist who worked on the previous films) seems to view this as one big technical demo. The problem is it's not a very impressive one. The effects work for the Lycans is surprisingly chintzy, with the creatures looking about as convincing as the monsters you find in a low budget video game. The movie has an overly dark and murky look to it in the vain hope to cover up the half-hearted effects work. This makes the movie not only ugly to look at, but the blue-colored tint that's been added to a lot of scenes makes it look like someone poured toilet bowl cleaner all over the film.
The actors tackle this material with what can only be described as scene-chewing precision. After appearing in films like The Queen and Frost/Nixon, Michael Sheen cashes a paycheck here. To be fair, he is unrecognizable under all his mangy hair, and he was in the other Underworld movies. His part requires him to look wild eyed and scream half of his lines, which he does with gusto. As the head vampire, Bill Nighy plays his role as if he was doing some Bizarro World version of Shakespeare. Actually, a lot of his dialogue sounds like it was written by a 13-year-old trying to emulate Shakespeare's writing style. At least he actually gets to act like a vampire from time to time. The weird thing about Rise of the Lycans is that it keeps on telling us they're vampires, but aside from Nighy biting someone and drinking blood (or maybe it was wine) from a cup, they don't do anything that clue us in to that fact. Many are hidden behind suits of armor in the first place, except for the Vampire Council, who dress like medieval wannabe goths.
Fortunately, this is not the case with Slumdog Millionaire. The movie opened in theaters back in November, and has reached a deafening amount of praise from audiences and critics who have fallen in love with this small little indie film. Just recently, it was given a heap of Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. For once, it is justified. Director Danny Boyle is probably one of the most versatile directors working today, doing everything from crime stories (Trainspotting), horror (28 Days Later), and family dramas (Millions). This time, he brings us an absolutely crowd-pleasing story about a poverty-stricken young man (the "Slumdog" of the title) in India who becomes a national sensation on a game show. It's a lot deeper than that, obviously. This movie surprised me, not just with the story itself, but also how the story was told. It uses an interesting framing device as it cuts back and forth between the man on an Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and being interrogated by local officers, who are not afraid to use torture to get their answers. This immediately grabs our attention right from the start, and our interest only grows from there.
The young man is Jamal (Dev Patel), and as the film opens, he is only one question away from winning the grand prize of 20 million rupees. The show has run out of time, and he'll have to come back tomorrow. As he leaves the studio, though, he is immediately apprehended by some violent officers who have been tipped off by the show's smug host (Anil Kapoor), who suspects the young man is cheating somehow. As the head police inspector tells Jamal, doctors and lawyers have never gotten past the 6 million rupee question. How could this lowly street "Slumdog" know all the answers? The officers torture and interrogate him, but to no avail. Jamal keeps on insisting that he has done nothing wrong. As the movie cuts back and forth between the head inspector questioning Jamal, and flashbacks to the questions he was asked on the show, we come to realize how. All of the answers are tied into events of Jamal's life up to this point. As the answers are revealed, so is his story, which creates a fascinating storytelling style that is both involving and charming. Yes, we need to suspend some major disbelief that all of the answers would be tied to events in his life (and in chronological order too), but I was able to overcome this gap and enjoy the film.
Besides, the movie isn't really about the show. The flashbacks of Jamal's life make up the center of the film, and is what gives the story its heart. When Jamal was a boy, he saw his mother murdered by some violent extremists. Jamal, along with his older brother Salim (Madhur Mittal), made a living on the streets stealing and pulling scams, such as posing as tour guides at the Taj Mahal to get money from American tourists. Eventually, the brothers are joined by Latika (Freida Pinto), a young girl who becomes the "third Musketeer" of their group, and who also quickly steals Jamal's heart. Fate separates the two budding lovers, and the core of the flashback story involves the two brothers following very different paths in life. Jamal spends his life searching for Latika after they are separated. He finds her again at various stages of life, but they often find themselves hailing from different walks of life when they are reunited, and are always separated again. As for his brother Salim, he chose violence and the life of a gangster working under a crime lord. The way these three central characters are brought together in different stages of life, and how their stories intersect, makes for some compelling drama.
Slumdog Millionaire is a hard movie to describe, because it doesn't really fall under a single category. It's a drama, it's a thriller, its a crime story, it's a statement on social status and class in India, and it's also a wonderfully light-hearted romance. The movie is rated R, due to some early scenes of violence and torture, but this is a crowd pleasing movie that should work on just about anyone, and is gentle enough for teens to watch without the concern of parents. The movie initially grabs our attention with its unorthodox story telling and exotic location, but then it further holds our interest with it's sweet-natured love story. Jamal is an immediately likable young hero, and the performance by Dev Patel is a sympathetic and strong one. What amazed me is how close we feel to the characters by the time it's all over. The screenplay by Simon Beaufoy (based on the novel "Q & A" by Vikas Swarup) lets the characters build and develop throughout the flashbacks, so it makes sense to see the young children we see in the early flashbacks grow into the adults we eventually see them as. Likewise, the long-distance romance between Jamal and Latika does not suffer from convoluted storytelling that forces them to be apart, and flows naturally. We like these characters, and hope for a happy ending for them.
They play Frank and April Wheeler, respectively - Two people who met at a party, married young, and have spent most of their lives since chasing the 1950s vision of the American Dream, while ignoring their own personal desires. April had dreams of being an actress at one point, but her career never went anywhere, and she now mainly serves as the dutiful housewife, looking after their kids and entertaining the neighbors. Frank never really had any concrete dreams, and has resigned himself to working at a job he hates, the occasional romantic affair with a female co-worker (Zoe Kazan) being the only joy he gets out of life. The movie throws us headfirst into their problems, as we find ourselves in the middle of a particularly tense argument during a drive home in an early scene. The opening moments are shown out of sequence, with flashbacks filling us in on how they got to this point. As April reflects on the idealistic individuals they were in their 20s when they first met, she begins to realize it's not too late to live their dreams, and suggests they sell everything and move to Paris.
Frank is skeptical at first, but quickly realizes it's feasible. He's earned more than enough money at work, and April keeps on assuring him she could get a secretarial job that could keep their entire family living comfortably, since she's heard they pay more in Europe and the cost of living is cheaper. With her supplying the money, Frank can be free to discover himself and what he truly wants to do with his life. The excitement of leaving their "suburban prison" is enough to rekindle their love, and their relationship seems stronger than ever. Then Frank is offered a promotion at his current job. It means more money, yes, but it also means they have to stay put if he wants it. It doesn't help matters that Frank's friends are openly against the idea of him heading off to Paris and living off of his wife. Maybe he feels a bit threatened himself, and feels this promotion is a chance to hold onto what little authority he has in his life. There are other developments that come in the way of their dream, and little by little, we watch it die along with their rekindled relationship.
Based on the novel by Richard Yates, and working from a screenplay by Justin Haythe, Revolutionary Road could be considered a return to the themes in Mendes' debut film, American Beauty, as both films deal with the dysfunctional truths that go on behind the perfectly maintained suburban lawns and gardens. That's about where the similarities between the two films end, though. Beauty was a darkly satiric look about a husband and father who realized life was too short for the existence he had decided to settle for. Watching Frank Wheeler, we get the sense that even though he complains about having to settle, he has a strange contentment with where he is in life. Paris offers a chance to discover himself, yes, but it also offers failure. What if he never found himself? Frank would argue that he'd rather be a face in a crowd with something to do at least, than someone who stood out, tried, and failed. As for April, Paris represents everything she's wanted, while the place where they currently live represents everything she thought she wanted. When the dream of Paris begins to wither, she retaliates peacefully at first, but we can see the signs of disgust in her husband and her life slowly starting to mount.
Despite it all, everyone sees the Wheelers as the perfect couple right up to their breaking point, especially their friends. The only one who sees them for who they really are is John (Michael Shannon, in a performance that rightfully received an Oscar nomination.), the adult son of a family friend (Kathy Bates). We learn that John has spent the past few years in a psychiatric hospital, and when he meets the Wheelers, he is able to cut through the usual niceties of friends, and see them for whom they really are. The character only appears in two scenes, but his are the most memorable, especially with how devastatingly honest he is at analyzing Frank and April. The movie seems to argue that because John has been shut off from society in the hospital and been shunned by the world, he seems to have achieved a kind of truthfulness that no one else around him possesses. Everyone around him lives to protect their image, or the image of contentment. He's gone through too many electroshock therapies to care what anyone thinks of him anymore. The character could have gone wrong in so many horrible ways if he was played too broadly, but Shannon finds the perfect mix of sarcastic humor, rage, and honesty. His scenes are the ones I'll watch again when the movie comes out on DVD.
Not that the lead stars don't have more than their share of moments. DiCaprio and Winslet deliver some of their most open and gut-wrenching performances here, which fits their characters who increasingly feel trapped by fate. DiCaprio's Frank is a little more docile and accepting of being trapped, while Winslet definitely gets to give the more passionate performance as a woman who thought she had it all, discovered she didn't, tries to get it all, and then discovers she never will. The actors are friends in real life, and it really gives them chemistry during their more quiet and intimate moments. There are also a lot of little technical details that add to the sense of mounting tension. The camera work is often tight and focused, giving the movie a very closed in feel. Also of note is the subtle, yet tense, music score by the always reliable Thomas Newman. The music underscores the scenes, instead of spelling out the emotion, and creates the right mood of unease that hints at things to come.
Think of all the exciting angles you could take in a movie about the life of him. You could go the traditional route, and cover his career, as well as what his music meant to the industry. You could do a movie about the rival East and West Coast war, and how it turned one of Chris' closest friends in the music business, Tupac Shakur (portrayed here by Anthony Mackie), against him. You could cover the investigation into his murder, which still remains unsolved today. The screenplay by Reggie Rock Bythewood (Biker Boyz) and Cheo Hodari Coker take most of these ideas, and covers them in a generic two hour "made for TV"-style format honoring the man, but never really digging deep into his life, his career, the numerous women who came and went, and just how he affected the industry despite only releasing one album in his lifetime. (His second album came out after he was killed at the age of 24.) The movie touches upon the war and the rivalry, but when it comes to his life and his death, it's the same old song and dance we've been listening to for years.
Notorious wants to tell us the story of Christopher's life, while at the same time being a love letter written in his memory by people who knew him best. Instead of dealing with his actual life, the movie gives us the usual bits and pieces we've come to expect. He starts out on the streets as a boy with a single mother (Angela Bassett), who tries her best to give her son a good life despite a deadbeat dad who walked out on her, and gangs on the street selling drugs. He quickly grows up, and is portrayed through most of the film by Jamal Woolard, who gives a fine performance. Chris eventually decides he needs money, gets wrapped up in gang activity, spends time in prison, and decides to go into music. All of this is covered so quickly, it's like the movie knows we've seen it all before, and isn't even interested in it. A friend of his hooks him up with Sean "Puffy" Combs (Derek Luke), and there's such a sense of "this is destiny" in the scene, it's kind of hard to take it seriously. Along the way, he strikes up relationships with various women including Jan (Julia Pace Mitchell), Lil Kim (Naturi Naughton), and Faith Evans (Antonique Smith). They all share relationships of varying degree of intimacy, and two of them actually bear him children. The way the movie skims over his relationship with them, and how he just walks in and out of their lives seemingly at will gives us the wrong impression.
What are we to make of the fact that after he marries Faith Evans, he is shown cheating on her a few scenes later? Faith storms in on him, chews him out, and he apologizes. A little later, he suspects that she's having an affair with Tupac Shakur, so he bursts in on her in the middle of an interview she's giving, and violently shakes her, throwing her against a wall in front of the cameras. She walks out on him, but near the end of the movie, they're talking on the phone and everything seems fine, with no explanation. Christopher apparently burned a lot of bridges on his way to success, but it's obviously okay because as this movie tells us, right before he died, he managed to call every single person he hurt and have a heartfelt talk with them. We constantly feel like we're only getting bits and pieces, and the movie is picking and choosing moments from his life to show us. This style is evident early on, with how the movie sets up his mother as an important character early on, then she is almost dropped entirely from the film about the 40 minute mark until the very end.
Speaking of his mother, Angela Bassett's portrayal of Valerie Wallace is inconsistent, with a Jamaican accent that seems to come and go during the course of the film. She's intended to be portrayed as a long-suffering woman, who sticks by her son's side through it all, but her character is so shallow here she's hardly worth mentioning. Surprising, since the real life Valerie was deeply involved in the production of the film. Of particular note is how her battle with breast cancer is mentioned in one scene, and then the very next scene, Christopher tells a friend that his mom's recovering, and it's never mentioned again. If her cancer played such a minor part in his life, as this movie suggests, why bother bringing it up in the first place? This is just lazy screenwriting, and the directing by George Tillman, Jr (Soul Food), is of the "point and shoot" variety, never giving us anything truly interesting to look at. Given the fast editing and eye-catching tactics that music videos are known for, you'd think something would stand out visually.
I have no doubt that a very involving film could be made of the story of the "Bielski Partisans", a group that started with three brothers and ultimately ended with 1,200 individual members. And yet, I felt a certain detachment from it. The movie is well made, has some good visuals, and the performances are strong. But the characters are treated with such a herd mentality, that we seldom get to get up close to the people. We get their hardships and their struggles to survive in the elements, but we don't get their personal stories. The movie is also curiously lacking in emotional power. There is one great moment late in the film, when a captured German soldier is brought into the camp and pleads for his life, only to have those around him beat him to death, screaming about the atrocities they've been put through. I wanted more moments like this. Moments where the characters actually seemed like people with lives and pasts, not just extras huddling and marching through the forest.
Maybe I'm getting burned out on Holocaust dramas, but I found the plight of the Bielski brothers uninvolving. The brothers include Tuvia (Daniel Craig), Zus (Liev Schrieber), and Asael (Jamie Bell). They flee from the Nazis when their village is attacked, and take refuge in the woods. They're not alone for long, as other survivors have also found their way into the woods, and they eventually band together. Tuvia takes command of the group, I guess, because he can give stirring speeches while sitting atop a white horse that sound like they've been tailor made to be used as a clip at the Oscars. He believes in living peacefully and surviving in the wilderness, but Zus has a bloodlust, and wants to use their resources to take revenge on the German army. This causes some friction within the camp, but for the most part, the group is able to organize, and starts taking in more Jewish survivors. There are some romantic subplots thrown in for Tuvia and Asael, Zus eventually leaves the group to join the Russian fighters, and we get a lot of ominous warnings about food rations, disease, and the harsh winter that may spell doom for those trying to survive.
Of all the characters in the film, Zus probably comes across as the most fleshed out and interesting. Part of this is because he's one of the few who breaks from the herd and speaks for himself, and part of it is due to Schrieber's fine performance. All of the acting on display is fine, but his stood out the most to me. As the leader of the group, Daniel Craig gets to say a lot of stirring speeches that sound too scripted and perfectly thought out. I would have liked if maybe he was just a little bit more uncertain, but he seems to have a perfectly scripted answer for everything. Defiance is not a bad movie, but it is the kind of movie that the phrase "Oscar Bait" was invented for. Every scene seems like it was shot specifically to be used as a clip at an Award show, and it constantly seems to be reminding us just how important it is. Even the music score by James Newton Howard seems to be reminding us, with how dramatic and sometimes bombastic it sounds. It also sounds like it desperately wants to be John Williams' memorable score to Schindler's List at times.
Maybe a documentary, rather than a fictional retelling, would have been the correct way to tell this story and the people involved. I never felt like I was watching history, I felt like I was watching a reenactment. I was never transported into the story, like a great historical movie can do. Those who join up to fight alongside the Bielskis pretty much just show up without so much as an introduction, and then stay in the background. There are a few standouts (the intellectual, the teacher), but very few in the group get to do more other than comment on depleting rations. When they are forced to fight during the film's battle sequences, I didn't feel any tension or feeling. It's hard to get involved when everyone who walks on the screen seems disposable. That's why I liked the previously mentioned scene with the German soldier so much. The characters finally get to come out of the background and tell us their story.
Siblings Andi (Emma Roberts) and Bruce (Jake T. Austin) are a pair of foster kids who have been moved around to different families by their kindly social worker, Bernie (Don Cheadle, cashing a paycheck here), the past few years since their parents died. They're currently living with the Scudders (Kevin Dillon and Lisa Kudrow), a goofy couple who dream of being rock stars, despite having no real talent, and care more about their careers than the kids living with them. Their foster parents apparently don't like animals, because the kids have been forced to hide the presence of their pet dog, Friday, who lives in the house secretly. One day, while Friday is out on his own, he's picked up by the city dogcatcher and taken to the pound. The kids manage to spring the pooch, but their visit to the pound makes them realize what a terrible place it is, and how many dogs there are that need rescuing. The way the pound is depicted in this movie, it's like a doggie Auschwitz, run by incompetent dog catchers who like to fall over themselves and provide generic physical comedy for the kids in the audience. Also, we never get to see the cats and various other animals who may need rescuing, so I guess we're not supposed to care about them.
Knowing it's no longer safe for them to keep Friday living secretly with them, the kids find an abandoned old hotel, where a small group of stray dogs are already living. Little brother Bruce just happens to have a knack for inventions, and even invented a crude elevator for Friday to use back at the place they live at. He decides that he could convert the building into a home for dogs, with his various inventions providing everything the animals could need. He is able to dream up inventions like automatic food dispensers, a car ride simulator, and a vending machine that drops shoes for them to chew on. The kids are eventually joined by some of the neighborhood teens, including the ones who work at the local pet supply store, Dave and Heather (Johnny Simmons and Kyla Pratt), and a silly local kid named Mark (Troy Gentile). With their help, they start rescuing every stray dog they can find, and housing them in the "hotel for dogs". Naturally, their secret is eventually found out, and the kids will have to fight to keep the dogs safe.
That's pretty much all you get with a ticket for Hotel for Dogs. I was so desperate for something to happen, I even started to hope that maybe the crazed miner from My Bloody Valentine 3D (the movie I saw right before this) would show up. Unfortunately, this is a Nickelodeon production, not a Lionsgate film. Director Thor Freudenthal (1996's Monkey Trouble), along with screenwriters Jeff Lowell (Over Her Dead Body) and writing team Robert Schooley and Mark McCorkle (Sky High), give what most of the audience have come for, I guess - Lots of cute dogs doing cute things and providing plenty of droppings for the characters to step in and for the villains to fall into. The movie never once tries to create any tension or interest. The worst thing that happens in this movie is that one of Bruce's inventions at the hotel breaks down when the kids aren't there, and the dogs start to run amok through the building. The film's based on a children's novel not read by me by Lois Duncan, and while I can't say how faithful the filmmakers are to it, I can almost guarantee that more probably went on in the book.
The movie's serviceable all around, and never offends, but it's never more than that. The performances are all just good enough, with no one really standing out or making any real effort. It's sort of sad to see Don Cheadle in a role that just about anyone could play, and get the same result. Still, he does get to deliver the movie's climactic stirring speech, as he calls out the dogs' names and tells the crowd of people gathered their personal stories. (As he calls each dog's name, they come running up to him, and stand beside him in perfect precision.) About the only thing that held my interest in the film were the inventions, which may be farfetched, but at least had some imagination put into them. They're the kind of stuff a kid could dream up, I guess, if he had access to a multi-million dollar studio prop department. Also of note is the van the kids drive around in to look for dogs to rescue. It's a giant vehicle made up to look like a dog, complete with a wagging tail on the end. Not only did I like the one Jeff Daniels drove in Dumb and Dumber better, but you'd think it would draw some attention to their operation. Then again, all of the adults except for Cheadle's character are depicted as idiots, so maybe's it's not so hard to believe.
As for me, this movie had me grinning like an idiot beginning to end. It's an unapologetic throwback to the "classic" slashers of the 80s. Back in the day when you didn't have a movie unless you had at least some inventive kills, and at least one scene where a sexy blonde (preferably undressed or wearing as little as possible) wandered into danger, little realizing the killer was behind her the entire time. Yes, this is a remake (the original My Bloody Valentine came out in 1981), but it's the rare one that works. It respects the source material (unlike last year's abysmal Prom Night), it's not watered down to cater to preteens (once again, 2008's Prom Night), and it's just plain fun no matter what format you see it in. Yes, despite the "3D" in the title, many theaters are forced to show this film in standard 2D, due to the fact that theaters have been slow to catch on and update to digital 3D technology. While 3D is obviously the preferable way to watch this film, this is not a movie built entirely around gimmicks. It's just an old fashioned and fun "body count movie" that's better made than the norm.
The opening moments of the movie race us through the background story. The sleepy, backwater mining community of Harmony had a brush with tragedy when a mine collapsed due to an accident caused by young miner named Tom Hanniger (Jensen Ackles). The only miner to survive was Harry Warden (Richard John Walters), who went crazy and murdered the other surviving and trapped miners before he was rescued. He fell into a coma, but woke up one year later on Valentine's Day, where he went on a bloody rampage throughout the hospital and the town itself. His rage led him back to the old mine, where some teens were having a party. Tom was there that night, which probably wasn't the brightest of ideas considering his history with it, along with his girlfriend Sarah (Jaime King) and best friend Axel (Kerr Smith). Harry showed up, murdered some of Tom's friends, and was eventually brought down for good by the local authorities. Since that night, Tom decided to skip town, not telling anyone where he was going.
Ten years later, Tom has returned to Harmony to close down the mine he inherited when his father died. Because of his past with the accident, and the fact he's shutting it down, the locals aren't too happy to see him. He tries to reunite with Sarah, only to discover she has since married Axel and even has a child with him. As Tom tries to pick up the scattered pieces of his life, someone else is hacking the townspeople into pieces and scattering them all over town. A person wearing the same mining suit and gas mask that Harry Warden wore during his Valentine rampage is starting a new reign of terror. The killer uses a pick axe to disembowel his victims, rip out their hearts, then mail it to the police in Valentine candy boxes. Has Harry somehow come back from the dead on the 10 year anniversary of his dirty deed, or is it a copycat killer? The mystery isn't too hard to follow, and is filled with wall-to-wall red herrings, but does just enough to keep us guessing.
No one will ever mistake My Bloody Valentine 3D for art. The performances are often stiff, the characters written haphazardly and thinly developed, and the whole plot is an excuse to throw globs of gore at the screen. If you watch it in the intended 3D, you'll be ducking in your seat as blood, human organs, tree branches, pick axes, and massive explosions seemingly leap off the screen. There's no denying the kind of movie it is, and there's also no denying that director Patrick Lussier (Dracula 2000) has put a surprising amount of skill into the grisly tale. The gore is shocking, but never gratuitous. Just enough to give us a jolt. And while the movie never truly terrifies, there are a handful of effectively tense scenes, such as when Sarah is pursued by the killer in the grocery store where she works. It also generates the perfect tone of mindless mayhem and goofy fun that's bound to appeal to the midnight audiences that will flock to this. If there is no denying what kind of movie it is, there's also no denying that what it does it does well.
That's why I'm recommending this. Yes, there are much better movies out there, but honestly this is some of the most fun I've had at a horror movie in a while. I loved that the screenplay by Todd Farmer (Jason X) and Zane Smith makes no apologies and doesn't even try to pretend to be a dumb slasher in the tradition of the best of 'em. They also know how to space out the kills and the tension. There's plenty of stretches of quiet moments where no one is being hunted or ripped up with a pick axe, which kind of makes the appearances of the miner all the more effective, since the movie knows not to overuse him. This is important, as if the killer made too many appearances, he'd start to become boring or border on self-parody. The love triangle between the three leads makes up a majority of the film when the killer isn't around, and while it's not exactly deep enough to leave us on the edge of our seats, it does add just a little bit of a human touch to the goofiness of the movie itself.
This is a very good movie, though, and I can live with that. The two people at the center of the story are Harvey Shine (Dustin Hoffman) and Kate Walker (Emma Thompson). These two actors had worked previously together on 2006's Stranger Than Fiction, but get to share a lot more screen time together here. As the film opens, both characters are at low points in their middle aged lives. Harvey's a failed jazz pianist who writes commercial jingles. He's divorced, and freely admits that he was probably never the best when it came to being a husband to his ex-wife (Kathy Baker), or a father to his adult daughter Susan (Liane Balaban) who is getting married. He flies to London for her wedding, only to learn that Susan wants her stepfather (James Brolin) to be the one who walks her down the aisle. Not long after that, he gets a phone call from his boss saying he's fired. He starts to talk to Kate when they're the only two people at an airport bar. They met briefly once before, but as they begin to talk, they learn they have a lot in common. Kate has her share of troubles as well. She's single, she's recovering from a very bad blind date she had the night before, and her overbearing and paranoid mother (Eileen Atkins) keeps on calling her on her cell phone about how she believes the next door neighbor is a serial killer. While her current problems are not quite as bad as Harvey's, we can tell she's had her share of disappointments in the life leading up to the moment we first meet her.
We follow the two during a 24 hour period as they walk about London, talking about themselves, their mistakes, and their insecurities. This is when Last Chance Harvey rings true, both in its dialogue and in the way the characters behave. Harvey and Kate are ordinary people, and the screenplay doesn't try to make them out to be special. It's almost as if the camera is following them by accident, and somehow we get wrapped up into their stories and their lives. It doesn't even need to be said that Hoffman and Thompson are wonderful actors, and if you put them together, you get undeniable chemistry. It's entertaining just seeing them talk, and playing these two shy individuals opening up to one another. I enjoyed listening to them talk so much, I kind of was disappointed when the movie would cut to a montage of them walking about the streets of London. They're still talking, but the music is playing over their dialogue, so we can't hear it. You don't drown out wonderful characters like Harvey and Kate with music.
You also don't put them through tired romantic movie conventions, which the movie does at one point. My heart began to sink a little when I realized the movie was going to use a trick as old as the hills - Have the lovers be separated due to a misunderstanding. I won't go into too much detail, but it's the old scenario where the lovers agree to meet at a certain place, but something happens that prevents one of them from being able to make it, and the other thinks that he/she has been stood up. Do we really need to see this again? Do we really want to see Harvey and Kate go through it? If it must be, I can live with it here, because the movie at least does not abandon credibility completely. Yes, they do not meet and there is a misunderstanding, but it is not a huge deal. We don't spend the rest of the movie watching these likeable characters forced to act like idiots. There is an apology, and they treat it like adults. I was impressed with how it was resolved. Less impressive is the entire subplot with Kate's mother and the neighbor, which seems out of place and distracts from everything that works.
And there is a lot here that works. As I mentioned, the movie has a great ear for dialogue. There's a wonderfully written scene where Harvey gives a speech to his daughter and ex-wife at the wedding reception that is heartfelt, touching, and a little bit sad. The beauty of Hopkins' screenplay is how adult it is. Everyone is mature, and no one makes rash decisions in order to benefit the plot. The movie may be light and frothy, but it is never brainless. I also liked the way the movie kept on playing against our expectations of the romantic comedy cliches it employs. Yes, there's a climax with a character racing to the airport, but for once it's not to stop the other person from leaving. The movie manages to ring true in just about every scene, except for a few rare missteps, such as the sequence where Harvey decides to take Kate as his date for the wedding reception, and we get a montage of Kate trying on various goofy dresses before finding the right one. Why not just cut to them arriving at the place?
Kevin James rose to fame on television starring on the sitcom, The King of Queens, and has been trying to break into movies for a while now. He's acted along side stars like Will Smith and Adam Sandler, but this is his first shot at a stand-alone starring role. Sandler is still there behind the scenes (His Happy Madison production company produced the film.), but this is James' film all the way, and he doesn't waste the opportunity. His Paul Blart is admirable in a way. He's overweight and he suffers from hypoglycemia, but he always tries to do the right thing. He's passionate about his job as a mall cop, but he'd really like to be a police officer on the street. He's taken the physical entrance exam many times, but his health problems have prevented him from finishing. He makes up for his shortcomings by being the best mall cop he can be, and by also being a good single father to his teen daughter (Raini Rodriguez), who respects him and wishes he could fall in love again. Paul has his eyes on a young woman named Amy (Jayma Mays), who also works at the mall. The first half hour or so of the film is devoted to Paul's life, and it certainly helps us get into his corner when the actual plot kicks in.
It's Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, and some high tech criminals stage a lock down and a hostage situation at the mall as they pull off their theft plan. They place motion sensors and small bombs at the entrances, so no one can get in or out. They think they've removed everyone from the building, but didn't notice Paul was in the back of the arcade playing Guitar Hero. When he emerges from the arcade, he quickly learns about the hostage situation, and discovers that both Amy and his daughter are amongst them. This kicks off the main action, where Paul must use his resources around him to out think and outrun the criminals while keeping everyone alive. I liked this aspect of the story, and how Paul Blart actually has to be clever in order to outsmart the captors. The movie is rated PG, so it's never too violent or scary for kids, which is the perfect target audience for the film. They'll like the film's gentle and goofy humor, and accompanying adults may find themselves charmed by Blart himself.
I never laughed out loud while watching this movie, but I did smile a lot, and I found myself caring more about the main character than I imagined. Let me tell you, that's more than I expected walking into a movie called Paul Blart: Mall Cop. There's plenty of sweetness during the early moments, establishing Paul's shy relationship with Amy, and the caring one he shares with his daughter. When the time comes for him to be a hero, we can cheer for him, because the movie makes him into a true underdog. He's constantly battling with his own shortcomings and health issues, and it's clever the way he keeps on finding ways to keep himself going, driven by saving the ones he loves. If I'm making the movie sound too serious, it's not. There's plenty of slapstick gags, surprisingly no bodily fluid or toilet humor to be found, and some pretty good physical comedy on display. If there's any major shortcoming to be found, it's that the movie is pretty inconsequential, and will probably be forgotten by me a few months from now.
The couple at the center of the story are Dave Johnson (Morris Chestnut) and Clarice Clark (Taraji P. Henson, who was wonderful in the recent The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but is only okay here). They've been married for about 13 years, and despite some major set backs, they seem to be a living a comfortable, if not distant, life together. Dave had to give up his dreams of being a professional baseball player when an injury cut his career short, but he has a small business that he owns and coaches a Little League team on the side. Because of his injury, it's been up to Clarice to be the main earner in the relationship, and she's found success selling real estate. Most of the tension between them stems from the fact that Dave feels like he's unwanted, since his wife handles everything. That, and the fact that he wants a baby, but his wife is too career-oriented to slow down. Something tells me if this movie was set in today's housing market, Clarice would have a lot more time on her hands.
There's a car accident, which cripples Clarice and forces her to go into physical rehabilitation. Enter Julie (Maeve Quinlan), the blonde physical therapist who makes personal house calls to help Clarice, and catches Dave's eye. Julie seems to have it all. She's sweet, she's beautiful, and she's got a cute-as-a-button kid (Cannon Jay) who's on the local swim team and occasionally plays on Dave's Little League team. It doesn't help matters that Clarice becomes increasingly irritable toward her husband because of her current physical state, and that her shrewish mother (Jenifer Lewis) moves in and basically takes over the house, making Dave feel like he has even less worth in the home. Both Clarice and her mother are constantly on Dave's case, and want him to stop wasting his time coaching Little League. The way these women talk, you'd think coaching youth baseball was the same as being a child molester. Dave tries to take comfort in his two supportive best friends (Eddie Cibrian and Kevin Hart), but they're here more for comic relief than offering help. Fortunately, a local Bishop (Albert Hall) may hold the advice that both Dave and Clarice need to hold their marriage together.
Not Easily Broken is about as hard to figure out as a jigsaw puzzle that's already completed when you open the box. The title stems from a speech the Bishop gives the couple on their wedding day, about the ties that bind them, and the separate ties that bind them to God. I initially feared the worse, thinking this message was going to be pounded into my skull by the end of the movie, but fortunately, the screenplay by Brian Bird (adapting from a novel by Pastor T.D. Jakes) doesn't get too preachy with the sermons and the message. It's a simple and predictable story where we feel like we're constantly one step ahead of the characters. When Julie's son is told by his swim coach to be careful and stop early so he doesn't hit the wall when he's swimming, we just know the kid's gonna crack his head against the side of the pool eventually. The movie doesn't let us down. What holds our interest are the moments in the film when it goes off its auto pilot plot, and just lets the characters talk to one another. There are some quiet scenes between Dave and Clarice that hold a lot of truth in the dialogue, and they act like a real married couple going through a crisis.
Unfortunately, the movie keeps on jerking us back to reality, usually by the next scene. Clarice's best friend at work is a stereotypical black woman (Niecy Nash), who likes to start every sentence with "Girl...", and gets to say lines like "Don't make me go all Oprah on you" or "Don't go all Waiting to Exhale on me". Clarice's mother also seems to have been written straight out of the "Mother-in-Law from Hell" guidebook, and exists simply to irritate Dave and the audience. At least we feel his pain. One character that I did think was handled well was the "other woman" character, Julie. She's not a villain, is quite sensible, and we can understand why Dave would be drawn to her, especially in his circumstances. She never pressures him, so it comes across like his feelings are entirely his own, and not manipulated by the plot. The final scene that Dave and her share together is mature, and seems to build from a mutual understanding between both of them. As good as these moments are, it made the more generic moments a bit harder to take.
There is perhaps no other actor who could have played the character. Walter may be outspoken, but he usually lets his disapproving glare do all the talking that needs to be said. The film opens at the funeral of his wife, and we see Walter eyeing his grandchildren who show up dressed in their street clothes and texting friends during the service. He lives in a world of respect, but he doesn't seem to give that respect very freely. His family and grandchildren embarrass him, and he doesn't like seeing what his neighborhood has become as he sits on the front porch, drinking beer, with his dog (his only companion now that he's alone) by his side. The streets are filled with gang members at war with one another, and he glares silently at the ethnic families moving in, including the Asian family that lives next door. Walter lives in a closed off world, angry at everyone and anything that is not him. He freely blurts out racial slurs and insults. Even when he begins to get closer to the young woman who lives next door, Sue (Ahney Her), he openly refers to her as "Dragon Lady". Fortunately, Sue is armed with a sharp sense of humor to combat his verbal barbs, and can speak for her family since many living with her don't speak English.
Gran Torino is a quiet meditation on how Walter slowly opens himself, not just to those around him, but also to himself in a way. He's shut himself away from everyone because there's not a lot of things he likes about himself, though he'll never admit it. A young Priest (Christopher Carley) tries to reach him and talk him into going to confession at his church, but it is really the relationship that slowly builds between Walter and Sue's brother Thao (Bee Vang) that allows him the opportunity to open up for what seems to be the first time in his life. They first meet when Thao is pressured by some local gang members to break into Walter's garage and steal his prized vintage 1972 Gran Torino car. The attempt is foiled, and when the gang members return to pressure Thao some more and threaten Sue, Walter scares them away with his shotgun. Walter wasn't trying to help Thao, he just wanted the punks off his lawn. Still, the family is grateful, and a shaky union is started when Thao offers to do work for Walter to make up for attempting to steal his car. The bizarre mentor/friend relationship that builds between this closed off and bitter racist, and this young man who can hardly speak or think for himself makes up the heart of the film.
And yet, as the film went on, I came to the slow realization that this heart was somewhat mechanical. The screenplay by Nick Schenk often seems built around coincidences, with Walter just happening to be at the right place at the right time for things to happen. Each time Sue or Thao are surrounded by gang members, Walter just happens to be driving by to scare the hoodlums away. The movie also settles into a cycle for the first hour or so. Walter has a run-in with the family next door, has a run-in with the Priest, has a run-in with some thugs, and repeats until the plot of him bonding with Thao kicks in. I found the movie repeating the same ideas and dialogue in each scene. I appreciated the quiet and laid back nature of the storytelling, but at the same time, it's a bit too aimless for its own good. There are even certain scenes where the characters seem to be standing around, waiting for the expected climax to happen. I won't go into too much detail here, but I do have to admit the way the final moments are played out does not betray the nature of the film and was certainly not what I entirely expected. I mean this in a good way.
Despite my mixed feelings on the script, there's no denying there's quite a bit to like here. Gran Torino does not exactly feature a classic Eastwood performance, but he is certainly in his element here, and I hope he gets to act in at least one other film after this. Surprisingly, the performances that stood out in my mind was not his, but rather Ahney Her and Bee Vang. They're both newcomers with no previous acting credits, but they both give such emotional performances, especially Ahney Her as the sharp-tongued yet understanding Sue. I wanted to see more of her, but she unfortunately disappears once Vang's Tao takes center stage, until the plot requires her to enter the story again and create a crisis. I wanted these characters and these performances to break free of the mechanical and almost clockwork plotting of the script. They both have great individual moments, but are forced to remain rigid.
The obvious question here is why? Why would these actresses agree to do this movie, and why would one of them (Kate Hudson) go so far as to even produce it? Were they overcome with a brief fling with insanity? Was it because it offered them an excuse to be silly on camera and get paid for it? So many possible answers, but none of them satisfy me after seeing them throwing their talent away on this junk. Anne Hathaway is one of the more beautiful young actresses working in films today. I've liked her in just about everything I've seen her in, and her performance in Rachel Getting Married is generating Oscar buzz. What she's doing here, I have no idea. As for Kate Hudson, well, I'm looking at some of her recent film credits on the IMDB, and this movie does seem to fit in with her recent work in My Best Friend's Girl and You, Me, and Dupree. But I know she can do better than this.
Okay, have to try to stay focused here and talk about the movie. Hathaway and Hudson play Emma and Liv, respectively. They've been best friends since childhood, and both have shared a dream of being married at the historic Plaza Hotel in June. They both get surprise proposals by their boyfriends, and immediately head off to meet with the best Wedding Planner in New York, Marion St. Claire (Candice Bergen), who also serves as the film's Narrator. A mix up occurs with both of the girls' weddings and receptions being scheduled at the same time, and there's no way to reschedule, since the Plaza in June is supposedly booked solid for the next three years. Not wanting to give up their dream weddings, the girls turn against each other and try to sabotage the other's preparations. Liv ruins Emma's spray tanning session, causing her skin to appear as orange as an Oompa Loompa, so Emma retaliates by sabotaging Liv's hair coloring. Emma upstages Liv at her own bachelorette party, so Liv spreads pregnancy rumors about Emma.
And where are the husbands-to-be in all this? They're curiously absent from most of the movie, turning them into non-entities. When they do appear, they seem to be exasperated at the behavior of the women, and at a loss of how to fix this situation. Of course, anyone with half a brain in real life could avoid this whole messy situation with just some simple logic, and not have to resort to the childish pranks that Liv and Emma do. But then, there wouldn't be a movie, and Bride Wars knows it. Director Gary Winick (Charlotte's Web) and his team of screenwriters (believe it or not, it took three different people to write this) constantly force the characters to make the most boneheaded decisions in order to drag the situation out to feature length. It also never hits its own targets hard enough. The black comedy elements of revenge are tame, which is not surprising given the film's PG-rating. The movie also hints at some ripe parody elements, poking fun at the industry of wedding planning, but it never goes far enough. It's content to coast along at the level of a moronic TV sitcom.
The movie is simple minded at just about every level. It doesn't even go into any detail as to how either of these women were able to plan and pay for a lavish wedding that based on appearances, would go well into 5-digit territory in terms of price. Add to this the fact that their boyfriends propose to them in March, and everything's been settled and arranged three months later. I'd be able to overlook this if the screenplay showed some intelligence in its characters or dialogue, but there's nothing here that shows any real thought went into this. All of the female characters are written as bossy, drunk, stupid, or bitchy, while the men are annoyingly passive and slip into the background. The fact that there are three male leads in this movie makes it immediately obvious that one of the women is walking to the church with the wrong man on her arm. This makes the ending blatantly predictable to anyone half-awake in the audience while watching it.
Writer-director David S. Goyer (The Invisible) got his start writing straight to video schlock like Demonic Toys and Kickboxer 2. He's moved on to better things (Batman Begins), but you get the sense with The Unborn that this is one of his scripts that have been lying at the bottom of his desk drawer since his humble beginnings. In the movie, a college student named Casey (Odette Yustman from Cloverfield) is haunted by visions of the previously mentioned creepy dead kid (the dog never again appears before her), her dead mother (who killed herself years ago), and keeps on being attacked by slimy bugs that pop out of egg shells when she's making breakfast. Dad's away on a business trip, so she's all alone in the house, giving the dead kid plenty of chances to pop out of dark shadows and scream at her. The kid sure does get around. He even manages to cram himself into Casey's medicine cabinet, just so he can yell at her when she opens it. Despite the support of her best friend Romy (Meagan Good) and boyfriend Mark (Cam Gigandet), Casey thinks she's losing her mind. A convenient trip to the basement reveals some musty old newspaper articles and old home movies that lead her to Sofi (Jane Alexander), a woman in a nursing home who may hold the answers she's looking for and may have a personal connection with Casey's forgotten past.
Casey learns fairly early on that she was supposed to have a twin brother, but he died in their mother's womb. This somehow has ties to a demonic spirit that is trying to enter our world by means of possession. Apparently, the demon can enter any body it chooses (the kid next door whom Casey babysits, an old man at the nursing home, a priest, etc.), but for some reason, it has a personal grudge against Casey's family. It all has something to do with an event that happened to Sofi when she was a little girl in a Nazi concentration camp. Yes, that's right, this cheesy supernatural flick works the Holocaust into its plot. Fortunately for Casey, Sofi's been reading up on this demon, and can supply her and us the audience with all the information and musty old books we could ever want to fill in the plot holes. (Well, some of them. Most still remain open and gaping.) She also directs Casey to a local Rabbi (Gary Oldman, who I assume got a nice paycheck out of appearing in this. Either that, or a nice trailer where he could have privacy for long, sad talks with his agent in-between takes.), who can help her perform an exorcism to get rid of the spirit haunting her. The climactic exorcism scene has to be seen to be believed, as it seems to have been a personal challenge by Goyer to see how many bad religious horror cliches he could fit into a single scene.
I'm trying to make sense out of this movie while I write about it. Why does Casey react to plot developments like the neighbor kid being possessed by a demonic entity that wants to kill her and her friends with such casual indifference? Why does she strut around in her underwear in so many scenes to the point I felt like I was watching a Fruit of the Loom ad crossed with The Exorcist? When Sofi is being chased by an old man possessed by the demonic spirit through the retirement home late at night, where are there no staff members around? What did the bugs have to do with anything, and why did they keep on appearing? Is it really that easy to steal a massive, thousand-year-old book on demons from a library with no one noticing or asking questions? If the demon is possessing the neighbor kid, why is Casey the only one who notices? Wouldn't the boy's parents think something's up with Junior? ("Gee, I don't know, honey. Our son didn't used to stare ominously at everyone, and knife people in the stomach just for looking at him...") Why doesn't the Rabbi tell Casey about his encounter with the demonic dog with the upside down head that appears before him late one night? Why go on?...
