If Amelia does not completely work, it's not for lack of trying. This is a well-made film, with lots of beautiful shots and sequences. The sets and costumes are first rate, and the performances are memorable, especially the lead role from Hilary Swank. Her depiction of legendary female aviator, Amelia Earhart, instantly grabs our attention. She's spirited, lively, and manages to command every scene she's in. It certainly helps that she looks an awful lot like the real person, too. Her performance alone is enough to recommend the film.

But it's a reserved recommendation, due to the fact that the screenplay feels very pat and underdeveloped. In trying to tell the life story of Earhart (which was tragically and mysteriously cut short when she seemingly disappeared without a trace as she attempted to fly around the world), screenwriters Ron Bass (Snow Falling on Cedars) and Anna Hamilton Phelan (Girl, Interrupted) go for a very fragmented and "connect the dots" style of storytelling. We're kept at a constant distance from the characters, many of whom seem to fade in and out of the narrative with little rhyme or purpose. The movie works solely because of what's on the screen, not what's on the page. Were it not for Swank, Earhart would probably come across as being quite boring, as we learn so little about her. Aside from a brief flashback early on where we see Amelia as a child watching a plane fly overhead, and the fact that her father was an alcoholic, we learn nothing about her personally. The film kicks off with her already as an established pilot, and approaching publisher George Putnam (Richard Gere) to fly across the Atlantic, and write a book about it.

Amelia is upset to learn that the flight is more or less a publicity stunt. She won't actually be flying the plane, she'll be a passenger, but will take all the credit, and will then write a book about her experiences. Not long after the successful and historic flight, George begins to act more interested in Amelia personally, and even asks her to marry him. The problem is these scenes seem to come out of nowhere. We have no lead in to the relationship between the two, so it feels forced and artificial when she eventually accepts, like the script is just trying to move things along. Once again, it is the performances that save the day. Gere and Swank manage to salvage the imperfect material they've been given, and create some real chemistry together. You can only wonder what they could have done if their characters and their relationship were actually fleshed out. Amelia gains fame, and becomes even more famous when she actually does fly across the Atlantic solo and without assistance. The movie plows through Amelia's newfound fame, and begins to suggest a rift forming between Amelia and George. She thinks he's only interested in her public image and making money for them. This should have more dramatic weight than it does, but the movie treats it with such a timid manner.

Perhaps the relationship between Amelia and George would have had more weight if director Mira Nair (Vanity Fair) had not removed a crucial character, that of George's first wife, Dorothy Binney. It's been reported that actress Virginia Madsen played the character in earlier versions of the film, but she's been cut completely from the theatrical release, and no mention of her is ever made. What we do get is a potential affair between Amelia and the charming Gene Vidal (Ewen McGregor), a single father who catches Amelia's attention at a party, and their relationship grows, as she bonds with both him and his young son (William Cuddy). Once again, I was frustrated by how shallow the relationship comes across. There are hints that his boy brings out a maternal quality to Amelia that she can't have with George (why they can't have kids themselves, the movie never explains), but other than that, the attraction seems completely physical and hollow. Once again, we find ourselves at a distance, and not caring as much as we should. The love triangle that is supposed to provide the dramatic tension for most of the movie is so muted, it's impossible to truly feel anything.

It's an unfortunate problem that carries throughout Amelia, and makes what could have been an unforgettable epic into an enjoyable, but middle of the road bio-drama. As much as I was enjoying the performances of the lead stars, and the obvious effort that went into the sets, costumes, and special effects, I was never completely involved. It's hard to become involved when the characters are either thinly developed, or completely forgotten about. A good example is a young teenage pilot named Elinor Smith (Mia Wasikowska), who approaches Amelia early on, hoping to learn from her, and maybe surpass her. The scene sets her up to be an important part in the story, but she only appears in two or three other scenes after that, and she never manages to play any real part in the film itself. The movie forgets about her. Oddly enough, the one time we do care about the characters, the movie's almost over. It occurs during a scene late in the film, when Amelia and George are talking to each other over the radio the night before her fateful flight. Watch this scene, and you can definitely feel some emotion both in the performances of Swank and Gere, but also in their dialogue. If stuff like this had come earlier in the movie, I'd be giving it a more enthusiastic recommendation.
Looking back over this review, I've probably made it sound a lot worse than it actually is. Besides the performances, there are some stunning stand-alone scenes, the main standout being a beautiful sequence where Amelia takes First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt (Cherry Jones) on a night time flight over Washington D.C. It's scenes like this that make you wish Amelia was a better movie than it is. You can constantly see greatness within its grasp, but it oddly decides to shy away. Still, the way the movie handles the inevitable ending is done very well. It's mysterious and heartfelt. If the movie had spent even more time with the characters, the ending probably would have stood out even more.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

Much like the man himself, This Is It will be a very polarizing experience for audiences. Those who were grief stricken with the sudden and unexpected death of the King of Pop on June 25th of this year will no doubt be overjoyed to get one last glimpse of the man in action. It's likely to be a joyous and sad experience all at once, and will most likely resonate with them. There's a reason why the words "For the Fans" appears before the movie even starts.

I'll admit up front, this movie was not made for me. I acknowledge Jackson's place in music history, and am all too willing to admit his talent, and the fact that he was a master showman. There is no doubt of this while you're watching the film. All the reports of him being sick and frail during his final days pretty much fly out the window when you watch the rehearsal footage that has been collected of what was supposed to be both his grand comeback and his farewell tour. He's dedicated to his music, and to giving his fans a show they most likely wouldn't forget had they gotten a chance to see it. We get to see glimpses of what Jackson had planned, including elaborate film sequences, one of which inserts Jackson into clips from famous black and white gangster films, as a set up to his "Smooth Criminal" number. For "Thriller", his crew designed an elaborate 3D movie and interactive experience for the audience. From what we get to see of the original film, it looks like it would have been quite something to see. (Although, one can't help but feel a bit weirded out at the sight of Jackson dancing amongst the "undead dancers" up on stage.) The film allows us a chance to see some of Jackson's elaborate vision, his musical prowess, and...Well, not much else.

The film's director is Kenny Ortega (High School Musical 3: Senior Year), who was also directing and designing the actual concert itself. You would think this would lead to a rather intimate portrayal of Jackson himself, or just what goes into making such an elaborate show, but strangely, we're left at a complete distance the entire time. We never truly get the personal views of the man himself. Jackson comments on a couple things he doesn't like, or says a few words to his band or backup dancers, but other than this, we never truly get to hear from him. He's treated almost like an enigma, as if the people working around him are scared to get too close. They gush lavish praise about him every chance they get, but there's no real intimacy that one would expect working on a show such as this. There's never a sense that we are getting a true behind the scenes look at what could have been. Rather, we are watching spliced together footage of various rehearsal periods. It's one song after another, with no time for personal reflection or thoughts. The most we ever get to hear from Jackson is during his "Earth Song" number, where we hear him talking about the environment, and how we have to save the Earth before it's too late. Too bad it sounds like he's reading off of a script, so we still don't feel like we're actually listening to him.

All of this makes This Is It into an oddity of a film. It is not a documentary, nor is it really a deep or insightful look into Michael Jackson. It's also not a reflection on his career, as the movie is stuck at one moment in time. It is simply a concert film made up of unfinished footage. Fans are likely to be enthralled, but it dragged a little me. There is no behind the scenes info, nothing we couldn't learn about the concert that a five minute advertisement for it could not tell us, and curiously enough, no information on how Jackson's sudden death impacted the people involved. The ending is quite abrupt, as the movie just seems to stop, flash a brief "in memory" message, and then roll the credits. I understand that this movie is intended as a celebration of Jackson's music, but at the same time, a little bit of emotion would have been appreciated. No matter how impressive some of the musical numbers are staged, it never overcomes the overall hollow feeling that the movie carries with it.
So, yes, I agree when the opening titles say that this movie is for the fans. They're the only ones that need apply, or are likely to get any emotional response out of it. This Is It shows us that Michael Jackson still had what made him famous, but doesn't bother to dig any deeper than that. That should be enough for certain people. It wasn't for me.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

1 comments

The opening half hour of Astro Boy did not fill me with confidence. It seemed to be trying to be a more kid friendly take on Steven Spielberg's 2001 sci-fi drama, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, only not as interesting. The story kicks off in Metro City, a floating metropolis that hovers in the sky over the Earth, which has mainly been rendered uninhabitable due to years of pollution. (There are a few human scavengers who refuse to live in Metro, and stay on the surface.) We learn in the film's opening scene that robots pretty much do everything in the City, and when they break down or are no longer needed, are sent to the ground below where a massive scrap heap awaits.

One of the leading robot designers is Dr. Tenma (voiced by a somewhat subdued Nicolas Cage), who along with fellow scientist Dr. Elefun (Bill Nighy) has discovered two powerful forms of energy that can power machines - One energy is positive (it glows blue), the other is negative (red). The energies have been created to power a massive battle robot that Metro City's crooked ruler, a war general named President Stone (Donald Sutherland), wants to use to initiate a war with the people on the surface world below in order to boost his sagging poll numbers. He perhaps unwisely places the negative energy into the war machine, and the thing goes on a rampage. In the ensuing carnage, Dr. Tenma's 10-year-old son Toby (Freddy Highmore) is killed. Grief stricken over his loss, Tenma sets about creating a robotic replica of his son, complete with programmed memories of Toby's past, so that it will be as close to the real thing as possible. The robo boy turns out to be a remarkable recreation of the real thing (except for the added weapons Tenma decided to add for defense purposes, such as jet boots that allow him to fly, and hidden guns that come out of his arms and even his rear end), but the doctor realizes too late that he can never truly replace his son, no matter how perfect the replica is. His creation brings him nothing but pain, and he eventually disowns it.

Up to this point, Astro Boy wasn't really clicking with me. The story was moving along too quickly, and despite some obvious attempts at heartfelt drama, I wasn't feeling anything. When the robot child (who is eventually given the name Astro by his metallic peers) leaves Metro City and goes into exile on the surface world below, the movie starts to find a faster, funnier, and more action-heavy groove. Astro befriends a group of orphaned kids who live in the ruins of the old civilization. They search the scrap heaps for discarded robot parts that they can use in their own creations. Chief amongst the kids is Cora (Kristen Bell), a feisty girl who begins to develop a crush on Astro, thinking he's a human who's been forgotten by Metro City like they are. The kids work for a guy named Ham Egg, whose appearance seems to be modeled after the actor who voices him, Nathan Lane. Ham hosts a gladiator-like event where robots are forced to fight in duels to the death. When he discovers that Astro is not human, he forces the robo child to battle other deadly mechanical creations.

The gladiator battle is the first real indication of the movie's fast-paced and well-edited action sequences. Director David Bowers (Flushed Away) really uses full use of the freedom of animated movement, giving us spectacular action set pieces that would be way too expensive and/or impossible to pull off in a live action film. After he wins the tournament and escapes from Ham Egg, Astro and the kids head back to Metro City to do battle with President Stone, who has gone mad with power, been absorbed by his own robot, and is now threatening innocent people. I didn't really understand the whole robot absorbing the President thing. It happens so quickly, and then the robot suddenly starts taking on Stone's personality. I may not have gotten it, but once again, the action-based climactic fight between Astro and the giant robot impressed me enough. That's the kind of movie Astro Boy is. It'd be going about it's business, not really impressing me, and then it'd hit a moment of inspiration that would grab my attention.

At least the movie's nice to look at all the way through. It has a very clean, brightly colored, and rounded look to the characters and the futuristic settings. The character designs are pretty faithful to the original drawings of Osamu Tezuka, who originally created the Astro Boy character in a highly successful Japanese manga and anime back in the 60s. (There are even some hidden jokes and references for fans to look out for.) Mostly though, the movie will mainly appeal to kids, especially young boys, in the 8-10 age range. They might be able to identify with the little robot feeling like he doesn't fit in anywhere, and being shunned or misunderstood by adult figures around him. And they'll certainly like the scenes where Astro gets to use his fun hidden powers to combat robots that are 10 times bigger than him. As for the adults in the audience, they might laugh at some of the jokes. I liked the "robot revolution", which was made up of three robots (one of whom is a talking refrigerator), and want to overthrow and destroy humans. The only problem is they can't disobey the rule of robotics that say they can't harm people, so they choose to merely annoy them. Their master plan involves a feather for which they will tickle humans.
One final note: It's too bad the movie is not getting a release in 3D, as a lot of the action sequences certainly seem to call out for it, as if the filmmakers were hoping to use the current technology. Nonetheless, Astro Boy is mildly entertaining for adults, and should be a blast for kids the right age. Don't go in expecting any more.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

As someone who actually enjoyed the first three Saw films (and thought the series should have stopped there), the slapdash and convoluted plotting of the last two entries disheartened me. Saw VI has now arrived, and while it's not a complete return to form, it is definitely a step in the right direction of what made the original films work. The pacing is tighter and tenser here, and the traps and games set up by the diabolical Jigsaw seem much more imaginative than in the last two. If only returning writers Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton could get over their love of dragged out, soap opera-style flashbacks and dialogue.

One of the interesting things about this latest entry is how it grabs its plot from the headlines, dealing with unscrupulous mortgage lenders and unfeeling health insurance providers as the central targets of the madman this time around. It adds an interesting touch of social commentary that the last two films were missing. Picking up where Saw V left off, FBI Agent Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) continues to carry on the work of the now-deceased original Jigsaw killer, John Kramer (Tobin Bell). Hoffman has successfully killed and managed to frame fellow Agent Strahm for his crimes, only to learn that head investigators Erickson (Mark Rolston) and Perez (Athena Karkanis) have their doubts that Strahm was the new Jigsaw, and are getting close to the true identity. Meanwhile, Jigsaw's latest "game" has been set in motion, with the crooked head of Umbrella Health Care, William Easton (Peter Outerbridge) forced to participate in a series of deadly tests. He will have to decide the fate of his fellow employees, and possibly even his family, as he decides who will live and who will die.

Series editor Kevin Greutert makes his directorial debut here, and he does a much better job of keeping the story and the action moving than the past two attempts. It certainly helps that the tension has been stepped up with some truly clever traps here, the two main standouts being a maze set in a boiler room, and a deadly carousel where six of Easton's employees are about to die, and he must choose two of them who will live. These scenes come the closest to recapturing the original tension of the earlier films. The only thing holding it back is the familiarity. After six movies, it cannot have the same effect it once did, no matter how well done it is. Walking home from this movie, I thought of watching Paranormal Activity yesterday, and how it seemed like an exciting experience. Because the Saw movies have pretty much been employing the same formula for six years straight, Saw VI seems like old hat, while being an improvement at the same time. It leaves a curious feeling on the viewer.

For all of its improvements, the narrative is still overly complex and filled with one too many flashbacks. The dialogue is filled with so much exposition (whenever a character brings up a name, it is usually followed by an explanation, reminding the audience what role they played in a previous film) it borders on parody. There are also enough past secrets, backstabbings, and dramatic reveals to fill an entire season of a daytime soap opera. Chief amongst them is the subplot concerning the widow of John Kramer (Betsy Russell), whose role in the story is finally revealed when we learn the contents of the mysterious box that her husband left to her in his will. I started to wish that the screenwriters would just simplify things. (I haven't even mentioned how the reporter who's been sensationalizing the Jigsaw murders works into the plot, or the trapped family who have become part of Jigsaw's game.) Some better dialogue would be welcome, too.
Still, I have to admit, Saw VI comes the closest to working since the original trilogy came to a close. There's a surprise in the end that genuinely caught me off guard (and in a good way, for once), and a couple scenes that are surprisingly honest, especially the ones dealing with the policies of the health care office. While I still think the franchise is long past its prime, this one manages to stand out just a little more.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

I walked into Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant with interest. I was intrigued by the film's ad campaign, I liked the director and screenwriters, and the actors present in the film promised a lot of fun. The film started, and even then, I was still in good spirits in a while. The creature and effects work appealed to me, and I was interested in where the story was going. It was about the 40 minute mark or so of the film that the movie started to test my patience. What starts as something imaginative and fun, soon derails into what seems to be a cross between a special effects demo, and an elaborate and overlong set up for numerous sequels.

Coming home from the film, I looked up some information on the series of books that inspired it, and learned that writer-director Paul Weitz (American Dreamz) and co-writer Brian Helgeland (2009's The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3) based their screenplay on the first three novels in the popular young adult gothic-comedy action series. This explains a lot, as the movie seems to have more ideas and characters then it knows what to do with. I felt lost at times. The story seems to speed along, throwing stuff at us like a war between Vampires (those who sip just enough blood from humans to live, but leave their victims alive) and Vampaneze (those who fully embrace their bloodlust, and murder humans mercilessly in order to feed), but never really slowing down long enough for us to get involved or to even care. And like I said, the whole movie ends up being a set up for future movies. Nothing gets resolved, and there's nothing on the screen that will make audiences long for more. I find it funny that the director's brother, Chris Weitz, tried the same thing when he made 2007's The Golden Compass, another movie based on a series of novels that failed because it was all one big set up for further sequels which never got made. Another funny thing; Chris Weitz is directing a competing vampire film - next month's Twilight sequel, New Moon.

But, like I said, things start out interesting enough. Our guide through this world of Vampires, Vampaneze, and freaks is Darren Shan (Chris Massoglia). He's popular, and a bit of an overachieving teen, which comes mostly from the fact that his strict and overly protective parents constantly force him to do his best with a chant of the three things he should strive for in life - "college, career, family". Darren's best friend is Steve (Josh Hutcherson), a rebel bad boy who convinces Darren to sneak away from home one night and visit a traveling freak show that has come to town. The boys are fascinated by the different creatures they see on display, which include a snake boy who's a wannabe indie rock star (Patrick Fugit), a man with two stomachs (Frankie Faison), and a bearded lady (Selma Hayek). What interests the two friends the most, though, is the show's deadly spider trainer, Larten Crepsley (John C. Reilly). Steve recognizes Larten from a painting in one of his books about vampires, and thinks he's the same guy from the book. Through a series of events too complicated to summarize, Darren and Steve sneak backstage, Steve suffers a possibly fatal bite from Larten's spider, and Darren is given the opportunity by Larten to be made a vampire and his personal assistant, in exchange for the antidote that will save Steve's life.

Now that Darren is a "half-vampire" (he can walk in daylight without harm), he's forced to give up the life he once knew, fake his own death, and spend eternity with Larten and his traveling circus of freaks. It's not so bad, though. The creatures are generally good people, at least they are immediately accepting of Darren. We never learn anything about them really, so they often come across as walking special effects played by likable actors. He even gets to strike up a shy relationship with a "monkey girl" (Jessica Carlson), probably because she's the most human looking of most of the freaks, despite the fact she has a tail which she mainly tries to keep hidden. As Darren tries to come to terms with his new life as a vampire, and the prospect of drinking blood, another plot line enters the picture. The evil Vampaneze, who are led by a guy named Mr. Tiny (Michael Cerveris), who bears a striking physical resemblance to the Marvel Comics villain, The Kingpin, and is trying to break the truce between the two vampiric races for reasons that are kind of murky and underdeveloped. Tiny sets his plan into motion by making Steve one of them, and turns him against his former best friend, Darren. As all this was building, and the freaks seemed to play little to no role at all, I started to wonder why the movie needed the freaks in the first place.

That's a big problem for a movie called Cirque du Freak. This is an ungainly, overstuffed film that doesn't explain enough for us to get involved. I really wanted to like this movie. It's attractive to look at, and the performances are there, but the characters are usually thinly drawn. This should come as no surprise, seeing as the story moves by at a rapid pace, tossing ideas and plot lines left and right, but not sticking around long enough for any of them to have an impact on us. And when we do get an explanation, it's usually equally quickly explained and handled in a very sloppy manner. This was a big surprise to me, considering that I have greatly enjoyed many of the past works of writers Weitz and Helgeland. I've obviously not read the books, so I cannot say how faithful the film is to them, or how much got cut out of the adaptation. Still, a movie such as this should work even if you have not read the books, such as the Harry Potter films. I felt lost a lot watching this. Lost, but not quite interested enough to look into the books to find out what I may have missed.
That's not to say it's unwatchable. There's promise here, but not enough to make you want to see more. Unfortunately, that's the whole point of The Vampire's Assistant. As hopeful as the filmmakers seem that this will spring forth a number of profitable sequels, I have a feeling that this will be joining the previously mentioned The Golden Compass and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events as films that just didn't go far enough to launch into the desired franchise.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

Micah (Micah Sloat) and Katie (Katie Featherston) are a young couple who seem to have a bright future ahead of them. They've recently moved into their first house, and have plans for marriage. Before that, however, they want to take care of something that's been bothering them since they've moved in. Late at night, strange things seem to happen. Lights flicker on and off, a loud banging or scratching sound can be heard from within the walls, and certain small objects (such as keys) are in different places when they wake up then they were when they went to bed the night before. Micah buys a video camera and microphone set up, hoping to capture whatever goes on when they're asleep.

This is the simple set up to Paranormal Activity, an ingenious little horror film that plays upon our natural fears of the dark and the unknown. We witness what happens when Micah and Katie are asleep. We also witness the mounting tension between the couple as whoever or whatever is in their house begins to take its toll on them. The incidents that occur in the middle of the night start out small, but increase in intensity. So does the film itself. I don't remember the last time I was this involved or this on edge watching a horror film. The movie is masterful in how it plays upon our fears and our expectations. Even when things seem relatively calm, there is a constant mounting sense of dread. We feel it, and so do the characters. When the film starts out, Micah treats the whole thing more like an adventure. He's actually curious about the bizarre things going on in their home, and wants to capture them on film. Katie is more apprehensive, and she has good reason to, as she's had past experiences with this sort of thing. She's afraid Micah might anger whatever is in their house if he goes too far. It's the first signs of a feeling of helplessness that grows stronger as the nights pass.

The movie has already made a lot of press of how writer-director Oren Peli shot this film in his own home, during the course of a single week, for a budget that's less than some Hollywood studios probably spend on catering their projects. The movie was a big hit on the festival circuit, fell into the hands of Paramount Pictures and Steven Spielberg, who have released the film virtually untouched, except for a new ending that was created at the advice of Spielberg. One of the brilliant things about the film is the illusion of reality it creates. It's done in a documentary style, similar to 1999's The Blair Witch Project. But unlike that film (or other recent "docu-horror" films like Quarantine and Cloverfield), there are no credits at the beginning and ending here. Not only does this help with the illusion that we are watching live video, but it creates a sense of dread in the viewer after the last scene has cut to black. There's no music or credits to bring us back to reality.

This is not the only way that Peli shows his skill in manipulating the audience. Since we are watching the entire film through the eyes of the camera, we can only see what it sees. What we do see is enough to frighten us, but sometimes it's what's lurking just outside our field of vision that scares us the most. Paranormal Activity creates an aura of gripping tension, in a day and age when most Hollywood horror films are starting to resemble self-parodies. When we do get to see some of the strange events going on in the house during the night, it is effective both in frightening us, and on a technical level. At first, we almost find ourselves scared for the sleeping couple in the bed, who are usually not even aware of what is going on around them. But then, we try to think of how the effect is being accomplished, especially on such a low budget. Clever editing was obviously the key to most of the film's memorable scares, but it's still impressive. Once again, we are pulled into the illusion of reality. The only time we're pulled out is with the arrival of a psychic (Mark Fredrichs), who serves mainly as an exposition device, and also brings with him a plot hole that threatens to derail the whole venture.

But we stay intrigued, because the movie so successfully keeps us on edge. Even when it falters, we never lose our interest. The small cast of actors seem honest here, and seem to genuinely believe that their lives are in danger. This is important in a movie such as this, as if we ever seem to think that they are "acting", the spell of the film would be broken. Paranormal Activity goes for broke, and doesn't let up. Some have accused the movie of being too slow paced for mainstream horror audiences, but it does such a good job of bringing us inside its world and into the lives of its characters, I never felt the movie dragged. I cared more about Micah and Katie than I did the campers in Blair Witch. This, combined with the effective scare moments, are what got me so involved. I don't know if it would work as well on repeat viewings, but sitting in that theater, I was completely sold.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not recommending this movie just on the experience alone. I genuinely believe that it's an effective thriller, one of the more effective ones to come along in years. It certainly unnerved me more than psychotic orphan girls and the umpteenth return of Jigsaw. Paranormal Activity is the kind of movie that leaves you feeling tense, even when you know things are okay. It doesn't need to rely on cheap jump tactics. Once the movie gets under your skin, it stays there long after it's over.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

It's movies like this that make me glad I don't rate movies on a traditional grading scale. I wouldn't even know how to rate something like this. I don't know if I'll be able to review it. Law Abiding Citizen is absurd, ludicrous, exploitive, ridiculous, and increasingly over the top. The entire cast deserves awards for making it through some of these scenes with a straight face. And yet, I can't deny that I was entertained on some level. It certainly held my interest, and I was never bored watching it.

The story kicks off with a family man named Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) sharing a tender family moment with his adorable daughter, while his loving wife cooks dinner in the next room. Less than a minute later, two thugs burst in through the front door, beat and tie up Clyde, and then murder his wife, as well as the little girl. All this happens (I think, I could be wrong) before the film's title pops up on the screen. Flash forward to an unknown amount of time later. A rising young high powered lawyer named Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) cuts a deal where one of the thugs testifies against the other. The thug who testifies gets five years in prison on a minor charge, while the other gets the death sentence. This does not sit well with Clyde, as the thug getting the five years is Clarence Darby (Christian Stolte), the man who actually murdered his wife and daughter. (The one going to death row mainly stood and watched.) We get a sense that Nick is not comfortable making the deal, but he needs to protect his record of successful cases won, as he doesn't feel Clyde would make a good witness at the trial, seeing that he passed out after Clarence tied and beat him. The deal is made, and Clyde walks away fuming that justice has not been served.

We flash forward again 10 years later, and Clyde comes out of personal seclusion to begin seeking his own brand of justice. First he rigs it so that the execution of the thug who got the death sentence goes wrong, and the criminal suffers during the lethal injection process. Next, he kidnaps Clarence Darby, takes him to an abandoned factory, and proceeds to torture him by cutting off his limbs one-by-one while the helpless sleaze lies paralyzed. When Clyde is torturing the killer, it takes a superhuman effort not to think of the maniacal Jigsaw from the Saw movies, especially when Clyde uses a voice synthesizer to distort his voice at one point. Clyde makes no effort to hide his responsibility. He even sends a video of Clarence's murder to the home of Nick Rice. Nick is now a family man himself, with a wife (Regina Hall) and young daughter (Emerald-Angel Young) of his own. Clyde is quickly arrested, but this is all part of his plan. As Nick tries to probe Clyde's mind during prison interviews, he begins to realize that the man is not only out for revenge on a system he feels wronged him, but that he also has everything under his control.

If you've seen the ad campaign, you know that Clyde is somehow targeting and killing different people, even though he's locked away in a prison cell. All of the victims have close ties either to Nick, or to the original deal that gave Clarence Darby a minor sentence ten years ago. Law Abiding Citizen could have tackled some thorny issues involving morality and vigilantism, but it goes for a far more simpler and exploitive approach. My favorite moment occurs when Nick is having a meeting with the judge who originally ruled over the Darby sentence. The judge's cell phone rings while they are talking, she answers it, and she is suddenly killed when a tiny but powerful gun hidden within the cell phone literally splatters her against the wall. Nick reacts to this with what I can only call serious aplomb. More people connected to Nick start turning up dead, mainly during a sequence where a number of his legal partners and assistants are killed in a massive string of car bomb explosions. Soon, the entire city of Philadelphia is feeling threatened by Clyde, since no one can figure out how he is pulling this off from solitary confinement. I will not spoil the answer, because it's just too good. It's so implausible, it will have everyone in the audience trying to figure out how he pulled it off even after they learn how he pulled it off.

As I'm sure you've figured out by now, this movie is about as subtle as a major car accident on the highway. So, why was it so hard for me to get a direct response? Well, just like the extraordinary car accident it resembles, you want to look away but you can't. The movie is manipulative, but controlled. It knows just how far to push so that we react. It's also surprisingly well made. Butler is menacing, without ever having to really create an actual character. Aside from the opening scene, and a sequence halfway through the film where Nick gets some information on Clyde's past that hints at how he knows how to kill so well, we don't learn much about him. Jamie Foxx may be slumming it a little here, but at least he doesn't show it that much. The whole cast handles this material about as good as could be expected, and the movie itself moves at a good pace. And honestly, I was kind of enjoying the absurdity of it all until the last 20 minutes or so. Not only do we get an unsatisfactory reveal, but we get a climax that unsuccessfully tries to cram in massive, bloody violence with a final scene that would be right at home in a Disney family comedy, and comes right out of the blue.
So yeah, Law Abiding Citizen isn't a great, or even a good movie. It's cinematic junk food, and on that level, it's enjoyable for most of its running time. It didn't quite grab me in that guilty pleasure sort of way that G.I. Joe did this past summer, though. So, I guess I'm kind of torn down the middle on this one. Let's leave it at that.

See related merchandise at Amazon.com!

0 comments

The last time director Nelson McCormick and screenwriter J.S. Cardone teamed up to do a thriller, we got 2008's remake of Prom Night, one of the worst horror films of that year. They're back with another remake, this time of The Stepfather - a cult classic from the mid 80s that's mainly remembered for launching the career of actor Terry O'Quinn from TV's Lost. The key difference between the original and the 2009 version? The original is remembered for launching a career, while everyone involved with this take on the story will probably be removing it from their resumes as quickly as possible.

To be fair, this is a much better movie than Prom Night. That movie depressed the hell out of me, while I found this one to be merely bland and mediocre all around. Just like the original, this movie is about a man on a psychotic and insane quest to find the perfect family. He passes himself off as a guy who is trying to move on after his wife and daughter died in a car accident the previous year. He uses this story to pick up lonely single mothers who are visibly getting tired of raising the kids on their own, and want a man to bring stability into their lives. The psycho moves in, passing himself off as a perfect father who stresses the importance of family above all else. Naturally, cracks begin to eventually show in the family. Either the kids start acting up, or his new wife disappoints him in some way. When this happens, he slaughters the entire family, changes his appearance, and then moves on to another family. The film opens with a home decorated for Christmas, and the man shaving and showering, while his previous family all lay dead in the living room. Because the movie is PG-13, it's probably the neatest and tidiest massacre ever captured on film. There's not a single trace of blood on the victims or the room itself. Despite this, we get a scene immediately afterward with cops discussing the crime scene, and saying it was one of the bloodiest sights they've ever seen. I guess they got to see the Unrated Director's Cut of the crime scene.

O'Quinn played the psycho in the original film, and gave a very complex performance, that was simultaneously unnerving and creepy, but also eerily sympathetic in some way. For the remake, we get Dylan Walsh from TV's Nip/Tuck. Walsh plays his character, David Harris, as your typical bland slasher villain. He has the ability to pop up anywhere at a moments notice (accompanied by a jolting sound on the soundtrack), and no matter how hard he tries to stare menacingly at people, he never comes across as being intimidating. David's latest victim is single mother, Susan Harding (Sela Ward). Susan's having a hard time keeping her kids in line, especially eldest son Michael (Penn Badgley, who I hear is popular on the show Gossip Girl, but here displays all the character and charisma of a hunk of wood). Michael's just returned home from a stint at a military school, and wants to try to rebuild his life. When he comes home and sees his mom has a new boyfriend, he's not happy. David seems to be trying too hard to be nice, and there seems to be something off about him. Michael tries to talk about his concerns with his girlfriend, Kelly (Amber Heard), but she doesn't want him causing any trouble, since she's afraid he'll be shipped off to military school again.

Let's talk about Kelly for a moment. She never comes across as a real character, but instead for something for the guys in the audience to look at. Nearly every scene has Ms Heard running about in a revealing swimsuit, undergarments, or some form of outfit that covers up just enough for the MPAA to give the film a teen-friendly rating, but draws plenty of attention to her half-naked figure. Michael also gets plenty of chances to show off his body, since he has a passion for swimming in the backyard pool. At least Heard seems capable of displaying human emotion. As Michael, Penn Badgley seems to struggle when he has to show any emotion other than stone-faced indifference. There's an unintentionally funny scene where Badgley has to produce a single tear to run from his eye, and the amount of time it takes him to produce said tear seems to take much longer than it should. Even when Michael starts snooping around for information on mom's new boyfriend, he never seems all that concerned. Because of this, The Stepfather never creates any real tension.

Not that it could create much tension to start with. The movie is gutless all around. When David starts killing people who get too close to figuring out his secret, such as the old lady across the street who recognizes him on America's Most Wanted, or Susan's lesbian sister (Paige Turco), the movie really starts to show its complete lack of knowledge when it comes to suspense. The stalking scenes are clumsily paced and edited. Even when the scenes fall back on tired old thriller cliches (the screeching cat flying at the victim from off camera right before the killer shows up), it falls flat. The figure jumping out of the shadows may be overused, but it can still get an effective jump out of an audience if done right. Not here. Nothing is done right. The performances are wooden, the pacing is tepid and off, and even the cinematography and camera work is bland.
Could a Stepfather remake have worked? Possibly, if the filmmakers were willing to put a fresh spin on the material. I felt like we were getting a downgrade here. Everything that was memorable before is muted. This begs the question, why even remake a movie if you're going to make it more forgettable? Something tells me that was the last question on anyone's mind when they were making this. Maybe if someone had stopped and asked, we'd have a better movie.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

It's not surprising to learn during the course of Michael Moore's latest film that he wanted to be a priest at one point when he was a child. The guy is so passionate about what he talks about, it's easy to picture him as a preacher whipping his followers up into a frenzy. His films are angry rants that reflect his view. There's little if any chance for an outside opinion. I've come to accept this, and know what to expect. His latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, takes aim at the greed that Moore sees on Wall Street and within the government, and how he feels it is slowly destroying America.

He lets you know what he thinks right off the bat, by playing the narration from an old educational film about the fall of the Roman Empire over clips of recent government and financial figures that he feels are leading or has led America to the downward depths. From there, he shows us various families who have had their homes foreclosed over the past year, and are now left to wonder just what went wrong. Whatever you may think of Moore's opinions, you cannot deny that the guy truly believes in what he puts up on the screen, and that a lot of his stuff comes from his heart. He's not going after one man, as in Fahrenheit 9/11, or a certain group, as in Sicko. This time, he seems to be rallying behind the people, and trying to inspire anger within them. Sure, he does this in just about every film he's made, but here, he seems a lot angrier than usual. It harkens back to his debut film, Roger and Me, where he showed the exploits of blue collar workers who were the victims of white collar crooks. This time, he's rallying everyone to question the very nature of Capitalism itself, which he truly feels is evil, and is decaying moral values.

There is no doubt that this is a movie that will inspire conversation by anyone who sees it. Whether you agree or not with what you saw, it will fuel personal fires within its audience. This is a great movie to see with a group of people, and discuss afterward. One of the interesting things about Moore's Capitalism is that no political figure is safe. In his opinion, from the Reagan years on, the American government has been fleecing the public and robbing them blind. This includes key Democrats like Clinton, as well as House and Senate Democratic figures like Pelosi and Reid. One of his personal favorite targets, George W. Bush, gets some heat as well, especially for his part in the bank bailouts last year. Mostly, though, you get the sense that Moore is angry at the system in general, and everyone involved. There is less grandstanding from Moore this time around, as well. He lets the political figures and regular people speak for themselves. But he's still not afraid to add his own spin on things, such as when he comically ridicules Bush's use of fear tactics.

He's also not afraid to show his usual bias and favoritism. He neglects to mention that Barak Obama was for the bailout, although he did call it "distasteful but necessary". Instead, he views the current President as a reform figure, whom the people at Wall Street tried to silence by throwing money around. The fact that Moore does not really try to back up these claims makes us feel that we are listening to opinion, rather than fact. The sequences covering Obama are actually the weakest in the film, as they seem to be handled with the most restraint. Moore had been so acidic and direct in attacking both sides up to this point, and had more or less taken the gloves off, so to speak. Here, the gloves go back on, until it's time to turn attention away from the President. It's an all-too obvious tactic, and one that takes away from some of the power the film generates.

Fortunately, it does not dilute the effectiveness of Capitalism that much. The film is one of Moore's better recent efforts, and he mostly seems to be on his game here. Once again, he expertly mixes humor and anger just about better than anyone out there. He also mainly stays behind the camera, and lets the story tell itself. Aside from a stunt he pulls late in the film, where he visits various corporate headquarters for banks, and tries to make a "citizen's arrest" and tries to get the taxpayer's money back, the focus is not on him. The focus remains on families that have suffered the past year, people who discovered too late that the companies they worked for took life insurance policies out on them and their loved ones, and an overall damning argument of how political and corporate greed has taken over moral decency. Moore is clearly mad as hell, and with this movie, he wants us to be mad as well.
Whatever you may think of Moore's views, or of Moore himself, this is an effective film, and one that should be seen. It's hard to deny the questions that it asks. He doesn't give us all the answers, and he doesn't always ask the right questions, but he is certain to inspire a lot of people to ask questions they may not have thought of before seeing the film. That, in its own way, is something special.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

The journey that Where the Wild Things Are took to the big screen is almost complex enough to be a movie itself. After two different studios (the project started at Universal, then moved to Warner Bros.), and behind the scenes turmoil that literally delayed the film for years, I wasn't really sure what was going to end up on the screen. What we did get is an incredibly original and poignant film. Despite the kid-friendly ad campaign, and the fact it's based on the beloved storybook by Maurice Sendak, I think adults will take more away from this movie than accompanying children.

And yet, one of the pleasures of this movie is how it understands childhood. Its young hero Max (Max Records) is creative, rambunctious, curious, disruptive, and a seeming rage of confused emotions. In other words, he's a 10-year-old boy. He is slowly just starting to understand the world around him, but there's still too much immaturity within him in order to grasp it all. When his older sister Claire (Pepita Emmerichs) would prefer to hang out with her older friends, than play with him in the snow fort he built in the front yard, he takes it as a personal insult. The anger he feels when those friends proceed to destroy his fort in a game of roughhousing gone too far also seems to confuse him. He lashes out furiously by barging into his sister's empty room, and taking his frustrations out physically on everything he sees around him. When he stops and sees what he's done, he seems shocked by his own actions. There's a lot he doesn't understand. He doesn't understand why his single mother (Catherine Keener) would rather spend time with her new boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo) than with him. He also doesn't understand when the teacher at school talks about the possibility of the sun one day dying out. Max doesn't have anyone to confide these feelings of anger and confusion, so he relies on imagination.

All of this is told with minimal dialogue during the film's opening scenes. Writer-director Spike Jonze (Adaptation), along with co-writer Dave Eggers (Away We Go), allows us to see the situation the way Max does. We don't have all the answers, just like he does not. We don't know what happened to his dad, but we can tell by the way Max looks at the one reminder of him in his bedroom that the pain of losing his father is still there. The story that is told here is an honest and simple one. Even when Max escapes into the world of his imagination after having a blow out with his mother during an important dinner date for her, the film remains limited in scope. There is no great adventure, and no great crisis that Max must confront, other than to face his own fears and insecurities. If this all sounds awfully thoughtful and reflective for a family film, you'd be right. I imagine some kids might find themselves restless watching this, but this is still a movie of countless wonders. After Max blows up at his mom, he runs away from home, and finds a discarded boat that takes him to an island of his own imagination - the island of the Wild Things, who each represent a different aspect of Max's personality, or his understanding of the world.

The creature that Max confides in the most is Carol (voice by James Gandolfini), a gentle giant of a monster who shares Max's shy optimism, and dreams of creating a perfect world where there is no pain. He also shares the boy's quick-fire temper. He is prone to brief, destructive outbursts, and is sad by the fact that fellow Wild Thing K.W. (voice by Lauren Ambrose) would rather run off and hang out with her cool new friends, whom he has never met or seen. When he does finally meet her friends, and discovers they are simply owls, he is at a loss as to understand what she sees in them instead of him. He doesn't even understand what they are saying, although others seem to. It is reflective of Max's feelings of confusion toward his sister's friends, and how their ways seem so different to them. Amongst the other Wild Things, there is Judith (voice by Catherine O'Hara), who is moody and a self-described "downer", the bird-like Douglas (voice by Chris Cooper), who seems to represent Max's desire for order in a world that is increasingly becoming chaotic to him, Alexander the goat creature (voice by Paul Dano), who is shy and has come to accept the fact that no one notices or pays attention to him, and Ira (voice by Forest Whitaker) who seems to go out of his way to avoid confrontations and make peace.

The Wild Things themselves are brought to live by costumes and animatronics supplied by the Jim Henson Creature Shop, and computer animation for the faces and more complex movements. It's quite seamless, and we eventually stop trying to tell when it's real and when it's computer generated, and just start accepting the creatures for living beings. These are complex characters, not just walking special effects to amuse the kids. They all have surprisingly complex personalities, especially lead Wild Thing Carol. He is tender and understanding toward Max, but we can see a lot of anger and frustration underneath. He wants to keep his "family" together, especially with K.W. running off to be with her friends, and hopes that making Max their king will help bring them together. When cracks begin to show in his plan, Carol does not know how to react, and begins lashing out violently. It's not just Gandolfini's wonderful voice performance that brings Carol to life, but the effects on display. This is easily the most seamless blend of physical and digital effects I've seen in a long time. All of the creatures that inhabit the island of Max's imagination are surprisingly human, since the screenplay gives them all their own personal story arcs. None of them feel underused, and they all get an opportunity to endear themselves to us.

It's surprising that Where the Wild Things Are works as a complex human drama. It's even more surprising that it works as a simple tale of discovery. For all of its imaginative creatures, Jonze wisely plays it fairly small scale, and keeps Max's tale of self-discovery at the center at all times. There is no villain to threaten our heroes. The worst thing that happens is something every child fears - broken bonds of family and friendship. There is a certain melancholy tone to the film itself, and other than the creatures that inhabit the island, few wondrous sights to distract us. The Wild Things live on an island that seems to be comprised of a barren forest and vast deserts. It gives the film the sense of traveling somewhere far away, while at the same time staying within the confines of our world. This is not a fairy tale kingdom Max escapes to, but rather a far away place where no one can find him, until he wants to be found. It's perhaps reflective of the fact that Max is still young enough to dream up monsters as playmates, but getting old enough to realize that magic itself does not exist.
I greatly enjoyed this movie, but have no idea how children will react to it. Some will relate to young Max, while others might question why the monsters aren't a little more fun, or why they don't crack jokes more often. This is a film that deserves to be seen, however. It also deserves to be thought long and hard about long after it's over. I walked in expecting a visually exciting and fun family film, and ended up getting so much more.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

It's never fun to watch talented people working below their ability. In Couples Retreat, we get a screenplay that is not up to the talents of two of its writers and stars, Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn. Oh, they're fine in the movie, and so is the rest of the cast. But watching it, you get the sense that their hearts aren't into the material. They give just enough to be passable. In this case, the screenplay has been written at almost a sitcom level. These guys are better than that.

Take this example - The plot concerns four different married couples who are best friends, and head to a private island resort where they get help in their individual relationships. Favreau's character is Joey. He's been married to Lucy (Kristin Davis) for years, but it's been a loveless one for a long time, and the only reason they're still together is because of their teenage daughter. Joey has a wandering eye toward the other women on the island, and does not do a good job of hiding it. In one scene, while Lucy is taking a shower, he sees a photo of a sexy woman in a bathing suit on the cover of a resort brochure. He props the photo up next to him, and prepares to start to pleasure himself. Just then, one of the resort workers walks in to deliver room service. Joey is caught in an awkward position, which could be funny, but there is no pay off. He just lies there on the couch, staring at the guy, and the employee just stares back uncomfortably until he leaves. They share a few awkward words, but the scene never builds to any real laughs, except the obvious one. It feels like the first draft of a scene that wasn't even finished.

I don't know if this is the fault of the screenplay, or the end result of Universal Pictures editing a movie that was originally R down to a somewhat racy PG-13. Given the success of movies like The Hangover and most of the works of Judd Apatow, studio executives should realize that smart adult comedies can usually be box office gold. Then again, the movie isn't really smart enough. It gives us stock characters with stock problems, and then gives them convoluted and stock solutions. Besides Joey and Lucy, the other couples include Dave and Ronnie (Vince Vaughn and Malin Akerman), who are the seemingly perfect couple living the dream with a beautiful house and adorable kids, but are emotionally distant. Next up is Shane (Faizon Love), who is dealing with the recent divorce from his wife by romancing a 20-year-old woman named Trudy (Kali Hawk). Finally, there's Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell). They're the masterminds behind the getaway to begin with, and have come to save their failing marriage. They invite the other couples along, as there's a discount if they go with a multi-couple package. The island itself is run by a French mystic named Marcel (Jean Reno), who is supposed to come across as eccentric and wise, but the screenplay forgets to give him a real character, or anything interesting to do or say.

Couples Retreat never strives to be more than what it has to be. I can imagine a very funny and maybe even insightful movie to be made from this material, but it just wants to play it safe, and never go beyond the obvious. We never get to experience the characters beyond their marital problems, or their current situation. The characters in this movie are what happens when the screenwriter creates a basic personality or problem, but then never goes any further. They become one note, and only grab our attention because of the actors playing them. We like the actors, so we want to like the characters, but the connection is never made. It's hard to get involved with people who constantly find themselves thrown into contrived, sitcom situations. Such examples include the men feeling uncomfortable around a scantily-clad yoga instructor (Carlos Ponce), who gets a bit too much into their personal space, or dealing with menacing sharks during a marriage exercise out at sea. The set up and the outcome is pre-determined, and that's how it stays. There's no spark, and no indication that writers Favreau, Vaughn, and Dana Fox (What Happens in Vegas) had any real confidence in the material.

For most of the movie, it didn't bother me too much. I liked the actors, who all give lively performances, and I was enjoying the scenery, which was shot on location on the islands of Bora-Bora. But then the movie has to wrap up everything, and this is when it starts to bite off more than it can chew. We get a long, dragged-out climax that is so convoluted and contrived, it almost has to be seen to be believed. Despite how hard it struggles to tie everything up with a neat little bow, there's just far too many leaps of logic we have to take in order to accept what we're watching. There are too many conveniences, too much implausibility, and it all builds to a final scene that makes less sense the more you think about it. If you see this movie, ask yourself this when it's over - How could a certain character have known about everything that happened the night before, have everything prepared for the four couples, and know exactly what to say to them? Unless the character has spies all over the island that watch and listen in to everything that happens, there's no way they should have known.
This is a watchable movie, and it doesn't offend, but I honestly expected more. It's gutless and tame, when it should have been risky and smart. Couples Resort doesn't have much to recommend, or much to say. You get the sense that the cast got a lot more out of this movie than most audience members will. At least the actors got to enjoy a tropical paradise for a month or two. All we get is a movie that should have been more than what it is.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

For once, the movie is much better than the trailer. Here is a movie with a premise so inventive, I was almost certain that the filmmakers would not have the guts to follow through. But The Invention of Lying does indeed follow through, and actually surpassed my expectations. Yes, it is a very funny comedy (probably my favorite of the year so far), but it is also thoughtful, daring, and goes to places you wouldn't expect in a Hollywood movie, let alone a romantic comedy. This is the rare inventive movie where the last half is just as surprising as the first.

Ricky Gervais stars, produced, co-wrote, and co-directed this movie, but it's far from an ego project. He stars as Mark Bellison, a loser who lives in an alternate reality where everyone is forced to be brutally honest, says whatever is on their mind at any time, and physical appearance means absolutely everything to everyone. Mark is short, overweight, and doesn't stand out all that much, so his prospects for survival are not good. A man who lives in his apartment building under similar circumstances (Jonah Hill) constantly makes small talk on the elevator about how he's always looking up ways to kill himself, since everyone in the world constantly reminds him he's not good enough for them, because of his physical faults. As for Mark, he's a screenwriter at Lecture Film Studios. Because there's no such thing as fiction in this world, movies consist solely of an old man in a chair, talking about historical events. Mark has had a string of bad luck at work, writing films about the Black Plague, which have not been box office hits, while rival and much more physically attractive screenwriter, Brad Kessler (Rob Lowe), gets all the good writing jobs.

Mark is fired from his job, told off by just about everyone, and his elderly mom has been sent away to the "Place Where Sick and Depressed Old People Go to Die". The movie has a lot of fun with the whole idea of a world built on blunt honesty. Commercials for Coke consist of a man talking about how it will cause obesity, while ads for Pepsi simply state "Pepsi - For when they don't have Coke". The only bright spot in Mark's life is that he may have a chance to become romantically involved with a beautiful young woman named Anna (Jennifer Garner), but even this seems unlikely, as she fears he's not genetically right for her, and if they had children, they would end up fat and have pug noses. Just when Mark thinks life has beaten him, he stumbles upon the notion of not telling the truth. He goes to the bank to get money to help pay his rent, finds out their computers are down, and tells the woman there that he has $800, even though he knows he only has $300. The woman naturally believes him, gives him the money, and this sets off a series of events where Mark learns he can actually get ahead in life and get everything he ever wanted by not telling the truth.

He doesn't do this to get back at the world, or to get revenge on anyone. He simply wants to make himself and his mother happy in life. It goes on to give him unimaginable power. His mother is on her deathbed, and she's afraid of going into oblivion. Mark, wanting to make her feel better, tells her of a better life waiting for her after she dies, where everyone is surrounded by loved ones and live in dream mansion homes. The doctors overhear him telling her this, and before he knows it, Mark has become the world's first religious prophet. His talk of a "Man in the Sky" who controls everything and watches over people makes Mark into an overnight celebrity. The scene where he tries to explain the ways of all-seeing Man on "tablets" that consist of discarded pizza boxes is one of the film's funniest moments in a movie filled with a large number of funny moments. While the film takes some obvious satirical jabs at the ideas and notion of religion, it is not mean-spirited. The movie simply wants to create debate on our personal beliefs, and should lead to more than a few interesting conversations amongst those who see it.

The movie is also a charming and effective romantic comedy. The girl he's interested in, Anna, starts the film as a rather shallow individual who, like everyone else in the world, is not interested in anyone except those she feels can create the best possible life for her. (Good steady job, attractive looks, strong genetic code to create the most attractive and healthy children.) But, as she warms up to Mark and begins to see the beauty of him personally, she begins to long for more out of life. The movie goes a little bit deeper here than we'd expect. The characters actually have some interesting philosophical discussions about human nature, and what we find attractive in other people. The Invention of Lying made me laugh and care about the characters, but more than that, it made me think a little bit differently. We get the standard romantic comedy cliches where Mark tries to stop Anna from going off with the wrong guy, but it's played out in a different way than we expect, and it's much more intelligent than the norm.

This easily could have been a one-joke movie, but writers and directors Gervais and Matthew Robinson make it into so much more. It's a movie that's actually about something and has something to say, but just so happens to have some of the biggest laughs in any movie I can think of this year. There's a talented cast on display, as well. Gervais and Garner make an unlikely but likable couple, who bring enough sweetness to their characters that we do want to see them get together. There are a number of notable actors in small roles such as Tina Fey as Mark's secretary at work (who is not afraid to admit she hates working for him), Philip Seymour Hoffman as an all-too trusting bartender, and Edward Norton as a cop who is not afraid to spout off his views on racial issues. The movie is constantly finding clever ways to take its own premise, and is always surprising.
I admit, I was taken off guard. The trailers passed it off as being a cute, and maybe fun little time waster, but I think this is one of the smartest comedies I've seen in a while. For an unassuming little comedy, The Invention of Lying sure does have an awful lot to offer an audience who is willing to listen. I detect the makings of a cult classic here.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

Don't let the title, or the fact that the walking dead play a big part in the plot, fool you. Zombieland is a comedy, and a very funny one at that. Some horror films (like the recent Drag Me to Hell and Jennifer's Body) have tried to combine thrills with laughs, and ended up disappointing me. Here is a movie that gets the right idea - Play up the absurdity and the humor first and foremost, with plenty of gore to satisfy the shock junkies. It all adds up to one of the more entertaining comedies of the year.

The movie is set in an alternate present, where a mysterious disease has turned most of the world's population into flesh-eating zombies. The few scattered survivors search the land for ways to combat the zombies, and for fellow people not affected with the disease. They all have different methods of surviving, and our young hero "Columbus" (Jesse Eisenberg) gives us his guidelines for living in "Zombieland" in a funny opening sequence that acts like an educational survivor's guide to living through a zombie apocalypse. He calls himself Columbus, because that's the city he hails from. It's never a good idea to get too personal with other people, as you never know who to trust when everyone's looking out for themselves, so he never reveals his real name. Early in the film, he encounters a fellow survivor and zombie hunter named "Tallahassee" (Woody Harrelson, in his best performance in years). He's a gun-toting redneck who lives for two things - Killing zombies in the most spectacular ways he knows how, and searching out Twinkie snack cakes, which have become a rare edible luxury in this post-apocalyptic world.

The two bond on the open road as they travel together. Columbus wants to make it back to his home town, to see if his parents are still alive, while Tallahassee seems to be running from a past he'd like to forget. Along the way, they're joined up by a pair of con artist sisters, "Wichita" (Emma Stone) and "Little Rock" (Abigail Breslin). They're all searching for a promised land, where the zombie invasion has not yet spread. The sisters believe it to be a theme park in California, so they drive cross country, hoping to find a haven. There are a lot of big laughs during their journey, especially when they arrive in Hollywood, which I will not reveal here. What I will say is that it gives Bill Murray his strongest comic work in a very long time, and is one of the best cameos of the year.

Zombieland is almost inspired in its lunacy. Although there is plenty of gore and kills to be found, it doesn't take itself seriously for a second. The movie is good-natured, a little twisted from time to time, and always a lot of fun. I liked the easy and casual nature of the dialogue and the humor. We get the sense that the four lead characters have been living amongst zombies for a while now, so not a whole lot gets to them anymore. Having the living dead break in while you're using a public bathroom stall is an everyday annoyance. The screenplay by Rhett Reese (Monsters Inc.) and Paul Wernick has a knowing sense of humor that is never broad or draws attention to itself. The dialogue is sharp and frequently witty. The scene where the heroes take turns driving the vehicle to their destination, and just talk about random things, is a particular comic highlight, and an example of how the movie finds humor in everyday little things.

And yet, this isn't just a funny movie. It's effective on an entirely different and surprising level. I found myself caring about the characters as the film went on. While they're not exactly three dimensional characters, they've each been given a lot of personality, which is brought out wonderfully by the cast. Harrelson seems to be having the time of his life, Eisenberg just might give Michael Cera a run for his money in the deadpan department after Adventureland and now this, and Stone and Breslin create a realistic sisterly bond, while bonding with the men in different ways. When the movie reached its impressive and blood-soaked climax at the amusement park, I actually found myself worried for some of the characters. That's a rare thing for a movie, let alone a comedy.
For all of its screwball antics and big laughs, Zombieland is really a very dark movie when you think about it. Even when things work out, the world's still a lifeless wasteland, and humanity's pretty much doomed. It's a credit that despite all this, the movie still leaves us walking out smiling. It sounds weird, I know, but see this movie and you'll understand. Oh, and make sure you stick all the way through the end credits for something very rare indeed - an alternate take of a scene that is actually funny and worth sitting through the credits for.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

1 comments

There's no denying that Whip It is a completely conventional movie. There's not a single moment where we don't feel one step ahead of the characters, and figure out the solution to their problems long before they do. I also can't deny that the movie is well-made, and more entertaining than it probably has a right to be, thanks to a spirited cast. We may be one step ahead of the characters, but at least we like the characters.

The film marks the directing debut of Drew Barrymore, who also has a supporting role as a roller derby girl who goes by the name of "Smashley Simpson". The movie is built around roller derby, and it's a good thing the sport is easy to understand, as I walked in with very little knowledge. We get a brief overview of the layout of the game by a coach named Razor (Andrew Wilson), and then we're thrown head-first into the full-contact woman's sport. The players strap on roller skates, and then race and pummel each other around a large track in an effort to score as many points as possible by passing as many people from the opposing team. Like Barrymore's character, all the women have names that sound like rejected pro wrestlers, or maybe superheroes. These include "Bloody Holly" (Zoe Bell), "Rosa Sparks" (recording artist Eve), and "Maggie Mayhem" (Kristen Wiig). Outside of the arena, they're normal girls, with kids and families. But as soon as the competition kicks in, they take on the personality of their alter egos.

The central character is Bliss Cavendar (Ellen Page from Juno), who becomes interested in roller derby while she's shoe shopping with her mother, Brooke (Marcia Gay Harden). Bliss hails from a small Texas town outside of Austin, works at a local diner, and generally dreams of getting far away as possible from her going-nowhere-life. Her well-meaning, but very controlling, mother is constantly entering her in local teenage beauty pageants, which Bliss obviously has no interest in. Knowing her parents would not understand, she gets her best friend Pash (Alia Shawkat) to drive her to Austin and try out for a spot on a last-place roller derby team known as the Hurl Scouts. She gets a spot on the team under the name "Babe Ruthless", all the while telling her parents that she's taking classes for the SATs when she's away and competing. Despite her slight build, Bliss quickly becomes a celebrity at the sport, due to her speed and her ability to dodge and weave through the competing players. The team starts winning, and may have a chance for the championship. There's a romantic interest for Bliss as well, in the form of a young musician named Oliver (Landon Pigg), and also some controversy when a player on an opposing team (Juliette Lewis) discovers that Bliss lied about her age in order to get on her team.

Whip It is a story we've heard many times before, but it's told with more energy than we expect. Even though the characters have predictable story arcs, I became attached to them. I liked the way that Bliss and Pash interacted with their young manager at work (Carlo Alban), and the close relationships that seem to form between Bliss and her teammates. This is a rare film where many of the supporting characters are just as interesting as the main one. Barrymore has gathered a fine ensemble cast for her first shot at directing, and gets strong performances out of all of them. I was especially impressed with the handling of Bliss' mother. I could picture her being very annoying and hard-headed in the wrong hands, but the screenplay by Shauna Cross (a real life former roller derby player who based this film on her own novel) gives the character actual human layers. She's not just there to stand in the way of her daughter every chance she gets, and her slow acceptance seems a little more natural than what we usually get in these kind of films. Harden gives the character the right amount of sturbbornness in her performance as Brooke, while at the same time, letting the character's weaknesses and softer side show through, so she never comes across as disagreeable.

What's most surprising to me, however, is that the movie manages to make roller derby exciting. From the looks of it, the sport revolves around skating around a large bowl-shaped arena, and trying to get ahead of your opponents any way possible. There's obviously much more to it than that, but it still doesn't sound very thrilling. The tournament sequences actually end up being a highlight, thanks to the fast but coherent editing, and an obvious understanding and love for the game that comes across in the movie. I'm sure screenwriter Cross' real life experiences helped a lot here. We care about the girls both off the track and on. There are moments where Whip It takes a wrong step, mostly with the romantic subplot, which could have been fleshed out a lot more. Barrymore keeps things moving, however, so we're never bored for too long.
This is a quiet and unassuming little movie without a lot of originality, but more than enough charm to squeak by with a recommendation. This is one of those rare films where I actually wished it was longer, as I wanted to spend more time with the characters. Before I close this review, it would be wrong not to mention Ellen Page, who continues to prove herself to be a strong young talent. Now that she is in her early 20s, I hope she can graduate to adult roles soon. Still, her sweet and unassuming performance here helps Whip It become a nice little surprise.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments