It’s hard work to convincingly fake a stutter. Seriously, give it a try. No easy task. This alone makes Colin Firth’s performance something special. Add in all the depth and emotion he brings to his character, and you got yourself a performance made of gold. Firth plays Prince Albert (the man who would later become King George VI), who’s plagued with a debilitating nervous stammer. Knowing that he may soon take the throne, his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) hires unorthodox speech therapist Lionel (Geoffrey Rush) to help him. We already know this is going to be one of those stories: the story of how these two people forever make an impact on each others lives and become unlikely friends in the process. Formula inspirational Oscar stuff. But if a film adeptly applies this formula, and manages to do it well, this formula will almost always work without fail. And in the case of THE KING’S SPEECH, it gets the royal treatment it deserves.
Is it the best picture of the year? No. Best ensemble cast? Quite possibly. Helena Bonham Carter, who most have come to identify with the strange roles she’s played in FIGHT CLUB, ALICE IN WONDERLAND, SWEENEY TODD, and the HARRY POTTER series, shines as the King’s loving and supportive wife. What surprised me most with her ability to portray someone sensitive, delicate, determined and, well… normal. And of course she does so while maintaining that ghost white pallor her face always seems to have. But like I said before, this is Firth’s movie, through and through. He engages the audience more so than any other actor this year. He’s very easy to sympathize with, and combined with Lionel’s quirky persona (a fantastic performance from Rush), watching them interact with each other is intriguing, especially in the scenes where Lionel pushes and provokes Albert (hearing Colin Firth curse incessantly–which you will luckily get to experience–is like hilarious music to my ears).
Have you ever had something you wanted to achieve so badly, but the more you failed the more you gave up? Most of the time insisting that it’s impossible is easier than enduring more failed attempts. Albert (or “Bertie” as Lionel likes to call him) has gotten used to using this defense mechanism. In one of the first scenes, it shows him attempting to make a public speech. Watching him stammer like that, the pain and embarrassment so evidently etched into his face, made my heart hurt. The frustration he suffers through afterwards was palpable. During his first grudging visit to Lionel, Lionel does something rather interesting: he has Albert put on headphones with loud music playing (preventing him from being able to hear his own voice) and has him read something aloud. Lionel, who had been recording Albert’s reading, gives him the record for him to listen to on his own convenience. In perhaps my favorite scene, Albert listens to the recording…and hears his voice, the voice he is so used to loathing and hearing crack in the middle of his choppy sentences, speaking clearly. And so Albert and Lionel’s journey begins.
When the inevitable speech came at the end of the movie, I was holding my breath. I knew he was going to prevail. But nevertheless, I wanted it so badly, and Lionel, Albert and Elizabeth wanted it so badly, that we were like one joint unit. The end shot is exactly like you would expect–when Albert walks outside after his speech, surrounded by people congratulating him, he makes eye contact with Lionel and they smile at each other in solidarity, Karate-Kid-style. And who am I kidding, I was right there with them, a proud smile plastered on my face.
Rating: A-
Jack Black only knows how to play one person: Jack Black. This is pivotal information, because whether or not you like Jack Black is a key factor in deciphering whether or not you will be able to enjoy GULLIVER’S TRAVELS in the slightest. How much you love the childhood story is irrelevant. Jack Black is key.
Like I was saying, Jack Black plays Jack Black, only in the film he goes by a different name, Gulliver. When we first see him he’s playing with two Star Wars action figures, employing voices and all. He plays Guitar Hero in between breaks at work. We have a hardcore nerd (in the worst sense) on our hands here. Gulliver works in the mail room at a travel magazine, his place of work for the past 11 years. Probably the only thing keeping him content there is his insane crush on Darcy (Amanda Peet), a travel editor at the magazine. He knows he’s just drifting through life, letting it pass him by. He’s even referred to (more than once, I might add) by himself and others as “the little guy in the mail room” (pun much?). But big things (see, I can do it ,too) are soon to happen to Gulliver. When Darcy asks him to take on an assignment at sea to report on the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle, the fun begins. While at sea, Gulliver gets caught in a terrible storm (but I suspect the special effects were worse to endure than the storm), and he wakes up to find himself tied down, and surrounded by an army of little people… lots and lots of little, thumb-sized people, in a strange land called Liliput.
A world where Jack Black is a giant. Oh the possibilities. A house is on fire and all the people inside are going to burn to death! So, of course, Gulliver pees on it. To be honest, I was just relieved that they didn’t show us a giant version of Jack Black’s member in 3-D. We are subjected to his ass in 3-D, but hey, you win some, you lose some. You’d be surprised how good the cast is though, especially for a silly movie like this that has only had bad buzz surrounding it since the debut of its first trailer. Our main Liliputians are played by Emily Blunt, Jason Segel, and Billy Connolly. Blunt plays the beautiful Princess Mary, and Segel the lowly commoner who fancies her, Horatio. Their charm was the saving grace of the film, and I have to admit that I enjoyed watching Gulliver coach Horatio in the real way to court a woman. Most of the humor was flat though, and more often than not we’re overwhelmed with pop culture reference after pop culture reference – TITANIC, Kiss, Marky Mark, you name it – and while amusing, referencing to things of much more value than the film you’re starring in does not a good movie make.
Rating: C
MEET THE PARENTS is a modern classic. Who can forget seeing Robert De Niro hook Ben Stiller up to a lie detector machine, or Stiller trying to describe how to milk a cat? Then came MEET THE FOCKERS, which thanks to the fresh new presence of Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman as Greg’s eccentric parents, was amusing enough. Now the excuse (and trust me, it is nothing more than a poor excuse) for the 3rd one: it’s time to meet the baby Fockers! Greg and Pam have been happily married for 10 years, and now have two adorable twins. When the whole family gets together to celebrate the twins’ birthday, havoc ensues (surprise!).
Lately it seems like there is a distinct downside to creating something good: it will almost always lead to something bad. The humor that made MEET THE PARENTS the great movie that it was–there are no traces of that wit or relevance here. Relying almost entirely on mistaken situations (ones that could very easily be cleared up if God forbid any of the characters had the foresight to actually communicate with each other), tired movie references (Godfocker, really??), and physical humor, LITTLE FOCKERS is nothing more than the product of a studio that wants more money, and actors that clearly didn’t have any better options…not to mention a god-awful script. I mean really, the director of the first two peaced out on this one for a damn good reason. Although significantly downgraded in quality, we do get some of the same old, same old, “I’m watching you”, De Niro-style material…which I would have been fine with, perfectly content with even–if it were not for the fact that any time the film deviated from the same old, it found itself in comedy-for-retards territory. Kids projectile vomiting is NOT funny, no matter what anyone says. One of the horrendous additions to the film was Jessica Alba playing a peppy drug company rep. Yeah she’s gorgeous, I don’t think anyone needs to be convinced of that. But no amount of hotness could detract anyone from how annoying and mind-numbingly ditsy her character is. If I were a doctor (or a nurse, in Greg’s case), I would stay as far as humanly possible away from any drug she’s associated with. Anyone who raises their fist and says “knuckles” to try and gain my good graces will not succeed.
A friend of mine referred to LITTLE FOCKERS as “as good as you can expect from the 3rd of the franchise”. To me, that’s not good enough. Why make a third if you already know its going to be mediocre? Because the filmmakers are guaranteed to make loads of money, that’s why. So the more pressing question must be asked: Why see the 3rd if even the trailer looks mediocre? I know why people will see it. It’s the same reason why I had a shred of hope that it might actually exceed my expectations. I just love these characters. Unfortunately, when the third in the franchise plays out like the pointless, not just mediocre, but bad, movie it is, I have to warn all those tempted to waste their money: re-watch the first two again instead. You still have the chance to keep your love of the characters and the first film in tact. It’s too late for me.
Rating: C-
I’ve never been a western kinda gal. Most westerns I’ve tried to watch carry that slow-like-molasses pace, employing those same ingredients time and time again. I’ve come to believe that if I’ve seen one good western, I’ve seen them all. The Coen brothers seem to be the only filmmakers that can make me not only tolerate a western, but actually enjoy it. Due in no small part to all around excellent performances from the cast and a sharp and witty script, TRUE GRIT will be a western lover’s new favorite movie…and worthy journey even for those who are indifferent to the genre. A remake of the 1969 John Wayne film, TRUE GRIT follows Mattie Ross (newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) a 14-year old girl who hires U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help track down her father’s murderer (Josh Brolin).
The film’s best quality is how well defined the characters are, Mattie especially. She’s a headstrong girl; she’s not afraid to haggle with someone if she feels they’re trying to take advantage of her financially, and she never passes up the opportunity to threaten people with legal action. In short, she’s quite a pistol. I wish I had some of her spunk when I was her age. Paired with the eye-patch-wearing, words-slurring Cogburn, they make quite an interesting duo. Bridges takes on his role as Cogburn with full force. It may not be remembered years to come like his iconic role as “The Dude” in the Coen brothers’ THE BIG LEBOWSKI, but he does a hell of a job as this rough around the edges drunk…maybe even worthy of an Oscar nomination. Matt Damon rounds out the main cast as LaBoeuf, a Texas Ranger helping Mattie and Cogburn who’s keen on bringing down the same man. This is Damon like you’ve never seen him. He’s not using his pretty boy looks here, especially in one shocking scene when he spanks the crap out of Mattie because she pisses him off. Damon, is that really you? He could have fooled me.
What kept me going, even during the “slow” parts when not much was going on, was the unexpected humor. Filled with some great one-liners, TRUE GRIT found a steady balance of laughs, shoot-outs, and suspense. The best way to keep a viewer interested? Don’t give them what they crave until the last possible moment. While watching I felt so bad for Mattie; she wants to avenge her fathers death, wants to bring his killer to justice, and people are giving her a hard time because of her age. But I felt for her cause, and I wanted that bastard dead. When you have an actor as famous and capable as Brolin in the role of the killer, you’d expect the film to use him as much as possible. Instead, the Coen brothers wisely don’t even show him until the very end, when Mattie comes face to face with him. They make the most out of his super short screen time though, with an end that kicks the crap out of the one in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (sorry, but I’ll never understand that abrupt ending)… an end that is both satisfying and fitting. Delicious retribution delivered!
Rating: B+
I usually react in one of two possible ways after seeing a truly awful movie. Most often, I want to find a gun and shoot all those involved dead…but sometimes (albeit rarely), the second reaction occurs: I leave the theater not angry, but baffled. Instead of wanting the filmmakers to die a painful death, I instead, ironic as it may seem, want to be in their company; I want nothing more than to amiably sit down with those involved, and have a real, honest conversation with them during which I would get to ask them the inevitable question: why, why, did you think making this movie was a good idea? Because really, I want to know. I want to shake hands with those who pitched the idea and got it green lit, because they are clearly Jedi masters of bullshit. This phenomenon occurred as I walked out of the theater in a daze after experiencing YOGI BEAR. To be fair, YOGI BEAR isn’t the suicide bombing I was expecting…just a simple train wreck.
If you’re under the age of seven (and I would be really weirded out if any of you out there reading this were), then maybe you’ll find some fulfillment from the non-stop slapstick of YOGI BEAR. We get bears who walk and talk like humans, steal picnic baskets, hurt themselves (constantly), dance, water ski and steal more picnic baskets…which, believe me, gets very old, very quickly. Why is any of this funny? Because they’re bears! Get it?? No, I don’t either. And all of this is somehow squeezed into a thin plot involving a documentary filmmaker, Erica (Anna Faris), who comes to Jellystone Park to make a movie about Yogi (Dan Aykroyd) and Boo-Boo (Justin Timberlake). When greedy Mayor Brown decides to shut down the park and sell the land (there always needs to be a villain, right?), Yogi, Boo-Boo, Ranger Smith and Erica must find a way to save the park before it’s too late.
I’ll admit, Boo-Boo is so adorable (and very well-voiced by Timberlake) that when I was staring into his big brown eyes, for a few seconds I would forget that I was in a no-laughs movie that will make any parent dragged to it by their child wish they opted for an abortion. I love kids’ movies. Hell, TANGLED, TOY STORY 3, and HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON are three of my favorite movies of the year. So I know the difference between a good animated movie, and one that exerts no effort into the script. These writers know that they don’t need to be clever in order to sell movie tickets to preschool kids and their parents (at 3-D prices, no less), and they fully take advantage of that fact. The 3-D was pretty great, but that fact just made me all the angrier that this technology would be used to charge innocent people more money for a movie as unworthy as YOGI BEAR.
Rating: D+
When I started hearing the non-stop hype surrounding THE FIGHTER, I was honestly a little annoyed. What says “Oscar bait” more than an inspirational boxing movie that’s based on a true story? Do we really need another one of these? The list of acclaimed boxing movies is endless: RAGING BULL, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, ALI, CINDERELLA MAN, ROCKY, and so on and so forth. Nonetheless, despite my prejudices, I must admit that THE FIGHTER is a fantastic addition into the genre. The film is about the early years of real life fighter Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), and his brother and trainer Dicky (Christian Bale), who helped lead him to a title win. While I am getting tired of seeing another one of these movies come out every single year, I’m starting to understand the fascination they bring out in people. To have a dream like this, and to go after it with such fervor, is no easy feat. It’s painful. It’s humiliating. And you need to have your wits about you to be able to knock down someone bigger than you–or as we saw in one of the movie’s best scenes, someone who has 20 pounds on you.
Wahlberg plays Micky sincerely and with the amount of heart necessary for someone with his resilience. What takes the film from good to great though, is Christian Bale’s phenomenal performance. I read somewhere that people who came across Bale while filming mistook him for the real Dicky. Now I don’t know anything about what the real guy was like, but Bale plays the character so specifically, with such a particular way of walking and speaking, that I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true. With his many layers, this is no easy character to play; Dicky wants so badly to have a second shot at glory and to be there for his family, but drugs and crime get in the way, leading to him having a stint in prison. A lot of the film (and at times maybe more than I would have preferred) focuses on the family dynamic, but not just the one between Micky and Dicky; it extends even further, bringing their mother (Melissa Leo) and many sisters into the mix as well. I felt like I totally knew all these people. I understood their jealously (much of it directed towards Micky’s bartender girlfriend Charlene, a wonderfully unexpected performance from Amy Adams) and dependence on Micky’s boxing career, even though they were far from likable. The fighting scenes were spectacular, and at times, I wished there was more fighting than family drama, because those scenes were just that good. And this is coming from someone who actually dislikes boxing.
Rating: B+
If you’re seeing BLACK SWAN because you want to see a “dance movie,” then you’re seeing it for the wrong reasons. This thriller is as far as you can get from the likes of CENTER STAGE, and it is its intensity, boldness, and blatant sexuality that will seduce any viewer…or at least those who can handle it. When Nina (Natalie Portman) gets cast in the coveted role of the Swan Queen in a new take on the classic ballet Swan Lake, everyone knows she’s perfect to play the role of the naive, innocent white swan… but can she play the evil, seductive black swan as well? This is the question that’s posed numerous times by the artistic director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel). In one scene, Thomas invites Nina back to his place for drinks. While there, he asks if she’s a virgin. I was taken aback by his bluntness towards Nina, but it’s understandable why someone might think she is. With her soft-spoken nature, over-protective mother who she still lives with, and her somewhat reserved, straight-laced manner, she’s like a poster child for purity. It’s not much later that we meet her exact opposite, Lily (Mila Kunis). She’s outspoken, and her every look, every movement is dripping with sensuality. Plus, at least to Nina, she seems to be after her and her role.
Director Darren Aronofsky has crafted a uniquely remarkable film. His combination of the grace and elegance of dance with the horror that Nina is experiencing is one that you would never expect to go well together… but in fact, they run parallel to and compliment each other much like the two roles Nina must master. There are a multitude of cringe-worthy scenes, some which had me covering my eyes long after the shot was over just to ensure to myself that it was, in fact, over. If you’re squeamish about fingernails, then you’ll be doing the same. Don’t be surprised if you hear gasps echo throughout the theater during some scenes (I’d be more surprised if you didn’t). Much of the time, it’s not even what’s on screen that’s causing anxiety in the viewer, but the way the film plays them up. Instead of overwhelming the audience with your standard “things popping out at you” gimmick to get a scare, we’re almost always exposed to the characters’ horrified reactions first… and then the horror that they are seeing/experiencing. There is no shortage of trippy, psychosis-inducing imagery in this movie.
Natalie Portman is, without a doubt, as good as she’s ever been. She not only looks like a ballet dancer (thanks to losing 20 pounds and 8 hours of training a day) but she dances so beautifully that it’s like she’s been doing it all her life. She manages to jump from her natural, white swan demeanor to her paranoid, disturbed self with the snap of a finger. From the very beginning of the film, Nina’s mother often calls her her “sweet girl”…and while she seems as sweet as sugar, you can just tell that underneath the surface she’s a little off-balanced. With a movie like this, it’s really hard to try and talk about it to someone who hasn’t seen it. Anything I say about it will make it seem like the absolute strangest movie (which, granted, it is)… but it’s one that you must experience for yourself to fully understand just why every movie fan can’t stop talking about BLACK SWAN.
Rating: A
How do you know a movie sucks? When you constantly look over at The Kidd with eyes pleading to promptly leave the theater, that’s how. I consider myself to be somewhat of a “chick flick connoisseur”…but I’m now embarrassed to admit that I found myself endlessly hopeful that HOW DO YOU KNOW would be the movie to reinstate the impression that chick flicks can actually be great movies. Let’s look at the facts: it’s written and directed by James L. Brooks, the mind behind AS GOOD AS IT GETS. This alone was enough to spark my interest. Then add in a stellar cast made up of Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, and Jack Nicholson, and well…how can you blame me for expecting something worthwhile? With 90% of the funny moments coming straight from the trailer, HOW DO YOU KNOW leaves us with a movie that’s 100% unnecessary.
Once upon a time there existed a thing called a “plot”. However, HOW DO YOU KNOW seems to have sidestepped this useless device (insert sarcasm here), choosing instead to center the movie around four unlikable characters. No, really. Nothing happens in this movie. Zip. Zero. Zilch. And instead of just putting us out of our misery after an hour and a half, someone somewhere allowed for this movie (with, let me say it again) NOTHING going on, to run to two full hours. Two full hours of four unlikable characters biting each other’s heads off and arguing… sometimes with no real reason other than because they want to argue. The main character is Lisa (Witherspoon), a 31-year-old athlete who just found out that her softball career is at an end. Witherspoon, who I view at the epitome of “girly” (she’ll always be Elle Woods to me), surprisingly plays the jock gal well. But nevertheless, at times I found it supremely hard to like her. She keeps jumping from a horrendous relationship with Matty (Wilson, playing the big-time athlete/womanizer) to entertaining the idea of starting one with George (Rudd, totally in his element as an awkward but sweet guy in a financial crisis), who she has absolutely no chemistry with.
The main problem with this is that no one likes watching someone who’s indecisive… especially when there’s no reason for her to be with either guy in the first place. She changes her mind so many times within the last hour of the film that it was headache-inducing (can you say whiplash?). If I was able to get on board with at least one character, or if I even cared in the slightest when that obligatory end kiss came with the “lucky” (psh) man she choose, then maybe I would have been able to enjoy a light movie with some laughs. But unfortunately, once a romantic comedy loses its romance, then its condemned to rom-com hell, and, in the case of HOW DO YOU KNOW, it’s not finding redemption any time soon.
Rating: D
Never before has such blatant lovemaking between a cinematographer and actress taken place right before the audience’s eyes. Verging on obnoxious and exploitive, THE TOURIST is an hour and forty minutes of showcasing Angelina Jolie’s breathtaking beauty… yet unfortunately, not her acting ability, which I can only assume is hidden somewhere underneath all that expertly applied makeup on her face. I’m not even sure if this is her fault for taking the role, the screenwriters’ fault for writing such boring characters, or the director’s fault for directing them as such…but nevertheless, I can almost hear the director in the background shouting for Angelina to lift her face so that her cheekbones perfectly catch the light, while keeping that same private smile on her face for the entire film… even while she’s being shot at. That’s one of the major downfalls THE TOURIST suffers from; the constant calmness of the characters (Depp in particular) makes the already lackluster action that much less interesting. I don’t know about you, but if I’m being constantly shot at, I feel like that would be a good time to become the least bit panicked… especially if you’re just a poor innocent “tourist” (and yes, you will hear that word used an obscene number of times throughout the film).
The role of this innocent American tourist is filled by Johnny Depp, who plays Frank, a man who meets the mysterious Elise while on a train to Venice. What he thinks is a chance encounter soon turns into a situation of mistaken identities, leading Frank and Elise on a run for their lives. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t amused by THE TOURIST. The more the movie progressed, the more ridiculous it became. It was such an experiment in bad filmmaking at times that it was fun to watch, if for no other reason than to laugh at it. Accompanied by an embarrassingly over-melodramatic score that would randomly come on out of nowhere, it seemed like a student filmmaker’s idea of how to rev-up a movie while requiring the actors to do as little acting as possible.
All in All, THE TOURIST is a mediocre addition to the Angelina-Jolie-spy-movie genre, one that somehow manages to take two of the hottest stars out there today, and one of the most beautiful cities in the world, only to produce one of the silliest movies now in theaters.
Rating: C-
Quirkiness and charm need to come naturally. If a movie tries too hard to emanate these qualities, severe backlash occurs – instead of coming off as off-beat and original, they end up feeling unnecessary and annoying. Well, welcome to TAMARA DREWE: a soap opera-like, British sex romp (minus the sex appeal) with too many characters to keep straight, or to even care to try. When Tamara Drewe, a once ugly duckling turned sex kitten (thanks to a nose job) returns to her old family farm where she grew up to settle her late mothers estate, she turns the whole village upside down, including an old flame, has-been rock star Ben (Dominic Cooper), 15-year-old Jody who’s in love with Ben, and the writers at a farmhouse retreat. With snippets of clever British humor, TAMARA DREWE seesaws back and forth from having a good direction to trying too hard to be quirky and different…making it feel like a girl who seems attractive at first glance, but when you get closer, see that she has pounds of makeup caked onto her face. And unfortunately, TAMARA DREWE wasn’t even particularly attractive from far away.
The performances were good enough, I suppose; despite her particularly boring character, Gemma Arterton plays Tamara with the teasing nature that would drive any guy of any age insane. But the real star, I must say, is her daisy-duked ass—which is given far more screen time than the actresses face…or any other actors’ for that matter. Even so, the film is so flat at times, and I had such indifference towards all of the characters and their relationships, that no number of shots of her ass half hanging out of her shorts brings the sizzle the movie needed to actually get cooking.
Rating: C-
I usually tend to avoid movies that feature the severing of limbs. 127 HOURS is an extreme exception, though. Not only was I dying to see it, but one can’t deny that part of the curiosity is because of the scene when Franco must cut off his own arm in order to survive. Unless you’ve been living under a rock (ha ha, get it?), you should know what I’m talking about. Starring James Franco, 127 HOURS is the remarkable true story of Aron Ralston, a mountain climber who, after an 800-pound boulder falls on him, finds himself trapped, with his arm pinned against the wall in an isolated canyon in Utah. The movie spans the course of five days…until he resorts to drastic measures to survive.
I know it sounds like just yet another movie that confines the protagonist to one location during the entire film… but 127 HOURS is a true original. Instead of focusing on the trauma and panic that would accompany such an instance for an hour and a half, the film brilliantly focuses on something different: what’s going on in Ralston’s head. And because of this, 127 HOURS is filled with more humor and laughs than you could possibly imagine in a film of this nature. In my favorite scene, Ralston is playing with his video camera and creates a sort of makeshift talk show, where he switches between being the guest and the host, even adding on a fake laugh track after the jokes. Later on when he’s thirsty, he sees an energy drink commercial playing in his head. Directed by Academy Award-winning director Danny Boyle, there is no lack of style when it comes to 127 HOURS. Filled with color, gorgeous scenery and heaps of energy, there were moments while watching the film that I felt like I was having an adrenaline rush.
And after all that, the film still manages to bring out the emotion and regrets of Ralston: will he never see his family again? Why didn’t he tell anyone where he was going? Franco is my frontrunner for Best Actor this year. He demonstrates such a range of emotions in the films short running time, going from making us laugh to making your heart ache as you yearn for nothing more than for him to find a way to free himself… but of course, you’re simultaneously dreading that scene as well. Each second that goes by brings you closer and closer to the horror you know is coming, and waiting for it is quite a ride… one that is so thrilling and memorable, that it makes 127 HOURS one of the best films of the year so far.
Rating: A
I like crappy movies. There, I said it. I don’t care what other critics are saying about a movie. If it looks like I’ll enjoy myself, then I’m on board, which is exactly the way BURLESQUE played out for me. I saw the trailer and instantly thought to myself: “That looks so good!” In actuality, that mental statement would be translated into words a little more like: “That looks like such an entertaining movie!” Good or bad, who gives a damn? Unless you’re on the hunt for the next Best Picture contender, most of us go to the movies to escape for a little while and enjoy ourselves. And let me tell you, BURLESQUE hits the spot. The movie follows Ali (Christina Aguilera), a small town girl with big city dreams, who moves to L.A. and finds herself swept up by a Burlesque club run by a former performer, Tess (Cher). Sound familiar? Well of course it does! That’s because it pulls from all the great dance movies…and even the not so great. We get some MOULIN ROUGE, COYOTE UGLY, CHICAGO and FLASHDANCE. So already you know a movie isn’t aiming its standards too high if its pulling inspiration from COYOTE UGLY (which, admittedly, I adore).
We get the obligatory montage overload (think Julia Stiles dancing while walking in SAVE THE LAST DANCE), and the real reason to see it in the first place: some truly dazzling numbers. I’ll give Christina credit…. no one can sing quite like her, and she’s an excellent performer. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about her acting ability. There were moments when her delivery of lines sounded more like nails on a chalkboard in its insincerity than human vocal cords. While this irked me to no end, she looks so inhumanly beautiful most of the time, that you can almost (almost) put it in the back of your mind. The real surprise for me though, was Cam Gigandet. Known as either “the guy from The O.C.” or “the guy from TWILIGHT”, he’s finally gotten a leading man role, and he’s terrific. Exceedingly charming and funny, he carried the acting scenes when Christina couldn’t quite keep up. So here’s to hoping that BURLESQUE we’ll be his ticket to finally being known simply as “Cam Gigandet”.
BURLESQUE is a glitzy, glamorous, campy foray into the world of dance movies. While the sets, costumes and performances weren’t up to par with say CHICAGO or MOULIN ROUGE, they were an achievement in their own right. Combined with some soundtrack-buying-worthy songs, BURLESQUE was an incredibly entertaining flick that is exactly what you would expect (and want) from a movie starring Christina Aguilera and Cher.
Rating: B
Oh the power of impossibly long hair and the frying pan! I’m telling you, the next time I find myself in a sketchy dark alley, those will be my weapons of choice. Then again, anything I can do to make me more like Disney’s new princess in TANGLED is a go for me. Feisty, gorgeous, and with 70 feet of magical, golden locks, Rapunzel fits in like a glass slipper right alongside Jasmine, Ariel, Belle and Cinderalla, making her the Disney princess to finally bring us back to the glory days of the Disney heroine movies that the formers enchanted us in. In this take of the classic Brothers Grimm tale, the film opens with a narrator recounting a tale from years ago about a princess named Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), who was kidnapped when she was a baby by the evil Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy) who keeps her in a tower and uses her hair to restore her youth. We then cut to years later: Now Rapunzel is 18, and she longs more than anything to explore the world outside of the confines of her tower. When the cocky (yet charming) thief Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi) climbs up into her tower to seek refuge, she takes him hostage and negotiates a deal with him, leading to him being her guide out in the real world, and a movie so filled with adventure that it will delight girls and boys of all ages.
Though you wouldn’t know it from the trailer, TANGLED is a musical. Not only it is a musical—Oscar-winning composer Alan Menken, who is responsible for the music from ALADDIN, POCAHONTAS, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and most recently ENCHANTED, is the one behind the films songs. It doesn’t hurt that Mandy Moore has the voice of an angel and was born to be a Disney princess, either. Combining the catchy, wonderful music the classic hand-drawn animated Disney movies always had, with a gorgeous Pixar look, TANGLED is like the best of both worlds. We finally get a movie that doesn’t abuse the whole 3D mania going on nowadays, and uses it only to enhance the already stunning movie (turning it into a visually breathtaking movie), along with a few songs that will be instant classics. There isn’t a shortage of laughs either–thanks to a heavy dose of well-used slapstick, two adorable (and mute) animal sidekicks, and a colorful array of characters, I found myself constantly dealing with a fit of giggles, as was the rest of the theater. Spellbinding and heartwarming to the max, there’s nothing not to love, and no moment not to enjoy, in this new notch on Disney’s already illustrious belt of movie magic.
Rating: A
CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD
I’m going to come right out and say it: I am a die-hard Potter-head. I’m on my school’s Quidditch team, I have a list of spells ingrained in my brain, and I wore black the day after I read Sirius’ death scene in Order of the Phoenix. So while I could try and review HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 1 impartially…I’m not going to do that. Lets face it, this movie is going to be most important to those who are fans of the books. Of course let’s not forget those who have followed the movies religiously…they’re bouncing off the walls over Part 1′s quickly approaching release, too. But their reaction to it will probably be quite different. Despite the way movie 6 ended, some people will still be surprised to see that there is no Hogwarts, no Quidditch and none of your favorite professors present. That’s because DEATHLY HALLOWS takes us into completely new territory: the wizarding war is in full-blown action, and J.K Rowling and the filmmakers wisely don’t sugarcoat it. The deaths start coming quicker than you can say Avada Kedavra…and they don’t stop there. I consider myself a know-it-all when it comes to Harry Potter (think Hermione), so before watching the movie, I made sure I re-read the first half of Deathly Hallows, because I didn’t think I could stand sitting in that theater and not remembering if things were or were not in the book. I do actually have a point here… since I had literally just re-read the first half, the book could not have been fresher in my mind than it was when I sat down to view the new movie with all those hundreds of screaming Potter fans. So take my word for it here and now when I tell you: they did not leave anything out! I’ve heard some people criticizing Warner Bros. for doing this whole “two part” release, saying that it’s just a ploy to make double the money. Well screw the naysayers, because a wiser decision has never been made. The book is a little under 800 pages. We all want each and every second of the battle of Hogwarts in the movie. There’s no way that would have been possible with just one movie. Think of it this way: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS -PART 1 is 2½ hours…of ½ a book. So when it comes to even the most minute scenes that normally would not have even been considered for the sake of saving time, we get it in this movie. With the exception of Kreacher’s transformation from bad to good (he’s not a big character in the movie), I can think of nothing I wanted included that wasn’t there. When George loses his ear in the beginning of the movie while The Order is trying to fly Harry to safety, we even get his silly ear jokes. That’s one of things I’ve always loved best about the Potter films; even when they’re at their darkest, they still manage to slip in some of those funny one-liners and scenes to lighten the mood, which DEATHLY HALLOWS did better than any of its predecessors (look out for a scene of Harry in a bra–hysterical!). We also get plenty more of that sexual tension everyone loves between Ron and Hermione (including a part I loved from the book where they fall asleep practically holding hands), which only makes me, and I’m sure everyone else, all the more excited for “that scene” in the next movie. I just have to keep taking deep breaths and thinking to myself: “8 months…you can do this…just 8 more months”. See that’s the thing…PART 1 is just so good that it’s a feeling not unlike pain watching the movie end incomplete.
Now is that point when I would usually start pointing out the faults of the movie. Well, the most negative thing I can say about HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS is that the movie has flaws that actually aren’t even “flaws” at all. Let me explain… the movie did have its somewhat slower parts. However, those “slower” parts are those same exact parts that were slower in the book. The scenes were necessary, and it’s lack of action only makes everything that comes after it all the more mind-blowing. The scenes involving Harry, Ron and Hermione camping out in the forest trying to protect themselves from all the Death Eaters tailing them have a quiet power, even if not much is going on. It’s when we best get to see the group dynamic, and it’s then that our three leads are given their opportunity to show us just how much they’ve grown as actors in the past 10 years.
HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 1 is the Harry Potter movie I’ve been waiting for. It stays as true as possible to the book, and only makes those changes that make sense for the medium. It packed in the emotion that Dobby’s death deserved, the emotion that the other movies glossed over (I’m looking at you you Sirius and Dumbledore’s death’s!), and it was the first time in a Potter film that I found myself straight up sobbing. I predict that PART 1 won’t be my favorite Harry Potter movie of the bunch; because if PART 1 is any indication, the groundwork it laid has made it an almost sure bet that HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 2 will be everything we’ve dreamed of and more. Now take a deep breath and say it with me: just 8 more months, just 8 more months…
Rating: A
Paul Haggis’ name carries a lot of weight among the Oscar-movie-loving-crowd. Being responsible for great movies such as CRASH and MILLION DOLLAR BABY, he had my full allegiance and support when it came to his new movie, THE NEXT THREE DAYS. Starring Russel Crowe and Elizabeth Banks, it’s about a married couple who’s life is thrown into chaos when the wife, Laura (Banks), is accused of murder and sentenced to life in prison…and the lengths her husband John (Crowe) will go to make sure she is set free. Like Haggis’ other films, THE NEXT THREE DAYS poses some tough moral dilemmas to wrap our heads around. Unlike his other films though, don’t except a best picture nomination. And certainly not a best screenplay one. Within the first 10 minutes of the film Laura is arrested…and then the film jumps three years later, showing John and their son visiting Laura in prison. But don’t worry, we still get to hear the details of the case because John and their lawyer are conveniently going over it out loud as they wait to see if Laura’s appeal will be approved. When it isn’t, Laura attempts to commit suicide, a wake up call for John who decides the only shred of hope they have left is him breaking her out of prison. Maybe all of this would be effective if the filmmakers lingered on any one scene or situation for more than 10 seconds–let us get as riled up as John so that we too feel like the only solution is to risk absolutely everything. Everything is done so hastily…that is, until John meticulously starts planning the prison break (pretty much the whole first half of the movie). Then, everything goes slow, and most of it feels unnecessary. Crowe is fantastic as the devoted husband, and every second he was on screen I believed that he believed that his wife was innocent…I just wasn’t so sure how confident I was on the matter. The movie opens with a scene of Laura and John out to dinner with another couple in which Laura shows her protectiveness over her man when the other woman at the table sends a sexual innuendo his way. A few minutes after this it cuts to the next morning, where Laura takes a picture of the family at breakfast, a tradition she wants to keep in place until her young son is 18. Painting her out as the picture-perfect image of a good mother and loving wife would have been ideal if more than 6 minutes was devoted to the two. See I didn’t need to know right away if she was innocent or not…I just needed more than what was given to have any reason to feel one way or the other.
Since the story is kind of flimsy and all the time devoted to his planning feels like a place holder, more time should have been devoted to the mental anguish John and his son experience due to having the woman in their life behind bars. Instead, we’re given scene after scene of John trying to get fake documents or making notes on a giant map on his wall or meeting with an expert on prison breaks (a wonderful cameo from Liam Neeson), but the emotion which is driving him to such drastic measures seems to just evaporate into thin air. The second half, however, provides us with an action-packed, heart-pounding climax and a very satisfying ending. If the second half of the film was what represented the whole, then we’d be talking about a very skillfully crafted film here. If that were the case though, then we’d be also be dealing with just another people-on-the-run film with no story to lean back on. I enjoyed the 2nd half immensely and I felt for John and Laura’s cause, but throughout 50 percent of the movie I couldn’t stop wishing that they would, quite literally, cut to the chase already.
Rating: C+
The road trip comedy has been done before. Maybe even too many times. And I’m not going to lie, it’s been done a lot better than DUE DATE. What DUE DATE does manage to offer up though is a handful of some pretty great laughs, especially if you’re a fan of Zach Galifianakis’ strange, signature humor. After an incident occurs causing father-to-be Peter (Robert Downey Jr) and aspiring actor Ethan (Galifianakis) to be removed from the plane (and onto the “No Fly” list), Peter, desperate to get home to his pregnant wife whose due date is quickly approaching, gives in to his only option to make it home on time: to hitch a ride with Ethan.
DUE DATE carries on the same comedy trend that we saw over the summer (and a million times before that) in DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS–the trend being that whole “everything’s going wrong” kind of humor that makes you laugh and want to pull your hair out at the same time. Both have characters that are such train wreaks and so lost in their own worlds that you find it hard to believe anyone would be able to put up with them. What DUE DATE did succeed in, which Shmucks did not, was that the film made it pretty clear both Peters loathing towards Ethan and gave him a pretty air-tight reason for putting up with all of Ethan’s bullshit. What it didn’t succeed in, however, was making Peter likable. He’s a serious, terse asshole—but in his defense, it’s pretty easy to be an asshole when you’re dealing with someone so off his hinges that he repeatedly says “bomb” on a plane that’s getting ready for take off. Ethan of course has no idea what a weirdo he really is; He walks with an air of obnoxious self-assurance, chin raised up and scarf flipped femininely over his shoulder. I would have preferred some more realism to be injected into the plot, instead of those scenes that filmmakers often seem to find funny (but really aren’t) involving a paraplegic man violently beating the crap out of Peter for no reason, and a car crash so incredibly severe that there’s no way either guy would have ever, ever survived. While DUE DATE has nothing on OLD SCHOOL or THE HANGOVER (both also directed by Todd Phillips), when the movie found its groove, it was exactly what the person in me craving another HANGOVER was looking for–a masturbating dog being the highlight of the entire film.
I do have to give it credit though, because there’s something to be said about a movie that ditches the cliched “our meeting each other irrevocably changed our lives” route for a more subtle (and believable) “YES! We survived each other!” one, while having the characters find both a mutual respect for one another and a small friendship in the process. But keep in mind, if you’ve seen the trailers, then you should know what you’re getting yourself into. If crude comedy/Galifianakis humor is your thing, you’ll get some (if not as much as you hoped for) out of the film for sure. And if it’s not your kind of humor, then all I can say is: you better check your movie choice before you wreak your movie choice.
Rating: B-
After seeing HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON for the first time last week, my faith in DreamWorks skyrocketed. Maybe I should have waited until after MEGAMIND to make up my mind… because now, my opinion has retreated back to square one. MEGAMIND centers around a supervillian of the same name, who is in a constant battle with superhero and protector of Metro City, Metro Man. When he finally succeds in killing Metro Man after years of failure, Megamind realizes that a villian with no one to spar with just isn’t any fun. So he decides to create a new nemisis for himself, which he finds in Hal (Jonah Hill), a geeky cameraman who, like Megamind, is hopelessly in love with reporter Roxanne Richie (Tina Fey).
For me, MEGAMIND was a miss. But this is a special circumstance–every once in a while I come across a movie that for some reason, I know my reaction to it will most likely be one to go along with the minority of the viewers. To the majority, MEGAMIND will probably be a hit. Little kids will giggle at Megamind’s silliness, and adults can laugh at some humor that’s in there specifically for their benefit, such as some great jokes relating to The Godfather and the Obama campaign. When I heard about an animated film with Will Ferrell, Brad Pitt, Tina Fey and Jonah Hill as the voice actors, it immediately caught my attention. Plus the trailer just cracked me up. But when I went to go see the movie, and realized the plot was completely different than what the first and only trailer I saw depicted the movie as being about, I was taken for a long, tiring loop. Not only were the actual good jokes too few and far between, but despite the constant action and twisting of the plot, towards the end I found myself just…bored.
As the movie progressed, it started to remind me of another movie I saw fairly recently. I’ll give you three hints: 1) Another animated movie. 2) Main character is also a “super villain” and 3) The super villain has minions as well (although much cuter than the one in MEGAMIND). Yup, you guessed it: DESPICABLE ME. Both involve villains who, in one way or another, are transformed by the power of love and change their evil ways. There is a key difference between the two films though: heart. I never really got on board with the whole Megamind/Roxanne relationship…it came practically out of nowhere and had no backbone. In DESPICABLE ME though, we were actually given the opportunity to fall head over heels for those three adorable little kids, and saw Gru do the same. Trust me, I’m not by any means saying that I need every children’s movie to have a FULL HOUSE twist to it. I don’t need it to be cheesy or sentimental, or even have a clear-cut moral to it in the first place. But the best way to get an adult audience to connect with a film meant for children is to have both clever humor infused with the kiddy jokes, along with the warmth and glee that these kind of movies (or at least the good ones) are usually preprogrammed with (ex: TOY STORY 3). MEGAMIND succeeds at some points with the humor for adults (which little kids will not understand in the least), but when it came to connecting with any of the characters, it was a bust. Will Ferrell is fantastic as Megamind—he’s like a mix of Doctor Evil and, well, himself (with the addition of a slightly British accent). Metro Man (who is pretty much a “cameo”, to my surprise and disappointment) is the classic, square-jawed, muscular, man you’d expect to play a superman-like character. The characters are satirical on the whole “super hero” genre…but that’s all they are: one-dimensional even in 3D. The laughs were there occasionally, the animation wonderful and the soundtrack bangin’…but in the end, I just wish more emphasis had been put into bringing out the stories heart, rather than the size of Megamind’s giant blue head.
Rating: C+
If you saw PARANORMAL ACTIVITY in theaters last year, then you know the drill. It’s like any other run-of-the-mill theater going experience…that is, until we see things from the cameras point of view. Once we see that night-vision, grainy footage fill up the screen and the seconds start ticking by on the bottom right side of the frame, all hell breaks lose. You immediately hear a chorus of yells saying “Oh shit oh shit!”, people sush-ing each other, and of course that one guy in the theater who just has to make wise-cracks. It’s like a collective conscious takes hold of the theater, controlling what we do (theater demon, maybe?). With PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2, it’s the same…except since we all know the way in which the movie is going to operate, the filmmakers take things slowly and decide to screw with us much more. They know exactly how our minds work; The second the camera footage comes on and lingers on a certain shot, you immediately will start frantically scanning the frame for any hint of subtle movement. This is an attempt to catch the scare before it catches you, so to speak. I’ll let you in on a little secret though: you will fail.
In an attempt to give as little away about the story as possible, I’ll just say this: The story deals with a family who, after experiencing what they think is a break-in (even though nothing was stolen), decide to install cameras all over the inside and outside of the house for security measures. But of course, all the cameras will do is show them the stuff we hope is never happening in our residences while we’re asleep. While the first movie had just its two central characters, Paranormal 2 adds some more elements into the mix: we get a husband and wife, a baby (you know that can’t be good if you saw the trailer), a dog, and a teenage daughter from the husbands first marriage. If doors slamming shut by themselves (which we know the naysayer must insist it was the “wind” that did it) isn’t enough, lets add a creepy baby that can sense the demon! The interactions between the family actually took up a good portion of the first half (perhaps even a little too much), and so little actually happened scare-wise, that when the slightest thing happened, everyone jumped. This surprisingly assists the movie overall. Because things are so uneventful in the first half, we expect things to happen very gradually, like in the first one. Wrong! When things got bad, they got catastrophic. It all starts happening so fast that you won’t even know what hit you…you’ll just start cursing yourself for seeing this movie instead of that new happy Disney movie that’s out.
The Paranormal movies fall into that somewhat-new genre that became all the rage when THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT came out; The movie opens with words on the screen saying: “Paramount Pictures would like to thank the families of the deceased and the San Francisco Police Department…”; our cue that this is another “found footage” film. The magic of these movies is that because so little money is put into them, and because it looks like footage that anyone with a cheap video camera could film, it scares us on a much more real, more personal level. The actors talk directly to the camera, make funny faces at it…all the stuff we do when someone is filming us just for fun. Plus there’s no crazy setting. It’s just a regular house. So if the film doesn’t scare you out of your mind while your watching (which believe me, it will), it sure as hell will mess with your mind when you get home, guaranteed. Like it had to to be successful, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 brought on horror to such a degree that I found myself shaking by the end. My friend turned to me and said “You’re sleeping over tonight”. It wasn’t a question, it was a given. And we turned every single light in the house on, including the one in the bedroom, before going to “sleep”.
Rating: A-
Fellow claustrophobes, beware! For I have discovered your second biggest fear (after being buried alive, of course): this movie. If you could apply the word “tense” to just one movie this year, I think you would be hard pressed to find one more tense, or more cringe-worthy, than BURIED. Ryan Reynolds stars as Paul Conroy, an American contractor working in Iraq who after his convoy is attacked, wakes up in a wooden coffin with just a cell phone and a lighter; But surprisingly, these two elements are enough to craft a whole movie around…and a damn good one at that. The film opens with a pitch black screen. For a good 10 seconds you hear no noise at all, and at first I thought there was something wrong with the projector. But then we start to hear breathing, which escalates to a muffled panic combined with thrashing, to straight up screaming. Brilliantly, we are made to feel exactly how Reynolds feels: If he cant see, we cant see. Its not until he finds the lighter (yes, it’s quite convenient that he has that, but do you want to view a black screen for 90 minutes? Thought so) that we are visually brought into his situation. Not only are we visually brought into his situation…10 minutes in and I started to literally feel claustrophobic. I found myself stretching my legs on top the seat in front of me, just as a way of reminding myself that I could. My friend turned over to me and said “I feel like I can’t breathe”. Getting jittery yet?
To answer the question I know everyone’s thinking: Yes, the ENTIRE movie takes place in the coffin. No, there are no flashbacks. No, there are no cutaways. If the filmmakers wanted to, they easily could have incorporated that. They could have done it so that when Paul desperately calls someone on his cell phone, that it cuts to the person speaking to him…whether it be his wife, the FBI, or the terrorists that did this to him. We could have had flashbacks showing us how he ended up in the coffin or why he decided to take the job in Iraq, despite his wife’s protests. But director Rodrigo Cortes and screenwriter Chris Sparling had a film experiment in mind, one that they successfully pull off against all odds. Cortes takes on the ultimate challenge, beating all the other films that decide to confine themselves to one location (such as PHONE BOOTH and OPEN WATER)…while managing to demonstrate amazing camerawork and incredible, heart-pounding intensity at the same time.
I don’t care if this isn’t the type of movie that the Academy recognizes…I want Reynolds to receive a Best Actor nomination this year. He manages to carry the entire movie by himself, while never overacting in a situation where it would have been extremely easy to. This is exactly how I think someone would react if they woke up trapped in a coffin, and I believed every moment of it. Admittedly there were times when the film started to feel repetitive and I got the smallest bit annoyed…but I forgave it this, because, well…who wouldn’t be screaming and banging senselessly against the box if they found themselves buried underground?
Rating: B+
NEVER LET ME GO is not a movie for everyone…perhaps it’s not even a movie for most. It’s the kind of movie that you can tell is already gearing up to launch its “For Your Consideration” Oscar campaign before the movie is even released and, subsequently, the kind of movie the majority of non-avid film watchers have never heard the likes of. It’s slow-paced (by choice), choosing to keep everything at a small sizzle for most of the film until the climax. Already we’ve alienated most moviegoers. But those handfuls of people that do connect with it, will find it to be a unique, upsetting, emotional movie that has the makings of an awards-circuit movie–even if it falls short where it can’t afford to. NEVER LET ME GO is based off Kazuo Ishiguro’s acclaimed novel of the same name. The movie centers around the friendship of three characters, Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Keira Knightly), and Tommy (Andrew Garfield), who grow up in an English boarding school together. If it sounds like I’m deliberately being vague about the plot, that’s because I am. Being a huge fan of the novel, I can’t help but compare the book with the film. In the book, that’s pretty much all the information we’re set up with in the beginning…all we know though, is that there is something more sinister brewing beneath this average plot.
From the first page (and likewise, the first scene of the movie), we hear some strange words being tossed around; words we’re not sure we’re supposed to fully understand the context they’re said in: “Carer”. “Donor.” “Complete.” About 20 minutes into the movie however (as opposed to midway through the novel), the meaning of these words is fully explained. Even though the film is quick throw all of its chips down in one go, I wouldn’t feel right spoiling it. But I will say this about the script: it’s both too straightforward and too abstract at the same time. It’s quick to give everything away right off the bat to make sure we fully understand what’s going on, but then in some other aspects it’s almost as if the movie expects us to automatically fill in the blanks with some of the cryptic language the character’s use. Here’s the thing: none of this affected my movie-going experience. I went in knowing all the “secrets” and how the movie would end…but for someone just being introduced to the story for the very first time, you want the story presented in the most effective way possible…which I don’t think it was. The information should have been fed to the viewer slowly, but surely. Instead, it was more like quickly or not at all.
With a film like this, it’s all about the emotional connection. If you’re lucky enough to get to know these characters, they’ll stay with you forever. The characters I got to know and love on paper we’re beautifully brought to life on screen. But once again, for those just getting to know them, there’s simply not enough time to love them to the extent that you should. With a mere hour and 40 minutes running time, there was just not as much time as I would have liked devoted to the relationship between our main characters…especially the romantic one between Kathy and Tommy. Despite all the shortcomings of the script, the spectacular performances from Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield were enough to take the developed (but not developed enough) characters of Kathy and Tommy and make them characters whose pain at the climax on the movie you were literally able to feel radiating throughout your body. Mulligan proved once again why she is such a rising star (and officially my new favorite actress) in Hollywood. She has such a wonderful face…that might sound weird to say, but if you’ve seen her in action, then you know what I mean. She has the ability to communicate sadness with just one small look like I’ve never seen before. And her character absolutely calls for it. There isn’t much happiness present in NEVER LET ME GO. The characters often don’t seem to realize how happy or unhappy they are until they experience the inevitable lack of hope in their situation. Mulligan and Garfield (just fresh off his fantastic performance in THE SOCIAL NETWORK), play their roles so delicately, with such restraint, that some might not realize how wonderful the performances they’re turning out truly are. But such are the characters of Kathy and Tommy…they are withdrawn, compliant, sad, and full of heart. Even if the characters just sit there quietly and accept their fate, you will have a hard time accepting it…and wont be able to stop thinking about the inhumanity of it all for a while after the credits roll.
Rating: B
It’s not often that you get to see someone not only check themselves into a psychiatric ward…but beg to be admitted into one. But then again, I doubt you usually come across such a friendly, sociable group of people in the loony bin either. But so goes the plot of IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY. Keir Gilchrist stars as our main character Craig, a depressed teenage boy on the brink of suicide. He’s like a younger, blander, less attractive version of Justin Long…the Justin Long before he was cool and developed a personality. So it’s hard to really care about him, or his asinine reasons for being so depressed. Once admitted into the facility, he realizes that he probably just needed to get back on his meds and increase his number of therapy sessions. But uh oh, once admitted you have to stay a minimum of 5 days. Now if he were in a real place with the mentally unstable, he would probably be running for his life by the end of day one. But of course, since this is the movies, he finds a mentor in Bobby (Zach Galifianakis) and a love interest in the gorgeous, but equally screwed up, Noelle (Emma Roberts). This is Zach Galifianakis like you’ve never seen him before. Of course he still delivers his funniest lines with that serious, no-emotion-on-his-face way of his that everyone has grown to love, but he also proves that he’s more than just the go-to guy to play the fool (even though he does it so well). He’s the only character that really shows any depth at all. Beneath his confident, funny exterior, there’s a man who’s in pain, and he plays it with conviction.
From the very beginning you can tell that this is an indie movie…and I’m not so sure that’s a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against indie movies. But they do tend to carry out a certain cliched trend; you know that thing movies love to do where a character starts narrating in a voice over while shots of what he or she is talking about flashes across the screen in a choppy way? Sometimes it works. Here, it doesn’t. It felt like the film was trying too hard to be stylistic, when in reality all it did was add on extra time to a movie that wasn’t the fastest paced in the first place. That’s the problem dramadies like this often run into. It doesn’t quite know what it’s striving to be. It’s not dramatic enough to have the “zings” it needs to be memorable, yet not funny enough to really make you laugh out loud more than once or twice. There is one scene that had the theater cracking up, involving a random, totally-unrelated-to-anything-going-on-in-the-movie musical number, where we get to see Galifianakis decked out like a rock-star, with glitter covering his signature beard (which I am now convinced is the source of all his comedic powers), but other than that, IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY really was just kind of a good movie.
Rating: C+
Lately, it seems that one can’t even utter past the “vam” in “vampires” before people start to roll their eyes at them. If you’re one of those people, don’t let the vampire craze sway your judgement when it comes to LET ME IN. In this remake of the 2008 cult Swedish film LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, vampires do not sparkle, they are not heartthrobs, and they sure as hell aren’t “vegetarians”. So any preconceived notions you have, leave them at the door. This movie makes its own rules.
Before I get the swarms of fans of the original attacking me for bestowing praise on the remake (if I see “protest this movie” on one more IMDb thread, I might lose it) I am familiar with the original. I’m not going to lie, I did my homework the night before…that homework being that I watched the original on Netflix so I could make an accurate comparison. And I promise you that the remake did it justice. The two are actually crazy similar, and much of the dialogue is pulled straight from the original, word-for-word. That’s not to say that the remake didn’t make its changes, it did. There’s more violence and like most remakes, the filmmakers took some liberties. But this isn’t about the original, this is about LET ME IN. And as a remake and as a stand-alone film, LET ME IN succeeds admirably.
While watching this movie, there was one thought I couldn’t get out of my head: hasn’t it always been some sort of unspoken rule that you don’t fuck with kids in the movies? You know, no murdering or hurting little kids…if something bad is about to happen to them, some heroic force of nature must always swoop in at the last minute and save the precious little ones? Yeah…this movie clearly didn’t get the memo. LET ME IN is about a Owen (Kodi Smith-McPhee), a young outcast who is tormented by bullies at school. When a mysterious girl named Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) moves into his building with her guardian, they start to form an unlikely friendship. It’s no secret to us that this little girl who’s “more or less” 12 years old is a vampire. And a brutal, violent one at that. There’s a good amount of intense, bloody violence that can quality this film to be labeled under the “horror” genre…not to mention a handful of straight-up terrifying scenes. But its about more than just that. For a movie with as much gore and violence as this one, it’s usually out of character to have such a sweet, innocent love story simultaneously at the forefront, but LET ME IN balances the two seamlessly. Kodi Smith-McPhee and Chloe Grace Moretz (who you’ll recognize as “Hit Girl” from Kick-Ass) take on their roles with the strength of old pros. Any adult character in this film, with the exception of Richard Jenkins as Abby’s guardian, is a vastly secondary character. This is the kids’ film through and through.
Admittedly, this kind of movie usually isn’t my cup of tea. I usually find that people who are die hard fans of movies like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN are those same kinds of people who find softly lit shots of a person lying in the snow covered in blood “beautiful”. I am not one of those people. But with a movie as well-made as this one, that doesn’t really matter. The love story sucked me in, the scary scenes had me watching the film through my fingers, and the acting was a testament to how good kid actors can truly be. If you’re bordering the fence on whether or not to give LET ME IN a shot, just get yourself inside the theater, and let the movie do the rest.
Rating: A-
CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD
I went into YOU AGAIN knowing that it could swing one of two ways: It could either be a funny, light movie…or it could be just mind-numbingly stupid. I was, despite my better judgement, banking on the first one. I think it was the girl in me who craved some “no thinking required” fun chick flick that had any hope at all, but after the first 20 minutes, that girl, that part of me that was hoping for a cute movie along the lines of NEVER BEEN KISSED…she realized what a gullible dumb-ass she truly is. It’s not just that YOU AGAIN isn’t funny (though it had its moments)…it’s whole message totally didn’t get across to me, as I suspect it wouldn’t to any other person who is capable of thinking for themselves instead of just buying everything the movie is trying to sell them.
When Marni (Kristen Bell) realizes that her brother is about to marry Joanna (Odette Yustman), the girl who bullied her all throughout high school, her life is turned upside down…as is her mother’s (Jamie Lee Curtis) when she realizes that Joanna’s Aunt Ramona (Sigourney Weaver) is the same girl that she had problems with in high school way back when. The premise was enough to create a funny movie…I get the idea that even after growing out of whatever awkward phase you experienced in high school and even after becoming a successful adult, that old grudges die hard. The problem is that instead of actually incorporating jokes that are related to the premise, the movie decided to just run wild with the whole “everything’s going downhill” thing. Kristen Bell falls into an ant pile so now it looks like she has acne again. Ha ha. Kristen Bell accidentally hurts a cute guy…ha ha ha…you get my drift. But I could have even lived with that, if it were not for the end result. What I had the hardest time wrapping my head around was the theme of forgiveness. Yes, I understand that it’s a PG Disney movie and that it needs to end on a positive, heartwarming note. But here’s reality: No one would forgive a girl who not only made her life hell in high school, but who made her life hell AND THEN pretended not to remember any of it as she pushed her way into her family while continuing on with her bitchy tendencies upon their reunion. No, not okay. I repeat, NOT OKAY. Forgiveness is only worthy of people who actually deserve it. You may argue that in the end, Joanna showed that she was truly sorry for the way she behaved. But in actuality, the only time she showed any remorse was when she was faced with the possibility of not getting what she wanted, which was to marry Marni’s brother. Throughout the film they make a couple of references to the fact that Joanna’s parents died after high school in order to garner sympathy for her character. I’m sorry, but the writers needed to do a helluva lot better than that. As insensitive as it may sound, plenty of people have experienced the same tragedy and are not the spawn of Satan. It also didn’t help that Odette Yustman played the character of Joanna with such an overdone flare that after a while I started to get seriously annoyed with that squinty-eyed “I’m superior” look she had plastered on her face 90% of the movie.
With the exception of some clever lines and funny scenes (most notably one involving Marni’s father who blindfolds himself before every meal as a dieting technique), wonderful performances from Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver, and some of what the movie had to say about the importance of self-confidence, YOU AGAIN is a kid’s movie through and through. I’ve never used that phrase in a derogatory manner before (and why would I? I love kid’s movies), but this movie calls for it. Kids can often find a new favorite movie and gut-splitting laughs in watching people fall over and get kicked in the face constantly…and that’s totally fine. But I’ve gotten to that age where I need just the smallest amount of substance to go with my “watching people get hurt” slapstick. And as much as YOU AGAIN tried to create the illusion that that substance was there, in truth, all there was was a contrived ending that felt both insincere and unsatisfying.
Rating: C-
While watching EASY A, I wanted to be Olive’s (Emma Stone) best friend. I’ll be honest, if you were to tell me that there was a girl at school who’s pretending to screw the entire male student body, I’d probably seriously dislike her. But Stone is the picture of charisma, her quick quips as vivacious and fiery as that signature red hair of hers, making it impossible not to love her. I went into EASY A expecting the next MEAN GIRLS; we have a unique script that appears to have some insight on the inner-workings of high school, the witty protagonist, and (if the trailer was any indication) a bunch of lines we’ll be quoting for a good while. Unfortunately, EASY A doesn’t reach the caliber of MEAN GIRLS (what I consider to be the perfect teen comedy), but its fresh enough to stand out amongst most teen movies which, as much as I love them, generally rehash the same storyline and ingredients time and time again. That’s not the say that EASY A doesn’t fall victim to the use of cliches. Olive's biggest enemies at school, the stereotyped Christian fanatics, comes off as sort of a cop-out, and part of me was disappointed that they decided to go the whole “bible huggers” route, instead of trying to maybe look a little deeper into how “easy” girls are viewed and treated in high school by your everyday student…not specifically those wearing a purity ring.
The whole thing starts out with a little lie Olive tells her best friend about how she lost her virginity to a college guy. When Jesus freak Marianne (Amanda Bynes, back from her very short retirement from acting) overhears this in the bathroom, the rumor spreads like wildfire, quickly deeming Olive the school tramp. She decides to embrace the new image, and after doing a gay friend of hers a favor by pretending to have sex with him at a party with everyone outside listening, a string of guys follow suit, paying Olive in cash or gift certificates to do the same for them. I love the idea, don’t get me wrong…but after a while, it started to seem like if that many guys know that the whole thing’s a scam, then how is this helping their reputation? This nitpick aside, the movie packed a lot of great laughs into its short hour and a half time span. Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson stole every scene they were in as Olive’s quirky, hysterical parents, playing off of each other to perfection. Other than them though, most of the wonderful supporting cast was underused, especially Thomas Hayden Church as Olive’s English teacher, and Lisa Kudrow as her guidance counselor. When it comes down to it though, you’ll probably know if this movie is for you or not. It stays pretty true to the tone of its trailer, and while it might not have been as laugh-out-loud funny as I expected it to be, EASY A has an overall cleverness about it that even if I wasn’t actually laughing, I couldn’t help but smile and acknowledge its endless sass and personality.
Rating: B+
Lately, not much has pissed me off more than hearing people rag on Ben Affleck. For some reason, he seems like the guy in Hollywood to make fun of. I guess being the star of GIGLI gives people verbal abuse rights for the rest of eternity, but if Affleck’s second directorial effort isn’t enough to stop the haters, then I don’t know what is. It has been my experience that people usually have to prove themselves in threes. So here it is: he co-wrote and starred in GOOD WILL HUNTING, directed the critically acclaimed GONE BABY GONE, and now directed THE TOWN, which I can safely say is one of the best movies of the year so far.
In THE TOWN, Affleck plays the lead role of Doug. In the first scene of the film, Doug and his crew of bank robbers (including Jeremy Renner playing his violent best friend Jem) hold up a bank, take the bank manger Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage, and leave her blindfolded on the beach, unharmed. Scared that she might be able to identify them, Affleck volunteers to take care of the situation, pretending to casually meet her by chance to ensure that she really didn’t see anything. They start going on a few dates, and lo and behold, Doug finds himself falling for her.
So much of my interest during the film was driven by needing to see how each situation would play out: how/when will Claire find out? How will she react? Are they all going to get caught? Will Jem try and take the situation into his own hands? Jeremy Renner played the character of Jem with such a quiet danger, that anytime he was on screen, even when doing the most nonthreatening of things, I couldn’t help but notice that he was the exact kind of guy that were I walking alone and saw him, I would pretend to talk on my cell phone to ensure that we had no reason to come into contact. He keeps you on your toes the whole time, not letting you take any peaceful moment of the movie for granted. Likewise, Affleck (as a director) knew exactly how to mess with your emotions and keep you on the edge. Most notable, to me, is the opening bank robbery scene. Going from the point of view of watching the heist play out on the security camera in absolute silence, to BAM, bringing us right back into the action with crippling loud noise and intensity, once the scene was over and I saw the title slowly fade onto the screen I realized that I had been holding my breath. Then I just thought to myself: That was only the first five minutes. Here we go!
Rating: A
The world is divided into two different kinds of people: those that love Will Ferrell, and those that despise him. While I fall under the first category (that's not to say he hasn't had his share of flops), haters of the over-the-top, brazen comic can rejoice in this: there's still a chance that you'll laugh your ass of during The Other Guys, as anti-Ferrell you may be.
Will Ferrell plays Alan Gamble, a straight-laced, bespectacled forensic accountant. Mark Wahlberg is Terry Hoitz, a detective who's been demoted to a desk job after he accidentally shot Derek Jeter before game 7 of the World Series, causing him to be stuck with Gamble as his new partner. The plot is standard of any buddy-cop movie. But what really sets this film apart is this: its making fun of all those movies, and all action movies in general. You've all seen the trailer. Wahlberg and Ferrell are walking towards a building when it suddenly explodes, sending them flying backwards and onto the floor writhing in pain. "How do people always walk away from that in movies?! I call BULLSHIT on that!" screams Ferrell. The satirical elements of the film are golden, as is any part where Gamble and Hoitz get on a roll with their arguments and banter (my favorite scene involves a debate over who would be the winner in a lion vs tuna battle...Ferrell, obviously, being the tuna). 
This isn't the Will Ferrell you're entirely used to. He starts out subdued. Stupid? Yes. But not in the over exaggerated manner of say, Ron Burgundy. He slowly builds up to the craziness that's always dying to be unleashed from Will Ferrell, but trust me, he is a huge part of what makes the movie work so well. Wahlberg's wide-eyed, mean glares are just the topping on the cake. The film, much to my dismay, suffers in its second half, dragging out and losing its humor as it scrambles to tie up all the loose ends and bring us to the conclusion. If it weren't for this and its weak ending, I might have been writing a review for an "A" movie here. Nevertheless, the first half of the movie had me laughing so hard that I think it would be a disservice to do anything but recommend The Other Guys.
Rating: B
When I found out that Charlie St.Cloud opened at the 5th spot at the box office this weekend I was unsurprised. I mean lets face it, how many people are rushing to the theater to see a boy play catch with his dead brother? Zac Efron plays Charlie, who after witnessing his little brother Sam die in a car accident (Charlie was driving), is still able to see and interact with him every day for an hour before sundown, keeping the promise he made days before his death to play catch with him every night. Then Tess (Amanda Crew) comes into his life, and Charlie must choose between keeping his promise to Sam and going after the girl he's quickly falling in love with. 
Yes, I know that every guy (and probably a good amount of girls) are rolling their eyes while reading this. The plot may seem endlessly cheesy, but really, its not the plot that needed altering, its the way the movie handled it. An adaptation of the Ben Sherwood novel "The Death and Life of Charlie St.Cloud", I can tell you that the novel is a beautiful, life-affirming story, one in which the movie desperately tried to portray. It was a solid effort, but for some reason, whether it was because of the overly dramatic music, the constant use of bursts of light on the screen (yeah we get it, we're dealing with the afterlife here) or the lack of development of Sam's character, the supernatural aspect of the story felt shmaltzy and forced. People like me who cry at sappy commercials will be bawling throughout, but not because of the competency of the film, but more because of the subject matter, and what may be a surprise to some, Zac Efron's wonderful performance. I'm tired of hearing critics rag on him because of his "pretty boy looks"...he's a great looking guy, and destined to be a heartthrob because of those eyes, but he also has the acting chops to back it up. He is no longer just that guy singing and dancing in High School Musical, and we should embrace that. 
Charlie St.Cloud has its good points worth mentioning; a very picturesque setting and a small but powerful appearance from Ray Liotta complement Zac Efron. However those that have a sensitive gag reflex and who don't like heavily emotional subject matter will find things to laugh about throughout. Either way, Charlie St.Cloud is no Ghost, though it sincerely tries its very best to reach that caliber.
Rating: C
Well, the second tape has been released and it's not pretty. If you thought the first one was bad, wait till you hear this one. Not only does he admit to hitting his ex (he's currently under investigation for domestic violence, and here's clear-cut proof), he threatens to kill her...twice! You seriously won't believe your ears.
You know that feeling when you go to sleep…and the next thing you remember, you’re waking up? It feels like no time has passed, the hours separating you from the real world and dream world blurring together. That’s what the movie Inception is like. Mimicking the feeling of a dream itself, to me, Inception is a dream. In my own mind, I couldn’t possibly have imagined a more stunning, mind-blowing movie to catapult us out of the movie-rut we’ve been in the majority of this summer. But Inception is more than just the best movie of the summer…so far, it’s the best movie of the year.
Inception introduces us to a world where technology for dream invasion exists, and when it comes to dream invasion, Dom Cobbs (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the best out there. Cobbs is a skilled extractor: it’s his job to enter the dreams and steal the information he needs from the person’s subconscious. His skill has made him one of the go-to guys in the world of corporate espionage, but has also taken away the life he knew and loved. Now, he has a chance to get it all back, with one last job…Cobbs, along with his team of experts, have to achieve the seemingly impossible: Inception. Instead of stealing an idea, they need to plant one in the subject’s mind.
I went into Inception under two levels. I was both buzzing with excitement, but also a little fearful that I wouldn’t understand what was going on. After reading countless reviews saying how amazing…but also how confusing, the film is, I went in ready to concentrate as if I were going to be tested afterwards. I’ll tell you this: believe the hype! Inception is everything you hoped it would be and more…and just as confusing as they say. Anyone who leaves the theater claiming to have understood it is either lying or superhuman. But that’s part of the fun of Nolan’s films. Like The Prestige and Memento, you take in more and more after each subsequent viewing. Even when you think you got everything the film had to offer, you see it again and there are more secrets and intricacies that freshly take hold in your mind.
However Inception is more than a story filled with twist and turns – it displays greatness in its every aspect. Forget 3D. If you want to see real imagery that pops, see Inception. The special effects, sound and cinematography were so phenomenal that that alone is worthy of the ticket price. Leonardo DiCaprio was incredible, proving he really doesn’t know how to give anything other than a perfect performance. Likewise, Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt were fantastic as well playing the two other main members of Cobbs’s team. The person who impressed me the most though (other than Dicaprio) was Marion Cotillard. She blended beauty, cunning, sexy and scary seamlessly…all the ingredients for the perfect femme fatale.
Inception gives new meaning to the phrase “on the edge of your seat.” For the last 45 minutes of the film I was practically hyperventilating, and you could see and hear everyone else in the theater responding the same way. It toyed with your nerves, emotions, and way of thinking. It even had me excited to go to sleep and dream (I’m not even kidding) in the hopes of remembering what my dream was about and what my dreamscape looked like. I know I didn’t take it all in the first time around…and because of that, I can’t wait to see it again.
Rating: A