It's that magical time of the year again. As we reflect back on the year that was, the time comes for me to think back on the films that stole 90 minutes to two hours out of my life. Time to count down the worst movies of 2009.

You'll notice some changes here. Usually, I count down the Top 5 movies, then go on to the Dishonorable Mentions - films that were bad, but not quite bad enough to crack the top. This year, I'm going beyond the Top 5, and giving you the Top 10. Yes, 2009 was a treasure trove of stinkers, and there were too many movies that I felt deserving of top spots. So, I'm upping the ante.

As always, my Best of 2009 list is on its way. There are still some films in limited release that I need to see, and I have to give them a chance before I write up my list. So, let's get this ball rolling, and carve up some cinematic turkeys.


THE 10 WORST FILMS OF 2009:
10. STREET FIGHTER: THE LEGEND OF CHUN-LI - This was Hollywood's second attempt to turn the successful Street Fighter video games into a live action franchise, and given how awful their first attempt (released back in 1994) was, this was surprisingly even worse. Kristin Kreuk from TV's Smallville portrays the title heroine as a boring and brooding vigilante. The film itself is kind of dark and murky, which is a complete turnaround from the video games, which are usually bright and colorful. We're left with a plodding action movie with little action, and fights that sometimes end seconds after they start. There's also some hilariously bad casting on display, such as the little girl they got to play Chun-Li as a child (who looks absolutely nothing like Kreuk), and a miscast Chris Klein as a police detective on the trail of Chun-Li.
9. DRAGONBALL EVOLUTION - I almost hate putting this movie in the Top 10, because it's one of those movies that are so bad, it's funny and entertaining for all the wrong reasons. This live action take on the popular Japanese manga and anime follows a young boy named Goku (Justin Chatwin) who teams up with a girl named Bulma Briefs (yes, that is her real name) and a team of young martial artists to track down objects called DragonBalls which, when joined together, can grant a "perfect wish" (whatever a "perfect wish" is). The cast frequently look just as confused as the audience is, the movie is terribly misdirected, and the only joy it creates is from the unintentional laughs it gets. Dragonball hit theaters in Japan a month before the U.S., so word got out quickly to the fans that the film was a total dog, and no one went to see it.
8. FIRED UP - In this pathetic farce, two of the oldest-looking high school football players ever captured on film (played by actors who are pushing 30 in real life) ditch football training camp, and go to cheerleader camp instead, hoping they can score with the girls there. Since the movie is PG-13, the sex is tame, and the raunchy humor is lame. Instead, we get some moldy old high school movie plot cliches. Will the cheerleader dating the school jerk wise up and fall for one of the football guys? Will the school's cheerleader team, which has routinely come in last place every year of the camp's competition, be able to bet their more popular rival team? Will you care? Fun fact - This was supposed to be Maxim Magazine's first attempt at a feature film franchise, similar to National Lampoon. When they saw this clunker, they had their name taken off the film, and all references to their involvement was covered up.
7. TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN - Yes, this movie was the most successful film of 2009, but do you honestly know anyone over the age of 20 who actually enjoyed watching this? Michael Bay's sequel was everything that was wrong about summer blockbusters tossed together into an overly long mess of a film. It was loud, it was it was annoying, it was chaotic, and it didn't make a bit of sense. It was a total sensory overload that seemed like it would never end. Bay's movie has reduced the Autobots and Decepticons (both childhood icons to me) into giant walking pieces of scrap metal that never shut up, and sometimes are hard to tell apart from one another.
6. OLD DOGS - This long-delayed comedy finally limped onto screens over Thanksgiving weekend. What a perfect time for such a giant cinematic turkey! A painfully unfunny mess featuring the very talented Robin Williams and John Travolta reducing themselves to playing a couple of friends who are forced to look after a pair of cute, bland Hollywood kids. Wackiness is supposed to ensue, but all we get is tedium. The film was edited over and over again in a futile attempt to save a doomed project, so we get a movie that seems to have been edited with a chainsaw. Scenes begin and end with little rhyme or reason, and characters fade in and out of the narrative with no explanation. The only amusing thing about this movie is how many talented people were suckered into it.
5. BRIDE WARS - This woeful comedy casts the lovely and talented Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson as a pair of best friends who turn into feuding "Bridezillas" when their dream weddings are accidentally scheduled for the same time and place. A sensible person could solve this problem easily, but the screenplay has been written for idiots, and takes us through a long and insufferable plot where the two girls turn into obnoxious, screaming harpies who try to sabotage each other's wedding preparations. Seeing Hathaway and Hudson lower themselves to this level was depressing, not funny. The whole thing was a 90 minute exercise on the Idiot Plot, where the characters are forced to act like total idiots, or else the movie would be over in less than 10 minutes. If only the misery Bride Wars brings could be over so fast.
4. THE BOX - I've seen comedies with fewer laughs than The Box. Too bad this was intended to be a tense, psychological sci-fi thriller. James Marsden and Cameron Diaz (sporting one of the worst fake Southern accents in recent cinema memory) find a wooden box left on their doorstep by a mysterious man who has part of his face missing (Frank Langella). He tells the couple that if they push the button on top of the box, someone who they don't know will die, and the pair will receive $1 million. That's the easy part to comprehend. It quickly goes downhill into a confusing and messy sci-fi parable. We get gateways to the afterlife, mind control, nose bleeds, deformed feet, aliens, men who are back from the dead, and water-like vortexes appearing out of nowhere. What we don't get is an answer to what any of this means, and what writer-director Richard Kelly was thinking when he made this.
3. THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON - I was not a fan of last year's Twilight, but New Moon was just an interminable and unwatchable piece of junk. No other franchise has mystified me with its popularity like Twilight has. This time around, lead heroine Bella (Kristen Stewart) is forced to break up with her vampire boyfriend, Edward (Robert Pattinson), and then spends the entire two and a half hours of the movie sulking, moping, and hanging out with her hunky best friend (Taylor Lautner), who walks around with his shirt off most of the film in order to show off his chiseled body, and is secretly a werewolf. Bella is one of the most self-centered heroines I've encountered in a movie. She cares only about herself, and routinely puts herself in danger, just so that she can have a vision of her vampire hottie, with no thought to anyone else who may care about her. That's the whole movie in a nutshell, only stretched to two and a half hours, which feel like six while you're watching it. If the glacial pace of the film doesn't get you, then the monotone and wooden performances will.
2. HALLOWEEN II - Rob Zombie's follow up to his 2007 revamp of Halloween is a dark, depressing, unpleasant, badly acted, and incoherent experience. The movie has no vision, and merely wants to be an endurance test to see how much depression and brutality the audience can take before they bolt for the theater doors. Young heroine Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is trying to forget about the deadly events last Halloween. Meanwhile, the psychotic Michael Myers gets a visit from the ghost of his mom on a white horse (don't ask), who tells him to track down Laurie again. Michael spends days walking to the town, kidnaps Laurie, and then seemingly returns to his hideout in a matter of minutes. (Just one of the many glaring logic holes to be found within the film.) We get a lot of graphic violence with little meaning, and a lot of weird images that writer-director Zombie doesn't even try to explain. Not even an out of the blue cameo appearance by the king of polka parodies, "Weird Al" Yankovic, can salvage this garbage.
1. ALL ABOUT STEVE - This is not only the worst film of 2009, but quite possibly one of the worst romantic comedies ever made. Sandra Bullock plays a woman named Mary Horowitz, who is supposed to come across as quirky and lovable, but often comes across as an insane, borderline psychotic, nutjob. Mary is set up on a blind date with a guy named Steve (Bradley Cooper), a cameraman from a cable news channel. This single date is enough to turn Mary into an obsessed stalker. She becomes so obsessed with the man that it causes her to lose her job, which she sees as a sign that she should devote her life to stalking and following Steve wherever he goes. Remember, this is supposed to be a light-hearted comedy. Instead, it ends up being a repulsive misfire of a movie. Bullock is embarrassing, forced to wear obnoxiously loud clothes, and act like a mentally unhinged 16-year-old with a crush. It gets even worse when Bullock falls down into an abandoned mine, and becomes a hero, because she helps rescue a class of deaf children who were on a field trip to an amusement park, and all ended up falling down into the mine. (I'm not making this up.) It's stupid, it's kind of disturbing, and it's the worst time I had at the movies all year.

Whew...Finally got that done with. Now it's time to move onto the Dishonorable Mentions of 2009. Make no mistake, even though the following films did not crack the Top 10, they are still very bad movies. Approach any of the following films with extreme caution.


DISHONORABLE MENTIONS:

The Unborn, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, The Uninvited, New in Town, Push, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Madea Goes to Jail, The Last House on the Left, Miss March, Alien Trespass, Fast and Furious, Hannah Montana: The Movie, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, Dance Flick, Year One, I Love You Beth Cooper, Orphan, Aliens in the Attic, The Time Traveller's Wife, The Goods, Post Grad, The Final Destination, Gamer, Sorority Row, Pandorum, The Stepfather, Planet 51, Ninja Assassin, Transylmania, Did You Hear About the Morgans?, The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day


THE INDIVIDUAL REEL STINKERS AWARDS:

WORST SEQUEL:
Tie between New Moon and Halloween II

MOST UNNECESSARY SEQUEL:
The Final Destination

WORST PERFORMANCE BY A RESPECTED ACTOR/ACTRESS:
Anne Hathaway in Bride Wars

WORST OVERALL PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR/ACTRESS:
The entire cast of New Moon

WORST ANIMATED FILM:
Planet 51

WORST TREND IN MOVIES LAST YEAR:
Tie between Romantic "comedies" that are painful to watch, and vampire movies

WORST REMAKE:
The Stepfather (Halloween II is disqualified, since it is technically not a remake of 1981's Halloween II.)

WORST IDEA FOR A MOVIE THAT NEVER COULD HAVE WORKED:
All About Steve

REPEAT OFFENDERS (ACTORS WHO APPEARED IN MORE THAN ONE STINKER IN 2009):
Dakota Fanning in New Moon and Push
Thomas Haden Church in All About Steve and Aliens in the Attic
J.K. Simmons in New in Town, Aliens in the Attic, and Post Grad

WORST ON-SCREEN TEAMING:
Mudflap and Skids, the obnoxious jive-talking Autobots in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

MOVIE BLOCKBUSTER THAT DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE:
Tie between Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and New Moon

STUDIO THAT RELEASED THE MOST STINKERS IN 2009:
Fox for releasing Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, Dragonball Evolution, Bride Wars, All About Steve, Miss March, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, I Love You Beth Cooper, Aliens in the Attic, and Post Grad. Keep up the good work, guys!

Well, there you have it. The worst of 2009 in a nutshell. Now let us never speak of them again, and hope that everyone involved with them gets to do a good movie in 2010.

Have a great year, and happy viewing to you all!

1 comments

Ten years ago, the story of upstart filmmaker Troy Duffy was supposed to be a rags to riches Hollywood tale like no other. He was a bartender who managed to sell his first script to Miramax Films for almost a million dollars, and became the toast of Hollywood overnight. His script for The Boondock Saints was the talk of the town for a little while, but a series of events led to no studio contract, no support, and a film release that only hit 5 screens for a week. All of this can be viewed in the highly entertaining documentary, Overnight, which chronicles the rise and fall of the cinematic career of Duffy. I highly recommend you watch it. I definitely recommend you watch it over his 10 years too late sequel, The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day.

Yes, Duffy's film managed to become a major cult classic on DVD - so much so that a sequel is now in theaters. The original obviously has its fans, and so will this one. I, however, can only report on my personal reaction, and I can say with certainty that this is one of the most forced examples of cinematic machoism that I've seen in many a moon. Everything about this movie rings false. The dialogue rings false, because it uses four letter words in much the same way a 13-year-old would in order to sound tough. The overall tone rings false, because it feels a constant need to remind us how cool and bad it is, and it just comes across as being desperate. The visual style and tone of the action sequences seems to be stuck in the late 90s, back when people were trying to emulate Tarantino. It feels very dated, out of touch, and very unsure of itself, despite the cocky male attitudes that are constantly on display in each and every one of its characters.

The movie reunites us with the MacManus Brothers, a pair of hard-drinking, tough talking Irish blokes who went on a vigilante killing spree 10 years ago in Boston, which climaxed with the public execution of a notorious gangster. Since that day, they have gone into hiding, and now live with their father (Billy Connolly) in Ireland, tending sheep. Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) McManus now have fake long hair and beards that make them both look like they're both starring in the title role of a dinner theater production of Jesus Christ: Superstar. But then, troubling news comes their way. Back in Boston, a priest has been murdered, and the killer has tried to use their signature murder style, so that the police will think that the MacManus Brothers were responsible. A quick shave, haircut, and a gratuitous shower scene later, and the boys are ready for action once again to track down the killer. Their father does not seem the least bit surprised by his sons' actions. He explains their need for revenge by saying, "Peace is the enemy of memory". I'll leave you to figure that one out.

So, the MacManus Brothers return to Boston, and team up with a trio of foul-mouthed simple minded cops from the first film. There's some new friends to aid them, as well. On the ship back to America, they befriend a Mexican named Romeo (Clifton Collins, Jr.), who acts as their sidekick, comic relief, and an excuse for them to make a lot of dated racist and ethnic jokes about Mexicans. There's also an FBI Special Agent named Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz), whose decision to wear dominatrix-style high heels at crime scenes does not seem the least bit practical. (When she makes her entrance at the scene of the priest's murder, she slowly steps out of a car like a supermodel in an 80s music video, complete with blaring guitar rifts blasting on the soundtrack.) From this point on, the plot doesn't really matter. Connor and Murphy spend as little time as possible gathering information on who framed them, and spend most of the time trading drunken insults with one another, and occasionally getting in elaborate and overly-staged shoot outs, that are often done in slow motion, and sometimes given instant replays, just in case we missed a single detail the first time around.

At least The Boondock Saints II is a competently made bad movie. It's shot well enough, and there are some good actors on display, including Peter Fonda and Willem Dafoe in small roles. But the story is leaden, and the dialogue is often insulting in its misguided views of manhood and violence. It's hard to tell if Duffy is trying to be ironic, or if he actually believes the stuff he has his characters preach. He even stops the movie completely to give us a lengthy dream sequence where the MacManus Brothers are visited by a fallen friend, who inspires them with talk of "real men don't talk about their feelings", and "John Wayne was such a man, he died with 45 pounds of undigested red meat in his ass". As if the movie's forced male machoism vibe wasn't enough for us to pick up on the point, he has to stop the film to spell it out for us. The guys in this movie murder with glee, frequently make jokes about prison rape and homosexuality, and guzzle hard liquor as if it were water. The only time the MacManus Brothers are really offended is if their manhood is brought into question.

I got tired of all this forced male posturing long before the movie did. Did I mention this movie is almost two hours long? Well, it is, and it runs out of steam before the first hour is up. This is a tiresome and very tired movie that becomes even more so the more it stresses how cool and manly it is. I imagine Duffy hopes his audience will go out and buy a six pack of beer and eat an extra bloody steak when they're done watching this movie. All I wanted to do was wipe this movie from my memory as soon as possible. Think I'll start as soon as I'm done typing this sentence.

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

0 comments

There's a lot of star power on display in Nine, but very little else to engage us. The songs are sung well enough (this is a musical, after all), but they are at the service of a story we can never get emotionally attached to. A lot of big names like Daniel Day-Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren, Kate Hudson, Marion Cotillard, and even Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas obviously put forth a lot of energy and effort, but I don't think director Rob Marshall (Chicago) has a clear vision here.

The movie is supposed to take us into the mind of Italian director, Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis), as he struggles with his latest film and the various women who make up his life and his past. His newest film has wonderful costumes, a set, and a beautiful leading lady in the form of his current muse, Claudia (Nicole Kidman). What it does not have is a script. Instead of facing the problem head-on, Guido drives off to go into seclusion and smoke, drink, and engage in various affairs with his mistress (Penelope Cruz) and a reporter (Kate Hudson). No matter how far he runs, however, his life catches up with him. His producer and crew track him down, as does his long-suffering wife (Marion Cotillard), who was once a promising young actress, but now devotes herself to a man that she knows does not truly love him. As Guido tries to sort out both his professional and personal problems, he is haunted by visions of his past, which include his late mother (Sophia Loren), his Catholic upbringing, and his experiences as a child when he encountered a prostitute (Fergie).

Nine sets itself up into a predictable formula quite quickly. We're introduced into a woman either from Guido's past or his present, and they sing their feelings about him in an elaborately staged musical number. Even his costume designer (Judi Dench) gets her turn in a cabaret-style number. The songs are lively, though were probably much more thrilling on the live stage in the original Broadway production than they are here. The problem here is that the songs stop the story, instead of enhancing them like they should. The musical sequences never feel like they belong in the story itself. It's almost as if the movie is trying to tell the story of the director's infidelities and experiences with women, with occasional stops for variety show-style tunes. It's well known that this is intended as a musical adaptation of Federico Fellini's classic film 8 1/2. That film served as an internal look at the mind and struggles of the filmmaker, and the filmmaking process. This feels like a musical revue that never gets off the ground.

That's not the say the movie doesn't have its moments. They are simply buried under a lot of content that never quite engages. I think there is a surprising lack of emotion here. Daniel Day-Lewis can be a very compelling and easily relatable screen presence, but he seems muted here. Maybe he was not right for the role, but we don't get to feel any real emotion in his turn as Guido until the very end. Likewise, we don't get to spend enough time with a lot of the women in Guido's life to truly get to feel their emotions. They show up, sing a number or two, then walk off the screen. It creates a distant experience, where the audience knows what they're supposed to be feeling, but don't actually feel it. It creates a curious feeling for the audience, where we feel like we're filling in the blanks that the movie should be filling.

There is one notable exception, and that is Marion Cotillard as Guido's wife, Luisa. Not only is she beautiful to look at and sings very well in her two numbers, but she manages to get us behind her character. Of the various women who walk in and out of Guido's life, she seems to get the most screen time. It's a wonderful performance, and one of the few characters who actually seems to have more than two dimensions. A close second would be Penelope Cruz, who plays a woman who obviously loves Guido, and wants to be more than his mistress. But there's still a distance with her. When she tries to poison herself when Guido rejects her, it does not have the punch that it should. We watch with casualness, when our hearts should be breaking for her.
I guess I don't really know whom Nine was made for. Despite the fact the original stage musical won a number of awards back in 1982, I don't think it has the drawing power to be the hit the studio wants it to be. And fans of the original Fellini film are likely to stay home and watch it instead. This is the kind of movie where you admire the actors and the skill that went into making it attractive to look at, but there's nothing that grabs you underneath.

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

0 comments

Fans of 2007's live action take on Alvin and the Chipmunks can take heart. The Squeakquel is more of the same, and matches the quality of the first film in every way. It's no better or worse. Those who were not taken by the 2007 movie should heed this warning. The Squeakquel is more of the same, and matches the quality of the first film in every way. In other words, you already know what you think of this movie without seeing it. My reaction was certainly exactly the same. It's kind of sweet in a bland way, not very offensive, and not interesting in the slightest.

The helium voiced pop star trio of Alvin (voice by Justin Long), Simon (voice by Matthew Gray Gubler) and Theodore (voice by Jesse McCartney) are back, but this time, they are joined by three new rodents who want to follow in their footsteps (paw-steps?) and break into the music scene. They are the Chipettes, and their music act is best described as Destiny's Child, only smaller and furrier. This group is made up of three young chipmunk girls named Brittany (voice by Christina Applegate), Jeanette (voice by Anna Faris), and Eleanor (voice by Amy Poehler). Those are some pretty big names voicing the Chipettes, which surprised and confused me. Surprised, because I can't imagine what projects these women must have turned down so they could get the chance to do the voices of singing rodents. Confused, because I fail to see the point of casting celebrity talent as the Chipmunks or Chipettes, since their voices are sped up and distorted to the point that you have no idea who is playing them. None of their talent comes through in their performances, and they all sound the same when their voices have been sped up to "chipmunk level", so it defeats the whole purpose of casting name actors.

But, I digress. Back to the plot. The Chipettes arrive by mailing themselves in a Fed-Ex package, and have the misfortune of falling into the hands of sleazy former music producer, Ian (David Cross). Those who saw the first movie will remember that he was the villain who abused the Chipmunks, working them to exhaustion until they managed to escape and ruin his career. Now he's looking for revenge, and sees the naive Chipettes as his opportunity to disgrace the Chipmunks and get back to the top of the music business. Meanwhile, the original Chipmunks are sent off to school, as their father figure Dave (Jason Lee) has decided they need an education. Unfortunately, Dave is injured in a freak concert accident in the film's opening scene, so he's gone for most of the movie. (Apparently, Lee only agreed to return if he could shoot all of his scenes in one or two days.) With Dave out of the picture, the Chipmunks are put in the care of a family relative - the irresponsible and video game-obsessed Toby (Zachary Levi from TV's Chuck), who seems to be suffering from an extreme case of arrested development. At school, the Chipmunks fend off bullies, play football, and participate in a concert in order to save the school's music program.

Think about how disappointing this is. You have three talking and singing woodland creatures (six, if you count the Chipettes) going to a school filled with teenage humans. Imagine the possibilities you could dream up, or the trouble you could have the little creatures get into. You could have Alvin try out for the school musical. You could have Simon get a crush on a human girl, and have a very funny scene where he has to meet her parents. You could have Theodore struggling in class, and finding inspiration in a teacher. There's a lot of opportunity, and The Squeakquel ignores them all. I think they only set foot in an actual classroom for about two minutes. I was dying to see how the little Chipmunks would take notes in class, seeing as the pencil and paper would probably be two times bigger than they are. Instead of actual imagination or humor, we get some lame bullies, and an uninvolved subplot concerning peer pressure, where Alvin has to decide if he wants to be popular and hang out with the evil jocks, or stick with his brothers. You can do so much more with talking Chipmunks, I assure you.

Of course, the kids won't care. The packed theater I saw this movie in certainly didn't seem to mind the lack of inspiration, or the total absence of fresh humor. They "awwhed" on cue when adorable little Theodore snuggled up close to Toby. They burst into laughter when feisty little Alvin gave a wedgie to the bully who had just dunked Simon's head in a toilet. They even laughed when the movie threw in some dated and tired pop culture references to films like Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, and The Silence of the Lambs. I expect a lot of things from an Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. Seeing Alvin imitating Hannibal Lecter is not one of them. I watched the whole thing with general disinterest, but never really hated the film. The movie's far too bland to create any strong feelings, positive or negative. This is the kind of movie where everyone showed up to do their job, did their job, and went home, probably wondering at what point did their careers arrive at the level where they have to play second fiddle to animals that aren't even there on the set.
The movie does its job, too. It gets the kids out of the house, and entertains them with a lot of bright colors, cute CG animals, pop music, and fart jokes for 90 minutes. I guess that's all you can expect for a movie that calls itself a "Squeakquel". When the inevitable third movie comes, I hope the writers can actually think of something interesting for the Chipmunks and Chipettes to do. They're kind of cute in a way, but just like the movie itself, very boring.

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

0 comments

The updated, revisionist take on Sherlock Holmes is sure to be greeted by a severely mixed reaction. Those who hold the classic stories close to their hearts might find it hard to view the famous London super sleuth as some sort of strung-out superhero. That's certainly the way director Guy Ritchie (RocknRolla) depicts him. Oh, he's just as analytical and deductive as he's always been. But some viewers might be in for a shock when Holmes and Dr. Watson burst open the door of the villain's lair, and begin duking it out with an army of thugs early on.

I greatly enjoyed this movie, though, and I suspect a lot of audiences members will feel the same way. It's a lot of fun, it's beautiful to look at thanks to some clever set design and beautiful cinematography by Philippe Rousselot (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), and it keeps up a good pace to hold our interest. There are flaws to be found, certainly. The storytelling can sometimes be murky, and the ending doesn't really resolve anything, opting instead to serve entirely as a set up for a sequel that may not come, but I hope does. There's too much here for just one movie to hold. Robert Downey, Jr. takes on the role of Holmes, and he certainly continues the winning streak he started last year. He's a riot to watch, and fills out the character better than I would have imagined. Jude Law shows up as Watson, and he too seems to be having more fun than he's had in a film in a while. They make a great pair, and the main reason I hope the film does become a franchise is because I would love to see their screen relationship strengthen over a series of films.

The film beings by throwing us in the middle of the action, with our heroes in hot pursuit of a notorious serial killer with ties to the occult and black magic named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). The villain is captured and sentenced to death, but does not seem the least bit worried. He even warns Holmes during a prison visit that he will continue his killing spree from beyond the grave. Sure enough, mere days after Blackwood is hanged for his crimes, reports start coming in of sightings of Blackwood all across London. More crimes and more murder victims begin to appear, and as Holmes and Watson race to discover the truth, they are brought face-to-face with a ghost from Holmes' past. A woman named Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) seems to play some part in the latest mystery. She was once a possible love interest for the famous detective years ago, until she revealed herself to be a criminal and ran off. Now she's back for reasons that are not initially clear, though she seems to be working for a mysterious and shadowy man who will be very familiar to fans of the original stories. Love continues to complicate matters in the form of Watson's girlfriend, Mary (Kelly Reilly), whom the doctor plans to marry, and possibly leave Holmes for good for a normal domestic life.

The ad campaign for Sherlock Holmes emphasizes the special effects and over the top action sequences, and though there is certainly an abundance of both, they do not overpower the story, or the mystery at the center of it all. The movie is frantic, yes, but not to the levels of annoyance usually associated with directors like Michael Bay. I liked the tone of the film, how it mixes traditional Holmes elements of deduction and analyzing, while at the same time updating things just enough to be entertaining for mass audiences. It never feels too dumbed down, and it never feels like it's doing a great disservice to the original stories - which is what a reinvention of a franchise should be. For all of its updating and revisionist takes on the classic characters, there are still some hidden tributes and references for fans to pick up on. Clearly the filmmakers did some research, instead of just throwing together a blockbuster, and slapping a famous literary character name on it.

The care of the filmmakers shows in just about every aspect here. The movie's look is appropriately dark for the time period, but not gloomy. There's a certain wonder and beauty to the design, which seems to be inspired half by historical London and half by imagination. The casting is pretty much pitch perfect all the way around, except for Rachel McAdams, who never really grabs our attention the way her character is supposed to, unfortunately. Most important, however, are the action sequences, which are done well enough so that they don't seem out of place in a Holmes film. I liked the way that Holmes would sometimes go over the fight in his mind, analyzing and planning each step and swing he would take, and just how much damage it would inflect upon his opponent, until he found the best solution for victory in battle. It's too bad that the film drops this approach fairly early on in the film.
If the film seems confident in itself by setting itself up for an inevitable sequel, it has every right to be. This is a well made and highly entertaining piece of escapism. Sherlock Holmes is light on sense, but it's energetic, much more so than some recent blockbusters. I can only hope that any future installments leave me in similar spirits, wanting more.

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

0 comments

Before I begin this review, I'd like to get on my soapbox, and rant a little about the folks at the MPAA, and their rating of this film. It's Complicated is a sweet, funny, harmless romantic comedy that contains only one utterance of a four letter word, has no real nudity (and when there is, it's covered up Austin Powers-style), and although sex plays a large role in the story, we don't actually get to see it, only the events after. Sounds to me like this would be a PG-13, tops. And yet, due to the fact that there is a comic sequence halfway through the film where the lead characters become goofy after smoking a single joint, the film has been slapped with an R-rating. And yes, this really is the only reason it received the rating, as reported in the Los Angeles Times.

I could wonder about the logic behind the rating, but that would probably take up this entire review. I know that the ratings are supposed to advise audiences about the content, but isn't this a little extreme? Consider Avatar, a movie that features multiple acts of violence, including people getting shot at, blown up, crushed to death, and speared through the heart multiple times. It is PG-13, and even has kid-friendly merchandise such as Happy Meals available at McDonalds everywhere. Yes, it's all fantasy-based violence, but I still don't really understand the logic here. Even the previously mentioned Austin Powers films were PG-13, despite containing gross out humor and content much worse than anything to be found in It's Complicated. (Remember the scene where Mike Myers drinks a cup of feces, mistaking it for coffee?) I'll stop here, but I think you get the point. The rating should not keep anyone away from the sweet-natured and somewhat surprising romantic comedy.

I say surprising, as this is one of the few times watching a romantic comedy where I was not certain of the outcome before the characters were. Writer-director Nancy Meyers (The Holiday) has crafted a love story that is not quite as complex as the title implies, but still leaves you uncertain about who will end up with whom when the end credits roll. It's a love triangle between a single mother named Jane (Meryl Streep), her ex-husband Jake (Alec Baldwin), and a new man in Jane's life, a lonely architect who is helping her with additions to her house named Adam (Steve Martin). As the film opens, Jane is a recent empty nester. She's been divorced from Jake for the past 10 years, and her kids have all grown up and moved on. Jane sees this as the perfect opportunity to get the dream kitchen she has always wanted, as she runs a highly successful pastry business outside of her home, so this is why she hires Adam. There's a connection, to be sure. Adam is sweet-natured, kind, and still hurting from his own divorce. They seem like a good couple. But then Jake comes back. When Jake left, he was having an affair with a young woman (Lake Bell), whom he has since married. But life with the woman and her bratty 5-year-old son has lost its luster, and Jake is beginning to realize what he left behind.

Jane and Jake reunite in New York City for their youngest son's college graduation. Fate conspires to bring them together (her kids run off to be with friends, while he's alone because his wife had to stay home and take care of the sick child). They share drinks and dinner at the hotel bar, and before the night is over, they're dancing and even having sex back in the room. Jane sees it as a one-time lapse of judgement. Jake sees it as something more. He wants to rekindle what they once had together. He begins slipping away to be with her, and the more time they spend together, the more we realize that yes, we want them to be together. Jake obviously still cares very deeply for her, and although she initially resists, feelings start to form on Jane's side as well. But what about Adam? When she's together with him, we also want them to be together. He's obviously dealing with a lot of grief from his own divorce, and sees Jane as the first source of normalcy his personal life has had since his ex-wife ran off with his best friend during a vacation. He cares about her just as much as Jake. It's rare for the outcome of a romantic comedy to be a surprise, but Meyers pulls it off, but making the three characters at the center smart, interesting, and likable despite their flaws.

It's Complicated is certainly smarter and better-acted than most films targeting women we got this past year. It's also genuinely funny in a number of scenes, including some scenes so funny, you can't hear the dialogue over the audience's laughter. The cast certainly helps here. Streep, Baldwin, and Martin all bring a certain low key comic sense to the film. They never seem to be overacting or reaching for the intended comic response. Even when Baldwin's character is sneaking around outside his ex-wife's house, spying on her date with Adam, it's done a lot less broadly than I expected. Although the movie is largely a romantic comic fantasy, the performances keep it grounded in reality. Martin, in particular, is sweetly charming in his role. Considering how many paychecks he's been cashing in the Pink Panther and Cheaper by the Dozen films, this serves as a reminder that yes, he can actually act and be very likable when the film doesn't force him to be clueless buffoon. Streep, meanwhile, probably could have done this role in her sleep, but she doesn't phone it in. She makes Jane into a well-rounded and charismatic woman that we can relate to. This is harder than it sounds, considering her character lives in a sprawling house in Santa Barbara, which she apparently is able to afford by running a pastry store.

The film is not perfect, and does take a few rare missteps. Jane has a small group of best friends, whom she gossips and drinks wine with in a few scenes. These women serve absolutely no point to the film, other than to scream and laugh as Jane recounts her recent relationship trials. They all talk and act like they wandered in from a lesser Nora Ephron film, and have no place here. The supporting characters are also nowhere near as strong as the three main characters, and don't seem to have been written with the same level of care. The only supporting character who does stand out is the future husband of one of Jane's daughters, who is played by John Krasinski. He has some great comic and physical reactions to everything that's going on around him, so it's the performance that makes the character stand out. I can picture the character disappearing into the background, if he had been played by someone else.
Despite this, It's Complicated manages to be entertaining, thanks mainly to the strong leads, and some genuinely funny writing on Meyers' part. It's sure to be a big draw for women over the holiday season, and it deserves to be. Considering the quality of most recent romantic comedies, I would praise this movie for just being watchable. Fortunately, there's a lot more to recommend here.

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

0 comments

It is the job of a film critic to recommend films to their readers. However, all too often, I find myself recommending films for certain people, or interests. Rarely does a film come along that I feel the need to tell everyone to go see. Up in the Air is that rare kind of film. It is a simple, deep, and meaningful little film that never once falls into the trap of pretentiousness, and is so thoroughly entertaining, I have a hard time picturing the person who would hate it (though I'm sure they are out there). This is an absolutely wonderful film, and is one of 2009's very best.

This is the third film for director Jason Reitman, a filmmaker who, in a very short amount of time, has shown remarkable skill in not only directing, but also writing and choosing his projects carefully. (His other credits include Thank You For Smoking, and 2007's Juno.) Here, he not only shows his talent for mixing humor with human drama, but also for creating unforgettable characters. The lead character in the story is Ryan Bingham, a man who fires people for a living, and literally lives out of his suitcase. He has an apartment, which is barely furnished, since he lives there less than a hundred days out of the year. Most of the time, his home is in the sky, as he flies from city to city, visiting various corporations and helping them deal with firing their employees when cut backs are needed. Ryan is comfortable in his life. He has no real human relationships, not even with his surviving family members back home. But, he is a charmer, is friendly and open to the various strangers who walk in and out of his life. "I'm not a hermit", he tells a co-worker. When he's not performing lay offs on behalf of faceless corporate bosses who hire him, he's a motivational speaker, teaching people how they can lighten the load in their "backpack of life", and live on only the vary bare essentials.

George Clooney plays Ryan, and it's a different kind of performance from what we usually see from him, especially from his more recent roles in films like The Men Who Stare at Goats and The Fantastic Mr. Fox. In those films, he had a certain larger than life quality to him, and even seemed to be taking a cue from some of his past performances. He has the usual suave confidence we see in his performances, but it's a little more subtle and down to earth here. He plays Ryan as a man who has his life so organized, he knows his way through every major airport and hotel chain. He's the man you want to be behind of if you're standing in a long line anywhere, as he always knows the best way to move through it as quickly as possible. Clooney helps us understand how Ryan could love the life he leads of hardly ever being home, and going from one airport and hotel to the next. For him, this life is all about control. When he's traveling, he's his own boss, knows all the ropes, and has nothing to tie him down. It's independence to him. It's a wonderful performance, to be sure, but it's certainly helped by two very strong female turns by Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick.

They play the women who send Ryan's controlled and organized world into anarchy in different ways. Farmiga plays a fellow traveler of the skies, who not only seems to understand Ryan's world and way of thinking, but also emotionally bonds with him. She seems to be his perfect match in just about every way. ("Think of me as yourself, only with a vagina", she tells him.) They meet in a bar, compare travel tips and membership cards, and soon they're having regular sexual encounters whenever their travel paths cross. It's more than sexual for both, though. They have a genuine understanding and bond with one another. Before long, he's contemplating actually going to his sister's wedding in Wisconsin, since he might be able to show up with a date for once. As for Kendrick, she plays a rookie in Ryan's field of work named Natalie Keener. Ryan's boss (Jason Bateman) has implemented some of Natalie's ideas into the job that could cause trouble for his perfect world. Instead of sending their agents out to different companies to lay off employees, Natalie suggests they use teleconference technology so that they can lay off workers without actually being there. Ryan takes Natalie on the road with him, hoping to show her the error of her ways.

How the two storylines converge, I will not reveal. Part of what makes Up in the Air a wonderful experience is how we're never entirely sure how things will turn out, or where the characters will end up. This is a razor sharp, bittersweet film that's surprisingly complex underneath its simple exterior. The movie is about how the different main characters view the world, and the dreams they hold. For Ryan, happiness is having as little bonds to the world as possible. Natalie is a young dreamer. She has a boyfriend, wants the American Dream that most people her age want, and is a lot more optimistic. Hearing these two characters talk about their different views on life is not only fascinating, but very honest and real. We don't feel like we're listening to scripted dialogue. They talk like they're having an honest conversation you might overhear between a man and a woman at the stage of life the characters are. There's not a single false moment in the performance, or the dialogue. Anna Kendrick shows a real charisma here as the young and idealistic Natalie. She's a real find here, and I'm sure this performance will help her find work beyond the Twilight film franchise, for which she is currently best known.

Like a lot of great films, this is not really a movie you can catagorize. At times, it seems that it wants to be a romantic comedy about a man who learns how to open his heart and life to someone special, but the screenplay by Reitman and Shelton Turner does not let the story or the characters get pigeonholed into a certain genre. We think we know these people or have them figured out, and then it surprises us. This is especially true of the other main woman in Ryan's life. Vera Farmiga matches her performance to Clooney's so perfectly, that yes, we can actually see the attraction between the two characters. We even start to want them to find each other, and are happy for them when they start sharing more experiences outside of hotel rooms. Once again, I will not reveal where the characters end up, but it is a perfect note. The movie finds the perfect note not just for the characters, but for the ending itself. It feels right, and the characters are where they should be.
There is a lot of quiet power in Up in the Air. The drama is very subtle, but hits very hard and close to home. So does the satirical elements. It does this without ever once drawing attention to itself, and without a single bombastic or false moment. The flow of the storytelling is natural, the dialogue is real, and the emotions are completely honest. This is the kind of movie that makes you excited not just because of what you're seeing up on the screen, but also for what the filmmaker will do next. Thinking back on 2009, it's hard to think of a more note-perfect movie than this.

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

0 comments

In order for a "fish out of water" comedy to work, we need to be amused by the situations that the lead characters find themselves in over their heads in. In order for a romantic comedy to work, we need to like the lead characters and want them to get together by the end. Did You Hear About the Morgans? tries to be both, and fails. This is one of those movies where even the cast doesn't seem to be all that interested.

The film marks the third teaming of writer-director Mark Lawrence and star Hugh Grant. Their last effort was 2007's Music and Lyrics, a likable comedy that got a lot of mileage out of the charm and chemistry of Grant and Drew Barrymore. This time, he's paired with Sarah Jessica Parker, and the connection is never there. They play a feuding New York married couple named Paul and Meryl Morgan, who are on the brink of divorce for various reasons. He was unfaithful, and never really got behind the idea of having a child, even though Parker's character really wanted one. Now, she's moved out, and Grant's character is supposed to have seen the error of his ways, and wants to reconcile. We never quite believe this. The chemistry between the actors is never there, so we never get behind that Grant is trying desperately to hold onto what's left of their love. We also never see what drew the two together in the first place. Grant gives his usual performance (charmingly befuddled, constantly stumbling over his own words), while Parker is shrill and somewhat materialistic. If there was anything in the relationship of Paul and Meryl, it left long before the point the movie picks up.

After a tense dinner date, where Paul unsuccessfully tries to make Meryl remember what they once meant to each other, they witness a murder while walking home together. The killer spots them and tracks them down, so the two are forced to go into hiding under witness protection. They're sent to live under assumed names in Ray, Wyoming - a small town filled with so many colorful characters and small town stereotypes, it's a casting director's dream. The Sheriff and his wife are a down home couple played by Sam Elliott and Mary Steenburgen. They're the people the Morgans live with during their time in Ray. They're a nice enough couple, but Paul and Meryl feel uncomfortable around them, because their house is decorated with stuffed and mounted animal heads, and their fridge is stocked top to bottom with large meat carcasses. The joke is supposed to be that Meryl is a strict vegetarian and member of PETA. (ho, ho) I suppose some laughs could be gathered if the movie actually tried to develop the characters and had them facing their differences in an amusing way, but it's too lazy for that. It goes for Sarah Jessica Parker looking at the mounted heads in disgust, stops there, and waits for laughs that never come.

Other residents of Ray include the gruff, grandfather-like owner of the town's only restaurant (Wilford Brimley), a ditzy blonde who holds multiple jobs throughout the town (Kim Shaw), and a simple minded young medical doctor (David Call). These brief descriptions I just gave are the extent of their characters. Did You Hear About the Morgans? is not just lazy in its characters, but also in the pay offs of its gags. Since Paul is so nervous about running into a bear while staying in Ray, it's only natural that he's bound to have an encounter with a rather large one. The best this movie can give us is a scene where Paul stammers mindlessly at the bear for a little while, then runs away. Other gags that have absolutely no pay off include scenes where Paul tries to chop firewood, and a scene where Meryl tries to milk a cow. So, not only do we end up not liking these characters, but there's nothing amusing about them to start with. So why are we watching a movie about them? It's a question I kept on asking myself, hoping the next scene would provide the answer.

Why are we watching, indeed? An even better question would be why was this movie made in the first place? Surely there are scripts out there that would better serve the talents of the cast. Why was this dead-on-arrival flop deemed filmable? It doesn't even have the sense to be a memorably bad comedy, like the recent Old Dogs. It just kind of goes through the motions, almost as if it's not even really interested in making an effort to be truly bad or good. It plays out, and we wait for it to be over. The most offensive part about the film is how obvious it is in its foreshadowing. When Meryl's business assistant in New York unwisely tries to make a call to try to get in touch with her, we just know the message is going to fall into the wrong hands. When Paul and Meryl are taught how to fire a rifle, we just know it's going to play a part in the climax when the killer finally tracks them down. Even the Sheriff's expertise at throwing horse shoes plays a part later on! There's not a single moment we can't predict, because the movie keeps on dropping obvious hints throughout.
If there is an audience for this movie, I can't imagine who it would be. Fans of Grant or Parker would be better off renting their better past films. Did You Hear About the Morgans? is likely to become a tiny blip on the radar of the career of everyone involved. They'll move on to do other things, and it will never be mentioned or spoken of again. It's probably better that way.

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

1 comments

There is no denying that Avatar is a technically astounding movie. Writer-director James Cameron has apparently been planning his vision for almost 15 years, and has been given an insane budget to make it become a reality. You can see almost every cent right up there on the screen, especially if you are watching the film in digital 3D. The alien world of Pandora seems to be filled with life in just about every corner of the screen. The planet's inhabitants are the Na'vi - tall, lanky blue-skinned humanoid creatures with cat-like eyes. They've been brought to life with some of the most impressive motion capture work since Gollum in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It's a feast for the eyes, to be sure.

So, then why did this movie fail to grab me? For all of the impressive technical wizardry, Avatar is missing that one crucial ingredient - a compelling script filled with characters we can care about. I was filled with wonder as the characters explored the dense, jungle-like alien world, but the funny thing is I cared about the stuff going on around the characters, not the characters themselves. Maybe I should have seen this coming. In the years that Cameron has been self-promoting his latest sci-fi epic, he has always stressed the visuals, never the script itself. It's just as well. His screenplay seems to be stapled together by the bits and pieces of various other fantasy and ecological films that have come before it. There's not a single original thought, idea, or piece of dialogue in the entire thing. It's a garage sale of bargain basement genre cliches. When you get right down to it, Avatar is a triumph of style over substance.

For many, this will be enough. They will come to see breathtaking visuals, they will get them, and they will go home happy. But, I suspect they will be hard pressed to remember anything but the visuals a week later. Will they remember a single line of dialogue that was uttered? Will they reflect upon a certain character, and their motivation? I am guessing no, as the movie gives us very little motivation to draw on. It is a "good vs. evil" story that is as simple as a children's book, or a Saturday morning cartoon. The Na'vi are a peaceful and primitive alien tribe. They are in tune with nature and the world around them, and share special bonds with the plant life and other animals that inhabit Pandora. They are pure and innocent, and so they are automatically good. There is no real individuality within the race. Everyone thinks, acts, and talks exactly the same. Quite odd to think that while the special effects work make the Na'vi look three dimensional in appearance, they are completely one-dimensional underneath. The main character who represents the race is a Na'vi woman named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana from 2009's Star Trek). She is not so much a character we can attach ourselves to, but rather an exposition device, used to explain to the audience the Na'vi culture and ways. She also exists as a shallow love interest for the human lead, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who spends much of the film in the disguise of a Na'vi, thanks to modern Avatar science.

The world of Pandora is being invaded by the most brutish and violent of races - human beings from Earth (bet you never saw that coming). Because humans can not breathe the air on Pandora, a scientist named Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) has invented a technology where a human can be mentally "linked" to an Avatar Na'vi body that the person controls with their mind. Controlling the Na'vi Avatar, they can freely move about on the world, and mingle with the natives, hoping to peacefully work out an agreement so that the two cultures can live together. Unfortunately, not all of the visitors from Earth share Grace's vision of galactic peace. Many share the views of the bitter Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a hardened military man who does not trust the Na'vi, and thinks they should be wiped out, so his men can do whatever they please without having to worry about angering the natives. As a villain, Miles never really amounts to much. He snarls, he plots, he manipulates, but there's nothing going on beneath the surface. He's evil and refuses to listen to reason, because the screenplay requires him to be. We don't really learn anything about his motivation, other than the bare necessity that he wants to kill the Na'vi people, for reasons that are never really clear beyond blind hatred.

The emotional drama that is supposed to build never does. We're supposed to be awed as Jake Sully takes his first steps in his Avatar body, since he's paraplegic in his human form. We see him so excited to be able to stand and walk in his Na'vi body that he runs right out of the lab, and continues to run. The scene would be more uplifting if it wasn't so anti-climactic. We are then supposed to become involved as Jake in his Na'vi body is welcomed into the alien culture, and begins to see the world through their eyes. He begins to turn his back on human society, and helps them fight back against his own comrades. This could easily be dramatic stuff, but Cameron's screenplay never develops Jake or anyone into a character we can care about. Aside from some exposition narration at the very beginning, we don't learn anything about Jake, or why he becomes so fascinated with this alien culture. I mean, sure, the sexy blue alien babe probably has something to do with it, but I wanted a little more information. The world of Pandora is such a visually arresting place, it's a shame that more that doesn't happen within it. There is a curious lack of suspense here. We know that Jake will win over the tribal members who are initially suspicious of him, we know that Jake and Neytiri will bond emotionally, we know that Jake will eventually have to fight against the humans he once fought for. There is nothing unexpected to be found here.

I could forgive this if Avatar seemed to have a hint of inspiration to its storytelling and its characters, but all of the inspiration seems to have begun and ended with the visual design. When will Hollywood learn that no matter how beautiful your movie is, you have nothing unless you fill those images with a captivating story or characters? Remembering the movie, I find myself thinking back on the visuals, but can remember nothing of what happened within them. I remember the mythical forests that seem to be alive, and glow with soft white energy from spirits. I remember the giant robot battle suits that the Earth military equips themselves with as they go marching into the forests of Pandora. I remember the majestic flying creature that Jake must tame and train as part of his trials of becoming a respected member of the Na'vi. I remember these visuals, because they actually stand out. The characters interacting with them could have been cardboard cutouts for all this screenplay cares.

Beyond the images, there is no sense of euphoria or joy. One thing I found surprising was the almost total lack of humor. Cameron has always shown a strong sense of humor, and sometimes even the absurd if necessary, in his past epics. Strangely, it is not used here. The movie is deadly serious, and suffers. I wasn't exactly hoping an obnoxious comic relief character would pop up, just a sign that Cameron knew how to have fun with his own material. Instead, he hammers us incessantly with his broad message of ecological respect. I'm all for there being a message in sci-fi films, but the one here is heavy-handed and applied with all the subtlety of a jackhammer. It's yet another example of the script's surprisingly simple minded nature. It thinks we're not clever enough to make the connection, so it has to keep on spelling it out for us.
I find myself in the strange position of not being able to recommend Avatar as a movie, but admitting it should probably be seen at least once for the visuals. As I said, for some, that will be enough. You know if you yourself fall under that category, and if you do, you're bound to have a more positive experience than I did. Anyone who wants something to grasp beyond the images may find themselves in a dire situation, though. Consider this review a warning for those of you looking for a little substance to go with the style.

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

0 comments

I meant to do a full review of Clint Eastwood's latest drama, but it's been a busy weekend, with a lot of personal stuff popping up, so I'm giving you this quick, mini review. Full reviews to return next weekend.

Invictus is a a somewhat slight, but entertaining film that gets a lot of mileage out of its two lead stars - Morgan Freeman (who is wonderful here, as Nelson Mandela) and Matt Damon. The film deals with Mandela's early days in office, and trying to unite the people of South Africa by rallying his nation behind an underdog rugby team. The movie is not very deep as a bio picture, but it is effective, uplifting, and powerful in some moments, such as the scene where Damon's character visits Mandela's former prison cell.

The movie falls back on a few sports movie cliches, especially during its last half hour or so, but until then, this is a strong effort. Not quite the movie a man such as Mandela deserves, but still very good.

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

0 comments

Watching The Princess and the Frog is the cinematic equivalent of traveling back in time 20 years or so. Back when animated films were hand-drawn, but no less mesmerizing than today's CG 3D "events". In fact, back then, Disney's animated films seemed more special, since they didn't come along as often as they do today. This film is an attempt to recapture that special feeling films such as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin had on audiences.

At this, the film is mostly a success. The animation is stunning, and definitely harkens back to the art style of the "Disney Renaissance" of the early 90s, without seeming outdated. The musical numbers (provided by composer Randy Newman) are tuneful, and fit the film well, though I'm not sure how strong they'll hold up outside of context. The characters are also immediately likable, especially young heroine Tiana (voice by Anika Noni Rose), who has gotten a lot of attention for being the first African American lead in a Disney animated film. Personally, I find her more noteworthy for being a very strongly written character. She's a loving, yet hard-working woman who dreams of owning her own restaurant one day. It's a dream she shared as a child with her late father (Terrence Howard), and still shares with her mother (Oprah Winfrey). Although she is not against turning to wishing on a star once in a while as a last resort, she fully believes she must achieve her dreams on her own, and doesn't even have any interest initially when the dashing Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos) comes to New Orleans from a far away land to look for a bride. It's only when fate brings the two together that Tiana even seems to notice the Prince.

We learn early on of the true reason for Prince Naveen's visit. He is a spoiled playboy who has been cut off from his family's fortune, and has come to New Orleans to search for a wealthy woman to marry, so he can continue the lavish lifestyle he has become accustomed to. His greed is what bring him into the presence of a voodoo witch doctor (or "shadow man") named Facilier (Keith David), who promises to help him achieve riches, but tricks him and instead turns him into a helpless frog. Remembering the story of The Frog Prince from his childhood, Naveen goes to look for a Princess that can return him to normal with her kiss, and mistakes Tiana for one, since she's dressed in fancy clothes and tiara for a masquerade ball. After much coaxing (even as a child, Tiana did not see the point of kissing a frog, even if a handsome Prince came out of the deal), Tiana agrees to the kiss, and finds herself in the form of a frog afterward, due to the magic curse. The two must now make their way across the bayou to find a voodoo priestess named Mama Odie (Jennifer Lewis), who might be able to return them to their human forms. They're aided by the required animal sidekicks - a horn-playing alligator named Louis (Michael-Leon Wooley) and a Cajun firefly named Ray (Jim Cummings), who provide comic relief.

If it all sounds conventional, well, that's the point. It's certainly not generic, though. The Princess and the Frog is a lot of fun to watch, thanks to some vibrant voice performances, which are mainly provided by relative unknowns for a nice change of pace. The "name" actors, like the previously mentioned Howard and Winfrey, along with John Goodman as a "Big Daddy" gentleman, are kept in small, supporting roles, so the movie doesn't turn into a game of "Guess the Celebrity Voice". The film's vibrant hand-drawn look is also a wonder to behold. It's a joy just watching the movie, and the details that the animators put into the settings, and the little quirks and expressions of the character. (I liked the way that the evil witch doctor's shadow is almost a character itself, acting independently at times, hinting at some supernatural elements.) None of the characters are quite as well developed as Tiana, but they still grab our attention, and should delight children in the audience. The directors, John Musker and Ron Clements, worked on some of the previously mentioned Disney masterpieces (such as Little Mermaid and Aladdin), and they show here that they certainly have not forgotten their formula for success. There's plenty of humor, heart, and Broadway-quality musical numbers to go around, but the film still lacks a little tiny something that would have really pushed it to greatness.

The movie is sweet and energetic, but lacks a strong narrative that truly gets us involved. Watching the film, you get the sense that if this had been released during the resurgence of 2D animation in the early 90s, it'd be viewed as an entertaining, but minor entry. The characters are there, but there's no compelling story for them to inhabit. Other than a run-in with some alligators and a group of comic rednecks, there's no real sense of danger in the journey Tiana and Naveen take to become human again. The villain mainly stays behind the scenes, and aids a pompous former servant to the Prince (Peter Bartlett) in his misguided goal to take Naveen's place. Does this hurt the film? Not enough for me to not recommend it. It stands well enough on its own. Kids are sure to love it, and adults will smile. I guess it all boils down to this - As an attempt to capture the old feeling Disney films once had, it's a rousing success. As an individual animated entry, it's entertaining, but somewhat slight.
How kids accustomed to the flashy computer visuals of Pixar and Dreamworks will respond to the old fashioned, but beautiful, look found here, I don't know. I certainly hope it leads to future endeavors for the 2D animators they still have at the studio. I'd love to see both art forms respected both by the studio and audiences. I strongly believe that traditional and CG animation can co-exist. The Princess and the Frog is a good movie that hints at possibly great things.

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

0 comments

Most people who see Transylmania will walk out asking, "Why was this movie made"? It's a good question to be sure, and one that I can't provide the answer for. However, I have to ask something equally perplexing. Why does this movie have so much plot? Does a dumb teen sex comedy really need five or more different subplots competing for our attention?

I ask this, because directors David and Scott Hillenbrand bury their sex farce underneath so much back story, so many characters, and so many confusing subplots concerning mistaken identities and multiple personalities that you start to think that maybe they thought audiences were supposed to take this seriously. There's so much plot in this movie that there's very little time for anything sexy, and absolutely no laughs to speak of. Believe me, I counted. There were three people, including myself, in the cinema when the film started. About a half hour in, one of the people got out of their seat and never came back. The second person took this as inspiration, and walked out about twenty minutes later. During the time those people were there, no one in the theater was laughing, and I didn't laugh once after I was alone. I stayed in my seat, hoping something would come along to pick the movie up, but I was only greeted by more plot that I didn't care about.

I'll do my best to sort this movie out, but I must warn you dear reader, the movie is rapidly fading from my memory, even as I write this sentence. The story kicks off with our hero, Rusty (Oren Skoog), convincing his pack of wild, hard-partying college friends (all played by actors who look like they're pushing 30) to study abroad in Romania with him. Rusty's real motive for going is that he has a girlfriend that he met on the Internet waiting for him there. The university that they attend in Romania is actually a dark and spooky castle, which was once ruled by a famous vampire named Radu (Skoog, again). The vampire was once in love with a powerful sorceress, until her soul got trapped in an enchanted music box. One of Rusty's friends (Jennifer Lyons) ends up with the music box in her hands, after her boyfriend buys it for her from a traveling gypsy. Whenever she opens the music box, she becomes possessed by the spirit of the sorceress, and mistakes Rusty for her long-lost vampire love, which upsets the boyfriend, who can't figure out why she's acting so strange.

Meanwhile (expect to hear this word a lot), the real vampire Radu is still alive, searching for the music box, and constantly being mistaken for Rusty. He returns to his former castle home, only to discover that one of the professors teaching there (Musetta Vander) is actually a vampire hunter, although she dresses up like a leather-clad dominatrix at all times. The vampire hunter also mistakes one of Rusty's other friends as a fellow hunter, since he's been going around saying he's a vampire hunter in order to impress the girls. Meanwhile, Rusty meets his Internet girl (Irena A. Hoffman), and is disgusted to find out she's a deformed hunchback. Her father's a dwarf (David Steinberg), who also happens to be the Dean of the school. He's got a secret underground lab beneath the castle, where he's attempting to create a sexy new body for his daughter out of the pieces of dismembered students. He removes the head of one of Rusty's friends so he can get her torso, but he keeps her head alive in his lab. Some of Rusty's stoner friends try to save her, and put her body back together. Meanwhile, the vampires are plotting to perform a ceremony to bring the sorceress back to life. Meanwhile, the horny students come across a legendary sex book. Meanwhile, there's a big school dance coming up.

I think I may have left out a plot thread or two, but you get the idea. Why did the screenwriters feel that this much story was necessary in a movie where its opening gag is a guy slamming a computer notebook down on his exposed privates? Other gags include a team of horses pulling a carriage who fart every time the evil castle's name is mentioned, and a vampire in its coffin asking "Are we there yet?" over and over while it's being transported to its home. Compared to most recent teen gross-out comedies, Transylmania seems pretty tame in comparison. The characters become so wrapped up in the storytelling that they don't have time for anything else. They talk about sex, instead of actually having it. They don't even talk convincingly about it. These guys are the most forced "party animal" types ever captured on film. The cast is made entirely out of C and Z-grade talent, and don't even know how to lust after women convincingly. There's not a single authentic or passable performance to be found.

In fact, the only thing that is authentic is the last thing you'd expect in a movie like this. The filmmakers somehow managed to scrounge up enough money to actually shoot this thing on location in Romania. They even managed to have enough money left over to put a recognizable song or two on the soundtrack. Everything else about this movie screams straight to DVD, which was obviously its original destination, until Twilight rekindled Hollywood's fascination with vampires. A little fun fact: This movie is actually the third film in a series of National Lampoon comedies. The first film, Dorm Daze, actually got a limited theatrical run, while its sequel went straight to DVD. This film sat on the shelf for two years, until it was re-titled Transylmania to cash in on the recent trend. I've not seen the earlier two films, so I don't know if anyone from this movie has been in the previous entries. Since I have no intention of seeing them, the earlier adventures of the college students will have to remain a mystery to me.
I feel I must give credit where credit is due, however. Unlike a lot of recent spoof movies, Transylmania is not just a random series of pop culture references and scenes lifted from other films. It actually tries for a real plot, even if it ends up going too far in this department for a movie this intentionally silly. That being said, couldn't the filmmakers have thrown in a laugh or two? Or maybe a chuckle? These things can be golden when you're stuck watching something as hopeless as this. I felt like a drowning man, frantically clinging for some form of intelligence or wit to hold onto. It never came, and the movie's banality washed over me.

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

0 comments

Director Nimrod Antal likes to stage thrillers in minimal or confined spaces. His last film was Vacancy, a sometimes-effective horror film about a married couple who check into a sleazy motel, only to find out too late that the entire building was an elaborate death trap built by some deranged killers to lure in victims. That movie used its limited space within the motel quite well, and managed to keep things moving. His latest film, Armored, is an action thriller set mainly around an armored truck sitting dormant within an abandoned factory. There's less for Antal to work with here, both with his setting and the screenplay.

Armored is another one of those "perfect crime" movies, where a group of friends join up to pull off what they think will be the perfect crime, only to have things spiral out of control quickly, to the point that they are all turning against each other. The friends this time are a group of guys who work for an armored truck service. They transport money through the city every day, and seem to be regular guys. That's when one of the friends (Matt Dillon) comes up with a way that they could stage a fake hold up, and make off with the over $40 million they're set to transport the next day. The newest guard on the team, Ty (Columbus Short), has hit hard times. He has a house with two mortgages, and his younger brother Jimmy (Andre Kinney), whom he takes care of, might be taken away by child welfare. Ty is desperate, and agrees to the plan. They pick up the money, take it to an abandoned factory, stash the cash, and make it look like the armored trucks got held up while in route to the destination.

That's the plan, anyway, until the men discover a homeless man living in the old factory. One of the other guards in on the plan (Laurence Fishburne) shoots the man, leading Ty to realize that what they're doing is wrong. He locks himself within the truck, trying desperately to contact anyone outside. Dillon's character and the other men in on the job try to get inside the truck, so they can silence Ty and take the remaining money that's inside with him. Complications arise. A local cop (Milo Ventimiglia) has his suspicions aroused by the sounds coming from within the old factory, and begins snooping around. So now the men have to figure out how to get rid of him, too. Ty finds various ways to avoid capture. He even manages to sneak out of the truck once or twice without being seen. I can see all this be thrilling in a different movie, but it never manages to build to any tension here. We don't care about the characters, because we don't learn anything about them. One's a gun-nut, one's always reading a Bible, and the other men in on the job are pretty much identified only by the name tags on their uniforms.

Unfortunate, since there are some good actors here. Jean Reno turns up as one of the men, but is given no character to play. His big moment, when he goes to Ty's house to kidnap Jimmy in order to lure Ty out of the truck, is kept mostly off screen. Aside from Ty, Matt Dillon's character is the only one who gets any real development. He's best friends with Ty during the opening half hour, so I guess we're supposed to be shocked by how coldly he turns against him when things start to go wrong. It never builds to anything, though. There's no real confrontation between the two, except for a pair of pointless and unexciting car chases around the factory grounds. The movie itself also seems edited, as if it were originally shot as an R, but was tampered with by the studio to get a PG-13. I can't imagine a huge teen draw to a movie like this, so I don't know why they felt the edits were necessary.
Regardless, Armored is the hardest kind of movie to review. It's not really terrible, and it never offends, but it also doesn't stand out in any way. The acting, the action, and the script itself are so painfully average that you wonder why the filmmakers bothered. It's the kind of movie that leaves your mind the second it ends. Theaters these days are charging too much for a movie like this.

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

0 comments

Kirk Jones' Everybody's Fine is a movie that didn't quite click with me, though it's not for lack of trying. The movie obviously has a big heart, the heart is in the right place, and there's a talented and likable cast on display, but something's missing. I think the movie's a bit too soft, and needed a little more edge. The movie wants to be emotional, and maybe hold a mirror up to our own lives and families. It comes close, but it never quite reaches its goal.

A good example of how the movie just doesn't quite work is the lead character, Frank Goode. He's played by Robert De Niro, and it's a fine performance to be sure. But something about the character, the way he's been written, never connected. I think I know why. Frank is retired, and recently lost his wife of over 40 years. We learn that he was never very open, or good with talking with his children. This is supposed to be ironic, since Frank's job was working with telephone wires, which naturally exist to connect people and bring them closer together. So, we get a lot of not-so-subtle shots of telephone lines symbolizing people coming together, or talking. At the beginning of the film, Frank is planning a big family weekend, where all four of his kids will come to visit. It's the first time they've gotten together since his wife's funeral, but Frank is met with disappointment. All of the kids cancel, one of them doesn't even bother to call to tell him. So, despite his failing health, Frank decides to pack his bags, and travel cross country to all of the cities where his kids live (New York, Chicago, Denver, and Las Vegas) and surprise them.

The kids don't seem too happy to see him, although they put on smiles and pretend they are thrilled. Something seems off, a little frosty, about all of Frank's meetings with his children. The first kid he visits in New York isn't even home, while the other three seem to be hiding something. They make up excuses, which Frank can see right through but doesn't say anything, and generally seem to be trying to get rid of him. We learn part of this cold response to Frank's visits have to do with the fact that Frank was a hard father to him. The problem with the screenplay and the character of Frank himself is we don't get a sense of this. Not once during his travels does Frank come across as the man his kids talk about. If he was so cold and distant, why is he so open and friendly to total strangers on the street? He even tries to help out a homeless person at one point, which doesn't turn out too well, but still. Most of the movie actually makes Frank out to be a charmingly befuddled old man. He doesn't know that his suitcase has a pull-out handle, he's comically bad at golf, he's completely mystified when he has to use chopsticks at dinner, etc. These moments are supposed to be cute, but I think the movie would be a little more honest with less attempts to make Frank out to be a cute and kind of out of touch old man, and maybe given him just a tiny bit of edge.

We know that the kids are hiding something else from him. We hear their phone conversations, where they're talking about David, the son who wasn't home when Frank visited his apartment in New York City. They sound worried, and are talking something about Mexico, and maybe David getting arrested. But, they don't want to tell Frank, fear that it will worry him too much. That's also why they're so eager to get rid of him when he shows up, since they're trying to track down their missing brother. The three remaining kids that Frank does see are played by fine actors, but their scenes never quite have the intended emotional impact. His daughter Amy (Kate Beckinsale) is obviously going through a marital crisis, as there's not very subtle anger and tension between her husband and teenage son. Son Robert (Sam Rockwell) plays in an orchestra, but is an underachiever, both on the job and in life. Finally, there's Rosie (Drew Barrymore), a dancer who is looking after a baby she says is a friend's, but Frank suspects might belong to her. There's supposed to be a constant underlying tension during all of these meetings, but the tone of the scenes is too laid back. There's little raw emotion during these scenes, which really would have made them work.

I'm not trying to give the impression that Everybody's Fine is a bad movie. There are a number of scenes that are effective, and as I mentioned, the performances are very strong. The movie just never quite hits the right emotional note. It too often goes for easy schmaltz, instead of honesty. When Frank finally does find out about his son David and what became of him, we get a manipulative scene where he's visited by the image of David as a little boy, and they talk to each other about how the boy grew up to be the way he did. I can understand what writer-director Kirk Jones (Nanny McPhee) is trying to do in this and a lot of other scenes, but the execution is off just a little. This movie needed more realism, and less scenes that seem to be inspired by Hallmark commercials. I was never offended by the movie's soft touch to its characters, but I did keep on thinking what a better movie it would be if it was a little more truthful with itself.
Just like the movie I saw right before it (Brothers), this is a remake of a foreign film - this one from Italy. However, I can't say I have any desire to track down the original this time. Everybody's Fine is the kind of movie you might catch on DVD or TV, and not mind watching. It's sweet and it's well acted, but it's just not very memorable. A little more honesty to go along with the heart would have gone a long way to fixing that.

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

0 comments

For once, I am glad that the movie does not live up to the trailer. The ad campaign for Brothers makes the film out to be a bombastic melodrama. It's true that director Jim Sheridan (Get Rich or Die Tryin') and screenwriter David Benioff (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) can get a little heavy-handed at times, but the movie itself also holds a lot of quiet power and captivating performances by its three lead stars. The movie is a remake of a Danish film, unseen by me. That's something I plan to correct, having seen this film.

The brothers of the title are Sam (Tobey Maguire) and Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal). As the film opens, fate has brought them to different points in their lives. Sam is a decorated Marine, about to leave for another tour of duty in Afghanistan. He's more or less living the American Dream. He married his high school sweetheart, Grace (Natalie Portman), and has two lovely young daughters (Bailee Madison and Taylor Geare) as well as a large home. Their father, Hank (Sam Shepard), a former military man himself, holds all of his love and pride for Sam, while Tommy is more or less regarded as the black sheep of the family, and is treated with thinly-veiled scorn and contempt by Hank. Tommy has just been released from prison after trying to hold up a bank a few years ago. He's frequently drunk, and has long stopped hoping that he will ever live up to Sam in his family's eyes. He stops by the occasional family get together, but usually only shows up when he needs money or needs to be bailed out of trouble.

During Sam's most recent tour in Afghanistan, his helicopter is shot down, and he is presumed dead. He somehow survived, along with a fellow soldier named Joe Willis (Patrick Flueger), but they are both now being held captive by the Taliban, where they endure months of torture. Believing Sam to be dead, Grace and Tommy begin a guarded friendship. Tommy initially wants to be there to comfort his brother's wife (and maybe seek some comfort himself for the turmoil going through his mind over the loss of his brother), but before long, he bonds with her two children, and soon with Grace. Tommy obviously fills a gap in Grace's life, as well as her daughters, but it's never quite certain if the feelings that develop are out of love, or out of necessity, as neither Grace or Tommy want to face their grief alone. Nonetheless, a sexual tension between the two is formed. It's about this time that Sam is rescued from confinement, and is brought home. He is a changed man, though. His home, his family, and even his brother seem foreign to him. Like many who return from war, he is uncertain how to adjust back to a normal life.

We can see it in Sam's eyes. He looks at everything with haunted eyes that just can't comprehend what he's seeing. His daughters may as well be total strangers, and when he hugs them, we can sense him holding back. He also senses the tension between Grace and Tommy, but doesn't know how to register it. Much like The Hurt Locker, Brothers does not have a political agenda, and merely looks at the trials of being a soldier. The earlier film dealt with how soldiers deal with the chaos around them when they're in battle. This movie looks at the conflicting feelings upon coming home. When Sam returns to his town, the media builds his story up as a miracle, and the locals proclaim him a hero. He finds himself in a situation where the beliefs of the people all around him, and the truth of what happened in that prison camp, are in direct conflict with each other. The film is honest in the way that it handles Sam, and the empty shell he becomes after his experiences on the battlefield. It manages to avoid cheap melodrama, and instead gives us a quiet and reflective look at a man who was trained to be a soldier, but doesn't know how to turn that training off when the time comes.

This topic has been covered in many films, but the movie finds the right tone here. It is bleak, without being overbearing. There is always a small glimmer of hope, and the film's somewhat open-ended conclusion provides no real answers, but the possibility that maybe someday things will be right again. The performances find the right tone, as well. Tobey Maguire has probably the toughest role as Sam, as he has to transform gradually during the course of the film. It's certainly believable. We feel like we're watching his mental slide, so it doesn't feel rushed or forced. Jake Gyllenhaal and Sam Shepard also impress, as a father and son who have always resented one another, and don't know how to comfort or even talk to each other during their loss. Like everything else, there are no easy answers for them, and they don't have the cliched moment where they bond. They come close a few times, but it never quite comes. Natalie Portman rounds out the fine cast, in what is probably her best performance in quite a while. It is subtle, yet commanding, as she tries to sort out her feelings of the man her husband has become, and what it is doing to everyone around her.
I was quite surprised by the emotional power of Brothers, given that the trailer almost seemed to show the entire film condensed into two minutes. There's quite a lot of substance to be found, as well as rewarding performances. If the climax of the movie seems a little staged and over the top, it makes up for it with a poignant closing scene that leaves you satisfied without wrapping everything up neat and tidy. This is a surprisingly skillful movie all around.

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

1 comments