From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Mar 2 13:37:14 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Mar 2 13:37:18 2010 Subject: Review: Friction (2009) Message-ID: <15WdnfuJ47rfcBfWnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@earthlink.com> FRICTION A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2010 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** I just finished watching FRICTION, so I'd like to write about it now while it's still fresh in my mind, but I have a major problem. My head is still spinning. Structured -- I think -- as a mockumentary about a documentary which may or may not itself be a mockumentary, FRICTION has more layers than a big fat onion. It appears to have a bunch of very talented non-actors playing actors who are playing non-actors. Or maybe it is a mixture of real actors playing ... oh, I give up. Whatever it is or isn't, it is a whole lot of fun and quite intriguing too, as we watch a real-life married couple bicker and watch an older teen (August Thompson) engage in some innocent flirtation with the married man's wife, causing a mixture of heartburn, heartbreak and heartache. Written and directed by Cullen Hoback, who did the absolutely delightful MONSTER CAMP, FRICTION nicely blurs the lines between a scripted drama and a traditional documentary. I came to really like and care for the actors or characters in FRICTION. Of course, I'm not sure where their real personas ended and their fictional ones began. Frequently in the story they would carefully explain it to us, but we soon learn not to trust anything we are told in this Escher print of a world with its very flexible notion of what is real and what isn't. In the movie, Amy and Jeremy Mathison, who play themselves -- or so they claim -- are associated with a summer arts camp in New Hampshire. Due to poor advertising, the enrollment in the camp the year the movie was made had dwindled from 84 the previous year to just 7 students. FRICTION's director Cullen Hoback, playing a director named Cullen Hoback, decides to make a documentary about a movie that he was going to make there but couldn't. Or something like that. A lot of what we see are things like the rehearsal for scenes that were deleted from the movie that was never finished. Like real life, FRICTION does have its dead spots, but it kept my interest the whole time, and most of it was both funny and bizarrely compelling. After our screening, Cullen Hoback, playing Cullen Hoback the director of the movie, appeared on stage to answer our many questions, pretending, of course, to be telling the truth, which he might or might not have been doing. Playing myself, I told him that I was the film critic Steve Rhodes who saw and loved his last film (MONSTER CAMP) and wondered how he got the idea for FRICTION. I don't want to tell you what the fictional Cullen Hoback told the fictional me, since I don't want to give anything away. I'd recommend you -- or someone playing you -- seek out this movie and enjoy it for yourself. It is a little treat worth savoring. FRICTION runs 1:29. The film is being shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which runs February 23 through March 7, 2010. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Mar 2 13:38:00 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Mar 2 13:38:02 2010 Subject: Review: The Real Revolutionaries (2009) Message-ID: <7OudnffVpJwecRfWnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> THE REAL REVOLUTIONARIES A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2010 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** I'm writing to you from the Valley of Heart's Delight. You may know it better as Germanium Valley, or you might if the famous scientists and inventors chronicled in THE REAL REVOLUTIONARIES had not found out that silicon, not germanium, is a much more effective, albeit harder to work with, substance for building integrated circuits. A fascinating documentary, THE REAL REVOLUTIONARIES, by director Paul Crowder and writer Mark Monroe, tells the story of the Fairchild 8, the team that took the transistor and from it developed the revolutionary chips that have fundamentally transformed the world. The best known of these ground-breaking engineers known as the Fairchild 8 are Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. William Shockley, a Nobel Prize winner for the invention of the transistor, was the genius who recruited the best and the brightest in 1957 to join him in his new lab. A mercurial and controlling guy and a guy most people believed was one of the smartest men ever, Shockley subjected his employees to psychological tests, IQ tests and even lie detector tests. Eventually out of frustration with him, the above mentioned eight men, called the Traitorous 8 by Shockley, left to join Fairchild Electronics. Later these guys would split up and spawn a host of Silicon Valley companies, which were sometimes nicknamed the Fairchildren. Noyce and Moore, for example, went on to form this small company you might have heard of -- Intel, which made microprocessors a widely used part of our everyday lives in everything from cars to coffee makers. The documentary works best as an intriguing history lesson, teaching us things most of us, even those of us, like me, with a background in Computer Science, have probably never heard before. But the film is not without its needless distractions. In an attempt to make itself more accessible, I suppose, the film is edited into what feels like microsecond segments, complete with way too cutesy animated graphics and a blaring sound track. Also, the script becomes obsessed with Shockley's obsession with racial genetics, which sidetracks the narrative. The movie is at its best when it's teaching us -- "Technology 101: Everything is about the switch" -- or it's naturally humorous. The best line in the movie comes from an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Speaking about the differences in the respect and awe for technology's superstars in Japan vs. the United States, he says, "In Japan, Bill Gates is Brittany Spears. Unfortunately in the United States, Brittany Spears is Brittany Spears." Pointing out how far we've come in such a relatively short amount of time, the movie reminds us that it wasn't that long ago that we lived in a world without electronics. Today, we live in a time in which the exponential growth in technology predicted by Gordon Moore still holds true. His rule of thumb, which we now refer to as "Moore's Law," is that circuit density (think complexity or power) doubles every 18 months (or every 2 years, depending on which version of the prediction you've heard). This is why, the film's authors argue, that the real revolutionaries weren't the counter culture hippies of the 1960s, but the Fairchild 8 nerds with their pocket protectors and slide rules. They are the ones who truly revolutionized our world forever and for the better. THE REAL REVOLUTIONARIES runs 1:29. The film is being shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which runs February 23 through March 7, 2010. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Mar 2 13:44:13 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Mar 2 13:44:20 2010 Subject: Review: Het leven uit een dag (2009) Message-ID: LIFE IN ONE DAY A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2010 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 Masterfully combining two of my favorite film genres -- science fiction and romance -- LIFE IN ONE DAY (HET LEVEN UIT EEN DAG) creates an intriguing world that never lost my attention for a minute. First, a clarification is in order. This isn't one of those sci-fi films filled with little green men. Except that the story is set in an intriguing alternate reality, the people all look like you and me. What is different is that the people in this version of the earth live their entire lives within a single day, going from baby to senior citizen in one 24-hour period. When we meet Benny, played by several different child actors and one young adult (Matthijs van de Sande Bakhuyzen), he is a baby suckling at his mother's breast. That same day, his mother takes Benny, now a kindergartner, to school, where he and his fellow classmates will continue to mature until they leave to be young adults by the time the day ends. Benny becomes a fighter pilot that day as well. Sure, the film has many logical problems, such as the parents not aging rapidly. Maybe the film explained some of these apparent inconsistencies, and I missed it, but who cares. The world the story creates is so fascinating that it's easy to just go with the flow and accept it all, especially since it is acted and scripted so convincingly. When Benny and his fellow classmates giggle their way through the canonical sex education talk that kids with raging hormones are given, we learn something else about their reality. It seems that passion, desire and sex only happens once for them. It's an extremely intense and absolutely wonderful event, but once they have had sex with their partner and the impregnation has taken place, they stop caring about sex or love. I kept thinking of the insect world in which, I think, similar things happen, but I digress. When Benny meets the fetching and innocent looking Gini (Lois Dols de Jong), they both realize that they have found their mates. Their sex is beautiful but brief. Their love is palpable, sweet and touching and the actors' chemistry is quite genuine. But, as rebellious teens are sometimes apt to do, Benny and Gini wonder if their preordained life might have some escape clause. They think they've found it, when they remember their teachers' description of hell. While life on earth is over in a single, happy day, people sent to hell are forced to relive the same events again and again. So, even if their teachers have told them how awful hell is, they see it as a possible salvation. They do have a single worry. Will they be able to find each other once they get to hell? There is also the problem of exactly how they go about booking a ride on the train to hell. (I am sorry to say that the movie needlessly gives this away in the opening scene. I would have preferred to have been completely surprised.) The movie has two very distinct parts. The first is quite clear, while the second ... not so much. Having the two parts adds significantly to the film's compelling story, but writer and director Mark de Cloe makes one crucial error. The first part should go on longer, while the second becomes somewhat repetitive and could have been shortened. A two thirds, one third split would have been just about perfect for the time allocation. The second half attempts and completely succeeds with a cinematic technique that usually becomes an awkward distraction. The screen is split in half. I've never seen this technique work successfully for more than a few minutes max. But this film never has you wishing they would stop the silliness and get back to a single frame. Finally, the film ends with a long, soaring musical number that is fantastic. I loved it and the film itself. It is the sort of movie that makes you want to go back and see it again, perhaps several times. It's also the type of movie that divides viewers. In talking with people afterwards, I found people split between those who loved it, as I did, and an equal number who hated it. LIFE IN ONE DAY runs 1:34. The film is in Dutch with English subtitles. The film is being shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which runs February 23 through March 7, 2010. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Mar 2 13:44:41 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Mar 2 13:44:43 2010 Subject: Review: Cooking History (2009) Message-ID: <89CdnbzAt4vu1xXWnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> COOKING HISTORY A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2010 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 Every film is to some degree a captive of its concept. So it is with the documentary COOKING HISTORY, which is never as good as its theme -- the cooking of food for the soldiers in many of the major European wars of the last century. It's hard to get a proper handle on why the film doesn't work, since the more I think about the ideas behind it, the more intrigued I become. And parts of the picture do work quite well. The old film footage of war cooks is fascinating, especially the relatively mundane sequences of things like German cooks preparing vast amounts of bread for the Nazi soldiers. To remind us of how important this is, an old German cook lectures us on why German bread has been and always will be the "best in the world." In the "entire" world, he feels the need to add as well, lest there be any confusion whatsoever about his claim. Possibly the most common complaint about the movie might be the gruesomeness of some of the images. Lots of dead soldiers are seen left forgotten in the frozen snow. But what is most likely to leave one feeling a need to avert one's eyes away from the screen are sequences of animals having their necks sliced open, while blood spurts everywhere until the animal completely bleeds out. Maybe in a time when more people grew up on farms, it would have been possible to watch this without grimacing, but today this footage will probably be shocking to most viewers. Call me heartless, but I wasn't bothered that much by the animals being put to death. I eat meat and know that they must be killed if I am to enjoy eating them. Of course, I looked away some too. I don't have an iron stomach. The problem I had with COOKING HISTORY isn't what it did, but what it didn't do. Structured as a series of interviews with sporadic overlays of footage, old and new, of food preparation, the interviewees talked generally like they had just come from a speed-speaking class. They had a whole lot to say, that much is clear, but most of it just wasn't that interesting. This left me being intrigued by the old footage, but little else. COOKING HISTORY isn't a bad film, but I left disappointed that it never could find a recipe for success. COOKING HISTORY runs 1:28. The film is in German, Czech, Russian, French, Hebrew, Hungarian, Croatian and Serbian with English subtitles and in English. The film is being shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which runs February 23 through March 7, 2010. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Mar 2 13:45:57 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Mar 2 13:45:59 2010 Subject: Review: Flugten (2009) Message-ID: THE ESCAPE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2010 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** It was a lie. While not a small lie, it was just one lie, but it was a lie nonetheless. Still, as lies go, this one was done for humanitarian purposes, so surely it was okay. THE ESCAPE (FLUGTEN) explores the consequence of necessary fibs that go too far and go on too long. Danish journalist Rikke Lyngvig (Iben Hjejle) is in Afghanistan when she is captured by Islamic terrorists, a self-righteous bunch who love to think that Islam is served best when they murder and torture in the name of their god. These bloodthirsty members of the Taliban aren't above forced recruitment into their ranks. Nazir Osmani (Faegh Zamani), a handsome lad with a head full of bushy and curly black hair, has recently suffered two tragedies. First his father was killed by U.S. soldiers in the Afghanistan war and his uncle, a Taliban member, has forced Nazir to join them in their cause of Islamic revolution. After the Taliban murder Rikke's interpreter and his wife and younger daughter, Rikke effectively becomes collateral damage in the war. The Taliban demand that Denmark withdrawal all of their forces in Afghanistan within three days, or Rikke will be killed. When their demand isn't met, the Taliban begin to worry that a simple execution won't suffice to drawn BBC coverage of the event, so they decide on slow torture before her execution. For the next ten days, they will cut off one of her fingers and send the footage of it to the West. THE ESCAPE starts very well. Filmed in a dusty and hostile environment in which women are forced to cover their faces and men frequently do as well to hide their identity, the feeling of deathly foreboding is palpable. When Nazir bravely decides to free Rikke, with the only condition being that she lies to everyone by saying that she knocked him out and escaped on her own, the movie shifts gear, going from exciting thriller to a pedestrian tale about Rikke's return to work in Denmark. This long and plodding middle section of the film is best forgotten or skipped entirely. But don't give up on the story. After Rikke becomes a best-selling author, telling of her exciting escape on her own from the terrorists, Nazir shows up in Denmark, revealing a very inconvenient truth about Rikke and her claim to fame. In no time, the film's action picks back up again with the same intensity that it began. Will she be able to help Nazir, as he helped her, or will he be tried as a terrorist, since the Taliban group he was a member of committed numerous atrocities? You can probably guess the ending, but that's okay, since the acting is good and the journey with these actors is worth taking. THE ESCAPE runs 1:54. The film is in English and in Danish and Dari with English subtitles. The film is being shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which runs February 23 through March 7, 2010. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From tskirvin at killfile.org Tue Mar 9 01:07:55 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Tue Mar 9 01:07:59 2010 Subject: Review: Alice in Wonderland (2010) (2010) Message-ID: Over the last year, Hollywood has learned a big lesson: stereoscopic 3-D movies can sell a *lot* of tickets. Just about every animated movie worth its salt came out in 3-D last year; and what live action movies could be converted, *were* converted. This was made painfully obvious by the $2.5B that Avatar has made so far, a figure that can in no small part be attributed to its seamless use of 3-D to actually improve the movie, instead of just to look new and shiny. Now that this has become obvious, the onslaught has begun; movies will be in 3-D, *especially* those aimed at children. Sadly, I don't believe that much of Hollywood has a clue of how to use 3-D appropriately yet. The new _Alice in Wonderland_ movie is a good example, in that it doesn't even seem to try to do anything interesting *or* good with its 3-D. Sure, you get the occasional fall down a deep hole ("look at the things flying past me!"), and some action scenes that try to show a separate foreground and background; but most of the time the 3-D just makes the scenes feel cluttered. Its use in the 19th century England scenes was just downright distracting. And given that this is was created by a "visually novel" director like Tim Burton... well, I worry for the next few years, when less skilled directors take over. (But ah, you say, isn't the problem that the movies are being directed for both 3-D and 2-D? Well, perhaps; but is that likely to change? Until we have ubiquitous 3-D displays in our homes, the studios will insist that their movies will display well in some form of home release; and so we're stuck with this problem. Really, though, I expect that this is a problem that will take a new generation of directors to work through. 3-D is going to be as hard to grok as color was last century.) I suppose that the movie was still pretty, in its own way. The particular style of prettiness was a fairly typical but low-key version of Tim Burton's normal work - that is to say, colorful and twisted with a touch of dark humor, and (lately) based on an older work with its own distinctive style (in this case, the 1951 animated version). But looking back, even though I didn't like the England scenes that much, I still think they looked better and more interesting than the rest of the movie. Should that not bother me? Well, frankly, it didn't bother me as much as the rest of the movie... In character, this new version of _Alice_ most resembles _Return to Oz_ with a touch of Kingdom Hearts tossed in. The movie was not a re-telling of the original Lewis Carroll stories; instead, it's treated as a sequel, with Alice now a late teenager. This would be fine if there was a purpose and a theme to it all (see also: Alice McGee's video game version), but instead we just went on a journey through all the things that Alice saw the last time she visited as a child, except this time everybody was sad instead of mad. There were no useful metaphors to growing up, no sense of exploration of a new world, nothing clever, nothing fun. None of it seemed to be any more than your typical "hero visits fantasy world, saves the day" plot. None of it mattered, even to Alice. There were characters; who knew that this would be a negative? Alice is supposed to be a character reacting to absurdities; instead, she became The Chosen One, rescuing people because that's what The Chosen One is supposed to do. And rather than just being caricatures, the other actors are asked to both act and actively participate in the story. There is Johnny Depp, playing Johnny Depp with a hat; there is the Queen of Hearts that says "off with his head" a lot because it was funny 60 years ago, who is in some kind of dynastic struggle; there is a sister, Washed-Out Anne Hathaway; there is the Cheshire Cat, who is now suddenly a very *active* cat; there is a Bandersnatch that, err, I'm not really sure what was up there; and there are a lot of animals that, to be fair, are pretty well animated. Across the board, we're supposed to look at these others as *characters*. And I don't really think that works. Things I liked: the woman that played Alice did a good job with what she was given (even if I spent the movie thinking she was Ginny Weasley, instead of the girl from the first season of In Treatment). The first time they used the phrase "frabjous day". The use of a Vorpal Sword on screen, and all of the bits from the Jabberwocky poem. The idea that women can be independent. The obscure Dr Seuss reference. Things I disliked: the rest of the actors. The second time they used the phrase "frabjous day". The insistence of using the name 'Jabberwocky' instead of the shorter 'jabberwock' where appropriate. The poor introduction of the idea that women can be independent. Oh, and the plot. So, yeah, on balance, it didn't come out well. I'd avoid it if I were you. And, perhaps, join me in hoping that Hollywood doesn't learn any *more* lessons from this movie's success. * 1/2 As a side-node - _Tron: Legacy_ looks awesome! Yeah, it'll eventually suck, but for now I am *psyched*. - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Mar 9 14:18:03 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:18:06 2010 Subject: Review: Bummer Summer (2010) Message-ID: <_-udnRrc2-xSiRPWnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com> BUMMER SUMMER A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2010 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2 This year's Cinequest film festival has been one of the most consistent I've attended in the fourteen years I've been covering the festival. And, by consistent, I mean consistently good. I'm known as kind of a tough grader when it comes to films, recommending far fewer than most critics. It might seem strange to start this review of BUMMER SUMMER, a film I did not like, with the above accolade for this year's Cinequest, but BUMMER SUMMER, which makes its premier at Cinequest, reminds me of the corollary of my initial thesis. While I could not recommend BUMMER SUMMER, it proved to be a very interesting failure. Much of what I didn't care for in the movie spoke to the cast and crew's promising potential for their future. Their talents were in evidence, even if this, the first movie I suspect for most them, was only very sporadically enjoyable for me. As the very minimal story unfolded -- the sparse dialog is almost totally ad lib -- I found myself bored by the story, so my mind wandered onto other aspects of the filmmaking. What is most striking about the movie is its appearance. Filmed with a digital SLR still camera that has a video option, the cinematographer shot it in black and white. Almost every shot is composed, on purpose, with a very shallow depth of field, so that most of the scene is out-of-focus. The resulting images take on a blurry, painterly appearance, and, since so little of any given frame is in focus, the director quite effectively draws your eyes to the part he wants to you concentrate on. BUMMER SUMMER, written and directed by Zach Weintrau, is cast mainly with friends of his from a film school from which they recently graduated. The story is a modest love triangle among Isaac (Mackinley Robinson), Lila (Julia McAlee) and Isaac's older brother Ben (Zach Weintraub). The acting is all quite natural, albeit never particularly compelling. Filled with the meaningless small talk that older teens unsure of themselves frequently engage in to pass the time, the movie ambles along. Structured somewhat as a road trip to find a big hedge maze, the movie had few scenes that I found memorable. The one that did work for me is a cute little interchange between Lila and Ben, in which she tells him that she has enough experience now to know when casual sex works and when it doesn't. Of course, the wise and experienced Lila then decrees that casual sex with him now wouldn't work. Of all of the actors, McAlee, who plays Lila, shows the most promise. I think they would all have benefited, however, from tighter control and a carefully written and followed script. BUMMER SUMMER runs 1:19. The film is being shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which runs February 23 through March 7, 2010. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Mar 9 14:20:21 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:20:24 2010 Subject: Review: A Prophet (2010) Message-ID: A PROPHET A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 A PROPHET (UN PROPHETE) is one quarter of a great movie. But, after its frightening opening act, the rest of the movie is remarkably ho hum and way too long. It's well worth seeing for its devastatingly intense first thirty minutes, but, after that, it really doesn't have much compelling material to offer. While the last three quarters of the film isn't bad, its confusing and meandering narrative pales in comparison to the film's initial segment. A prison drama, A PROPHET is one of those types of movies that drop us into the story without any introduction. We are following Malik El Djebena (Tahar Rahim), who is a prisoner on his first day in a dreary prison probably somewhere in France. Being part French and part Arab, Malik finds himself living in something of a no-man's land, not belonging naturally to any of the prison's warring factions. A tough old guy named Cesar Luciani (Niels Arestrup in chilling performance) "adopts" Malik, not that Malik is given any choice in the matter. Cesar is part of the Corsicans' gang, and he appears to currently have the position of the prison's top dog. Acting on orders from the outside, Cesar needs to have an Arab named Reyeb (Hichem Yacoubi) executed. Reyeb is in prison while waiting to testify in ten days at a trial. Cesar tells Malik that he must kill Reyeb within the ten days, or Cesar will have Malik killed. Using handheld cinematography with lots of close-up, graphic images, director Jacques Audiard (READ MY LIPS) makes you feel like you are in prison. The overcast skies, the grim prison cells and the dingy color palette give an intense feeling of foreboding doom. Malik finds that murdering someone, even when trained carefully by experts, is actually very hard to do. Plus, it's very scary. You'll vicariously experience his emotions. It's not fun. This whole first section of the story, up to and including the killing, is much scarier that most horror movies. But, after really getting under your skin in this beginning portion, the director loses control. Maybe if the first part wasn't so good, the limitations of the rest of the film would not have been so glaring. But, the bottom line is that the movie goes from being a contender for best-of-the-year list material to being a disappointment. A PROPHET runs 2:30. The film is in French, Arabic and Corsican, all with English subtitles. It is rated R for "strong violence, sexual content, nudity, language and drug material" and would be acceptable for older teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, March 5, 2010. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:43:52 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:43:56 2010 Subject: Review: What Doesn't Kill You (2008) Message-ID: <85aa66fb-64e5-4d3e-8ba3-914392242e5b@l12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> What Doesn't Kill You 2008 100 minutes rated R By Scott Mendelson What Doesn't Kill You is a movie that at times feels like a remake of countless other films. It is yet another biographical story of a lower- class Boston family and the problems with falling into a life of crime. But, as Roger Ebert always says, it's not what it's about but how it's about it. The film overcomes the d?j? vu with uncommonly strong acting, and a low-key realism that provides a stronger emotional response by refusing to delve into melodrama. A bit of plot - This film is the allegedly autobiographical story of writer/director Brian Goodman. Brian and Paulie (Mark Ruffalo and Ethan Hawke) are best friends, having grown up on the south side Boston. As happens to all too many in that area, they eventually turn to a life of petty crime, as a means to scrape by. While Paulie is a wild-eyed and somewhat hardened criminal, Brian is attempting to make a life that includes his wife (Amanda Peet) and their children. However, set backs and unexpected developments threaten to derail Brian's attempt to leave the life behind and earn the respect of his children. As is often the case, Mark Ruffalo's naturalism raises this movie to a higher level, to something outside of clich?. For the last several years, he's excelled at grounding the various romantic comedies he's starred in, be they good (13 Going On 30) or bad (Rumor Has It). His general dramatic work has given an extra shot of credibility to otherwise fine pictures (Zodiac, You Can Count On Me). He is one of the few actors that automatically makes a movie better just by appearing in it. This is the closest thing he's had to star vehicle and he does not waste the opportunity. This is an Oscar worthy performance and one of the very best of the year. This is not to say that the rest of the cast does not hold up. Ethan Hawke again does solid supporting work. Ironically, this is the second Ethan Hawke movie in a row (after the brutally intense Before The Devil Knows You're Dead) that opens with a seemingly botched robbery and then proceeds to flashback to the beginning). Amanda Peet also has a natural grief that honors the material. She is heartbreaking as she watches her relatively decent husband struggle to be reliable and trust worthy despite the obstacles in his way. Even the kids who play Brian's children have a few moments worth noting, especially a late scene where Brian asks his older son what he has to do to win back his respect (the answer is devastating in its simplicity and as a study of low expectations). The other thing that makes this picture stand out is the last third of the film, which deals not with the clich?s of crime and thuggery, but with the near impossible task of rebuilding a life after a stint in the pen. Brian and Paulie both end up in prison, and Brian's daunting attempt to redeem himself, and make a live for his family, is heartbreaking in its blunt bleakness. This is relatively uncharted territory for bottom of the food chain crime dramas, and this portion is genuinely fascinating and compelling. What Doesn't Kill You doesn't chart that much new territory in its first two acts, but a relatively original third act makes the film worth seeing as a story. Story telling aside, the film is still filled with terrific, low-key performances that make the movie, at the very least, an acting treat. Ruffalo is always worth watching, as he's quickly becoming one of my very favorite actors. Amanda Peet gets meatier material than she's had in awhile and Ethan Hawke is solid too. Donnie Wahlberg, who co-wrote the film, has a fun cameo as an embittered cop who keeps an eye on Brian post-prison. It's not exactly a stretch for him, but the more talented, less famous Wahlberg brother is always welcome onscreen. Once again, had this solid, adult drama been released in the spring or the summer, it would have likely stood out instead of being buried in the award derby. But it is certainly worth the time for fans of the genre and the actors. And, for general moviegoers, it is worth seeking out for a brutally honest, achingly realistic, and emotionally compelling look at the other side of petty crime - the slow, painful path to legitimacy. Grade: B+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:45:39 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:45:42 2010 Subject: Review: Gran Torino (2008) Message-ID: <7825e8b8-1cf8-4bbd-9050-08c417ed612b@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Gran Torino 2008 116 minutes rated R by Scott Mendelson Clint Eastwood is the rare actor who has had two 'final acts' in his career. The first came in 1992, when the revisionist western Unforgiven accidentally revitalized his career after a full decade of relative irrelevance (the only good films Eastwood made in the 1980s were Tightrope, Bird, and The Dead Pool, none of which were terribly successful). Unforgiven seemed to represent one final western, a final action film that attempted to reinterpret or deconstruct the various mythical gunslingers of his heyday. But, of course, it received rapturous reviews, became Eastwood's first $100 million grossing picture and won four Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director for Mr. Eastwood himself. So this final curtain instead paved the way for 'Clint Eastwood - critically admired director' (never mind that he had been directing solid films since Play Misty For Me in 1971). Unforgiven was followed by fifteen-years of critically acclaimed films, and another Best Picture/Best Director Oscar combo for Million Dollar Baby in 2004. For this last leg of his career, Eastwood has been known as a director first, and an actor second. Since 1992, he acted in only one picture not of his making, Wolfgang Peterson's masterpiece 1993 thriller: In The Line Of Fire. Gran Torino will allegedly be Clint Eastwood's final acting role. If this is the case, then the 78 year old icon has chosen a perfectly pleasant offshoot as his acting swan song. That it is not a film worthy of multiple Oscars is not a slight against the picture. It is a fun, witty, and poignant last dance that ends up being a modern day take on the classic western archetype that Eastwood knows so well. Whether Eastwood deserves or receives an Oscar nomination for his lead performance is irrelevant. It is every bit as appropriate an acting finale as John Wayne's The Shootist. A token amount of plot - Walt Kowalski is a Korean War veteran who has stayed in his old neighborhood as the economic conditions deteriorated and his neighbors began to less resemble himself and begin to resemble the very Koreans he went to war with in his youth. This unrepentant racist himself lost and without purpose following the death of his wife. However, circumstances change when a young Hmong neighbor attempts to steal Walt's prized auto mobile, his 1973 Gran Torino. After the youth's family forces him to work off his moral debt by helping Walt with various chores, the grumpy old man forms a surprising bond with his neighbors and with this young man. However, tensions from nearby gangs threaten to destroy Walt's new found peace. The film is first and foremost a showcase for crusty old Clint. While the broadly comic performance skirts with camp from time to time (he actually says 'Get off my lawn!' in two separate scenes), the usual Eastwood subtlety and low-key film making keeps the drama rooted in plausibility. And while the bond between Frank and Thao isn't terribly deep (arguably less so than, for example, the friendship between Daniel Larusso and Mr. Miyagi in the first Karate Kid), it is entertaining and their interactions with Walt's few friends provide solid laughs (the always welcome John Carroll Lynch cameos as a barber shop owner). And Clint Eastwood once again presents one of the most realistic, three-dimensional priests seen in film today (Christopher Carley is terrific here, as was Brian F. O'Byrne in Million Dollar Baby). The film does have some worthwhile commentary on ethnicity. Walt's Hmong neighbors are generally hard-working, never expect a hand out folks, the same kind of people whose values are supposed to embody 'real Americans' in the eyes of so many who oppose immigration and decry the melting pot of America. The film also dances with the idea that the very people who most strongly oppose ethnic integration (conservative, lower-income suburbanites) are the ones who often live in a multi-cultural Petri dish. And, despite being stand-ins for 'friendly minorities who mend Walt's racist heart', Thao and his sister Sue are intelligent, funny, and relatively three-dimensional characters in their own right. Something that the film gets just right is the idea that friendships between different races actually allow for more overtly humorous racism, since there is no longer any malicious intent (Sue laughs when Walt jokingly calls her a 'dragon lady', knowing that he's comfortable enough around her to be tossing out such ribald jabs). The last fourth of the film delves into Walt's struggle with the local gang element, and the film threatens to turn into Grumpy Old Dirty Harry. Without going into spoilers, I can say that it doesn't quite go to that extreme, and the finale has a surprising poignancy for those who know the classic western myths (one could argue that it has similar ideas to No Country For Old Men, but I'll say no more than that). Gran Torino is not a masterpiece. It's a fun character drama that features a knowing but winning final performance by Clint Eastwood and just enough commentary to make it worth discussing. In this current deluge of pretentious, overly arty Oscar bait, Gran Torino is a solid, well-oiled machine. It's just an unpretentiously good yarn. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:47:29 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:47:31 2010 Subject: Review: Dragon Hunters (2008) Message-ID: <554e228d-393b-4d3a-b2bc-2b4049061b67@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Dragon Hunters 2008 82 minutes Not Rated by Scott Mendelson Dragon Hunters delivers something that is all too rare in cinema today. It has the imagination to show images that we have never seen before. It is a visually rich and emotionally satisfying adventure movie that deserves to get noticed. It may not have the social/ political subtext and potent sorrow of Wall-E. It may not have the crackerjack action scenes of Kung Fu Panda. But it does have a visual vocabulary all its own and there are moments in this film that deserve to be framed and hung on a wall. A token amount of plot: Every thirty seasons, a mythical dragon 'the world-gobbler' returns to wreak death upon the lands of Lord Arnold. All of his subjects have fled in terror, leaving him alone with his orphaned niece, Zoe, who someday wishes to be a dragon hunter. Meanwhile, penny-ante monster-slayer Lian Chu (Forest Whitaker, doing his very best impression of John Goodman) and his scheming sidekick Gwizdo (voice over veteran Rob Paulsen) accidentally find themselves hired to slay said 'world gobbler'. So, completely unprepared for the task but bound by honor (and the promise of gold), Lian Chu and Gwizdo set out to do the impossible, little knowing that Zoe has snuck along to live out her dreams of dragon-slaying. So the plot isn't anything out of the ordinary. But the tone makes a difference, as the stench of death and failure pervade their journey. While there is much comic relief from Gwizdo (he's the usual tiny, fast-talking sidekick), the mood is one of hopelessness and inevitability. When Gwizdo acts out in a cowardly fashion, it is not because he is cowardly, merely because he doesn't want to watch his best friend die in battle. The animation is more than good enough, but it should be noted how much of the character development is rendered in near silence, with subtle facial animation rather than over the top monologues or zany expressions. I'm also fond of a mid-film battle between our heroes and a wonderfully creative monster that is made entirely out of hundreds of red bats. But what really stands out in this film is the world in which this battle takes place. The entire world is one of floating islands and various floating landmasses, where characters literally hop from one city to the next. This provides for countless gorgeous shots of our heroes standing in the clouds as the entire world literally revolves around them. And when they do get to the land of the World Gobbler... well, that would be telling, but it is a breathtaking image that I have never seen before. And when we do finally meet the World Gobbler, the film does not cop out. He is gigantic and terrifying, truly a creature of nightmares (there is a climactic moment of the dragon standing in front of fire that made me laugh out loud at its sheer visual perfection). Dragon Hunters is France's official submission for 'Best Animated Film' at this year's Oscars. For what it's worth, it is easily one of the three best cartoons I have seen this year. Regardless of its awards-chasing, it is a visual treasure and a solid adventure fantasy for all ages. It is well worth hunting down. Grade: B+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:48:51 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:48:53 2010 Subject: Review: Milk (2008) Message-ID: Milk 2008 128 minutes Rated R by Scott Mendelson Gus Van Sant's Milk is a fine character study and a solid look at a specific political movement and a certain time and place. It is marred only by the bitter aftertaste of reality, the tragic knowledge that not all that much has changed. It is perhaps unfair to look at a movie through the prism of events that happened after its story, but it is also impossible not to do so. To paraphrase a song from Hairspray (another film which was released on the eve of the nullification of part of its message), while we may have come so far, we truly have so far to go. The story of Milk is the story of the last eight years in the life of San Francisco politician Harvey Milk (played by Sean Penn with a certain gusto that just avoids overacting). In short, Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to political office (he was elected to the San Francisco board of Supervisors in 1977). The film chronicles his political career and, as it befits his campaigns and issues, his personal life as well. It's a pretty straightforward biography and never tries to be anything flashier. Where the film stands out is how it defines Harvey Milk as an individual politician, rather than as a rorschach blot for the gay population in San Francisco at the time. Milk's politics were pretty cut-and-dried social and economic liberalism (supporting expanded medical services for kids, supporting mass transit, etc). As far as gay issues, he was a strong proponent of closeted gays coming out (or, if need be, being forced out) and he strongly believed that gays should be represented by other gays, rather than by 'sympathetic liberals'. These are not worldviews held by everyone who happens to be homosexual, and the film does a solid job in dealing with the conflicts he faced even in his own community. The most fascinating relationship is the one he develops with embittered fellow supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin, in an Oscar- worthy turn). Although they are often in opposition to each other, there were agreements here and there and there is a grudging respect at least at the beginning of their political partnership. The key conflict of the second half of the film involves the attempted passage of 'Proposition 6', which would have allowed the firing of gay teachers (as well as anyone who 'supported gay people'). The parallels to the successful passage of 'Proposition 8' (which removes the previously given right for gay people to marry in California) just two months ago are striking, and cast a sad pall over the picture. Quite frankly, it is very difficult to be inspired by this groundbreaking man, when a big part of his legacy has just been spat on in the very state that he served (further irony in the fact that it was partially the heavy minority turn out for another ground breaking man that helped insure passage). As we see Anita Bryant and John Briggs (the always welcome Dennis O'Hare) spewing the usual anti-gay slander (Briggs didn't even care about the issue, it was just a means to an end for him), we realize that the language (and the often successful results of said language) hasn't changed one bit over the last thirty years. Regardless of what strides have been made, intolerance of gay people is still one of the last vestiges of acceptable bigotry (do you think Rick Warren would have been invited to Obama's inauguration if he had been an anti- Semite or openly racist?). But, if I may step off the soapbox, if we are to judge Milk purely by the film and not by the current context, it still works well as a well- acted and well-paced biopic that effectively captures the times in which it is set. As a time capsule, the film is a success, and it is consistently entertaining (especially for political junkies like myself). It is a genuinely political picture, a film that cries out for activism and/or knowledgeable political engagement. Purely as a biopic of an important man in the ongoing struggle for gay rights, Milk is a worthy biopic and a solid motion picture. Grade: B * SPOILERS!!! I have always found it fascinating that Harvey Milk, the pioneering gay politician/activist, was eventually murdered for reasons that had nothing to do with being gay. Dan White's motives were purely financial and political. He wanted his recently resigned supervisor seat back, but the mayor bowed to pressure to keep Milk in his current position, and he was targeting high-ranking city politicians in general. Aside from Milk and Mayor Moscone, he allegedly also intended to kill Willie Brown and Carol Ruth Silver. There is a great scene in the first season of 24 when Dennis Haysbert's David Palmer expresses a certain satisfaction that the assassination plot against him has nothing to do with him wanting to be the first black president (it's payback for a botched black-ops mission that he oversaw as a senator). I wonder if Harvey Milk would have taken any solace from the fact that he didn't die for being gay. From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:53:05 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:53:08 2010 Subject: Review: Yes Man (2008) Message-ID: <5d713990-5b31-418f-a582-698908f7608e@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Yes Man 2008 106 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson There is a scene about halfway through the Jim Carrey vehicle Yes Man where Zooey Deschanel shows up to a costume party dressed as Heroine Granger from the Harry Potter series. The rest of the film is also more or less worth the price of admission. There is something to be said for simply spending a couple hours with good company, simply watching good things happening to relatively good people. Especially in the Oscar season, where everything else involves miserable, self-loathing people dying just before or just after they figure out what went wrong, a movie like Yes Man is a perfect counter programming. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's good, but it is fun. Jim Carrey is relatively restrained (his over mugging marred the otherwise witty, ahead-of-its time Fun With Dick And Jane), and it corrects a serious flaw that has infected some of Jim Carrey's other comedies: this time, the supporting cast is allowed to be funny too. A token amount of plot: Carl Allen has been shell-shocked since the dissolution of his marriage three years prior. He spends his days as a near-zombie, drifting through his job (he's a loan officer at a bank), barely maintaining contact with his few remaining friends, and basically refusing to make any attempt at actually living. All that changes when an acquaintance talks him into attending a self-help seminar where the overriding principle is to say 'Yes' to every opportunity that comes your way. Life changes and would-be hilarity ensue as Carl says yes to various odd opportunities (flying lessons, penis enlargers, etc). Oh, and his first 'yes' activity (giving a ride to a homeless man) allows him to accidentally bump into quirky musician/photographer Allison (Deschanel), an event that blossoms into a promising new romantic entanglement. There isn't much that occurs in Yes Man that defies predictability, but that doesn't mean that it isn't relatively effective. As mentioned above, the supporting cast is allowed to shine more so than usual in Jim Carrey comedies (yes Cameron Diaz looked great in The Mask, but did she make a single joke?). Terence Stamp is surprisingly hilarious as the self-help guru that sets the plot in motion (basically, he wins laughs by being 'Terence Stamp as the self-help guru'). Bradley Cooper is put to better use here than in The Wedding Crashers as Peter, Carl's best friend. They actually seem like old friends and when Peter needs to tell Carl some uncomfortable truths, it actually feels authentic. Deschanel scores solid laughs with a shockingly terrible piece of performance art that the film can't decide whether to mock or applaud. In fact, for much of the film, Jim Carrey comes off as the proverbial straight man, reacting to the various goofy situations or pleasant developments. Jim Carrey is far more restrained than he usually is in his comedy vehicles. Mugging is kept to a minimum, and he even underplays the loneliness and sullenness in the opening act. And much of Carrey's humor in the film comes not from pratfalls and rubber-band facial expressions, but from the fact that Carl is a good natured and funny fellow. I always took Bruce Almighty, with its arc of Bruce ditching his 'serious anchor' gig for the wacky newsman routine at which he excelled, as a metaphor for Jim Carrey's acceptance of the fact that audiences prefer him to be zany and make them laugh (and that its just as important to be a great comedian as a 'serious actor'). By that token, Yes Man can be construed as a final acknowledgment that the drive for acceptance, which has haunted Carrey since his traumatic childhood, has finally been quashed. He now realizes that, to paraphrase Minnesota's next senator, he is 'good enough, smart enough, and gosh-darn it, people DO like him'. It's certainly possible that winning the self-esteem war may result in less edgy, less challenging projects (think Eddie Murphy), but the man deserves a little happiness. If the slightly generic Yes Man is symbolic of the new, happier Jim Carrey, then it is a small price to pay for his peace of mind. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:54:44 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:54:47 2010 Subject: Review: Seven Pounds (2008) Message-ID: <6d0fc0dc-2ec1-4191-9ac1-6290559d4dfd@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com> Seven Pounds 2008 118 minutes rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson Seven Pounds is the very definition of a 'noble failure'. It is exquisitely acted and occasionally compelling. It is the very kind of film that 'they just don't make anymore' and I am glad for its existence. But, taken on its own merits, it has one key flaw: it is structured as a mystery and the film waits almost till the very end to show most of its cards. As a result, we are cheated of the emotional drama that the characters would be going through if we were shown all of the details along the way. A token amount of plot (no spoilers): Ben (Will Smith) is an IRS agent who has been investigating several strangers, probing into their lives for reasons not revealed. Along the way, he hits it off with one of his 'targets', a woman with a failing heart (Rosario Dawson, in one of her very best performances). As he gets closer to her, he realizes that he is putting his plan in jeopardy, a plan that apparently (according to the opening scene) involves his own suicide. While many viewers will guess the ballgame sometime in the first act, such knowledge lends the film a pathos that it lacks for those who simply follow the story as given. Basically the majority of the film has Ben encountering, interrogating and occasionally challenging various subjects to see if they are worthy of his grand desire. The always welcome Bill Smitrovich (from The Practice) appears as a kids' hockey coach, while Woody Harrelson is terrific as a blind pianist (Harrelson had quickly become one of my favorite character actors, with fine work in The Prize Winner Of Defiance Ohio, The Walker, No Country For Old Men, the underrated Semi-Pro, and Transsiberian). And Will Smith himself seemingly undergoes a physical transformation and does surprisingly potent, occasionally subtle work as a desperately sad man with very little reason to live. Smith has finally become an actor of substance, as this is his fourth terrific performance in a row (following The Pursuit of Happyness, I Am Legend, and Hancock). If nothing else, Seven Pounds works as an acting treat. I am inclined to defend it simply because many of the criticisms seem more about punishing the great and powerful Will Smith than about judging the merits of his latest project. David Poland of Movie City News correctly noted that if this were a foreign film with a lower budget and no big stars, it would likely have received rave reviews when it reached our shores. And while I defend the acting and the concept, I cannot defend the structural execution, which takes a potentially wrenching story and renders it slow, occasionally boring, and just out of emotional reach for no reason other than to play 'gotcha' with the audience. As for the moral questions brought up by the film, there can be some debate as to whether the film is meant to be a tragedy or an ultimately uplifting tale of redemption. The choices made by certain characters will have their detractors, but there is no law saying I must agree with the decisions made by individual people in a story in order to enjoy said film. Let's just say I was far more saddened at the climax that I was uplifted. On that note, when the pieces do fall into place, the film finally takes the emotional turn that it should have had from the get-go. Like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the final moments are incredibly moving. And like that disappointing piece of Oscar bait, a stunningly powerful final scene cannot make up for the aloof and somewhat cold narrative that precedes it. In the end, I recommend eventually seeing Seven Pounds for the acting and the questions that it will provoke. It is a challenging and thoughtful film, and the fact that it doesn't quite work does not diminish the fact that something like this was attempted by a major studio with the biggest star on the planet. As I said above, it is a noble failure and I acknowledge its failure and its nobility in equal measure. And yes, the title does make sense when you think about it. Grade: B- From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:56:33 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:56:36 2010 Subject: Review: The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) Message-ID: <223e51f2-8623-4e49-90f3-1b03b77d83ff@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> The Day The Earth Stood Still 2008 103 minutes rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson The Day The Earth Stood Still is the definition of a 'so-so' movie. It's not particularly good, but it's competent and more or less successful in its goals. There are several moments of visual beauty, and a few noteworthy performances by the supporting cast. It is certainly worth seeing, but you shouldn't go out of your way to do so. A token amount of plot: A mysterious alien vessel arrives on Earth, occupied by the ambassador Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), and his enforcer robot Gort (much larger than in the original). Their mission is simple, and their message is clear... shape up or die (the motives and actions are different than the original, so I won't spoil them here). As scientist Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) and her son find themselves in direct contact with Klaatu, they attempt to deduce how to best prevent wholesale destruction, be it man made or otherwise. While Reeves literally plays a robot (in ironically, the very kind of wooden, off putting performance that his critics wrongly assume is his stock and trade) and Jennifer Connelly is given little to do, the supporting cast does their best to pull the weight. Jon Hamm of Mad Men is such a commanding presence, that his relatively underdeveloped role as Connelly's colleague is compelling by default. Jon Cleese takes a rare dramatic turn as the scientist who may be Earth's only hope. Even Jaden Smith (as Connelly's son) has an emotionally compelling scene where he begs Klaatu to use his powers to bring his father back from the dead. Best of all, James Hong (happy almost 80th birthday) has one wonderful scene (arguably the best in the film) as a fellow alien who has lived as a human for seventy years and has found happiness in his human shell. Regardless of the solid cast, the film isn't terribly noteworthy. Anyone who has seen the original will guess what is coming most of the time, and the improved visuals (which allows Klaatu to make more persuasive threats) only go so far. One thing I did appreciate is that this is not a pumped-up action-heavy remake of a relatively cerebral film. There are a few more action beats, but the film is also about fifteen-minutes longer. The film is still a relatively quiet sci-fi drama that concentrates more on the ideas than on the explosions. In the end, the film is a pleasant diversion and different enough from the original to stand side-by-side as a comparison of filmic languages over fifty-seven years. In fact, the differing character arcs and differing context almost allow this to work as a sequel to Robert Wise's original film. I can't quite say this was a good film, but it does make an effort to be an interesting one, faithful in spirit to the more dramatic nature of the original. As to whether The Day The Earth Stood Still 2.0 needed to be made at all, I'd say at the very least it was worthwhile in that it allowed Fox to put out a lavish new special edition DVD/Blu Ray release of the original film. While fans often carp on the idea of unnecessary remakes, they often result in the original films getting a re-mastered print and/or vastly improved DVD release (the same thing is occurring with Friday The 13th, with the first three films being upgraded in anticipation of the February 13th redo). On a related note, when will they get cracking on that remake of The Stepfather? Grade: C+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:58:05 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:58:08 2010 Subject: Review: Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father (2008) Message-ID: <89e045d6-d1b7-49e8-a1d3-1bd16ae06ec5@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father 2008 093 minutes Not Rated by Scott Mendelson I've said this before, but one of the worst parts of dying in a violent fashion is that the focus of your entire life often becomes the sensationalistic manner in which you died, rather than the scope of how you lived. For those who died in famous acts of violence (Columbine, 9/11, Jones town, etc), the manner in which they met their end becomes the focal point of discussing their existence. Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father began as a project to remedy that situation for at least one victim of violence. When Dr. Andrew Bagby was murdered by an unstable ex-girlfriend in 2001, his friend, filmmaker Kurt Kuanne, decided to make a documentary about his slain friend. He began traveling all around the country to interview friends and family, to record memories, anecdotes, and thoughts about this completely normal man who touched so many lives in small, subtle ways. The film took on a different primary purpose when it was revealed that Andrew's alleged murderer was pregnant with Andrew's child. Now Kuanne's film would be a living, breathing document chronicling the life of Andrew Bagby, intended for Zachary, the son who never got to meet him. There is more to the story than even that, as eventually Dr. Shelley Turner fled to Canada to attempt to escape prosecution for the murder of her ex-lover and father of her newborn son. The film then also chronicles the legal battle between Shelley and Andrew's parents, as Zachary's grandparents fight for custody of their grandson, against his mother, who also happens to have allegedly murdered Zachary's father. The film's overall result is a document of towering, devastating emotional impact. Much of the testimonials come from David and Kate Bagby, as they struggled to deal with a grindingly slow Canadian justice system (or, to be fair, a judge or two who made a couple unsound rulings), as Shelly remained free on bail and thus able to negotiate custodial demands for her newborn son. Key moments include the Bagbys not being allowed into the room where Zachary has just been born, and the awkwardness of making nice with the woman who apparently killed their son, for the sake of maintaining a relationship with their grandson. While the film has the benefit of hindsight, Kuanne plays slightly fairer than you'd expect. For one thing, you never for a minute believe that you're watching an objective document. Kuanne's narration, save for one key scene, is flat and emotionless, and there are many images of Shelly being a seemingly playful and loving mother. Granted, many of those scenes are combined with telephone conversations from Shelly herself which are less than flattering; including one in which she apparently uses her lack of diapers and formula as a bartering device against the grandparents. And, again, while the Canadian justice system does not come off terribly well, it only looks dreadful because Shelly was so obviously guilty. Aside from the legal dramatics, the core of this story remains David and Kate Bagby being forced by circumstance into an unimaginable situation. At a key moment, David weighs the logistics of choosing to murder Sherry and take Zachary away, reasoning that, even if he was caught and jailed, Zachary would be raised by Kate Bagby. Their grief and sorrow are the lynch pins of this film. By the end, the film is as much a testimonial to Andrew's parents as it is to Andrew himself. While openly emotionally manipulative and completely subjective in its analysis, Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father is a one of a kind film, a searingly sad but utterly fascinating glimpse into the human wreckage left behind by a single act of almost 'normal' violence. It takes a potentially sordid true crime case and focuses not on the details of death, but on the effects of life, both the life lost and those left behind to mourn. It is the most moving film of 2008 and is the best theatrical documentary of the year. It absolutely demands your attention and your respect. Grade: A From jcknapier at gmail.com Tue Mar 9 14:59:28 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Tue Mar 9 14:59:30 2010 Subject: Review: Waltz with Bashir (2008) Message-ID: <953126b4-62e3-465b-ae6c-35cafa6c8c87@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Waltz with Bashir 2008 90 minutes rated R By Scott Mendelson Even in this day and age, the art of animation is still considered something primarily for the amusement of families and children. Even the more artistically challenging cartoons, be they Pixar films like Wall-E, or Hayao Miyazaki epics like Spirited Away, are inherently appropriate for children. As a result of this self-imposed (American?) segregation, there is still something uniquely shocking about seeing realistic or graphic violence in animated form. Be it the heavy-metal carnage of Japanese anime, or the occasional lethal violence in 1990s cartoons like Batman: The Animated Series or Gargoyles, the act of killing and scenes of bloodshed are that much more pungent when displayed in a medium that is still primarily known for entertaining the youngest of audiences. As a result of this mindset, the tragic, violent true-life tale that concerns Waltz with Bashir is rendered even more powerful in animated form than it would likely have in live-action. Ari Foleman's film is technically described as an 'animated documentary', and the term fits well enough. The animated recreations of historical events are no less in keeping with the genre than something like The Thin Blue Line. If this were a live-action documentary, it would feel like any other war story, albeit with a more intriguing narrative that propels said historical docudrama. But in the realm of animation, the brutal, bloody violence feels like even more of a violation when depicted as, to put it bluntly, a cartoon. A token amount of plot - In 2006, Ari Folman meets with a friend from the army service period, who tells him of the nightmares connected to the 1982 Lebanon War. Ari is stunned to realize that he remembers next to nothing about that period in his life. After a disturbing dream/ flashback that seems to be linked to his time during the war, he decides to track down fellow soldiers in order to deduce what happened during that period, why he can't remember it, and what it has to do with the infamous two-day Sabra and Shatila massacre that occurred in Beirut. The film takes shape in documentary form, alternating between first- person testimonials and flashbacks (animated recreations) of the events of Israel's campaign against Lebanon, which was in response to an assassination attempt on Israel's UK ambassador. For those who do not know the history, I will not divulge the secrets that Folman uncovers, but it is a morally complicated situation involving morality in wartime, the responsibilities of occupiers, and the notion of evil occurring via good sitting silent. Whatever influence the current Israel Gaza offensive has on the reception of this picture, the film itself is strikingly apolitical. Although it is worth noting that a film of this nature could only have been made by an Israeli. With the hyper-sensitive nature of the one- sided Israel/Palestine debate in America (more so than in Israel itself), a film like this, which dares to paint Israeli soldiers as, well, human, would likely face accusations of anti-Semitism were its maker of any other nationality. Its strong moral judgment is one that condemns evil regardless of nationality or creed, be it evil through action or inaction. Instead the film makes an effort to create a surreal template of what it feels like to be inside a war, inside a battle zone, and thus inside the mind of a soldier. Ironically, the animated medium lends this footage a bizarre emotional realism that would not be as effective in live-action. The film is ultimately about the madness of war, and the madness that occurs in a combat zone. Not a new idea to be sure, but the stark drawings and vivid images make this timeworn clich? into something new and stunning. While animation often has the ability to show us things we've never seen before, it also has the ability to take old images and older stories and render them strikingly raw and blindly fresh. Waltz with Bashir acknowledges that war is hell, and then proceeds to give us a first-person view of that very unique form of purgatory, as well as the guilt and self- recrimination that comes from surviving it. Grade: A- From tskirvin at killfile.org Mon Mar 15 01:15:28 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Mon Mar 15 01:15:31 2010 Subject: Review: Green Zone (2010) Message-ID: _Green Zone_ is an adaptation of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City", with the "minor" change being that this time the story is fictional. Before the movie came out, I heard more hype surrounding the politics of _Green Zone_ than I did about the movie itself. This is a bit surprising; after all, the trailers made it out to be _Bourne IV: The Iraqening_, and the media usually eats that kind of thing up. Certainly, the movie has a point of view, and displays it every chance it can. That view: that the United States government's rationale for and actions regarding the Iraq War were fundamentally flawed. In certain circles, this argument is not just uncontroversial, but hardly worth discussing; in others, it is near treasonous. In this case, a shrill cry of "ANTI-AMERICA!" drowned out all else, and the meta-narrative quickly became more important than the movie itself. This is a shame, because the movie actually did a fairly good job of balancing the politics and the thriller. This worked in large part by intentionally echoing the Bourne movies (a series in which I liked the parts more than the whole). It wasn't just that the movie starred Matt Damon and had a lot of shaky-cam; there were also the connections to the intelligence world and the media, the questionable loyalties, the tenseness, the fast-paced plot. Most prominent, though, was the sense of place: at all times, the movie felt like it was taking place in a specific city, and usually specific districts *within* this city. Baghdad felt *real*; and if the movie truly had a strength, it was this. Of course, this style of movie carries a lot of baggage with it as well. The shaky-cam was as egregious as ever, though I'm clearly getting used to it. The action pieces were a bit overly-long and dramatic, which didn't quite fit the feel that the story seemed to be going for. Some of the character stereotypes that are called for by this kind of story - the Lone American Hero, the Inside Man, the Relentless Hidden Villain, the Smarmy Henchman - don't fit quite so well this kind of story. And the wheels-within-wheels plot points don't go well with the theme of governmental incompetence. My major gripe with the movie is that it over-played the conspiracy angle. We know that things didn't go particularly well in Iraq; was it really necessary to suggest that this was because of malice instead of simple incompetence? Yes, it was interesting to show the hunt for WMDs going badly, to see the questionable decisions regarding Iraq's future, to witness the excesses and the disconnect between the troops, contractors, commanders, and civilians; does it really matter much, in that context, whether the necessary information is being hidden rather than just being obscure? Did we really gain anything to assume malice rather than incompetence? All of that said, did I like it? Well, mostly. I didn't come out feeling enlightened; I also didn't come out furious. I suppose that, given the subject matter, that's an impressive feat on its own. ** 3/4 - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews From tskirvin at killfile.org Sat Mar 20 01:28:41 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Sat Mar 20 01:28:44 2010 Subject: Review: Repo Men (2010) Message-ID: $10,804.47: that's the monthly rate to pay off $680,000 at a 19% APR over 30 years. Admittedly, I had to make up that last number; no explicit repayment time was mentioned in _Repo Men_. But the other two numbers *were* mentioned early in the movie, quoting the price of an artificial spleen to an apparently moderately-well-off man in his 40s or 50s. From that moment on, I spent the movie trying to figure out if the units were off somehow, watching for indications of massive inflation. I never did see any; but my interest in the movie itself was immediately gone. It can't be a good thing when economics is more interesting than your story. _Repo Men_ (sadly not a sequel to the Emilio Estevez vehicle _Repo Man_ from 1984) is a story about a man who reclaims those expensive organs for a living (an apparently socially-acceptable job). After he starts to decide that maybe this isn't the job for him, he gets injured out on a job and his bosses give him an artificial heart. Soon enough, he determines that he can't kill people for a living anymore, and is scheduled for reclamation himself. Cue _Logan's Run_. There were a few good humorous and/or clever bits, and the acting was fine. Sadly, that's about all that was good. The story was derivative and uninteresting; the characters themselves were poorly thought-out and uninteresting; and the action scenes were bland and, once again, uninteresting. The special effects mostly consisted of throwing a lot of virtual blood around the screen. There weren't any realistic or sympathetic characters. All in all, there wasn't much that wasn't bland and unlikeable. I know what would have saved it for me, though: fixing the numbers. Make the price of a new spleen $68k at a 9% APR, and you've suddenly got a business model that fits into the world; yes, there would be changes (ala Shadowrun and various other Cyberpunk universes), but the idea that people can scramble to afford an extra $550 car payment makes a whole lot more sense than the idea that they can scramble to pay for an extra luxury mansion. Expand on the idea of the black market in organs - somebody carrying around organs like that has got to be worth a fortune, making muggings much more interesting! And make the crux of this movie revolve around an insurance case - the company *should* be paying for injuries obtained in the line of duty in the first place, after all! Instead, the absurdities just cascaded. There are down-on-their-luck singers out there with eight separate replacement body parts, including several internal organs (I'm willing to concede that artificial ears and knees might be relatively cheap). Nobody really seemed to mind in a legal way that there were people wandering around cutting open and killing people - well, just men, a line was apparently drawn somewhere in production - in broad daylight. Loans were still being given out to people that couldn't possibly afford to pay them back, and in fact the idea of a loan being paid back was explicitly poo-pooed. There were automatic tasers all over the place. And so forth. Instead of a decent science fiction movie, we get a third-rate thriller. It's a shame to see producers more interested in some gross-out scenes and stupid action sequences to explore what could be a fairly decent high concept. *shrug* I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Go see something else. * 3/4 - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:01:30 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:01:33 2010 Subject: Review: Good (2008) Message-ID: <5f40cef7-f7e0-43e9-bf40-f090a19cdd52@b7g2000pro.googlegroups.com> Good 2008 95 minutes Not Rated by Scott Mendelson There is a moment in the middle of Istvan Szabo's Sunshine where John Neville angrily confronts his Jewish relatives after the Holocaust. Ralph Fiennes is tearfully recounting how his father was frozen to death in a concentration camp, when Neville wonders out loud why they didn't do something. Sure they had guns, but there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Jews and only thousands, if not hundreds of Nazis. It's a striking moment because it was the first time I had seen a picture involving the Holocaust that dared to portray the Jewish victims as anything but hapless victims of an inexplicable evil. Of courses, in hindsight its easy to ask why more didn't rise up against the Nazis. Sure, thousands of them would have been killed in the process, but as long as one of the dead wasn't you, why not? I bring up Sunshine because it remains a better, more striking fable that deals with many of the same issues as Vicente Amorim's Good. Based on an allegedly classic 1981 play, this small-scale drama attempts to capture the feelings that many ordinary Germans had as the Nazi party slowly took complete control of the motherland. It's a fascinating idea that still resonates: how do you succeed in a corrupt government without becoming corrupt yourself? And if you do see evil all around you, do you sacrifice your own comfort to speak out, or do you just sit back and hope someone else martyrs themselves instead of you? But the ideas at the heart of the film outweigh the execution of the film itself. Some plot - In 1930s Germany, literature professor John Halder (Viggo Mortensen) sees a sudden rise in good fortune when his novel advocating euthanasia ends up being used as government propaganda by high ranking Nazi officials. As his personal stock and potential fortune rises, Halder finds himself torn between succeeding within a political party that he does not agree with, or facing the consequences of shunning the current governmental establishment and losing any chance for success and financial security. Again, this is an idea that is always worth exploring, the struggle of (to quote a recent high-profile tent-poler) 'trying to be decent men, in an indecent time'. But the fatal flaw of the story is that our protagonist isn't just decent, he's also gloriously naive. Time and time again, he tries to reason with his Jewish friend, Maurice (Jason Issacs), claiming that Hitler's reign is just a fad and that things will blow over soon enough. This may have been a reasonable position for an educated man to have in the mid 1930s, but John clings to this belief well past the point of self-delusion. If this were a story about self-blindness, about a life lived without peripheral vision, then that would be one thing. But John Halder is presented to us as an educated and mentally sound man, someone who genuinely believes that the Third Reich is just a political party that will eventually be voted out of office. It is difficult to tell a story about a morally sound man who struggles with his humanity in a totalitarian regime when, for the majority of the movie, said hero is completely oblivious to the actual actions and true intentions of said regime. Story flaws aside, the film looks splendid, and the acting is fine. Mortensen does righteous anguish as well as anyone, and Jason Isaacs provides a solid counterpoint, both as a foil and a direct consequence of Holder's bad judgment. The scenes between the Isaac and Mortensen are easily the film's highlights. And the picture ends on a jaw dropping five-minute shot that renders the fantastically terrible as plausible and frighteningly mundane. Good is an interesting idea, thoughtfully acted and visually intriguing. However, it is nearly undone by a lead character that fails to represent the general idea that the film is allegedly about. Maybe it worked better as a play, but this theatrical adaptation only barely succeeds as a template for after-film conversation, rather than as an entertainment in and of itself. Grade: C+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:03:07 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:03:09 2010 Subject: Review: Barking Water (2009) Message-ID: <17ed6c57-fd0c-4b30-8de9-b641e62901f2@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Barking Water 2009 80 minutes Not Rated by Scott Mendelson One can't help but feel like a bully for picking on a film like Barking Water. Shot on what surely was a shoestring budget; this third feature by writer/director Sterlin Harjo (whose previous film, Four Sheets to the Wind, won the 'Special Jury Prize' at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival) is basically a tone poem concerning a dying Native American man as he heads on a final road trip of potential redemption and peace. This is obviously a labor of love for all involved, but you've seen variations on this story many times before. Barking Water does little to differentiate itself from the pack. A token amount of plot - Frankie (Richard Ray Whitman) is a Choctaw Indian who is at last succumbing to disease and old age. But before he departs this Earth, he convinces his friend and occasional lover Irene (Casey Camp-Horinek) to drive him to see his estranged daughter, so that he may make amends for sins past and meet his grandchild for the first time. Although Irene is reluctant as their friendship ended years ago on bad terms, she eventually agrees to soothe her own guilt, and their friendship is renewed as they embark on one final adventure together. The rest of the film unfolds basically as you'd expect it to. There are long, dialogue-free scenes of characters simply watching the road and the scenery around them (often constructed as music-video style montages), there are encounters with colorful locals, and there are moments of shared pain and reconciliation. There is quite a bit of atmosphere to this film, but it's difficult to disguise the fact that very little happens. I cannot go on at length about favorite moments or favorite dialogue because there are very few incidents and not a lot of dialogue. The majority of the film takes place in a single moving automobile, and much of that time is spent in quiet reflection. Again, the picture attempts to be a tone poem, but the film fails to define itself past its well-worn narrative hook. For much of its length, it is basically a filmic road trip through rural Oklahoma. To be fair, the acting is more than adequate, and Richard Ray Whitman is genuinely noteworthy. He has an incredibly detailed face, something suggesting a colorful James Bond villain. Also, the film is not overly sentimental, so the moments where the emotion does push through feel earned and not cheap. Barking Water is not a bad film by any definition, merely a relatively uninvolving one. The final moments have a certain power, but then it is difficult not to be moved by the closure on a long and storied life. Unless you are a fan of Native American cinema, I cannot truly recommend seeing Barking Water. It may be a noble failure, but that does not make it a success. Grade: C+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:04:53 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:04:56 2010 Subject: Review: Heart of Stone (2009) Message-ID: Heart of Stone 2009 90 minutes Not Rated by Scott Mendelson Note - this film just won the Audience Award for Best Documentary Feature at the 2009 Slamdance film festival. Heart of Stone is, on the surface, a documentary version of that oft- told tale of the inspirational inner-city principal bringing order and hope to a blighted urban school district. That so many stories exist both in fictional and non-fictional realms is a sad commentary on the state of public education in this country. But this film (originally titled It's Hard to Be an Indian) has more on its mind than the feel- good story that we all know so well. A token amount of plot - In the 1960s, the Weequahic section of Newark New Jersey was mostly a first generation Jewish community. Spurred on by bitter memories of the Holocaust and the Great Depression, the Jewish majority graduated more PhDs from Weequahic than anywhere in the country (their most famous alumni was novelist Philip Roth). Following the 1967 Newark riots, most of the Jewish community fled, leaving behind only the poor black citizens. Over the next thirty years, the community's economic stock plummeted and the school in question became a template for the failure of inner-city schools. In 2001, the new principal, Rob Stone, embarked on an ambitious project to restore the school to its former glory, and wrestle away control from the factions of the Crips and the Bloods that had become the dominating social order. Ron Stone, a black man who was married to a Jewish woman, immediately established the school as a violence-free zone, and worked to quell rumors or situations that might have given rise to gang violence. The major thrust of this goal was an intense conflict resolution program that acknowledged the gang influence on the community but refused to let it control the school. He was astonishingly successful in defusing the gangs' choke-hold and even inspired gang members to give up the streets and attempt higher education. Furthermore, he engaged the all- too-willing help of black and Jewish alumni in order to raise scholarships and inspire the students. The Weequahic Alumni Association still exists today. None of Stone's ideas or methods should be all that shocking or controversial. Conflict resolution would obviously be paramount to decreasing violence within the school halls. Of course such efforts cannot succeed without the help of the community. That such an ideology should be considered noteworthy enough to form a documentary is a rather said statement by itself. But that is not a slight against the film itself. The picture itself is, like many documentaries of its nature, an interesting story well told. The opening act is filled with fascinating anecdotes about life in Weequahic in the 1960s, with the White, Jewish, and black communities living with only a token amount of harmony (there was one white gang called 'the bangers' who would attack Jews, while there was another gang called 'the redskins', who would protect the Jews). The latter two acts delve into what will surely seem like clich? for most followers of big-city education: the gangs, the hopelessness, the struggle to get parents involved when there aren't always two parents, and the lone parent has to work all the time just to survive. But writer/director Beth Toni Kruvant deals head-on with various cultural stereotypes on all sides that make the system that much harder to reform. The picture also delves into the oft-repeated claims about bitter hatred between the Jewish and African American communities. Heart of Stone is an inspirational story about an inspirational man. There is also a tinge of anger in the picture, both at the sorry state of certain public schools, as well as bewilderment as to why Stone's relatively logical reform system isn't simply considered common sense. This film is not a masterpiece of technical production; in fact the video quality is occasionally crude. But this is a story worth telling, so the means of which it is told is immaterial. Ron Stone's example had a literally transformative effect on this previously written-off school, as well as the students who attended it. Hopefully his ideology can serve as a blueprint for other similar schools and give said students a chance at something that many of us took for granted - a future. Grade: B+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:06:22 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:06:25 2010 Subject: Review: Taken (2009) Message-ID: <1fc5d71d-8295-4900-885e-886347f571ec@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Taken 2009 93 minutes rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson Usually when someone opines 'oh, they don't make them like this anymore', they are paying a sort of high compliment, as if said film represents a lost form of quality. But Taken absolutely fits the bill of the kind of movies that they 'just don't make anymore'. But it's no classic; in fact it's not even all that good. But it is something all- too rare in the post-Columbine/post-Lieberman FCC hearings: a mid- budgeted, star-driven, violent thriller. That Fox edited it down to a PG-13 by slightly toning down the blood and gore doesn't make it any less of a trashy relic of a bygone era. And, by keeping the action fast, brutal, and plausible, the film succeeds in actually being a superior update on those 80s relics like Commando. A token amount of plot - Bryan Mills' daughter (Maggie Grace) is going away with a friend to Paris, much to her father's consternation. Since Bryan (Liam Neeson) is an ex-spy, he's a little more paranoid than most. Alas, his instincts turn out to be correct when Kim and her friend are almost immediately kidnapped by human traffickers. Now Bryan has 96 hours to get to France and use his 'special set of skills' to get his daughter back before she truly disappears into the underground realm of the international sex trade. To director Pierre Morel 's credit, nearly a third of the short running time is used to set up the relationships and characters before heading into the chase. We get a good look at the somewhat overtly forward relationship that Bryan has with his daughter and ex-wife (Famke Janssen, who is given absolutely nothing to do), and the peacemaking attempts by the new husband (Xander Berkley, who gets about six lines of dialogue). We get a sampling of his talents when he accepts a quick gig to protect a famous pop star, and we get a couple fun scenes of him cooking burgers with some old spy buddies. By the time the kidnapping occurs, the relationships are established enough that the last hour of pure chase and action aren't completely pointless. The abduction scene itself is the best scene in the film, but if you're lucky enough to have avoided the thrill-spilling trailer, I won't ruin it here. The rest of the film follows a regular investigate, interrogate, chase and kill motif found in films like Target or Man on Fire. The violence isn't nearly as grisly as Man on Fire, and the film making is less stylized as well. Oddly enough, since it was made by French filmmakers, the film has a distinct whiff of Europhobia. Foreigners come in exactly three varieties: scary (the French), scarier (the Albanians), and scariest (the Arabs). One could argue that the French filmmakers are casting their immigrant brothers as boogiemen as a form of ethnic bigotry, but any history on that would require more research than this film deserves. Despite a strong first act, the film never really pays off on the issues that are brought up. While Bryan is right to worry about his daughter's safety, one could argue that she would have been more honest with him and more helpful if he hadn't been so controlling in the first place. And while it's refreshing that Xander Berkley doesn't turn out to be the secret bad guy, his casting in a glorified cameo creates a giant red herring that hangs over the movie right up until the climax. What makes the film work is the commanding lead performance from Liam Neeson. This is a wonderfully blunt, thoroughly compelling star turn. Bryan's single-mindedness and lack of compassion for anyone stupid enough to get in the way is a nice change of pace from the recent spate of introspective, self-loathing action heroes (Jason Bourne probably would have wept amidst the carnage... 'look what you foreign meanies made me give!'). Neeson looks incredibly young and fit (which I suppose justifies 25-year old Grace playing a 17-year old), and he's obviously relishing the chance to play a cold-blooded action bad ass. If the film does well enough, this could easily turn into a Liam Neeson franchise. If this were the 1980s, movies like Taken would be a nearly bi-weekly occurrence. But now even Paramount (previously the home of the star- driven thriller) would rather risk $150 million on GI Joe than spend $40 million on another sure-to-be profitable Alex Cross movie. Thus, such genre exercises are in short supply. So while Taken does not quite qualify as 'good', it does work as 'good fun'. It's lean, mean, and occasionally stupid in that old fashioned way. Like Pierre Morel's previous film, District B13, this is both incredibly silly and quite fun (alas, Liam Neeson doesn't get to perform parkour). Like the Jason Statham/Jet Li action film War (for which Morel was the cinematographer for American director Philip G. Atwell), this is the kind of movie that we probably shouldn't give a pass to, but we miss the genre so much that it feels like a reunion. In the post-Columbine age, far too many cops' partners have gone un- murdered. And too many unsuspecting daughters of spies and soldiers have freely traveled abroad, unmolested by foreign fiends. Leave it to the French to give Americans what we didn't realize we were missing. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:07:26 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:07:29 2010 Subject: Review: He's Just Not That Into You (2009) Message-ID: <034b4f56-1806-4a94-9d9c-4f133f81d531@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com> He's Just Not That into You 2009 126 minutes Rated PG-13 I've written at length in the recent past about so-called 'chick flick's that play into what I call female escapist fantasy. It differentiates from male fantasy in that it involves casting off responsibility and living only for yourself (comparably, stereotypical male fantasy movies involve immature boys who 'man up', take responsibility for their actions and are able to live selflessly to their betterment and reward). IE - Sex & The City: The Movie is a female escapist fantasy, while Iron Man is a male escapist fantasy. What's most intriguing about He's Just Not That Into You is how deftly it avoids the female escapism template for much of its running time. The narrative, as most of you know, involves the intertwining lives of several adult professionals as they navigate the perils of romance and finding or keeping that special someone. By the end of the film, some of these couples will remain intact, some will break apart, and maybe even a new couple or two will be formed. But pretty much every relationship is rooted in a grounded maturity and responsibility. No one casts off their responsibilities for the sake of their own empowerment. Nor does anyone particularly feel the need to save the proverbial day for the sake of their own manhood. Also worth noting is that the film avoids painting its characters with broad moral strokes. Likable, sympathetic characters do terrible things while maintaining their humanity. This is not a story of good and evil, but about the difficult choices that humans make on the dating scene. Warts and all (and the film's arcs have a certainly perfunctory feel throughout), the film is a worthwhile and semi- realistic examination of how the real world of dating and romance differs from the fairy-tale fantasies sold to men and women of all ages. He's Just Not That Into You is better than expected, as it's the rare 'chick flick' that doesn't sugarcoat the harsh realities of making relationships work. Everyone in the star-studded cast takes the material seriously (Ginnifer Goodwin fearlessly throws herself into a genuinely obnoxious character), and Justin Long has never been better. It's not a perfect film, but there's certainly more under and on the surface than most large-scale romantic comedies. In fact, its strength comes from its willingness to embrace the inherent drama in its story. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:08:40 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:08:43 2010 Subject: Review: Chocolate (2009) Message-ID: <28cedb7b-0555-4d0e-8be4-5f9d9e1be01c@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com> Chocolate 2009 95 minutes rated R (violence throughout, and brief sexuality/nudity) by Scott Mendelson I've never been a fan of watching circus performers do their thing without nets. Sure, we're told, it's more exciting without a net, it somehow makes the trapeze act or balance routine more impressive, but it also makes it scary as hell. It's a lot more fun watching a trapeze act knowing that if they screw up, they won't plunge to their death. I'll take peace of mind over increased suspense when the stakes are for real. I bring this up because the action in Chocolate is incredibly painful looking and, as we see in the closing credits, it was in fact quite brutal on the actors and stunt people. We see a number of seemingly very serious injuries as a result of the onscreen carnage. I'm not sure at what point it stops being a movie and becomes something resembling a snuff film. There is a scene about halfway through the film in which a number of foes get stabbed or impaled with meat hooks in various body parts. I'm scared to ask how they did that. Anyway, Chocolate is the latest Thai martial arts import from Prachya Pinkaew, the guy behind the Tony Jaa spectacles Ong-Bak and The Protector (the latter affectionately referred to among friends as the 'give me back my elephants!' movie). As usual, the plot is pretty simple. Basically it involves a forbidden romance between two people from warring mob families. Dad is Yakuuza and mom is from the Thai mob. After giving birth to an autistic child, Dad is forced to flee to Japan while mom is shunned, forced to raise her special needs child alone. After young Zen's mother is stricken with cancer, the young go- getter applies her potent martial arts skills (learned from watching previous Pinkaew films on television) to track down various criminal elements that owe her mother money and extract it one way or another. Aside from the somewhat overly melodramatic storytelling, the film really doesn't get going until the second act. But even when the fights finally start up, there is an odd discomfort in watching them. Although family friend Moom assures Zen that the targets are in debt to their mother, we really don't know for sure how many of these local businesses aren't just local businesses that aren't really involved in skullduggery. For all we know, Zen spends a good forty-five minutes basically extorting innocent businesses for money and beating the living hell out of anyone who tries to stop her. Then again, they may actually make the movie unintentionally hilarious, depending on your mood. But it must be stated that the fight scenes, two in particular, are quite impressive. The aforementioned mid-film battle in an abattoir is both lyrical and gruesome, with both spectacular fighting and horrifying injuries. The final battle, set outside a large, multi- story shophouse, waged up and down the various ledges, is one of the greatest fight scenes I have ever seen on film. Seriously, this one is worth the price of admission all by itself. The stunt work is astounding (and frighteningly real, as it turns out), as men fly out of windows, crash into ledges, smash into billboards, and otherwise send their (theoretical) health insurance premiums skyrocketing. I sat there hoping, wishing that someone would make a video game out of this movie, as the shophouse finale would make a stunningly fun final level. Chocolate is pretty much what you expect from the genre. The plot is paper thin and yet occasionally convoluted, the acting is serviceable, and the techical aspects are more than adequate. But, at the very least, the film is worth seeing for the splendid fight scenes and Panna Rittikrai's refreshingly comprehensible choreography. And again, that last smackdown must be seen to be believed. I'm personally finding it difficult to believe that no one got killed in the process. Oh well, that's something Pinkaew can aim for on his next feature. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:10:39 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:10:41 2010 Subject: Review: Watchmen (2009) Message-ID: <2c700e65-5ae5-4642-a074-28216b1b12d7@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> Watchmen 2009 161 minutes Rated R by Scott Mendelson Watchmen is a motion picture of uncommon ambition, technical perfectionism, and inspired artistry. It is also based on a beloved story that is not and was never terribly cinematic in nature. While I fully intended to discuss the film as a stand alone product, regardless of its success or failure as a literary adaptation, the finished product is so completely tied to its source that a viewer is almost required to have some understanding of the original book to at least appreciate, if not completely understand the movie. As I watched this epic unfold, I kept unconsciously referencing the original graphic novel for context, to fill in the blanks that the film itself did provide. As a faithful adaptation, it is a success. As an emotional tone poem, it is occasionally powerful. But as a stand alone feature film, intended to draw in and entertain the uninitiated, it's slightly problematic. Complete newbies will likely understand the broad strokes, but the subtleties of the material and the thematic ideologies may be lost under the surface, leaving non fans wondering what all the fuss was about. What you need to know going in - The film is set in an alternate time line, one where non super-powered crime fighters roamed the cities before and after World War II. In this world, an accident turned scientist Jon Osterman into the all-powerful, all-blue demi-god Dr. Manhattan during the height of the Vietnam war. It's now 1985. Dr. Manhattan almost single-handedly won for the US in 'Nam, Richard Nixon has been re-elected four times, and non-government-sanctioned crime fighters have been outlawed. However, the use of Dr. Manhattan as a weapon started a nuclear arms race with the USSR and the two super powers seem on the brink of nuclear annihilation. Meanwhile, the murderous, psychotic crime fighter known as Rorschach stumbles upon the homicide of former super hero turned government spy The Comedian, a crime which may involve his old costumed buddies from the 1960s. Ironically, for a story that is considered the pinnacle of super hero fiction, the book and film both succeed best at the smaller character moments. The first thirty minutes are sensational, as the murder of The Comedian gives way to a stunningly gorgeous title sequence (where the alternate time line is somewhat laid out in a montage set to Bob Dylan's 'Times They Are A Changing'). This then segues into introductory moments, where the heroes of old are introduced in one form or another. Focus shifts between the still operating Rorschach (a crazed homicidal imp of a man, completely unbending in his pessimistic ideology) and the long retired Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson, in a phenomenally subtle performance), who spends his days drinking with the original 1940s Nite Owl. For a good half hour, the film is a stunningly moving ode to regret, loneliness, and paths not taken, as our former heroes join together to bury one of their own, a man who cast a dark shadow over all of them. But then, the film loses something. The human interaction and poignancy give way to cumbersome exposition and flashbacks. For nearly the entire remaining two hours, the film becomes episodic and disjointed, and the excitement dies. The production is handsome, the acting is exceptional, and the special effects are mostly effective. But, at the end of the day, Watchmen is not an exciting story. So, what came across as curious on the page often feels boring on the screen. When the focus is on the friendship and eventual romance between Dan Dreiberg/The Nite Owl and Malin Ackerman's Sally Spector/The Silk Spectre II (she was forced into super heroism by her mother, who is played in a few wonderful scenes by Carla Gugino), the film works as a sad story of lost opportunity and unfulfilled potential. They are, alas, the only two characters who really are just regular human beings. Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) frequently monologues allegedly deep thoughts about the inconsequence of existence, all too often in the same monotone voice he uses in his 'Priceless' Visa commercials, but in the end he is more of a plot device. Rorschach (Jackie Lee Haley) only registers during the brief moments where he is unmasked, when we can see the hate and rage underneath the white rorschach blot mask (with the mask, he speaks in a growl that will remind viewers of Christian Bale's McGruff the Crime Bat). Matthew Goode, as the inexplicably optimistic Adrian Veidt (a former hero who quit and built a vast fortune selling his image) does what he can with a somewhat one- note role. Jeffrey Dean Morgan has too little time as The Comedian to register as anything other than a government-sanctioned mass murderer. Perhaps the problem is that so much of the original novel's appeal was its relative freshness. The depiction of heroes as dysfunctional and possibly crazed was a breath of fresh air 1987. Watchmen was a deconstruction of the super hero stories of the 1940s and 1950s, with a skewered satirical dart aimed at the 'more serious' work coming down the pike in the 1970s. Its real world setting and real world problems, the idea that masked vigilantes may be ill-equipped to handle the world's biggest problems, was somewhat of a fresh idea in 1986. Now, this specific 'what would happen if people really put on a costume and fought crime' mythology isn't any more realistic than the regular super hero stories. In fact, the broadly colorful costumes, heavily stylized action violence, and epic, world-balancing narrative actually renders it almost campy in comparison to more intimate, real-world comic book entertainments like The Dark Knight. It's themes of super heroism as a form of emotional and sexual release have been co-opted in films like Unbreakable, and the very idea of dark, gritty, ultra- violent super hero stories have become so commonplace in the last twenty years that it's actually the status quo. Watchmen was a story of its time, and it still works as an individual character study. But its themes and ideas are no longer ground breaking, and they may not be relevant anymore. Our current fears reside not in instant nuclear annihilation by a state power, but in slow death by environmental and economic collapse. Without going into details, the slightly altered ending makes the villain's ideology even less plausible, considering how we now know how mass populations react to um... certain events. In the end, Zack Snyder does deserve credit for not making the material more cinematic than it naturally is. Yes, there is a little more violence, a touch more action, and plenty of stylized slow motion (too much, as the film feels like the 161 minutes that it is), but the story is still basically retired super heroes talking about their old days while trying to solve a solitary mystery. He is more or less faithful in incident, and completely faithful in tone and spirit (my fear that he would make the dour, depressing story more 'cool' is unfounded). Snyder has made a suitable companion piece to a ground breaking piece of literature. He has obtained fine performances from his cast, especially Patrick Wilson. And the technical merits of this picture absolutely demand big screen viewing. But, as a stand alone motion picture, it is not quite a success. It is plodding, occasionally boring, and it struggles for relevancy in a time where its admittedly intelligent and thought provoking ideas and themes have been stolen by better big screen entertainments. For better or worse, we now have a faithful live action motion picture of Watchmen. Grade: B- From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Sun Mar 21 00:15:07 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:15:11 2010 Subject: Review: The Greatest (2010) Message-ID: THE GREATEST A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2010 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** So have you ever walked out of a movie? And, even if you have never left a film in progress -- or won't admit that you did -- haven't you at least often been tempted not to see it all? THE GREATEST, by writer and director Shana Feste, is one of those movies for me. While I stayed and saw every minute of it, I was sorely tempted several times to beat a hasty exit, but not for the usual reason. THE GREATEST, while never living up to its title, is quite a good film and is extremely well acted by many well known stars. The problem for me in this movie, which I do think is worth seeing and worth recommending, is that its emotional assaults were so powerful that I found myself almost unable to endure them. It kept feeling to me that the movie was ripping my heart out of my chest and stomping on it. And this wasn't because there was any shameless overacting going on. It was because the emotions were so strong and all-pervasive that I found myself as overcome with horrendous grief as did the characters in the movie. The acting, while all honest and genuine, was almost more than I could bear. Perhaps it came partly from seeing an ex-007 (Pierce Brosnan) weep uncontrollably on several occasions, but more likely it was Susan Sarandon's portrait of a woman trapped in a grief-ridden black hole that really got to me. THE GREATEST is one of those tales that leaves you with the troubling realization that there, but for the grace of God, go I. You are probably noticing that I haven't given even the outlines of the story yet, which is because this is one of the films in which discussing the plot is almost impossible unless key spoilers are given away. I refuse to do this even a little bit. I went into it knowing nothing and so should you. To reveal any of it is to diminish it. Let me just close by saying that Brosnan and Sarandon play Allen and Grace Brewer. The other fine members of the main cast are: Johnny Simmons and Aaron Johnson, who play the Brewer's teenage children Ryan and Bennett. Carey Mulligan (Oscar nominee for AN EDUCATION) plays Bennett's girlfriend Rose (Carey Mulligan) and Zoe Kravitz play's Ryan's girlfriend Ashley. THE GREATEST runs 1:39. The film is rated R for "language, some sexual content and drug use" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film is being shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which runs February 23 through March 7, 2010. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:16:08 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:16:11 2010 Subject: Review: The Great Buck Howard (2009) Message-ID: <319c2f0a-44cc-41f8-8c63-042f7848a998@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com> The Great Buck Howard 2009 90 minutes Rated PG by Scott Mendelson "People die everyday, Frankie - mopping floors, washing dishes and you know what their last thought is? I never got my shot." - Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar Baby) We are always hearing about comebacks in Hollywood. Sometimes it's the much-vaunted recovery from some kind of personal issues, trying to remake their career after artistic or financial failure, or simply re- emerging back into the limelight after a self-imposed sabbatical. There is an odd need to embrace the 'back from the dead' narrative in Hollywood careers. What's never discussed, however, is why so many entertainers feel that they are entitled to a second chance, especially when so few people get their first shot in this most random and brutal of businesses. The Great Buck Howard is a charmingly entertaining comedy about the difference between second chances and second acts. It is no small irony that the film seems to cement the next stage of John Malkovich's career, that of the approachable and non-threatening comedy actor. I've written elsewhere about the odd phenomenon of famous villains becoming gentle comic souls in their later years (in fact, that essay started as the opening paragraph of this review), and Malkovich's humorous and subtle performance is what makes this film worth seeing. A token amount of plot - Troy Gabel (Colin Hanks) has just quit law school, much to the chagrin of his father (Tom Hanks, who also produced this picture). Deciding that he wants to be an entertainer/ writer instead, Troy eventually finds himself hired as an assistant to Buck Howard (Malkovich), a past-his-prime stage magician and hypnotist who is struggling to regain the fame and glory of his prime years. Buck Howard may be occasionally pushy, rude, and overly demanding, but Troy sees the true talent that once made Buck a star and convinces himself that what he's doing has purpose. It's not the most original story ever told, and I was annoyed at the pointless inclusion of a romantic interest. Emily Blunt's publicist character has little depth and no real use to the story other to give Troy someone attractive to crush on. But the pay off is surprisingly moving and the characters are surprisingly honest. I'm fond of the moment when Troy's father confides in his son that he certainly doesn't enjoy the high-stress work that pays the bills, but that he was hoping that his son wouldn't have to fend for himself (tragically, this marks the once invincible Tom Hanks' first good live-action movie since The Ladykillers in early 2004). This is a small movie, and the picture sneaks up on you even as you know where it's probably headed. The film works mainly because of John Malkovich's delightful comic performance. As a genuinely talented man who is in denial about the level of his fame and the nature of his legacy, Buck Howard inspires our sympathy even when his behavior doesn't always earn it. The story eventually becomes a treatise on what it means to be successful in a given field, regardless of your level of fame. The final ten minutes are shockingly effective, with Malkovich doing some of the best work in his career. In the end, The Great Buck Howard is a small story, well-told by actors who rise above the sometimes stock plot mechanics. The film has a good-natured vibe, with a surprisingly sound resolution that rings true. It's worth seeing for John Malkovich's wonderfully atypical performance and I cannot wait to see what he does with his own second act. Grade: B+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:17:19 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:17:22 2010 Subject: Review: Knowing (2009) Message-ID: <1da7b45b-63dc-49e6-98a2-22e9038e085d@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com> Knowing 2009 120 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson Knowing is an awfully odd duck of a movie. It is also unexpectedly brave, going in directions that the trailers barely hint at and that audiences surely will not expect. I was lucky enough to see this relatively blind. If you have any intention of seeing this film, I heartily recommend you do the same. This is a severely flawed, but also a fascinating and engrossing science fiction film, a picture that offers far more than surface thrills. A token amount of plot - John Koestler (Nicolas Cage, in a mostly low- key, in the service of the story performance) is a college science teacher who is still mourning the death of his wife. Left to raise his partially deaf son alone, he is obviously on edge and perhaps all too susceptible to mathematical coincidence. When his son is given a letter from a fifty-year old time capsule, a letter which is nothing but numbers from head to toe, John inexplicably realizes that the numbers seem to be pointing out the dates and body counts of every major disaster of the last fifty years. Is this just bizarre coincidence? If not, then what about the several would-be disasters that have yet to happen? Yes, the film starts out as a moodier variation on the superior first act of Jim Carrey's The Number 23 (the rest of the movie... not so much). But it eventually progresses into something far different, something that deals with predestination, free will, and the terrible burden of foreknowledge in a fashion that will be familiar to fans of director Alex Proyas's previous genre films (The Crow, Dark City, I Robot). Like Dark City (although this film isn't nearly as good as that genre-defining masterpiece), Knowing asks just what is the point of our lives and our actions if everything is mapped out for us by forces beyond our control. On the other hand, if there is no fate, no great plan, then why bother to excel, to build lives for ourselves, if it can all be rendered moot by random chance? Does either ideology negate both the consequences of our choices and actions and the concept of personal responsibility? Nicolas Cage's journey eventually brings him in contact with the grown daughter (Rose Byrne of TV's Damages) of the young girl who wrote the original time capsule number sheet, as well as pale-skinned, dark- suited strangers who seem to be in tune with what is really going on (sorry, couldn't resist). While the third act falters with too many repetitious scenes of meaningless action and incident (avoiding spoilers here), the film eventually builds up a Stephen King-type dread, the fear of inevitability. Like many of King's stories, the theoretical end-game of Knowing is revealed just soon enough for us to wonder if the tragedies can actually be prevented. But like Dark City (and Hancock for that matter), this is a film that still has story to tell right up until the final scenes. And the finale goes for emotional impact rather than pure technical merits, which makes the climax surprisingly potent all around (like Dark City, there is at least one image that is completely unexpected and will take your breath away). This is not a perfect film. The characters occasionally do dumb things (the leads leave their cars with the engine turned on and the keys in the ignition at least three times) and the third act drags between some major reveals and the climax of the picture. But this is a much darker, more somber, and far more meaningful picture than I was expecting. The supporting characters bring a refreshing intelligence to the proceedings, and the relationships between friends and family feels worn in and authentic. Nicolas Cage is certainly put to better use here than in Bangkok Dangerous, although those who yearn for the return of 'wild and crazy Cage' will be disappointed. Knowing is a solid science fiction picture with much on its mind. By daring to not explicitly answer its many questions regarding predestination and free will, it allows for debate and discussion. It may not be a great film, but it is a genuinely good film that is genuinely haunting. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:18:15 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:18:18 2010 Subject: Review: Observe and Report (2009) Message-ID: Observe and Report 2009 85 minutes Rated R by Scott Mendelson Observe and Report may be the smartest dumb comedy since Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. That 2004 comedy classic used its stoner comedy trappings to tell a sharp, incisive tale about modern race relations and ethnic identity (we'll ignore the terrible sequel). Observe and Report begins as simply another story about an underachieving, but big-dreaming little guy who gets a chance to redeem himself and win the girl of his dreams. By the time it is over, we realize that we haven't just watched a comic variation on Taxi Driver, but also a satire of the very concept of American-style ambition and nationalistic superiority. In an era where hopes and dreams are being squashed left and right by forces not entirely of our own making, Observe and Report comes close to asking us how we began to feel entitled to our uniquely American optimism in the first place. A token amount of plot - Ronnie Barnhardt is a mall security guard who dreams of bigger and better things. After a random flasher assaults several women in the parking lot, including the cosmetics employee who occupies Ronnie's fantasies, the obsessive mall cop sees this as an opportunity to fulfill his dreams of becoming a police officer. Can Ronnie achieve his dreams of becoming a police officer, as well as win the heart of Melanie at the cosmetics counter? Or will the police catch the flasher first, sounding a death knell for Ronnie's hopes and dreams? Technically, this is a vast improvement on Jody Hill's low-budget, somewhat undisciplined debut feature The Foot Fist Way, and he has certainly become one of the most promising comic talents out there. The film is tighter and more organized, despite both films running about 85 minutes. There is genuine maturing as a filmmaker on display. While the plot is relatively conventional, the film quickly becomes a dark, psychologically disturbing trip into the mind of a genuine psychotic who believes that he has been put on this Earth to watch over the rest of us. The film will have audiences questioning just how much humor they are supposed to take from this obviously damaged individual, with many a joke being followed by a nervous chuckle. Everyone knows someone like Ronnie, and he's not very funny in real life. In a genuinely brave performance, Seth Rogen sheds his frat-boy comic styling and delivers an unflinching portrayal. He refuses to wink at the audience and never subconsciously apologizes for Ronnie's casual racism and often deplorable behavior. The supporting cast is equally game. Anna Faris is equally daring, delivering a razor-sharp and hilarious put-on of her usual ditzy blonde characters. Faris delivers a 'dream girl' who is stupid to the point of being repulsive, without any charm or kindness to offset the sheer nothingness on display. In a offhand way, she ends up becoming a spoof of the 'idealized fantasy girl' who appears in so many male coming of age stories (think Garden State). Ray Liotta, looking younger and healthier than he has in ages, has a blast playing off his tough-guy persona as the local cop in charge of investigating crime at Ronnie's mall. Only Michael Pena falters, as Ronnie's partner and trusted friend. Pena's highly cartoonish Spanish accent rings false in a film that strives for a certain authenticity. While casual audiences can certainly enjoy the film for its bawdy punch lines and quasi-comic violence, there is much underneath the surface. First of all, the film plays as a pretty hard rip on the 'empowering' cliches found in so many movies that deal with male fantasy. But the film eventually becomes something deeper and more profound. Like most Americans, Ronnie believes that he is unique, a killer bee amongst the ant colony. By virtue of his birthright, he believes in his own moral superiority as well as his divine right to a greater destiny than that which has been bestowed upon him. The picture is a case study of both a garden-variety delusional thug and the bitter disillusionment of an entire nation. That this stark and uncompromising portrait is able to exist in a genuine comedy is something of a miracle. Like The Foot Fist Way, this is a darkly comic character study of an obsessive, violent underachiever who thinks he's just a step away from greatness, only to realize that he was always doomed to walk among the masses of 'average men'. The film, while flawed (it sometimes moves in fits and starts) is surprisingly unflinching in its vision of a frighteningly common type of person. Moreover, it uses that archetype to paint a portrait of an America slowly coming to terms with the idea that it might not be as special as it thought it was. If Paul Blart: Mall Cop is the hero we want in these times of great strife, then maybe Ronnie Barnhardt: Head of Mall Security is the 'hero' we're stuck with. Grade: A- From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:19:49 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:19:52 2010 Subject: Review: 17 Again (2009) Message-ID: <21435aff-536e-42b9-8ce7-5c256316f72e@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com> 17 Again 2009 102 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson There is a constant conflict within 17 Again, the pull over whether to be a real movie with real issues at its core vs. the need to appeal to the basest instincts in the stereotypical fans of teen-star Zac Efron. While the film sets up a genuinely compelling narrative, it quickly ignores that which made its story interesting in favor of assembly- line plot developments and overly broad character work. There's an awfully good movie lurking about three or four drafts down the line from where the screenwriter Jason Filardi apparently stopped. But, be it because of the WGA strike or a general lack of nerve, the film never really tells the story that it wants to tell. A token amount of plot: Mike O'Donnell (Matthew Perry) forever regrets the fateful choice he made as a high school senior, to run off the basketball court in a key game in order to declare that he would marry his pregnant girlfriend. Having forsaken college and dreams of basketball stardom, he's currently stuck in a dead-end corporate job, with two teenage children who loathe him and a wife who has just thrown him out of the house, a consequence of eighteen-years of self- pity. However, at his lowest point, a burst of magic turns Mike into his seventeen-year old self (Zac Efron), giving Mike the chance to redo high school all over again. But is that really why he was transformed? While the film is capably acted by all involved (as Mike's wife, Leslie Mann is given more to do than in her own husband's Funny People), the script feels like a first draft. Explicit plot and character exposition is doled out in overt expository monologues and very little is left unexplained during the somewhat rushed first act. Furthermore, the film never really deals with what Mike really wants. He doesn't want to relive high school, he wants to go back to high school in 1989 and make different choices. But since a mainstream family comedy can't really have a hero (played mostly by a teen idol no less) who wishes he didn't have his kids, the film tries to have it both ways. He gets to relive high school as himself, but in the present so his wife and kids are still alive and well. It's a strange paradox that turns the film into a variation on Quantum Leap, with Mike trying to figure out what he has to do to make things right. Playing the part of Al/Ziggy is Mike's high school chum, nerd-turned- billionaire nerd Ned Gold (Thomas Lennon), who has a superfluous romantic subplot with the school principal. Ironically, a first-act toy light-saber fight between 'young' Mike and older Ned is better choreographed and edited than most action-film sword fights. Alas, the second and third acts are pretty much on autopilot, as he must be the husband and father to his family that he never was as an adult, while still maintaining his seventeen-year old visage. On the plus side, Mrs. Scarlett O'Connell almost immediately realizes that something is up (she quickly notices the fact that this new kid looks EXACTLY like Mike from high school), which allows the movie to plausibly dabble in a quasi-romantic narrative between young Mr. O'Connell and a grown-up Scarlett. The film is relatively inoffensive and Zac Efron proves yet again that he is a true honest-to-goodness movie star (he also rocked in Hairspray), but the picture never really tries to break out of its cookie-cutter formula. Call it a mediocre, watchable missed opportunity. Grade: C+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:20:59 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:21:02 2010 Subject: Review: State of Play (2009) Message-ID: <53349707-8865-4dd9-9878-011143e99055@k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com> State of Play 2009 127 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson State of Play is the very sort of movie that 'they just don't make anymore'. Despite its attempts to include newfangled ideas regarding new journalism and the topical subject matter, it is a refreshingly old-fashioned star-driven thriller. As to be expected from any two hour film adapted from a six-hour British mini-series, this is a plot- packed movie, but also one that feels surprisingly leisurely. It does not rush from plot twist to plot twist, but remembers to keep character front and center. A token amount of plot - On the eve of congressional hearings into Point Corp, a multi-billion dollar private security firm that does business with the US for overseas operations, Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) is stained by scandal when his head researcher and mistress dies in an apparent accident. As Collins struggles to maintain his career, his former college roommate, Washington Globe reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), discovers an inexplicable connection between the young woman's tragic death and the shooting of a junkie. That's all you need. The film quickly becomes the most satisfying sort of puzzle. While there certainly are several 'plot twists', they are not the sort that make you question or reassess everything you've seen up to that point. Rather, as each layer of the story is pealed back, the plot makes more sense, not less. The characters' actions seem more plausible and the overriding themes at play become stronger. Russell Crowe gives a weary, but vaguely optimistic performance as an old-guard journalist who knows he is of a dying breed. Helen Mirren shines as the paper's editor, torn between her love of old-fashioned shoe leather journalism and the fact that the newfangled blog world is a far larger moneymaker. She has a devastating moment where she almost casually explains how a major story that turns out to be false will sell more papers than a true story, since the resulting denials and recriminations become additional stories unto themselves. Ben Affleck once again proves what a fine actor he is when he's not forced to be a movie star. Only Robin Wright Penn and Rachel McAdams are underused, though they do what they can with what they are given. The former is stuck with a token role as Affleck's scorned wife, and her apparent romantic history with Crowe fails to pay off. McAdams fairs worse though, as young hotshot blogger Della Frye who must represent that fact-less, gossipy, copy-every-hour new journalism that is theoretically killing the news. That State of Play champions objective journalism over opinion-based online snark pieces is an obvious, though still noble, path. But blogger Della Frye never establishes an identity of her own. We never really learn what kind of blogger she is, what she likes to write about, or how she feels about the current tug-of-war that exists in the newspaper community. That corporatization of newspapers is the real issue, and blogging is merely a symptom, is barely mentioned. And the relationship between her and Crowe is almost laughably one-sided. She learns the value of honest investigative journalism and learns to 'be a real reporter', yet he learns nothing and gains no insight from her. Still, the blogging versus reporting angle turns out to be a minor one, so its failure to really come together is at best a moderate flaw. But as a crime drama, a political thriller, and a journalistic who-dun-it-and-why, it is never less than completely compelling. The alleged conspiracy that is eventually unraveled is completely plausible and absolutely chilling, and I'm assuming any similarities to the terrific seventh season of 24 are coincidental. Aside from the stars, there are several fun supporting turns by the likes of Jeff Daniels and Jason Bateman. Once again, Bateman takes a stock character and infuses him with humanity, sympathy, and a specific point of view (see also - Hancock, Juno, Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium ). He is quickly becoming one of the finest character actors around. While the film is implicitly about the death of newspapers and the death of conventional journalism, it also ends up being about the death of itself. By that I mean the film ends up being an eulogy of sorts to the adult thriller, the star-driven suspense picture, and the very idea of mainstream movies for grownups. As their numbers dwindle in the wake of superhero epics, tween-driven comedies, and 3D animated features, the star-driven potboiler, once the most popular of genres, is becoming an endangered species. And by casting Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck, two men who were once the biggest stars in Hollywood, the film becomes a monument to the death of the conventional movie star. As the traditional leading man is supplanted by the geekey outsider or the dweebish underdog (think Shia Labeouf or Zac Efron), the picture becomes an ode to all things old-fashioned. It mourns the death of traditional journalism, traditional movie stars, and even traditional movies. One cannot dispute that State of Play represents a fine example of all three relics. Grade: A- From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:22:48 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:22:51 2010 Subject: Review: Tyson (2009) Message-ID: Tyson 2009 87 minutes Rated R By Scott Mendelson What do Henry Tillman, Alex Stewart, Michael Spinx, and I have in common? None of us have lasted even a single round against Mike Tyson. I still remember the code for Mike Tyson's Punch Out that allowed you to skip straight to the title bout (007-373-5963), and I never, ever defeated him. For about a two-year period, I was a boxing fan. When Tyson was in his late-80s peak, I distinctly recall several of his fights on HBO. My uncle ordered the much-hyped Tyson/Spinx fight on pay per view in 1989; leaving to grab a snack in the opening round and return moments later to discover the fight was over. To this day, I can vividly remember the shock of watching the seemingly invincible Iron Mike getting knocked out by the theoretically light weight Buster Douglas in the tenth round. Like the correlation between Mark Twain and Haley's Comet, my fascination with boxing came and went with Mike Tyson. Just over nineteen years after that stunning upset, Mike Tyson has sat down with friend and director James Toback for a blunt and intimate discussion of his childhood, his boxing career, and the downward spiral that his life plunged into following his epic loss. Anyone with a passing knowledge will know the main details. The rape conviction and subsequent three-year prison term, the failed attempts at a comeback, the infamous 1997 incident where bit off a chunk of Evander Holyfield's ear in the middle of a match (an incident that more or less ended his career)... they are all covered in seemingly forthright detail by the man himself. The majority of Tyson is simply Mike Tyson sitting in a chair, facing the camera, and telling the story of his life up to this point. There are plenty of fight clips, news snippets, and other assorted visual aids, but at the end of the day, this is simply one of the most famous boxers in the history of the sport waxing poetically about his successes and failures. While one can question the reliability of the narrator in several instances, he certainly earns our benefit of the doubt with his apparent honesty regarding all manner of bad behavior. Of his marriage to actress Robin Givens (currently a member of the Tyler Perry casting pool), he casually remarks the futility of one side accusing the other of being a bi-polar, emotionally abusive psychotic, while the other side accused their spouse of being a venomous gold-digger. He resoundingly proclaims his innocence of the rape charge that sent him to prison, and his memories of jail provide one of the highlights of the picture. The most potent moments occur as footage of the infamous ear-biting incident play onscreen, while Tyson recounts a kind of stream of consciousness of what was allegedly going on in his head during the fight. What emerges from this narrative is a classic tale of a young man who achieved unimaginable success at an age when he was in no position to deal with the fallout. While the filmmaker is obviously a sympathetic ear (Toback has cast Tyson in two of his previous films), there are still doses of unflinching honesty to be found. What is contained here is compelling and worth listening to, but Tyson seems to be only scratching the surface. This first-person documentary is best viewed as a sort of 'cliff notes' for the great autobiography that has yet to be written. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 00:25:48 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 00:25:51 2010 Subject: Review: Crank: High Voltage (2009) Message-ID: Crank: High Voltage 2009 96 minutes Rated R by Scott Mendelson Crank: High Voltage is a movie that spends 90 minutes seemingly punishing the audience for having enjoyed the first Crank. The original picture was of course the definition of a guilty pleasure. It was loud, trashy, vulgar, and violent. But, underneath all of the mayhem and property destruction, there was a real movie with and an actual relatable plot. While the original film wasn't terribly concerned about whether you felt for any of the characters, this sequel basically dares you to give a damn. A token amount of plot: After plunging from a helicopter and landing on a car, the wonderfully named Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) inexplicably wakes up to find a group of evil Chinese doctors attempting to harvest his organs. Bloodshed ensues and he escapes, only to realize that his heart is missing and in its place is an electric artificial model. Sure enough, Chelios once again has only one hour to make things right, unless of course he can keep the electricity flowing into his body one way or another. Can Chev find his original heart in time for Doc Miles (Dwight Yokum) to put it back in? The problem with Crank 2 is also its greatest asset. Unlike the original, which at least had a pretense of being somewhat earth bound, High Voltage raises the level of carnage and mayhem to the level of a cartoon. If Crank was attempting to be a film version of Grand Theft Auto, then Crank : High Voltage is basically a gore-drenched Loony Tunes cartoon. Among other highlights, elbows are sliced off, a shotgun is inserted into a man's butt, and a woman watches as her fake breasts are punctured by bullets and her chest melts away. There's an inexplicable climactic moment where a good guy pauses mid gunfight, turns around, and unloads into the back of the unarmed gardener. I have no problem with extreme violence, but the film makes no bones about being filled with gore for the sake of gore. The absolute lack of any emotional investment makes the picture feel much ickier than it would have been had it even pretended to be telling a story. The first few times I took slight moral offense at the heartless carnage on display. After that, I just became bored. What made Crank work was that, amidst all the mayhem (which, gore and body count-wise, was actually relatively restrained until the climax), we had an undertone of a man realizing that he had wasted his life on the very day it was to end (to say nothing of the irony that he was killed in retribution for the one murder he chose not to commit). Yes, it was trashy, loud, and anarchic, but it worked on its own limited emotional scope, and the filmmakers stuck to their guns and actually killed Statham at the end. Alas, the sequel betrays the limited investment that anyone had in the characters of the first film. Not only is Chev now not dead, but apparently he is in a position to save his own life for good if he can recover his um... stolen heart. People can certainly relate to the idea of knowing they've only got hours to live and taking revenge on the people who murdered them. I don't think many people can relate to the idea of having their heart stolen, replaced with an electric heart, and then having to get the original back from gangsters. Dwight Yokum isn't given nearly as much to do this time around. Amy Smart is given even less to do other than striptease, fight with other women, and end up... well, that's a spoiler but I didn't like it one bit. Random minor characters from the first film show up only to remind you that this is a sequel. To be fair, I did enjoy the climactic appearance of a major player from the first film (no spoilers, but I think they were paying homage to the video game Doom 2). As for Chelios himself, the first film walked a fine line between making him an impulsively violent hit man and yet still making him a vaguely noble samurai whom we could actually root for. This time around, the savage beast is unleashed and the film spends much time recounting what a menace Chelios really is (for the first time ever, Jason Statham is unlikable). If Chev Chelios is such a monstrous outlaw, why should we root for him to get his heart back and live to murder and maim again? The answer of course is that all of these qualms are beside the point. Crank part duex is theoretically a thoughtless, soulless picture where violence and destruction happen on a grand guignol purely for the hell of it. But, when you're working in a mid-budget R-rated action film, there aren't really any prizes for gross outs and pointless carnage. Writer/Directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor are breaking no taboos and are operating in an arena where they have no limitations and no real restrictions. Thus they are not being 'edgy' or 'daring', but simply being loud and brutish. The irony of course is that the very video games that Neveldine and Taylor are attempting to emulate have in fact grown up in the last several years. Even Grand Theft Auto IV has created rich characters and shades of gray moral choices to balance out its wanton violence. Compared to the video games of today and even the original Crank, Crank: High Voltage is just too pointless and dumb to merit any real reaction at all. Grade: C- From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 19:51:40 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 19:51:44 2010 Subject: Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) Message-ID: X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2009 107 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a film that has no particular reason for existing. It tells the background story behind a major character from the X-Men film franchise. But Wolverine was the lead character of said films, and we've already learned everything we need to know from the films in said franchise (like The Powerpuff Girls Movie, it is a feature length variation of an origin story that we already knew). And the extra information given here actually serves to make the character of Logan/Wolverine less interesting. It's not necessarily that a character like Wolverine is better when his past is left a mystery, so much of that past that is revealed here is so astoundingly conventional, uncompelling, and completely clich?. In a time when even bad comic book films like The Spirit have a certain 'are you kidding me?' nerve, Wolverine is shocking in its adherence to formula and lack of imagination. A token amount of plot: Born with mutant powers that consisted of healing abilities, unnaturally slow aging, and the ability to pop boney claws out of his hands, the man who would be Wolverine finds himself at home on one war-torn killing field after another, along with his friend and apparent brother Victor Creed/Sabretooth (a slumming Liv Shreiber, who does so little with the role that they should have just rehired Tyler Mane). After they are captured and unsuccessfully executed during the Vietnam War, they are both recruited into a super secret black-ops program known as Weapon X. Led by the mysterious William Stryker (Danny Huston, as the man who would be Brian Cox in X2: X-Men United), this band of super powered assassins proves too much for Logan, and he quits after Creed murders innocent civilians in an operation. Six years later, Stryker tracks down Logan with the information that someone is apparently murdering members of his old team. But before you can say Commando, the insidious plot hits close to home, shattering Logan's world and putting him on a course to become the steel-clawed superhero we know and love. The resulting film is every bit as predictable and dull as the information imparted above. The entire film is a muted, oddly lifeless affair. Without knowledge of the behind the scenes struggles between Fox and director Gavin Hood, I cannot say who is truly to blame. But the filmmakers seem to be under the impression that 'dark and moody' means visually gray and woodenly acted. Hugh Jackman does what he can with the character that he so obviously adores, but the bland, expository dialogue and routine storytelling leave him adrift. For all the blather about presenting a darker, more animalistic Wolverine, Logan is still the conflicted but generally morally sound do-gooder that he is in the X-Men pictures. Actually, within his element, he's actually far less menacing than he was in the first X-Men, where he theoretically posed a genuine threat to the children of Xavier's institute. He may occasionally kill his opponents, especially while at war, but he is friendly to kind-hearted older people and is no threat unless attacked first. In the end, the legendary Logan is rendered no more savage or dangerous than Jason Statham on a bad day. That brings up another issue, which is the lack of memorable action set pieces. While the X-Men pictures were not legendary action-fests, they were rooted in quality storytelling and character-driven drama. Since those components are so lacking here, it would be up to the fights and chases to merit actually viewing this picture. But there are really only two even competent set-pieces. The first-act black-ops take down resembles a deleted scene from Spawn. The only action scenes of note are the climax and a mid-film chase involving a motorcycle against several hummers and helicopters. But, alas, every single gag in the mid-film chase has been revealed in the trailers. The already short running time is padded with several fights between Wolverine and fan-favorite cameos. Did anyone really want to see Logan boxing Blob? As for Gambit, he barely appears and exists only to appease the few and vocal. His fight scene with Logan is especially amusing, as it causes tons of property damage without comment, and because it quickly becomes a classic 'neither of us want to lose, but the fans want to see us fight' smack down, resulting in no real outcome and no story advancement (see The Forbidden Kingdom for another example). So the action is more or less dull, the writing feels like a bad television pilot, and the acting is barely perfunctory. To make matters worse, a few would-be plot twists seem specifically designed to aggravate the very hardcore fans that would theoretically flock to this picture. The climax, for reasons that I won't reveal, will absolutely infuriate devotees of a specific fan-favorite character (for comparison, imagine if, at the end of Spider-Man 3, Eddie Brock turned into The Vulture). A couple future X-Men make brief appearances, but their roles in the narrative ends up contradicting explicit X-Men continuity. The cameo that is revealed in the previews is especially odd, as Scott Summers finally gets a moment to shine, in a Wolverine spin-off of all things. This is of course ironic since Cyclops constantly had his story lines muted or stolen in the X-Men pictures by filmmakers who wanted to emphasize Wolverine at all costs. Between Deadpool, Sabretooth, Gambit, Agent Zero, and Kestrel, 20th Century Fox could have started a whole new Weapon X franchise. Alas, none of these characters are even remotely developed. Dominic Monaghan has a moment of bitterness and regret as a light-controlling mutant named 'Bolt', but he's brushed offscreen right before he gets interesting. None of the other c-level X-universe characters make any such impact, and nonfans will struggle to remember their names as the credits role. Ironically, this is as much of a franchise killer as Stephen Summer's Van Helsing (which also starred Hugh Jackman), which wrecked the film making potential of the entire Universal monsters library for several years afterward. It's been awhile since such a major tent pole picture that felt so lifeless and ordinary. The plot and story are Mad Libs by the book. The writing is shockingly lazy with even the simplest details (certain supporting characters are rarely if ever referred to by their names, leaving the audience wondering who they are), and the action scenes vary between dreadfully dull, completely pointless, and utterly ridiculous. This film is the kind of bland and boring assembly line product that makes me appreciate the ambitious comic book films that I didn't care for (Spider-Man 3, Superman Returns, The Spirit, etc) and it makes me a little less hostile toward the lousy comic book adventures that at least had a junky spark (think Ghost Rider or Judge Dredd). Tragically for all involved, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the worst major comic book adaptation since Catwoman. Grade: D From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 19:52:59 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 19:53:02 2010 Subject: Review: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009) Message-ID: Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past 2009 100 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is a relatively okay movie, even while at its core it's pretty unremarkable. It is well acted and stylishly shot, with a brisk pace that only lags just a bit in the middle act. But it is at heart a simplistic story that purports that most people who make the choice to not have a conventional life (marriage, kids, two-car garage) are motivated not by personal choice but by deep- seated emotional scars. That may be the case for some, but couldn't we at least once have a film about a confirmed bachelor who gets to remain a bachelor by the film's climax, even if he has to become a somewhat better person? The plot, in brief - Conner Meed (Matthew McConaughy) is a big-time fashion photographer and a full-time lothario. With a somewhat cartoonish love-em and leave-em philosophy, he embarks to his brother's wedding not with joy but merely family obligation. After arriving and making an ass out of himself in front of his family, the bride's family, and his childhood sweetheart (Jennifer Garner), he is visited by the ghost of his uncle (Michael Douglas) who advises him that he must change his promiscuous ways or risk being alone forever. What follows is a textbook variation on Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, as Conner is visited by three ghosts representing relationships past, present, and future. As expected, childhood trauma is revealed, secret motivations and fears are uncovered, and Conner realizes that he is controlled not by his libido but by his fears. On the surface level, the film more or less works. Everyone in the cast is game and the film looks lovely. What's most impressive is the fact that the women in the film are actually allowed to be funny. As Dr. Jenny Perotti, Jennifer Garner is not just 'the childhood sweetheart who Conner pushed away', but a completely charming and humorous character of her own accord. In fact, it is a flaw of the film that she seems too smart and world-weary to still have feelings for the dope who cruelly left her, and her exceptional chemistry with another bachelor at the wedding (Daniel Sunjata) doesn't help the movie's grand schemes. Lacey Chambert's blushing bride is relatively amusing, with the amount of Bridezilla moments kept to a bare and reasonable minimum. In what could have been a stock role, Noureen DeWolf gives Conner's thankless secretary a sharp personality and a no- bullshit demeanor (it helps that she's arguably the only woman in the film not drawn to the cad). Emma Stone gets laughs as the 'past-tense ghost', the sixteen-year old nerd who was Conner's first conquest. Best of all is Anne Archer as the mother of the bride, who gets one of the film's best scenes during a warm flirtation moment with McConaughy. Unlike many comedies, the women actually get just as many funny lines and just as much personality as the men. Also helping things is the low-key nature of the plot. With the exception of one painfully contrived scene involving a wedding cake, the film avoids over-the-top set pieces and pratfalls. Even the climax of the film refuses to take place at an interrupted wedding or an airport, but in a location irrelevant to the situation at hand. And said climax involves not a public confessional but a quiet conversation that is witnessed by only a few others. Furthermore, the relationship between Conner and his brother (Breckin Myer) is surprisingly thought-out, and a moment of Paul defending his older brother is the emotional highlight of the film. The supporting cast, from Robert Forster to Michael Douglas, seem to be trying their best to make this a real movie. And they pretty much succeed despite the formulaic narrative at play. It helps to have a real director, and Mark Waters (he of Mean Girls, the best movie ever made about high school girls) once again elicits terrific performances to help somewhat redeem a stock romantic comedy (re - Just Like Heaven). But in the end, it is just another story about a ladies-man learning that having tons of consensual sex with willing partners is a huge character flaw and a sign of darker personal demons. We're once again told that women aren't smart enough to know when they are just rolling in the hay with an obvious playboy, thus Conner is responsible for countless heartbreaks and tears. And once again we're led to believe that a guy would have been happy forever more if he had just married his preschool sweetheart right from the get-go (sure plenty of happy couples met that early, but must that be the finale to so many romantic comedies?). It's something that's long bugged me about romantic comedies, but at least this is a relatively entertaining variation on that old hat moral. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is a surprisingly entertaining presentation of a sour package. But if you know what you're getting into, it's funny and well-acted, with equal laughs for the actors and actresses both. While I wish that McConaughy would do more varied work in the vein of Frailty, Sahara, and Lone Star, this is certainly a step up from Fool's Gold and the like. Grade: B- From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 19:54:30 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 19:54:33 2010 Subject: Review: Star Trek (2009) Message-ID: <1a641ae8-e0b9-42cb-814e-1b640fabf9ad@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Star Trek 2009 126 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson "You will always be a part of two worlds. And fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is which path will you choose." JJ Abrams's ambitious Star Trek reboot desperately tries to have it both ways. Not confident enough to choose its path, it straddles between affectionately campy homage and its own franchise. Like Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, it is too afraid to boldly chart its own destiny, but refusing to be a true extension of the original franchise. While it portends to separate itself from the Star Trek mythology that inspired it, the picture completely counts on said mythology for any and all emotional impact. A token amount of plot - Born on the very day his father died aboard a star ship, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is adrift on Earth, unable or unwilling to decide what to do with his life. Fate intercedes when Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) challenges him to live up to the courage shown by the George Kirk so many years prior. Meanwhile, on the planet Vulcan, the half-human, half-Vulcan Spock (Zachary Quinto) is torn between his destiny as a Vulcan, and his desire to embrace his human side and join Starfleet. Their destinies will soon intertwine, and the rest of our favorite USS Enterprise crew members will join in a maiden adventure that will test and define them and their novice crew. For the record, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and the rest of the gang are all in ship-shape form. While Karl Urban comes on a little strong right out of the gate as Dr. McCoy, his character works better once he actually has more to do than complain. With the exception of one first- act scene, Pine keeps the frat-boy rebel cliches to a bare minimum. Quinto gives an impressive interior performance when the script isn't forcing him to give on the nose speeches and engage in plot-mandated emotional outbursts (although I will concede that the follow up to said outburst is an affective and moving scene). The rest of the gang is barely sketched in, but our memory of the original actors does most of the work for us. Sulu's (John Cho) main character beat is cribbed from Galaxy Quest, although he does gets a major action scene. Chekov (Anton Yelchin) speaks in an ultra-thick Russian accent for comic relief and little else, making him the prime candidate to die in the sequel. Scotty (Simon Pegg) shows up fully formed, while Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana) is allowed to take her character in some surprising directions. Taken on their own, many of these characters are paper thin, and the film depends on our affection for their prior legacies in order for us to care about what happens to them. Further more, great pains are made to allow the plot to both set out on its own course while allowing to the prior Star Trek continuity to remain intact. While I won't reveal the details, the film eventually becomes the equivalent of an 'elseworld', except the characters are pretty much the same as they are in the regular Star Trek universe. The film lacks the courage to either stand firmly within Star Trek continuity or completely break free and tell its own story. As it is, we are stuck wondering why we should care about the exploits of basically the Enterprise crew of 'Earth-2'. Let's put aside the film's lack of courage in picking a path and my distaste for the concept of the 'multiverse'. Taking as its own thing, does the film work? Not really. The villain, played by Eric Bana, is the least interesting adversary in any tent pole adventure film that I can remember. While he is given token 'motivation' against Spock, it doesn't make much sense (had Spock actually been indirectly responsible for Nero's grievance, it would have made more sense and helped the drama), and he is given so little to do that the character becomes 'insert antagonist here'. Despite the huge budget and attempt at scope, the film is shot mainly in close up, leaving the film feeling more claustrophobic than epic. While the film never, ever stops moving, there is actually very little actual action. Said action beats fail to excite because most of the action involves people running in panic from one room of a star ship to another, or arbitrary scenes of one ship annihilating another (one- sided slaughter isn't action, it's just violence). Plus, much of it is shot and edited in that super-tight, million-edits a second fashion that only Steven Spielberg, John Singleton, and Martin Campbell seem able to avoid. Only a pointless but frightening chase involving a snowy monster and a swashbuckling duel involving Sulu atop a giant drill elicit any sense of excitement. By the time a climactic phaser shoot out occurs, I couldn't help thinking how much more emotionally involved I was in said shoot out at the end of, yes, Galaxy Quest. There are countless comic callbacks to the original franchise, but most of them feel so forced, out of place, and on the nose that they take us right out of the picture. Various lines of dialogue, action beats, and character moments are rudely inserted from previous films and television episodes. They do not feel organic and imply Abrams's lack of confidence in his own ability to please the Trek fans without resorting to 'oh, that's from that movie/episode' moments. Furthermore, the insertion of the fabled 'Kobayashi Maru' test takes up valuable screen time while seemingly missing the point of the original story. In this variation, Kirk is a cocky punk who cheats out of entitlement, rather than a stubborn refusal to fail. Ironically the best nod to the original show is the subtlest, involving the unspoken destiny of Chief Engineer Olsen. The biggest 'callback' (this could be considered a spoiler) involves the second act appearance of a major character from the prior franchise. Without going into details, said character becomes an hour long deus ex machina. He constantly offers helpful plot exposition, tells the characters exactly what they need to do in order to progress, and then tells the characters what they should do once the film is complete. Said character comes off not as one imparting wisdom, but rather as one who has already read the script. This element by itself kills much of the dramatic tension in the third act of the picture. In the end, despite fine acting, several moments of potent drama, solid production values, and high ambitions, Star Trek comes off as a 'Star Trek for dummies' variation on the fabled story. Similar to X- Files: Fight the Future, this film is Star Trek for people who have never seen the shows or the movies, and furthermore need their characters drawn in broad strokes and the philosophies explicitly explained in monologue. Maybe if I had no prior knowledge of the franchise I could take it all at face value and simply acknowledge that it is a broadly drawn big-budget B-movie with an incredibly weak villain and some poorly staged action beats. But because the film continuously reminds us of its legacy, I have no choice but to judge it in comparison to its predecessors. There is potential for a solid franchise with these actors, after all the even-numbered sequels are almost always the best. But, despite all the pomp and circumstance, J.J. Abrams's Star Trek remains merely another disappointing odd- numbered Star Trek picture. Grade: C+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 19:56:00 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 19:56:03 2010 Subject: Review: Big Man Japan (2009) Message-ID: <3568fc5c-50c3-47a5-99d4-fc74619336c1@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com> Big Man Japan 2009 113 minutes Rated PG-13 By Scott Mendelson Big Man Japan is the rare picture that has such a delightful premise that it would hardly matter if the film worked or not. Fortunately for fans of offbeat, quirky cinema, the picture does maintain a certain down to Earth charm. This Japanese import is a genuine original and actually works as a comedic deconstruction of the Japanese monster movie genre, much as Hancock operated as a skewed take on American superhero sagas (for the record, this film was released in Japan in 2007, a full year before Hancock). While the picture never aims for the emotional heights of that Peter Berg gem, it is awfully funny, with a surprisingly potent bit of social commentary just underneath the quirkiness. A token amount of plot - This mockumentary concerns the exploits of one Daisato (Hitoshi Matsumoto), who appears to be your every day middle-aged slacker. But his actual occupation is one of great importance to Japan. Whenever a monster attacks, Daisato rushes to a government facility, where he is shocked by bolts of lightening, transforming him into a several-stories high giant, capable of defending the fair citizens of Japan from monstrous peril. The latest in a long family line of monster fighters, Daisato is treated not with the reverence of his predecessors, but with scorn and ridicule by a populous who complains about property destruction and noise. In short, Big Man Japan is about a superhero who is viewed as anything but by family and bystanders alike. That's all you need in regards to the story. Like a Charlie Kaufman comedy, the film is shot in the usual mockumentary style, giving a realism and deadpan feel to the out of this world storytelling. While the special effects are crude, they are absolutely appropriate for this material and are exactly as good as they need to be for this kind of film. Director Hitoshi Matsumoto never goes for the easy joke or the cheap laugh, instead building a certain sympathy for this pathetic would-be champion. The acting is always above board and no one ever winks or acknowledges the absurdity of this situation. The picture takes its time developing its primary characters in between the comical monster mashes, which makes the smack downs that much more rewarding. The film slowly develops into a sad tale of a pathetic and lonely man who exists only to engage in crowd-pleasing battle royales with various life-threatening adversaries. Yes, the film is a bit long, but the token emotional investment is a welcome note from a film that could have been a campy one-joke comedy. Big Man Japan is a true delight, a charming variation on any number of beloved genres. It is probably one of the more original films you will see this year, both in concept and in execution. It is funny, thoughtful, and occasionally touching. While probably destined for limited theatrical release, it is just the sort of picture to attain cult status once it hits DVD. Big Man Japan is just plain big fun. Grade: B+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 20:43:17 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 20:43:21 2010 Subject: Review: Angels & Demons (2009) Message-ID: <49eb3c8a-89bf-4fbf-8907-65429a25e04c@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com> Angels & Demons 2009 138 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson Angels & Demons is one of the more cheerfully dumb thrillers I've seen in a good long while. Every moment is more preposterous than the next, and after a brief period, the absurdity becomes oddly comforting. It's a lovely looking film, with authentic looking locations and a fair number of character actors who are obviously trying to replenish their Roth IRAs. It's not a good movie, but its one of the best kind of bad movies - a trashy pulp fiction that wholly embraces its own shoddiness. A token amount of plot - Following the theft of a groundbreaking piece of anti-matter, and the kidnapping of the top four contenders in line to succeed the newly dead Pope, the Vatican calls in renowned 'Harvard Symbologist' Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks, with less hair, less gut, and more humor this time around). Although the church didn't care much for his last insertion into church politics (they too found it self- serious, too long, and dreadfully boring), they need his help none the less. Now Langdon and Dr. Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) have only five hours to decipher the locations of the missing Cardinals as well as the location of the anti-matter, which has been made into a bomb that will wipe out Vatican City at the stroke of midnight. While this fast-moving film is technically 'better' than The Da Vinci Code, that's basically like stating that a firing squad is more merciful than hanging. Both use pseudo religious legend to pretty up glorified Hardy Boys mystery stories. What makes this sequel an improvement is that director Ron Howard is (slightly) less afraid to acknowledge the silliness of the original novel. Unlike The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons did not have to be treated like a sacred text, with all the reverence accorded to such beloved works of literature. The inclusion of the infamous 'Illuminati' society is a welcome touch. They are always terrific go-to guys for mysterious skulduggery, mainly because 'Illuminati' is a really cool name for a super secret organization of evildoing. Who wouldn't want to say that they belong to an organization called the Illuminati? Much of the running time still involves Langdon glancing at a random painting or symbol and deducing incredibly complicated schemes. Think of that early scene in the 1966 Batman movie where Batman and Robin deduce who's behind the big scheme ("It happened at sea... sea? C for Catwoman!") and you have an idea of what this entire movie's investigative process is like. Over and over again, Langdon turns coal into diamonds, allowing the heroes to race to the very spot where the next Cardinal is set to be murdered. Everyone else basically sits back and reacts, although Ayelet Zurer has much more to do than Audrey Tautou did in The Da Vinci Code. Refreshingly, at no point does Hanks pull a helpless Zurer along as they race to or from danger. Stellan Skarsgard does little more than scowl and occasionally impede progress (no wonder he recently exclaimed that the author of the original books, Dan Brown, is a pretty terrible writer). Nikolaj Lie Kaas makes a pretty compelling antagonist until he is forced to deliver a trite monologue in a speaking voice that isn't nearly as cool as it should be (parents be warned, this is a far more violent and gruesome picture than The Da Vinci Code, and it's probably the least justified PG-13 since Vantage Point). Ewan McGregor has some nice moments as an empathetic priest torn between duty and apparent morality, although his climactic actions form the most unintentionally hilarious moment since Sam Elliot and Nicolas Cage drag-raced at the end of Ghost Rider. Although Angels & Demons is a more cinematic story than the first picture, it is not enough of an improvement to merit continuing the series. The film is still about twenty minutes too long and still takes itself just a little too seriously. While there is less reverence this time around, Ron Howard and company still seem afraid to completely embrace the tawdry and trashy dime-store nature of Dan Brown's adventure novels. In the end, Angels & Demons is 'so dumb the con of man', which is better than The Da Vinci Code, which was 'so dull the con of man'. Grade: C+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 20:43:36 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 20:43:39 2010 Subject: Review: Surveillance (2009) Message-ID: <0e6fc234-4e52-488c-913b-8511f2083a3f@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Surveillance 2009 97 minutes Rated R by Scott Mendelson Puzzle box movies are a mixed blessing. The best of them are completely absorbing and compelling regardless of their climactic reveals or final incidents. So even if you know 'the big secret' of The Sixth Sense, the film still works as a emotional drama about a young boy with an unimaginable problem and how it affects his relationship with his mother. And even if you know where The Usual Suspects is heading, it's still a well-acted crime drama with a compelling narrative under its belt. But if the sole intent of a given film is to play a climactic game of 'gotcha' with the audience, then said filmmakers had best be darned sure that we can't guess the big answers before we're intended to know them. Otherwise the film becomes an exercise in tedium. Surveillance is a movie all about deducing how a specific crime unfolded. At the beginning of the picture, there is a murder and apparent kidnapping, followed by a mass murder along a country road. The three witnesses are an eight year old girl, a strung out junkie, and a local cop. The inquisitors are two out-of-town FBI agents (Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond) who have invested months in this apparent cross-country crime spree. As the feds press the survivors for relevant information, the narrative of just what happened unfolds from several points of view, with none of the narrators proving all that reliable. The picture, directed by Jennifer Lynch (the woman behind the infamous Boxing Helana), may very well have worked as an hour-long short film on Showtime or HBO. But this is a full-length 97-minute feature, and there just isn't enough storytelling to fill up the allotted time. As a result, the opening act is full of atmosphere and character introduction, without a hint of actual character development or narrative progression. The film is filled with solid character actors, such as Michael Ironside, Cheri Oreri, and French Stewart, but the dialogue is shockingly bland and the cast is generally wasted. The set up is interesting and the actors (especially Pullman and Kent Harper) are game, but the film is just light on substance for much of its running time. There are a few moments of twisted diversion. In a flashback, two cops spend their day terrorizing motorists unlucky enough to be caught speeding, teaching them to never ever break the speed limit again. And while the violence is surprisingly restrained, there are just enough moments of gore or surprise bloodletting to snap us awake. But most of the running time is basically spent waiting for the inevitable reveals, when we finally see how the mass killing played out and which characters are hiding which secrets. If you don't figure it out early on, you simply sit there waiting for the reveals. If you've figured it out already, the film is almost unbearably dull. In the end, Surveillance is a puzzle box film that has nothing to offer except the various puzzle pieces. The characters do not stand out, the drama is not compelling, and the screenplay is light on even remotely interesting dialogue. There just isn't enough story and character to fill up a feature length movie, so the entire first and second acts just come off as filler. Considering the talent involved, Surveillance is a major disappointment. Grade: C- From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 20:44:30 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 20:44:33 2010 Subject: Review: Terminator Salvation (2009) Message-ID: <0fed5e20-0cf1-4d96-a044-dda1a0976541@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com> Terminator Salvation 2009 115 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson Terminator Salvation is arguably the closest thing to non-stop action since The Mummy Returns. It opens in the thick of a military operation and barely slows down for its 115 minutes. Character development is almost non-existent and the picture relies on our prior knowledge of the previous Terminator pictures. The characters are paper thin and the film has obvious signs of tinkering. Ironically, for a film that constantly opines about the strength of the human heart, the film lacks the very heart and soul that brought humanity to the first three pictures. It is occasionally a first-rate action spectacle, but it is only the spectacle that merits recommendation. A token amount of plot: Judgment Day has come and gone, and in the year 2018 the human resistance continues to press on against the machines that turned against them and killed most of the planet. While the leader of the fighting force (Michael Ironside) clashes with the beloved John Conner (Christian Bale), a new weapon is discovered that may turn the tide for the humans. Meanwhile, Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) awakens in this apocalyptic future with no idea why he is still alive, as his last memory was of being put to death in 2003. As he teams with a young Kyle Reese, the paths of these would-be heroes will soon cross in a way that will determine the fate of all humanity. Oddly enough, the legendary John Conner is more or less a supporting role this time around. Despite the casting of Christian Bale and said actor's top billing, he spends much of the film as a second banana to the mysterious Marcus Wright. Alas, Worthington's performance does not merit the spotlight, as he spends much of the film in stock-action hero mode, with an Australian accent that comes and goes at random intervals. As for Bale, he inexplicably chooses to use his infamous McGruff: The Crime Bat voice for several major sequences. Aside from action set pieces in the opening and the climax, Bale has little to do but bark orders, give inspirational radio addresses, and fued with Michael Ironside. Ironside is tragically relegated to the role of 'wrong-headed authority figure', as his primary job is to be wrong at every interval, for the sake of dramatic conflict. None of the other characters are fleshed out in the least, although Anton Yelchin does the best with what he is given as a young Kyle Reese. Between this and his broad comic turn as Chekov in Star Trek, it's obvious this chameleon-like young actor is going to be around for awhile. The women come off exceptionally poorly here. Bryce Dallas Howard is given nothing to do as Dr. Kate Conner (Claire Danes in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines). It's painfully obvious that her entire role ended up on the cutting room floor as she has almost no dialogue and plays no real role in the story. Worse yet is Moon Bloodgood (Blair Williams), who's primary jobs are to look hot, get rescued by a strong handsome man, then risk all of humanity in order to save said stud whom she barely knows. Aside from lack of character development, we never get a true sense of what it feels like to live in this post-Judgment Day world. There is no sense of the day to day life for the resistance, or for the other survivors. All jokes about 'Reign of Fire with robots aside', that picture gave you a true feeling of what it was like to live in a post- apocalyptic world where humans are primarily dragon food (in the end, the two pictures end up being surprisingly similar in plot). It is no secret that the eventual DVD/Blu Ray will contain 40 minutes of deleted scenes, and I'm guessing much of that will contain the missing character beats. It again brings up a troubling question... if we know full well that the film we are about to see is a studio or producer- mandated 'theatrical cut', what exactly is the point of going to the theaters to see what appears to be an arbitrary version of a given film? The film also suffers from a screenplay that feels like it was intended to be a children's picture. While the movie is loud, dark, and violent, the character beats and dialogue sometimes resemble the simplicity and over-exposition found in afternoon cartoons. There are countless instances of obvious ADR dialogue which state obvious points ('It worked!' or 'We need to get out of here!'), and climactic voice over makes a point to explicitly spell out the moral of the story. Say what you will about John and Sarah Conner's moralizing in Terminator 2, or the somewhat campy robot antics in Terminator 3, but those still felt like adult pictures made with adult sensibilities. Even though the film isn't any less violent or grim as a result of its PG-13, it still feels like a less mature, more kid-friendly Terminator film. Having said all that, the film primarily exists as an action picture, and on that note it barely merits recommendation. While the opening act has only perfunctory action beats, there is an extended chase scene about 40-minutes in that is truly eye-popping. The Terminator pictures have always been known for their first-act-climax vehicle pursuits and this one does not disappoint. Although the big second act action beat is unexciting because it's relatively pointless (it's a character who can't die or hurt others, being chased by another character who can't die or hurt others), the climax of the film is genuinely exciting and suspenseful. Since we don't know how slavishly this sequel follows the time-traveling continuity of the previous films, there is genuine tension as most of the characters involved could very well be killed. So, does the film merit viewing? That's up to you. The characters aren't the least bit interesting and the dialogue borders on childish (I'm particularly partial to Bale's climactic radio address where he speaks in broad platitudes rather than explaining why the resistance should take the contrary action he is suggesting). But the technical aspects are often breathtaking and the action beats satisfy more often than not. The film is rich in atmosphere and genuinely feels a part of the Terminator mythos. It's not required viewing and the Terminator Salvation is a deeply flawed picture, and easily the least of the Terminator pictures. But wow, that first-act chase is a knockout. Grade: C From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 20:46:16 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 20:46:18 2010 Subject: Review: Drag Me to Hell (2009) Message-ID: <8fe577a9-c4b0-46ba-8d0e-e1fc019a199e@b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Drag Me To Hell 2009 99 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson Drag Me to Hell is a throwback to a time, in the mid-1980s, when horror films were fun first and scary second. Before the genre became a battle of the franchise boogeymen, before the advent of English adaptations of Asian fright fests, before the onslaught of gorier, more drawn out violence (itself a theoretical callback to the 1970s), there was a time when horror films were just plain fun. This new Sam Raimi picture is not terribly frightening, as the nature of its premise all but states that the would-be scares are without consequence. But it does have energy, an eagerness to entertain, and an old-school 80s fun house spirit, and it has all three in spades. As a bonus, it's the rare theatrical horror movie that isn't a remake or a random 'dumb kids get lost in the wood and get butchered' narrative. It is a real movie, with a real plot and plausible characters at its core. Drag Me To Hell may not be shiver-in-the-dark scary, but it is a trashy B-movie blast. A token amount of plot - Christine Brown (Alison Lohman, in a somewhat overly on-point performance) is a young loan officer pining for a promotion to assistant manager. Wanting to avoid appearing like a push over in front of her boss (David Paymer), she declines an elderly gypsy's request for a mortgage extension, dooming the woman to foreclosure. As a result, the old woman (Lorna Raver) lashes out in anger, cursing Christine and condemning her to an eternity in hell, but only after three days of psychological and emotional torture (you know, for fun). The majority of the narrative concerns Christine's attempts to rid herself of this damnation, all while trying to appear normal to her boss, her boyfriend (Justin Long), and her boyfriend's theoretically disapproving family. Needless to say, the gypsy curse gives director Sam Raimi an excuse to throw whatever whacked-out effects work he wants at the screen, all in the name of startling the audience into nervous laughter. Since the premise dictates a certain lack of onscreen physical violence or gore, Raimi uses his PG-13 instead to show all kinds of old-fashioned gross-outs, jolting 'gotcha' moments, and plenty of ick. It works more often than not, but the underlying premise dictates that nothing will actually happen to our heroine until the three days expire (assuming she can't break the curse, of course). Save for the brutal and terrifying prologue, all of the subsequent scares will simply be false alarms or intentional mind games on the part of the various evil forces at work. It's popcorn- flying fun, but it's not scary. Whether this is an issue is up to you, but the picture works on other levels to compensate for the lack of bone-chilling terror. The characters are relatively fleshed out, which is a refreshing change of pace in this genre. Justin Long is quite good here, giving Clay Dalton a strong but plausible protective streak. Even Clay's would-be villainous mother is given a scene of empathetic humanity. Rham Jas is terrifically engaging as a believing psychic, especially as this is his feature-film debut (next up, James Cameron's Avatar). And while David Paymer flirts with cliche as the snarky bank manager, it is awfully nice to see this underutilized actor in a high profile movie again. While this is being hailed as director Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre that made him a legend, this is a very different kind of picture than the Evil Dead series. While the visuals and the camera work will remind even the casual fan of Bruce Campbell's various horror pratfalls, this is, if anything, an attempt to put those kind of cinematic tricks into a movie with an actual plot and actual characters. By all objective standards, this is a genuinely better film than any of the Evil Dead pictures. Amazingly, Bruce Campbell does not make a cameo in this one, although that 1973 Oldsmobile Delta Royale does. It is ironic that Sam Raimi, whose The Evil Dead was one of the pioneering 'dumb kids go into the woods and get slaughtered' pictures, would be the one to attempt to break the horror genre free of that current rut. The film will not leave you feeling icky or ill-at-ease. It's not that kind of horror film. The film works splendidly as a comic homage to 1980s supernatural gross-out pictures, the kind that you barely remember watching when your parents weren't looking (think The Gate). Despite the lush 2.35:1 wide screen cinematography, I actually think that the picture would work best when viewed on a basic cable station at 2am in the morning. Drag Me to Hell is certainly a jump out of your seat good time as a theatrical experience, but I'd only imagine that it would have scared the hell out of me if I had seen it when I was nine, on Channel 43 at 1am in the morning as I struggled to stay awake to see what happened next. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 20:47:27 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sun Mar 21 20:47:30 2010 Subject: Review: Up (2009) Message-ID: Up 2009 102 minutes Rated PG by Scott Mendelson It is one of the bitter realities of our existence; that all of our relationships must end with the pain and sadness that comes with death. All of my relationships, friends and family alike, will end on the same bitter note. No matter how good of a father I am to my child, I cannot escape the fact that the final memories that she will have of me will be the circumstances and feelings associated with watching me die. And no matter how long my marriage lasts, in all likelihood the last thing we will do for each other is hold each other's hands as the first one of us passes on to leave the other behind to pick up the pieces. I can only hope that the lasting impressions made while still on this Earth are strong enough to overpower the more painful memories forged right at the end in the minds of the people who must eventually bury me. Up is easily my favorite animated film since Meet the Robinsons. Both films are unabashedly sentimental fables about the broad strokes of life. Meet the Robinsons dealt with a young orphan boy who learns to accept the hardships that early life can bring, so that he can 'keep moving forward'. Up is about a man at the end of his life, with seemingly nothing to live for except to look backwards with fondness and regret. At the risk of scaring off would-be viewers, it is the most achingly sad romantic fable since Sarah Polley's Away From Her. And while I wouldn't recommend it as a casual date movie, and I'm not sure how it will play as a family film (since the kids might wonder why mommy and daddy are crying), it is a gloriously beautiful adventure film that will likely remain the finest film of 2009. A token amount of plot - Elderly Carl (Ed Asner) has just buried Elle: his wife, his childhood sweetheart and his best friend. Waking up without any purpose to his life, he simply sits on his couch, mourning both his loss and the one adventure that his wife and he never got around to taking (life kept getting in the way). After circumstances put both his house and his freedom in jeopardy, Carl decides to live out Elle's childhood dream (traveling to South America and living in a house on the mountaintop next to the theoretical Paradise Falls). Using leftover balloons from his days as a balloon peddler, Carl sets sail as his entire home floats into the sky. As he embarks on one final adventure to keep a promise, he soon discovers that a young 'wilderness explorer scout' has accidentally stowed himself away on the front porch. That's all you get. I wouldn't dream of revealing what Carl encounters on his journey. It offers up its visual pleasures without explanation and without apology, knowing that it has earned the right to its own imagination. The film is surprisingly simple, with a relatively straight-ahead narrative that takes only a few twists along the way. As Carl and the young boy bond through their mutual grief (young Russell is mourning the apparent divorce of his parents and the absence of his father), Carl desperately tries to get his house to the falls before the helium runs out. Despite the melancholy undertone, this is, similar to the last Indiana Jones picture, an often rousing story about a man nearing the end of his days discovering that he still has a life left to live. While the film is basically about death and the fragility of life, Up is every bit as funny and exciting as any other Pixar film. The 'talking dog' (via electronic collar) revealed in the previews is just the beginning of the glorious discoveries that are in store. The animation is, of course, astonishing, with rich bright colors and vivid details around every corner. The score by Michael Giacchino is every bit as rousing as his work on The Incredibles. And the vocal work (mostly filled with actual voice over artists, save for Delroy Lindo and Christopher Plummer) is splendidly low-key and naturalistic and always at the service of the story (Ed Asner is wonderful per usual, although most of Carl's best moments are silent ones). Even if kids don't get the heavy dramatics at play, there are plenty of laugh- out-loud gags and gee-whiz action scenes to keep them enthralled. Up is a wonderfully touching, openly dark, and surprisingly surreal adventure story. To call the picture 'sentimental' would be an understatement, as it is often an ode to sentimentality. It uses wordless montage and the power of silence every bit as effectively as Wall-E and it's often just as action-packed as The Incredibles. It is a beautiful tale, gloriously told with rich and vivid characters, eye- popping visual splendor and it acknowledges the complete despairs and utter joys of life in one fell swoop. It is the finest film of 2009 and one of the finest animated films I've seen in my lifetime. Up is just that good. Grade: A+ From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Mar 23 23:07:39 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Mar 23 23:07:42 2010 Subject: Review: Afghan Star (2010) Message-ID: AFGHAN STAR (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Just as Americans have their television program "American Idol"" since 2005 Afghanistan has had its own popular music program "Afghan Star". It is the same and not the same. The difference is that religious fanatics like the Taliban can at any time decide singing a song is a capital crime. This is a country torn apart by those who want to bring in modern international ways and those who want to seal off the country with a fundamentalist fascism. This documentary follows four contestants on "Afghan Star" and what they experience risking their lives for a singing competition and for freedom. Havana Marking directs. AFGHAN STAR will be shown on HBO on March 18, 2010. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 It is hard to imagine an image more incongruous than "American Idol" together with the strife-ridden country of Afghanistan. Yet Afghanistan does have television and they have their own program inspired by "American Idol" (itself inspired by an early television program, "The Ted Mack Amateur Hour"). In 2005 the Tolo Television network premiered the TV show "Afghan Star". On the face of it that might not seem like such a courageous action, but everything that happens in Afghanistan is overshadowed by the extremism of Islamic fundamentalists who freely murder to enforce obedience to their fanatical interpretation of Sharia law. A television show is particularly dangerous. In 1996 it became a crime to listen to music, to dance, or to watch television. These restrictions were removed in 2004, but the three actions are still dangerous. The Taliban tentatively allows the singing, but any sign of dancing can--and in the course this documentary does--lead to more serious repercussions. Countering the fundamentalists is the overwhelming attraction of Music. Popular music is a very strong force in the emerging Afghanistan. There are some people obsessively loyal to songs. Where else in the world would you find people explaining that music brings happiness and that it is worth fighting for? Mobs of people try to get to be the audience for the program's broadcasts. In addition, the viewing audience votes for who should win. For many in Afghanistan this is their first experience with democracy, the first time they ever could vote for anything. Some Afghanis are also being surprised to find that they are actually supporting people from other ethnic groups. People make the point that the lessons learned with the program could bring deep changes--social and political--to the country. They say they want to take the country "from the gun to the song." Marking's cameras follow four contestants. Rafi is a handsome nineteen-year-old who says his goal is to help his people to awaken and find a little joy in life. Setara is two years older. She wants to adopt Western and Indian ways. Hameed trained to be a singer of Afghan classical music but easily made the transition to popular. He is from the persecuted Hazara minority and hopes that his popularity will help his people. Finally there is Lima. She had taken secret music lessons, which in itself could have had her killed by the Taliban. Now she also likes Western ways, but is a little more cautious than Setara. The film is both optimistic and depressing. Afghanistan is in a state of constant change, and the viewer can only hope that it will be change for the better. This film is about a real war with real deaths that is going on in Afghanistan and one of the battlefields of that war is a pop music contest on television. I rate AFGHAN STAR a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. This film is in Pashtu, Dari, and some English, and it is entirely subtitled in English. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2010 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Mar 23 23:07:47 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Mar 23 23:07:48 2010 Subject: Review: Attack of the Vegan Zombies! (2010) Message-ID: ATTACK OF THE VEGAN ZOMBIES! (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: The vines go after the people and the zombies go after the wine in ATTACK OF THE VEGAN ZOMBIES! Writer/director/star Jim Townsend has a feel for older horror films and fresher ideas for a zombie movie. The action scenes do not work really well, but Townsend knows not to let this degenerate into too much of the spoof too soon. The film is available from amazon.com. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 The first nice surprise about ATTACK OF THE VEGAN ZOMBIES! is that at least for a while it is not at all the sort of tongue-in-cheek spoof that the title suggests it is. Instead it is a low budget horror film with feet firmly planted in the 1960s low-budget horror film. In fact, if it were not for the obvious digital texture of the visuals, it might feel like a 1960s drive-in attraction. The story at least begins by taking itself seriously with a few lapses. This film could have taken advantage of its low budget to add more realism, but writer/director/actor Jim Townsend--a freshman at each of these jobs--was apparently not sure that was what he wanted to do. Joe Bryant (played by Townsend) and his wife Dionne (Christine Egan) are having a hard time making their vineyard and winery work. The crops have a long history of not doing well at this location under the control of both Dionne's father and later of Joe. Dionne wants to make a go of it and asks for the help of her mother, whom only Dionne knows is a genuine, modern-day witch. The mother (H. Lynn Smith) agrees to use a fertility spell that includes using some of Joe's blood, blood that the witch does not know is a little polluted with alcohol. The spell makes an extremely robust crop, so much so that a local professor brings four of his students to the vineyard to study the phenomenon. The students are two very exaggerated nerdy-Trekkies who add a little unwelcome comic relief and two gratuitous lesbians to do what they do best. Sadly, the vines are just a little too robust as well as being predators looking for--not blood for once--but wine. They go after people because the people have wine in their blood if they have been drinking. (I don't think it is still wine when it hits the bloodstream, maybe some sugars and some alcohol--but I can go with it.) The vine's victims return to life as green-skinned zombie winos. By this point a little too much of the film's earlier serious tone has been compromised and squandered. This film could have used its low-budget more wisely. But the creation of green-skinned zombies does not work for the film. First, they look like an image out of the original Star Trek of the 1960s. Secondly, the green makeup does not cover the flesh-tone skin beneath. They never look like green people; they look like normal people in green greasepaint, which is what they are. More care could have been taken with the makeup. Townsend and Egan turn in acceptable performances that get the idea across effectively in roles that are not greatly demanding. And cinematographer Max Fisher does a particularly good job of creatively framing the action. The comic relief is not particularly funny, but the nostalgic 1960s feel to the film makes it all worthwhile. And it is nice to see a few fresh ideas in a horror film for a change. I rate this a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2010 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Mar 23 23:15:01 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Mar 23 23:15:04 2010 Subject: Review: Coasting (2010) Message-ID: COASTING (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is a simple little story in a low-budget but nicely turned-out film. Two people in unsatisfying and incompatible relationships find each other and are attracted. There is just one little problem... The dialog is entertaining, but where the film is going and that there will be a problem is predictable (though perhaps not what the obstacle is). Michael P. Noens directs and co-writes an unpretentious story of slightly frustrated love. Jonathan C. Legat and Stephanie Wyatt are appealing as the young couple. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Wes (played by Jonathan C. Legat) is in a job that doesn't quite suit him and has a fiancee who does not quite fit him. He has returned to Stillwater, Illinois, for the funeral of his brother's girl friend. Lauren (Stephanie Wyatt) has a boy friend she is not quite compatible with. She has come to Stillwater to photograph the funeral of her friend. Both go to the wake and noticed each other. That evening in the hotel bar they strike up a conversation. A joke or two passed between them and soon they are playing pool together and enjoying each other. They hit it off, but then go their separate ways. Neither can forget that they met. Wes goes back to his work at an employment agency that seems to service mostly welfare recipients who do not really want a job. Both have partners who just do not satisfy them. Neither can forget the other. Eventually they know that this thing was meant to be. Each is willing to throw over his/her current partner, but there is one more twist that fate is to throw in their path. The structure of the early parts of the film is familiar. We have one long sequence of the couple's "meet cute" in a bar with flashes outward of each's unsatisfying careers and relationships, all calculated to show that the two were just going nowhere and to pull the viewer into the new relationship. One place where the script could be stronger is in the dialog, which is of some interest but somehow never establishes the couple's compatibility on an emotional level. We see that they smile at each other and that there is some physical attraction, but there is no reason to feel that this relationship will be any stronger than the relationships the two had previously. Somehow we would like something stronger than smiles to demonstrate the bond that these two might be able to form. In the recent LAST CHANCE HARVEY the Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson characters seem to be able to mesh on a higher level than just the physical. The same is true of the couple in BEFORE SUNRISE. Each has something beyond the physical to offer the other. The script seems to assume that is they are attracted sexually that is the basis for a strong rapport. This could be a sort of "love is enough" sort of romance, but once we establish that that sort of attraction did not last in each person's previous relationships--relationships that probably started just as amicably as the new one--we need some evidence that the new bond will not just coast downhill the same way. Later in the film we see an obstacle to the relationship and we want to feel that the obstacle is worth overcoming, but it will not be if they allow the new relationship to stagnate like their previous ones. In a film from a small production company, writing is extremely important. It may be optimistic to hope for strong writing in a tiny $10,000 production from the young company CNGM Pictures, but the company cannot match the majors with visuals or with star power. Writing is the one area where small companies can afford to compete with the major studios and production companies. This is a light enjoyable souffle of a film whose main point cannot be discussed here. It entertains for 90 minutes without having much lasting impact. I rate it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Possible spoiler: while this film may have an interesting idea, John Sayles got there first and much more effectively in one of his best films. But then John Sayles is John Sayles. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2010 Mark R. Leeper From homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue Mar 23 23:16:56 2010 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue Mar 23 23:16:57 2010 Subject: Review: Alice in Wonderland (2010) Message-ID: <4a52a9001003192133x1f3386f7y23b7924a2622b9d@mail.gmail.com> "Alice in Wonderland" - Through the 3d Looking Glass by Homer Yen (c) 2010 It's a whole new world out there. I can't begin to imagine the technology or the work or the imaginative powers that go into melding CGI, live-action, and 3-d effects the way that film's are doing nowadays. The juggernaut that is "Avatar" has shown that movie-going audiences are embracing this next-generation form of entertainment. And, the added ticket price certainly doesn't do anything to turn away people, even in this financially-strapped decade that has just begun. While interest in "Avatar" is fading (I mean, with $730 mil of box office receipts, who HASN'T seen it yet?), the baton of 3d entertainment is ready to be passed on to a successor. And, "Alice in Wonderland" carries that baton confidently forward. Even if people haven't read the semi-eerie children's tale, most people have heard bits and pieces of it. Tim Burton's version updates it nicely. Alice (played by Mia Wasikowska) enters Wonderland as a girl in her late teens and not the 1st grader that readers are familiar with. And, this works to the audience's advantage because Alice's role in Wonderland is to fulfill a prophecy by restoring peace and balance. It's too heavy a responsibility for a 6 year old, especially considering that there will be a final confrontation with a dragonlike creature. However, even without having read the book, I would think that the author didn't envision an all-out confrontation between the forces of the evil Red Queen's camp and the forces of the peaceful White Queen's camp. Eh...that's Hollywood for you. With this film, there are people involved here certainly at the top of their game. Tim Burton has created a bizarrely beautiful world that is suited to more adult-like tastes. While it sometimes suffers from the inherent 3d dimness, the renderings are visually sumptuous, from the evil queen's castle to the chessboard-like battlefield to the barren forests. If you go to see movies as an escape, then this one, like "Avatar," is the right ticket. Meanwhile, the film introduces us to over-exaggerated characters that seem more appropriate in a child's nightmare rather than a fairy tale. Their appearances are distinctive and strikingly grotesque. Among them, Tweedledee and Tweedledum (voiced by Matt Lucas), look like a distant cousin to Humpty Dumpty. Johnny Depp turns in a very good performance as The Mad Hatter. No matter how eccentric Depp's roles are, he performs them with such amazing gravity that he is always fun to watch. But it's Helena Bonham Carter that really steals the show. As the bulbous-headed Red Queen, she is a hilarious, self-serving tart. Oh, and I should say that it was an inspired casting choice to have Crispin Glover as her right-hand-man, the Knave of Hearts. Tim Burton's unique fingerprints on this project are as evident as the Queens forehead. The characters are rich enough. The story is interesting enough. And, it gets better as it goes along. While the film is not as engrossing as the superior "Pan's Labyrinth", this film certainly comes across as a far more creative and well-acted and less-cluttered cousin to the "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe." I'm not so excited that I'm going to dance the Futterwacken, but I left the theatre completely satisfied. Grade: B+ S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Mar 24 21:38:20 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Mar 24 21:38:23 2010 Subject: Review: Mutants (2010) Message-ID: MUTANTS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This 2009 zombie film from France does everything it does well but little that is original. Fans of the zombie sub-genre will get very much what they are expecting whether that is what they really want or not. Two lovers fight to survive in a world over-run but microbe-transformed zombies. Most of the photography is shot though a blue-gray filter to give a downbeat sensibility and a great deal of not-quite-believable stage blood gets dripped, sloshed, spattered, and sneezed. David Morlet writes and directs this graphic horror tale with strong action sequences with immediacy. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 In the last two years the United States has been treated to a Swedish vampire film, a Norwegian zombie Nazi film, a Canadian zombie film, and now a French zombie film. The Swedes are out in the lead. These films are in subgenres of horror in which the United States has been the most prolific. I believe all of them have shown on the IFC cable station, which is doing a fine job seeking out interesting international horror films. Of these four films I would say that the Swedish LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and the Canadian PONTYPOOL show us interesting and different takes on the old horror themes. The Norwegian DEAD SNOW gives us little different from what we have seen before and for the most part echoes American approaches to the zombie film. Still less is new in MUTANTS. Writer director David Morlet is able to create a good action scene and packs the film with them, but the style of the film is really better than the ideas. One keeps seeing people barricaded against the onslaught of ravaging mindless zombies. We have people bitten, but hoping against hope they have not been infected, usually in vain. These are staple situations going back to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, though much is borrowed also from 28 DAYS LATER. A runaway virus that, like rabies, turns people into mad animals anxious to viciously bite other humans has infected France about six months before the action of the film. Now the infected seem to outnumber the uninfected. Sonia (played by Hlne de Fougerolles), her lover Marco (Francis Renaud), and Perez (Marie-Sohna Conde) drive a commandeered ambulance looking for a military camp aptly called NOAH. NOAH seems to be their hope for survival. After being on the road for a while and nearly being killed several times what is left of the main party takes refuge in a large disquieting empty building. When the zombies become attracted to the presence of humans than attack the building in force. The action is fast-- often a little too fast to follow. Characters are lost from the story and added to the story. That story is drenched in syrupy blood and punctuated with bullets from large firearms. It is generally filmed in blue and gray tones that effectively drain the life out of the people. These are not unfamiliar touches. Sonia is the main focus for much of the film. She is both hero and victim. While she goes through the same trials as most of the other characters she continues to survive. She can be hurt, but seems unkillable and in that some of the tension of the film is lost. The issue is not will she survive until near the end of the film. It is will she be alive after the end. That takes some of the suspense out of the film. Fans of zombie films may be a little sorry that so much of the film is familiar. This is a one viewing film. But for that one viewing is a polished work. I rate MUTANTS a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. The title MUTANTS is probably a misnomer. People infected may be victims, but they are not mutants in the usual sense. People are affected by the virus itself and not its change to their DNA which probably would not be the same from person to person. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2010 Mark R. Leeper From jcknapier at gmail.com Fri Mar 26 13:57:07 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Fri Mar 26 13:57:10 2010 Subject: Review: Land of the Lost (2009) Message-ID: <44520d7c-d7f1-4ee1-bd41-38e45685997a@h4g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Land of the Lost 2009 102 minutes Rated PG-13 This is not a full on review. And it comes from someone who has no first-hand knowledge about the original TV show. Land of the Lost isn't nearly as bad as many of the critics say, but it's not all that good either. It's easily the weakest of the major Will Ferrell comedies, and it's Brad Silberling's least compelling film since Casper. An unbilled James Lipton gets solid laughs purely for being a good sport. The use of the music from A Chorus Line is a solid running gag, and an impromptu rendition of Cher's "Do You Believe In Love?" gets a solid chuckle. The third act is ten-minutes too long. Anna Friel isn't allowed to be funny. She gets exactly two laughs, plus some giggles as she is forced to translate the ramblings of a the monkey-like Cha Ka (although to the film's credit she is not overly sexualized). Danny McBride basically plays his usual anti- social nutcase, but in a gentler fashion. To the film's credit, the cheesy special effects are convincing when they needed to be and completely fake at all other times. The monsters are actually occasionally menacing, and there's a jump scare about twenty minutes in that actually surprised me. Parents be warned, this isn't a family- friendly comedy that happens to be rated PG-13. This is a full-on PG-13 comedy, complete with the usual Will Ferrell bawdiness and irreverent and often trippy humor, that Universal is selling as a family film. In short, I liked it more than Marshall Fine but less than Roger Ebert. And, frankly, I would have enjoyed it a little more had the theater not been 50 below zero, but I digress. Grade: C+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Fri Mar 26 13:59:06 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Fri Mar 26 13:59:09 2010 Subject: Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) Message-ID: <07ae2286-09f1-4882-bfd5-ce21305faf52@n39g2000prj.googlegroups.com> Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: The IMAX Experience 2009 150 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson There's a little fast-food chicken joint called Star Chicken right next to the Bridge Theater in the Howard Hughes Promenade. I had never been there before, but for less than ten bucks I got a decent baked potato, a soda, and a rather large chicken Caesar wrap. It was a hell of a sandwich... tons of tasty white meat chicken, rich Caesar dressing, large tomato chunks, plenty of real romaine lettuce, fresh cheese, and yes, actual croutons. Should you decide to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I suggest you make a point to either try a new restaurant or eat at a beloved favorite. That way, your evening won't be a total loss. A token amount of plot - The Autobots have spent the last two years working side by side with the US military to track down remaining Decepticon forces that got away after Megatron perished. But an increased number of Decepticon attacks, plus an ominous warning, has Optimous Prime (Peter Cullen) and the military worried about a coming invasion. Meanwhile, human savior Sam Witwicky (Shia Lebeouf) is off to college, but he immediately stumbles upon a lost sliver of the 'AllSpark'. Contact with the artifact causes a flood of Earth and Cybertron knowledge into his head, once again making Sam a target for the Decepticons. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen represents a shocking amount of effort and skill going into a product of little entertainment value and even less significance. The plot is both insanely complicated and absolutely beside the point. The film is as long as The Dark Knight or Sex and the City but contains a full middle act where nothing of consequence occurs. Director Michael Bay once again, possibly out of budgetary constraints, keeps the focus on the human characters while giving them almost nothing interesting to say. While there is a token amount of increased robot on robot fighting this time around, it is so randomly edited and the characters are so poorly defined, that we never know who is fighting who and who is winning. Ironically, the three most annoying characters in the first film, John Tuturro, Kevin Dunn and Jule White (the latter two as Shia LeBeouf's parents), provide the sole entertainment this time around. Sam's climactic scenes with his parents provide the only genuine emotional content in the film. Megan Fox returns as Shia's girlfriend, bringing new meaning to the term 'token love interest'. She plays absolutely no role in the story and is there only because the target demo thinks she's the hottest thing since Marilyn Monroe. The army is relatively bland, existing only to get massacred at every given opportunity. For someone who rants about how much he loves the military and how good he makes them look onscreen, Michael Bay sure loves showing our fighting men and women getting slaughtered wholesale. Barack Obama is seemingly slandered as well, as he is name checked as the current president and the appointer of the wrongheaded bureaucrat who shows up, questions everyone, and then interferes whenever possible (yes, Bush was gently mocked in the first film, but he wasn't named and his underlings were shown as competent). Obama is also indirectly blamed for a second-act executive action that hinders the heroes' ability to save the world. Most inexplicable is the first-act debate that the evil Theodore Galloway (John Benjamin Hickey) and Optimus Prime engage in, which ends up becoming a justification for why the US should stay in Iraq forever. Though to be fair, despite resembling his cartoon counterpart (who was a good guy), Galloway ends up closely resembling a young Donald Rumsfeld. And the only remotely interesting robot, Optimus Prime, has far less screen time than you'd think, giving the spotlight instead to Mudflap and Skids (both voiced by Tom Kenny), two bickering robots who look like monkeys, talk in the most stereotypical Ebonics jive possible, and apparently can't read. To say that these two are the most astonishingly racist caricatures that I've ever seen in a mainstream motion picture would be an understatement. The rest of the robots make little impression. Starscream is once again a vehicle for abuse. The Devestator is a speechless giant of a robot, whose sound effects are apparently voiced by Frank Welker (the cartoon voice of Megatron). Ah, poor Frank Welker. Not only did he lose out on voicing Megatron to Hugo Weaving, but Tony Todd was hired to voice the new villain, The Fallen, and apparently instructed to do his very best Frank Welker as Dr. Claw impression. What of the robot action? Well, there are two genuinely stunning bits, both shot on IMAX film (fair warning, there are about ten minutes of IMAX scenes in this film, compared with over 40 minutes in The Dark Knight). The highlight of the film occurs at the hour mark, as Optimus Prime faces off against a pointlessly resurrected Megatron and two other Decepticons in a forest. In IMAX, the fighting robots are apparently shown to scale, and the richness of the visuals, plus the overall coherency of the fight, makes this a tour de force sequence. The only other action scene of note is the arrival of the Devastator, as he shows up in Egypt during the finale and proceeds to suck everything in sight into his giant robot mouth (much of this is also shot in IMAX film). The rest of the action suffers from the same problems as the first film. It's either impossible to follow and comprehend, or the action is overly comprised of military men shooting at off-screen targets. Other minor and major problems abound in this mess of a movie. Sam is saddled with a completely unnecessary college roommate, who inexplicably tags along until the end of the film. The comparative absence of Optimus Prime leaves the film hollow at its core, since he was the only robot who had any kind of dramatic impact and/or character (think of it as a Batman film where Batman was sidelined and the film then showcases Robin and Batgirl). To be fair, the humans are much less campy and overtly comical this time around, but now the robots are completely 'off the wall zany', which again robs the film of any drama. And what little IMAX footage the film contains is so stunningly rich and visually gorgeous that it makes the surrounding moments look cheap and ugly in comparison. I don't know why I thought this film would be any better than the original Transformers. My false hope was akin to investigating a murder and failing to notice the burglar standing over the body with a smoking gun. I'd imagine that the many critics who inexplicably gave the original Transformers a pass will now question their tolerance of that equally terrible film. We may not have gotten the Transformers sequel we wanted, but we got the one we deserved. But, hey, the evening wasn't a total loss. That chicken Caesar wrap was fantastic. Grade: D+ From jcknapier at gmail.com Fri Mar 26 14:03:24 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Fri Mar 26 14:03:27 2010 Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) Message-ID: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 2009 153 minutes Rated PG by Scott Mendelson Without question, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the best out-and-out sixth chapter of any franchise since Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Granted, the competition isn't very stiff (Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, Police Academy 6: City Under Siege, etc), but it's still remarkable how well this long-running series has held up. So when I say that this sixth film is perhaps my least favorite film of the franchise, it is only tepid criticism at best. When a film this good can be considered the weakest of six, that says something about the consistency of quality running through the Harry Potter series. A token amount of plot - Harry Potter is still recovering from the shocking death of Sirius Black during a battle royale at the Ministry of Magic. But while the press and the wizarding world at large wonder whether he is 'the chosen one', Harry quickly finds himself whisked away by Dumbledore to help recruit Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), a retired potions professor who may have important memories involving the young Tom Riddle (ie - Voldermort). Meanwhile, Draco Malfoy has been recruited by the Dark Lord himself, but the task required is so heinous that Draco's mother turns to Severus Snape (the priceless Alan Rickman) for help and guidance. As the two respective chosen ones go about their opposing tasks, the promise of romance sends hearts at Hogwarts aflutter and hormones raging. Knowing that the next two films will be plot and action-driven, director David Yates slows things down quite a bit, concentrating less on mysteries and dark plots and more on character interaction. As a result, the young supporting cast who have been somewhat sidelined since Prisoner of Azkaban are again given a chance to shine. While the romantic turmoil provides solid laughs, it is still somewhat disquieting to see our beloved hard ass Hermoine weeping in a stairwell over a boy. Yes, she has finally realized that she loves her past pal Ron, although Ron has been swept away by the pushy and forthright Lavender Brown. Meanwhile, Harry pines for Ginny Weasley, Ron's all grown-up baby sister who has secretly crushed on 'the boy who lived' since he saved her butt in Chamber of Secrets. Unfortunately, Evanna Lynch has turned the otherwise peripheral Luna Lovegood into such a charming, daffy, kind, wise, and lovely human being that it only makes Harry look that much dumber to be chasing the comparatively less interesting Ginny Weasley instead (at least Bonnie Wright does what she can to give Ginny a token more personality than Order of the Phoenix's dreadfully dull Cho Chang). So while I have plenty of Hogwarts eye candy to keep my attention during the romantic melodrama, my wife got her fill during the more perilous subplot. IE - Alan Rickman's Snape gets more screen time than usual and Tom Felton's Draco Malfoy looks appropriately dapper in his new outfit of evil (sharp black suit with black shirt and black tie). The second major story arc concerns the maturation of Draco Malfoy. This is the first time that Tom Felton has gotten anything to do other than hiss and be grouchy, but wow does he knock it out of the park. Felton all but steals the film with very little dialogue, as his would- be villain painfully discovers that there is a big difference between merely being evil and actually committing acts of evil. While Harry's instincts about Draco are correct, his attempts to interfere continually make a bad situation worse. Draco's encounter with Harry Potter in a Hogwarts lavatory is a stunner, as Harry actually commits a rather shocking act of violence against a justifiably pissed-off Draco (PG-rating be damned, this scene is bloodier than anything in the last two films). So the romantic subplot works pretty well, and the 'last temptation of Draco' stuff is surprisingly potent, so why doesn't the film work better, or at least as well as the original book? Well, for one thing, it becomes more obvious than usual in this chapter that the rules of magic are rather arbitrary in accordance with plot demands. For example, Dumbledore and Harry can basically teleport at will, but they need a boat to cross a scary moat. And while Dumbledore can wave his wand and restore a tattered and broken house anew, no one thinks to request said magic when a horrifying act of property destruction occurs at the halfway point. Furthermore, this is the first film since Prisoner of Azkabin where you really have to have read the book to truly understand character motivations. The movie barely touches Voldermort's back story, which was the spine of the sixth novel. And, furthermore, the fascinating tidbits about the past of the actual Half- Blood Prince are completely dropped, which renders certain behavior less ambiguous than it was in the book, costing the story much of its post-film discussion topics. Book readers will remember heartily debating the actions and choices of certain characters, but the movie leaves almost no room for debate. Finally, I'm fully aware than I'm being somewhat unfair, judging a film for not measuring up to the book, but the finale is not nearly as dramatically satisfying. Just as the death of Sirius Black was surprisingly muted in Order of the Phoenix, so too is the action climax of Half-Blood Prince. First of all, there really is no action climax. The 'death eaters attack Hogwarts' moments have been completely removed (probably to avoid repetition with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows), leaving no real reason for said villains to show up in the first place. And the film's handling of a certain plot twist (one very near and dear to my heart) isn't nearly as dramatic as it reads on the printed page. And, this may just be my faulty memory, but I didn't find the circumstances of the said event to be nearly as telegraphed as it felt onscreen. The incident made my jaw drop in surprised glee when I read it, but it seemed all but obvious onscreen for even those who hadn't sampled the books. The bitter after taste of squandering what should have been a wonderful cinematic moment hurts what up until then had been a fine and involving adventure. The cast is impeccable as always, and there is again the emphasis on character and moral challenges that has made this franchise a diamond in the rough over the years. By any normal standard, this is a wonderfully involving and entertaining tent pole popcorn entertainment. But this is still the weakest Harry Potter film of the series (based on my second-favorite Harry Potter book no less), and it leaves me worried for just what narrative and cinematic choices that David Yates will make for the last two films of the series (book seven is being split in two). While he never fails to elicit fine performances and rich character work, he has so far come up short on the climactic spectacle department. There are several showstopping moments in the final book, including the death on a major villain that, as written, should cause thunderous audience applause. I hope he can pull this stuff off too when he absolutely has to. But the series has been nothing less than pretty good going on six films now, so now I just hope Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince remains the worst of the lot. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Fri Mar 26 14:06:10 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Fri Mar 26 14:06:14 2010 Subject: Review: Pontypool (2009) Message-ID: <9fe5644e-f972-47aa-b79c-56f45d2c2014@a4g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Pontypool 2009 95 minutes Not Rated by Scott Mendelson There is something inescapably terrifying about witnessing something horrible from a completely plausible point of view. Most films, especially horror films, give the audiences a sort of 'eyes-of-God' point of view, giving us the full picture of what's occurring onscreen even when the characters do not have such benefits. However, in recent years, we have seen a sub-genre of sorts that one might call the 'information withheld' horror picture. In these variations on tried and true stories, we only get as much information as the main characters, and we generally only see and hear what they see and hear. Whether it's an apparent alien invasion seen only from news reports on a tiny television set (Signs), or a monster attack seen only from the camcorder owned by one of the random city dwellers (Cloverfield), these pictures put a premium on information, so that the slightest image of horror or nugget of knowledge is theoretically that much more frightening. Some of these films (Signs) are better than others (The Blair Witch Project), but they all are attempting to capitalize on the two hoariest cliches in cinema - what you don't see is scarier than what you do see, and there's nothing more terrifying than the unknown. Pontypool is a low-budget study in claustrophobia and creeping realization. The picture concerns a once big-time radio DJ who has taken a last-chance hosting job for a small-time news station in a very small town. Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) quickly attempts to drum up 'controversy', much to the chagrin of his producer (Sydney Briar). But almost immediately into his first shift, news breaks of an apparent riot or mass panic outside a doctor's office. As small bits of information drip in, it quickly becomes clear that something has gripped the town in a state of madness or confusion. As eye-witness reports become conflicted and increasingly confusing, the DJ, the producer, and the engineer must figure out what is going on before it is too late. Apologies for the vagueness, but the less you know going into this the more potent the experience will be. Needless to say, the situation is soon revealed to be something far more complicated than a routine horror movie experience, and the picture becomes a sort of mediation on the power of words and the inherent influence of the English language itself. Holding this together is a dynamic lead performance by noted character actor Stephen McHattie. Looking like a cross between Don Imus, Lance Henricksen, and Dr. Gregory House, McHattie does little more than sit in a radio booth and speak for the duration of the 95-minute running time. But his richly detailed face and crackling voice dominates the proceedings in a fashion that might have earned Oscar buzz in a more high-profile picture. The story never really leaves that tiny church-basement radio station, so the picture becomes increasingly tense as our three main characters realize that they may be 'witnessing' some kind of world-changing event without the ability to actually see any of it. For the first half, the film has a spellbinding hold on the audience, as we ourselves become desperate for any nugget of insight into just what is going on outside in the snow. Alas, at about the halfway point, Pontypool shows its hand. And while the more complicated explanation does add pathos and a subtext to the horror film narrative, said explanation is so convoluted that the picture has to spend much of the remainder of its running time explaining just what is going on. An additional character is introduced at about the hour mark for the sole purpose of expository monologue. While the film does conclude on a potent note of earned dread, this is the rare horror movie that almost tries too hard to be more than what it is. Like many horror films that base their terror on what we don't know or don't understand, Pontypool loses much of its power once we fully understand (or think we understand) what the game is all about. It has a terrifically compelling first half, and an Oscar-worthy performance by McHattie. But the second half collapses under the weight of its own over ambition. Yes, director Bruce McDonald and writer Tony Burgess have much to say about the power of the spoken language, but they commit the cardinal sin of putting the message ahead of the medium. Grade: B- From jcknapier at gmail.com Fri Mar 26 14:13:42 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Fri Mar 26 14:13:45 2010 Subject: Review: Public Enemies (2009) Message-ID: <76d28452-3e7c-4b60-ab90-44e0753743ec@u5g2000prd.googlegroups.com> Public Enemies 2009 140 minutes Rated R By Scott Mendelson I'm not among those who thinks that Michael Mann walks on water, but I've never been outright bored by any of his pictures until today. No, I didn't care for the HD video (it occasionally resembled those straight-to-DVD horror titles that Lionsgate used to put out). And, when I'm paying for a first-run movie ticket on opening weekend, I should not have to struggle to hear important expository dialogue even while wearing my hearing aids (this may be the world's first big- budget mumblecore action drama). Johnny Depp gives one of his most boring performances, with next to no charm or charisma that would explain why the masses were so willing to protect John Dillenger back in the day. And, yes the film is way too- long at 140 minutes. This may be heresy in the critical community, but Michael Mann needs to learn to get his action-dramas down to 125 minutes or less (Collateral and Manhunter wouldn't have worked at 140 minutes either). This is decidedly not an epic story, so it does not benefit from a near-epic running time. And the digital video left me often wondering who was shooting at whom (especially during an otherwise tense and well-choreographed night time shoot-out). Sad to say, I had no better luck telling who was who than I did during Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. But the two biggest problems are simple ones. First of all, and this relates to my feelings on Mann's Ali, is that I learned nothing about John Dillinger. I don't demand that a historical film be a glorified book report, but I'd like to leave a film knowing a little more about the person than I did when I went in. Second of all is that this film is primarily about John Dillenger. Don't let the trailers fool you, Christian Bale's pursuing federal agent has far less screen-time than Depp. That would be fine and dandy, except the material focusing on Bale's attempts to catch Dillinger in the earliest days of the FBI is far more entertaining and interesting than Depp's routine 'outlaw on the run' story arc. This is generally a slow, uneventful, uninsightful movie that is punctuated only by a few solid action beats. This isn't Heat. Heck, this isn't even the underrated Miami Vice. Grade: C From jcknapier at gmail.com Sat Mar 27 12:54:56 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sat Mar 27 12:55:00 2010 Subject: Review: Orphan (2009) Message-ID: <745e8320-0e9c-4ec9-9429-dca3a2e1fd89@h35g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Orphan 2009 123 minutes Rated R by Scott Mendelson Orphan puts so much care into its construction that it's that much more unfortunate when its narrative foundation collapses under its own weight. The film (and it does strive to be a film) is exquisitely shot, wonderfully acted, and imbued with a genuine sense of dread and tension. As a straight-up scare fest, it's quite effective. As a piece of trashy pulp fiction, it struggles with its desire to have three- dimensional characters and dramatic weight versus its urges to give into the tawdry demands of its genre. But come what may, the picture is a brutal horror flick. The film may not reach the lofty ideals that its European pacing and high-toned cast suggests, but it scares, startles, and surprises with ruthless efficiency. A token amount of plot: Following a stillborn birth of her would-be third child (and the resulting alcoholic breakdown that followed), Kate Coleman (Vera Farmiga) and her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard) have done their best to keep the family together, and they have decided to adopt an older child from a local orphanage. While Kate is introduced to the available children by a kindly nun (CCH Pounder), John comes upon an isolated and oddly independent nine-year old from Russia. Since those who want to give love understandably target those who might need it the most, the family is drawn to this loner and decide to give her a home. Needless to say, young Esther's world- weariness and almost supernatural timing leads to suspicious circumstances and alleged peril for the rest of the Coleman clan. Although John is seemingly oblivious, Kate immediately notices that, to quote the film's marketing hook, 'there is something wrong with Esther'. That's all you need and that's all you get. What sets this one apart from other mainstream horror films is the quality of the acting and the leisurely pacing. While most horror films hover around the ninety- minute mark, Orphan dares to slowly unfold its narrative in just over two hours. What makes the film work is that it does not fall into the trap of having Kate become a variation on 'no one believes the truth except me'. The story's cruelest trick is that there are probably more people in the story that do see the danger but are prevented from doing anything about it. The second-half skirts the 'idiot plot'. By the third act, John's belief in his adopted daughter's innocence is downright inexplicable. The picture depends on the somewhat reasonable paranoia of those who suspect vs. the plausible fear of those who know but stay silent. If there is a lesson to be taken from Orphan, it is that parents should have long, serious talks with their children about 'good secrets' vs. 'bad secrets'. For the record, the incident that occurs around the hour mark qualifies as a 'bad secret'. Despite the somewhat contrived storyline, Orphan is a resoundingly jolting scare-fest. The long running time allows for ample character development and director Jaume Collet-Serra makes sure to pay it off for the thrill-seekers. The finale contains both the best plot twist of the year and at least one genuinely cruel story turn. The film doesn't shy away from realistic violence and feels no qualms about putting children in peril. This is easily one of the better 'evil children' movies, even if it pales in comparison to The Children or The Omen. Orphan is an icky and disturbing little movie. If that's your cup of tea (my wife loved it), then by all means dive right in. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sat Mar 27 13:13:07 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sat Mar 27 13:13:10 2010 Subject: Review: Funny People (2009) Message-ID: <9499f222-246c-42fd-bf80-036a73c26e19@n39g2000prj.googlegroups.com> Funny People 2009 145 minutes Rated R by Scott Mendelson Spoilers contained within... The critical consensus on Funny People (a strong first 90 minutes followed by an overlong, labored, drawn-out 40 minute finale) is half right. Alas, the entire film is an overlong, drawn-out, and completely undisciplined affair. The funniest thing about the movie is the irony contained within - despite being an allegedly more mature and serious motion picture than the stereotypical Judd Apatow product, it is actually far less honest and realistic about human behavior and relationships than either Knocked Up or The Forty-Year-Old Virgin. That in itself wouldn't be a big problem if the film were funny. But it's not. It's really not all that amusing. The stand-up comedy routines are generally not terribly funny. The female characters (especially Aubrey Plaza) are basically prizes to be won. We get absolutely no sense of what it's like to make your living trying to make people laugh in small-time dinky clubs, no sense of the nervousness, self-doubt, and excitement of doing live stand-up. As far as comedy writing, we get a more realistic picture of what it's like to write comedy for a living on 30 Rock. That show may be the ultimate reality check, as it shows that sketch comedy writers are every bit as uncool as anyone else. We get no sense of why Adam Sandler's George Timmons chose to turn his back on humanity in general. Yes, he had issues with his father, but the movie states many times that all stand-up comedians are inherently exorcising demons and dealing with self-loathing. That's probably somewhat true, but then what separates the loners like Timmons from people like Judd Apatow or Ray Ramano, the ones who made their fortune in comedy but still were able to raise a family? The movie never deals with this obvious contradiction. The film eventually turns into a variation on The Family Man ('oh, he's rich and powerful beyond his dreams, but he really just wants a wife and kids'), before doubling back at the last minute to try to appear more profound than that. Speaking of that justifiably maligned final act, once again this 'more serious' picture contains a less realistic view of family life than Knocked Up. Unlike the earlier picture, the kids are always well- behaved, they are always polite and funny, and they never give their parents any grief. It's almost as if Apatow couldn't bear to cast his two daughters as anything other than angels. And on what planet would two young children not be seriously disturbed/weirded out over their mom more or less flaunting her love for another guy, a famous stranger that they've never met no less? This rubbed me the same way as the climax of Kill Bill, where Uma Thurman's daughter didn't seem to mind a strange woman coming into her house, killing her father, and then telling her that she was her mother and whisking her away to places unknown. Yes the film is unbearably long, but only because it is often unbearably dull and uninsightful. Oddly enough, the only mediocre performance comes from Leslie Mann, but that may come from a script that has her make major life decisions on a dime and never judges her for that (ie - no one could sell what she has to sell). Seth Rogen is shockingly good, and Sandler doesn't wink his way out of playing a rather loutish cad. And Eric Bana, a famous funny man in his native Australia, has a ball with his first comic role in America. But the core story feels false, many of the supporting characters are wasted, and the telling of that story is dragged out beyond logic. Come what may, Funny People is Judd Apatow's Elizabethtown. Like that infamous miss, this often feels like someone else 'doing Apatow', and the subject matter is arguably so close to the vest that perhaps objectivity was impossible. Despite grand intentions and noble ideals, the film just doesn't work in any conceivable way. It's a tragic failure from a truly gifted comic mind. Grade: C- From jcknapier at gmail.com Sat Mar 27 13:14:41 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sat Mar 27 13:14:43 2010 Subject: Review: GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) Message-ID: GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra 2009 118 minutes Rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is a movie that remembers the very basics that so many big-budget action films have forgotten. The action scenes are creative and cleanly edited with a clear sense of time, space, and geography. While there is plenty of CGI vehicle destruction, there are also plenty of real stunts and real rough-and-tumble fight scenes. The heroes are engaging and distinguishable amidst the carnage, and the villains are appropriately colorful and entertaining. At its best, the film resembles what adventures you might create if you took your action figure play sets and gave them a $175 million budget to work with. And yes, I mean that as a compliment. A token amount of plot - Following a prologue set in France in 1641 (no kidding...), the film opens in that oh-so-convenient 'not-so distant future'. Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) are entrusted with delivering a new 'nanobot' weapon created by arms merchant McCullen (a terrifically scenery-chewing Christopher Eccleston). Little do they know that the Scottish Tony Stark is playing both sides, and they are soon ambushed by a terrorist organization bent on stealing the weapon for their own nefarious purposes. At the last minute, rescue comes in the form on an elite group of international fighting men and women. Known only as GI Joe, the group prevents the theft and whisks our heroes to safety. Duke and Ripcord use Duke's prior knowledge of The Baroness (Siena Miller) to gain admittance into this top-secret organization. Can the Joes stop this mysterious terrorist network from using the nanobot technology to settle a four-hundred year-old vendetta, or will McCullen and his venomous plans lead the world to destruction? Look, none of this is intended to be high art, but the film mostly works in ways that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen could only dream about. The difference is that this adaptation from a popular 80s toy line actually gives moviegoers what they came to see. Rather than pad a few action beats with overly contrived exposition, crude ethnic stereotypes, and vulgar sexual slapstick, director Stephen Summers stays strictly business for most of the film's brisk 118-minute running time. You want a film about bad ass GI Joes facing off against the organization that will eventually become Cobra? That's exactly what you get. You want memorable villains and square-jawed heroes? You've got at least half a dozen notable heroes and at least five representatives of evil (which is key to having an exciting action scene, so you always have someone familiar to cut to). You want high adventure and action scenes that give you stunts that you've never seen before? There's a 10-15 minute chase scene through Paris, the only one involving those infamous 'accelerator suits', that is absolutely breathtaking both in its logistics and its narrative logic. Yes the collateral damage in this scene is astonishing, but I never cared about innocent bystanders when I played with my action figures either. Frankly, the picture is every bit as violent, gruesome, and as corpse-ridden as the action dramas I mapped out when I was ten-years old, which makes me shocked that it got a PG-13. Considering the source material, the plot makes a surprising amount of sense, give or take a few minor plot holes (it helps that the storyline is as simple as possible). While the film is mainly bereft of clever dialogue, it also wins points for not trying to be particularly witty or self-satisfyingly clever. These are adults who deal in the business of death, and they only crack wise when they need a distraction from the bullets or explosions. While the film doesn't particularly take itself seriously, it also refuses to wink at the audience. While no one in the cast will put this at the top of their highlight reel, only Sienna Miller and Channing Tatum offer what might be called mediocre performances. Most refreshing is the treatment of the female characters. While both Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) and the Baroness are acknowledged as very attractive women, they neither give or receive special treatment in the action scenes. Both inflict and take severe punishment and Summers never does the whole 'wow, it's girls kicking ass... how progressive!' bit that so many others stoop to. There are four major action set-pieces, and each one both moves the plot along and gives each major character a specific purpose and role. Unlike other ensemble films where the big star got most if not all of the major action beats (think Mission: Impossible 3 or The Kingdom), every Joe and every 'not-yet-Cobra' villain gets various highlight moments. You get ninja duels (Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow go at it several times), crossbow shoot-outs, fights to the death above high precipices, vehicle chases, and everything else you want to see in a movie like this. Unfortunately, the kinetic blast that carries the film right up to the climax is undone by a screenwriting trap that cannot be plausibly be written out of. First of all, there is a lack of suspense in the climax, as we are given several heroes and villains who more or less cannot be killed for the sake of the eventual sequel. Furthermore, the token attempt at back story creates a quagmire that causes several increasingly stupid climactic revelations. This climaxes in the neutering of a major fan-favorite character that will likely infuriate hardcore fans. But for at least that initial ninety-minutes or so, the movie is an effective action-adventure spectacle. This is absolutely a GI Joe movie in the sense that the kid in us only dreamed about seeing onscreen. It works despite its flaws and inherent silliness. It's fun, exciting, occasionally eye-popping, and completely entertaining. It has great actors (Christopher Eccleston, Jonathan Pryce, Dennis Quaid) hamming it up and inventive action scenes that are worth seeing on a big screen. How can you not love a movie that casts famous Brit Jonathan Pryce as the President of the United States and lets him keep his accent? But in a movie like this, getting the action adventure basics just right is half the battle right there. I think you can guess what the other 50% is. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sat Mar 27 13:15:52 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sat Mar 27 13:15:53 2010 Subject: Review: Shorts (2009) Message-ID: <24d14f38-5faa-4c63-b8d7-851354b83158@l11g2000pro.googlegroups.com> Shorts 2009 89 minutes Rated PG (for mild action and rude humor - should have been a G) by Scott Mendelson Shorts is a gloriously old-fashioned kids flick made with a knowing cleverness. The picture is fast-paced, funny, colorful, exciting, and absolutely appropriate for children while entertaining for adults. Shorts is no classic, but it clearly does not want to be. It aims purely to be a breezy and pulpy children's adventure film, no more and no less. Robert Rodriguez again proves himself a jack of all trades, as his family pictures (Shorts, the Spy Kids series) are every bit as imaginative and often more entertaining than his R-rated action pictures (the Mariachi trilogy, Planet Terror, From Dusk Till Dawn). A token amount of plot: told in seemingly random chronological order, this picture is a series of shorts concerning the discovery of a magic wishing rock and the effects it has on the town of Black Falls. While the stories generally center on the youngsters of the town, the inexplicable rock soon begins to have most unexpected consequences for the adults as well. Can Toe Thompson (Jimmy Bennett) use the rock to bring his parents (Jon Cryer and Leslie Mann) closer, while keeping the bullying Helvetica (Jolie Vanier) and his older sister (Kat Dennings) at bay? Can Nose Noseworthy (Jake Short) use the rock to cure his father's (William H. Macy) crippling fear of germs? And what effect will the rock have on the president of the town's leading company, Black Box (James Spader), who is desperately trying to make his 'do everything' Black Box gadget into the must-own vanity item? All these questions and more will be answered should you decide to dive into the wonderfully weird world of Shorts. What's most refreshing about Shorts is its lack of pretension. It is a kids flick through and through, but it's an awfully good one. As you'll notice from the above synopsis, the cast is filled with talent, all of whom are relishing their chance to play in this particular sandbox. The only qualm is the lack of pretty much any and all Rodriguez vets, as even Danny Trejo is nowhere to be found. Still, everyone is game and their presence does wonders to elevate the simple fable. As always, this Robert Rodriguez film is cheerfully low-budget and cheap-looking in the best way. The special effects are gloriously hokey looking, which only adds to the old-school appeal. And like the Spy Kids trilogy, there are no real villains. Yes, there are antagonists who do bad things, but there is redemption and mercy for all. The seemingly random order of the stories allows kids to discover the relatively simple callbacks on their own, and some of them are genuinely funny (a lost homework assignment provides a great pay-off). Despite or because of its shoestring budget and overtly innocent intentions, Shorts works as a perfectly charming film for the whole family. It works both because of what it does not contain (violence, profanity, any hint of sexuality) and what it does contain (charming characters, a clever narrative, witty dialogue, and eye-poppingly goofy visuals). Watch Shorts with your kids, or just borrow someone else's kids to give yourself a proper excuse. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sat Mar 27 13:18:20 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sat Mar 27 13:18:22 2010 Subject: Review: Inglourious Basterds Message-ID: <2b530b62-d587-47fc-a83b-69807db782fb@y11g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Inglourious Basterds 2009 150 minutes Rated R by Scott Mendelson There's an absolutely fantastic 110-minute thriller hidden beneath the somewhat bloated 150-minute Inglourious Basterds. Two things save the picture from its over-length and Tarantino's now infamous need to have characters ramble on. First of all, unlike the dreadfully dull Death Proof, the never-ending conversation is used in several major scenes as a way to build suspense and tension. In the frighteningly effective prologue as well as several other moments, the non-stop babbling is used as a weapon and an instrument of fear. Most of the chit-chat belongs to Christoph Waltz, who plays the would-be villain of the picture. As a 'Jew Hunter' personally dispatched by Hitler to find hidden Jews, Col Hans Landa uses the art of allegedly sophisticated conversation to draw out the moment, to further intimidate his would- be victims. Truth be told, in terms of screen time and impact, Waltz is truly the star of this film. And yes, it's ironic that a revisionist fantasy about Jewish American soldiers terrorizing Nazis is in fact stolen by the Nazi. It's a star-making turn and I'll be shocked if Waltz doesn't receive an Oscar nomination next year. The other saving grace of the picture is its structure. The film is comprised of five chapters, the first three running just over an hour total, with the final two parts taking up nearly 90-minutes. In a way, the film feels more like five one-act plays that eventually blend together to tell one story. The film's fans will each have their favorite chapter. The first is the tightest and most suspenseful, the fourth is the one that will please the Tarantino fans, and the finale is... well let's just say that's where most of the footage from the previews is taken from. In a strange way, I feel the same way about Inglourious Basterds as I do about GI Joe: the Rise of Cobra. Both are severely flawed films that are inanely casual about their often horrifying violence. Both lack any real character development behind one or two leads. And both meet the criteria of being lousy films but awfully good movies. The Tarantino picture earns points for having female leads who are actually adult women. Diane Kruger plays an inversed variation on Errol Flynn and Melanie Lauremen (really the film's second lead) reminds us of how damn sexy elegance can be. If she has an American film career after this, it'll be largely due to the opening shots of the fifth chapter. Brad Pitt basically chews scenery and Eli Roth has nothing to do. Despite itself, and despite the pervasive immorality of the entire picture ('yea-haw... let's cheer on as pissed-off Jews become every bit as vile as the Nazis that they are fighting!"), the movie works as a movie. Oddly enough, a climactic moment of reflection seems to be almost apologizing for the crude tone and absolutely heartless violence of the previous 135-minutes, which had me wondering if this was some kind of subversive take on the 'lets make our enemies inhuman' philosophy that drives both war and general malaise. Alas, that idea is overtly dashed by the blood-thirsty, crowd-pleasing final scenes. I'd be lying if I didn't say I was turned off by the utter lack of humanity at play (the basterds are such merry and soulless killers that there are moments where our sympathies lie with the Nazi victims), and I wish I knew if Tarantino was trying to say anything of merit. But overall, Inglourious Basterds is a fine mess of a movie, an often suspenseful, occasionally witty, and usually entertaining bit of, yes, pulp fiction. Grade: B From jcknapier at gmail.com Sat Mar 27 13:51:21 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sat Mar 27 13:51:25 2010 Subject: Review: The Final Destination (2009) Message-ID: <6eecceff-b959-4520-be89-0ddd47db7943@z18g2000prh.googlegroups.com> The Final Destination 2009 81 minutes Rated R By Scott Mendelson Like any number of horror films that spawned a franchise of gore- cartoon sequels, the original Final Destination was a real movie. It was a genuinely frightening little fable about grief, loss, and predestination. It had characters worth caring about and worth mourning when the grim reaper eventually came to collect his due. What's shocking about this fourth entry is the series isn't that it is basically a clothesline for which to hang grotesque Rube Goldberg- esque death scenes, it's that the movie makes absolutely no attempt to disguise its snuff-film intentions. Unlike even the lesser, more cartoonish sequels, this one doesn't even pretend that it's a movie. A token amount of plot - Four friends (whom we learn nothing about over the course of the film) are attending a Nascar racing event when one of them gets a vision of a horrifying crash and resulting fire that will occur moments from now. Ushering his confused friends out of the stadium, several others are pulled outside in the confusion and thus saved from a fiery and/or gruesome death. But in the days that follow, the fatefully spared are swiftly picked off one-by-one in seemingly random accidents. That's pretty much it. While the first and third films involved high school graduates dealing with new found feelings of mortality and the second involved professional adults caught in the inevitable web of death, this fourth entry involves... I have no idea. While a few of the would-be victims are given a token character trait (one is a busy mother of two young boys, two others are blue-collar laborers whose wives died in the stadium), our four main young adults are given not a single fact about them. We do not know if they are in high school or college, we do not know if they have jobs. We never meet their parents or anyone outside their personal circle. They are absolute stick-figures to be gruesomely picked off. Only Mykelti Williamson registers any sympathy or intelligence. As a recovering alcoholic who killed his wife and daughter in a drunk driving accident years earlier, Williamson's character gets the film's only new idea (that of a fated victim accepting and welcoming his demise). But even his arc goes off the rails and fails to pay off in any meaningful way. So, fine, the film is a barely written skeleton on which to hang the series's trademark death scenes, that may not be an issue to the target audience. But outside of the opening race-track carnage (which itself isn't nearly as frightening as the previous films' opening massacres), the death scenes lack both invention and skill. Ironically, the 3D effects means that many of the death scenes involve merely cgi gore instead of the practical effects and stunt work that has been a franchise trademark. And worst of all, two of the most impressive set-ups turn out to be giant teases. The film out-and-out cheats in several places as life-saving equipment fails at one moment but works at another for no discernible reason. There is no rhyme or reason to the set pieces and the pay offs are pale imitations of the previous pictures. Overall, the film itself is an abysmal nothing. The characters are blank slates, there is no real running narrative, and the death scenes aren't worth sitting through. Some of the 3D effects are fun, but they are relatively run-of-the-mill and the film looks gray, hazy, and cheap when viewed through the 3D glasses. Frankly, if not for the 3D gimmick, I imagine this would have gone straight to DVD under Warner's Raw Feed banner. This certainly feels like a cheaper, lazier variation on the long-running series. Finally, the D-Box gimmick is currently just that: a gimmick. Yes, it's fun when your chair gently shakes, vibrates, and rocks back and forth during scenes of violence and action, but the full potential of this technology is still far away. But The Final Destination is not worth seeing in any format under any circumstances. Grade: D From jcknapier at gmail.com Sat Mar 27 13:52:20 2010 From: jcknapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Sat Mar 27 13:52:22 2010 Subject: Review: Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) Message-ID: <6f40c9ed-b91e-41e2-b721-bba12f64c9cb@y11g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Capitalism: A Love Story 2009 123 minutes Rated R (for three 'f-bombs' that Moore should have bleeped for a teen- friendly PG-13) by Scott Mendelson More so than any of his recent projects, Michael Moore the messenger is fatally undone by Michael Moore the showman. Time and time again we cut away from worthwhile factual analysis or a compelling anecdote in order to let Michael Moore have a moment in the spotlight. More so than in any of his recent projects, Michael Moore chooses to undercut the brutal effect of simply stating the facts in order to toss out a lengthy side story that attempts to pull heartstrings yet falters under objective analysis. For the first time that I can remember, a Michael Moore documentary/propaganda piece is less about the subject at hand and more about Michael Moore himself. Some plot - The film purports to be a cliff-notes version of the financial scandal/stock-market meltdown that crippled the economy in September 2008. Hitting all the usual stops along the way (Regan's deregulation of business, the complete destruction of the manufacturing industry, Bush Jr's cozy relationship with fear, etc), Moore attempts to form a deconstruction of the myth of the practical and moral superiority of the economic mode known as capitalism. Along the way, we of course are invited to share in the pain and suffering of ordinary Americans who have been caught in the economic downturn that is not of their own making. And we are again treated to the occasional Michael Moore stunt, but these gimmicks are both useless and counterproductive and serve to take away from the narrative and reveal the director as a self-indulgent entertainer first and a social crusader second. Most problematic is not so much his preaching to the converted, but his narrative choices that render the film downright confusing to someone who already doesn't know what he's talking about. What's a sub- prime loan? You won't find out in any detail in the film, only that they are really evil. What exactly did Ronald Regan do in order to bring about the eventual decline of the American middle class? I couldn't tell you just from the film itself. The film scores some of its best points detailing the abysmal wages of airline pilots, yet makes no specific mention of Regan's deregulation of the airline industry or his firing of striking air-traffic control workers in 1981. Michael Moore's films have always worked best as a jumping-off point for liberal and progressive politics, so it can't be expecting to be the Shoah of anti-capitalistic screeds. But this one is so hell- bent on demonizing the somewhat demonic politicians and businessmen that it neglects to mention just what they did in the first place. This refusal to deal with the nitty-gritty also extends to his portraits of victimhood. As with most Moore projects, we see various vignettes of tragedy affecting the working class of America. While these stories are meant to pull at heartstrings, it's tough not to notice how carefully Moore avoids explaining how each family got into their current foreclosure nightmare. This is doubly foolish, as it allows critics like me to wonder how much blame they share while also neglecting a crucial opportunity to expose theoretically criminal lending practices that are as much to blame as the dreaded sub-prime mortgage. The filmmaker spends a good 10-15 minutes on the ghoulish practice of companies who take out life-insurance policies on their own employees. Yes it's morally icky and a troubling symptom of corporate culture, but 'dead peasant' policies are not illegal and don't really play a direct role in the financial mess that the film attempts to sort out. Yet it remains a token chunk of the film so Moore can have scenes of mourning family members cursing those no-good bureaucrats. As expected and justified, Michael Moore places the majority of the blame on Ronald Regan and George W. Bush (Bill Clinton gets a slap on the wrist and Senator Chris Dodd takes it on the chin). But he also slams Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, while neglecting to mention that President Barack Obama has put these two in charge of his economic policy. Maybe he's saving the presidency of Barack Obama for his next movie, but considering how similar he's been on economic issues to his predecessors, it's unintentionally humorous to see the election of Obama treated as the dawning of a new day. And Michael Moore's trademark 'stunts' are lacking both in purpose and panache. Holding a mock funeral for a man whose health-insurance policy won't cover his liver transplant is at least attempting something productive, as is taking 9/11-rescue workers to Cuba for free medical care. Driving an armored car from bank to bank demanding that the bailout money be returned is only about self-aggrandizing. Time is much better spent detailing shocking examples of greed intermingling with public works with disastrous results. The most potent segment involves a cold detailing of a backroom deal between a juvenile court judge and the owner of a privatized juvenile-detention facility that ended with hundreds of kids being sent to the prison for things as trifling as arguing with friends in the mall, arguing with parents at dinner, or smoking a joint at a party (this was actually dealt with in an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit late last season). He is also brutally effective in detailing how the September 08 market crash and subsequent corporate bail out may have been more than just an accidental pre-election surprise. But despite the running thread tying the film to his first picture, Roger & Me (Moore argues that unregulated capitalism has threatened to turn all of America into Flint, Michigan), the picture feels for at least half of its running time like a novice filmmaker doing their take on a stereotypical Michael Moore film. Just because I agree wholeheartedly with the thesis does not mean that the film propagating said message is a good one. While Capitalism: A Love Story gets its shots, it falters and plays safe and simple rather than serving as a true primer of the issues at hand. Maybe Michael Moore is right when he chimes at the end that 'I can't do this anymore'. If for only one film, the creator of the modern muckraking documentary now looks and feels like one of the pretenders. Grade: C+ From tskirvin at killfile.org Mon Mar 29 02:18:42 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Mon Mar 29 02:18:45 2010 Subject: Review: Hot Tub Time Machine (2010) Message-ID: One of my favorite 80s screwball comedies was _Better Off Dead_. It was a cute, silly, essentially-pointless John Cusack vehicle about breakups and skiing; it managed to end up with a half dozen good, quotable scenes intermixed with a plot that barely deserved the title. It's a fun, foolish movie that was popular enough to be parodized on South Park a few years back, but otherwise doesn't appear to have impinged on the American consciousness for a while now... or at least that's what I thought until the first trailers for _Hot Tub Time Machine_ came out. Sadly, _Hot Tub Time Machine_ is not _Better Off Dead 2: The Wrath of Rob Corddry_. That isn't to say that there are no connections; indeed, how could you otherwise create a movie at a ski resort that both starring and produced by John Cusack? At points, the movie even seemed to make the connection for the audience - what else could the cry of "two dollars" mean? But instead of really being a riff on 80s comedies, we got an attempt at a modern buddy-sex comedy (ala _The Hangover_). And in that, it really didn't do a great job. For all of that, I can't say that I was particularly *disappointed*. I did laugh pretty regularly. The self-referential geekiness was endearing; the use of the actor that played Marty McFly's father in the _Back to the Future_ series was extremely cute. I was impressed with Craig Robinson (I'm never going to think of him as anything else but Darryl from The Office), and was happy to see Rob Corddry even if he was playing the same character as ever. I got a kick out of geeky 20-year-old. And Chevy Chase was cute. Still... I would have been happier with something *more* self-referential. Why didn't we just see John Cusack going back in time with his friends to re-create _Better Off Dead_ directly? Why didn't they play up the various genres of 80s comedy more clearly? And, generally, why couldn't the creators have come up with something clever enough that somebody would think to reference it 25 years later? ** 1/2 - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews