Review: "We Bought a Zoo"

I think making a family-friendly movie that is also significant is one of the harder tasks a filmmaker can undertake. Making a film that appeals to a wide range of demographics is difficult enough but when you factor in the need to entertain both six and sixty year-olds, you’ve got a tough task ahead of you. This is why Pixar succeeds every year (2011 excluded) whereas Dreamworks is hit or miss, why I’ll see The Muppets a hundred times but will never again take in Bedtime Stories. We Bought a Zoo illustrates these difficulties in some spectacular and truly frustrating ways.

Our protagonist is Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon), an adventure writer who recently became a widower. His daughter, six year-old Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones), has handled the loss well but Benjamin is constantly at odds with his son, 14 year-old Dylan (Colin Ford). When Dylan finally gets himself expelled from school, Benjamin decides it’s time for a change and after an exhausting search for a new house, he finally finds the perfect home. The only problem is that the property comes along with a small zoo, including 47 species of animals and a crew of employees. Despite the obstacles and the advice of his brother (Thomas Haden Church), Benjamin opts to buy the zoo and takes his children off on an adventure that will bring more drama than he could ever dream of along with the healing he and his family so badly need.

I’m a huge fan of writer/director Cameron Crowe and I readily look forward to anything and everything that he does. This outing certainly won’t change that feeling but it isn’t one of his better works. Simply put, We Bought a Zoo wants desperately to be both family-friendly and cinematically relevant and that mix just doesn’t blend seamlessly. Crowe’s usual brand of fresh, casual, and well-versed dialogue is muddled with predictable clichés. It often borders on becoming cheesy and it is almost always cloying, working extra-hard to force a connection that isn’t always there. There are a number of scenes which are just fine in terms of post-Christmas feelgoodery but fall flat in terms of really mattering. This uneven mix seems to negatively affect some characters and actors more than others. Ford and John Michael Higgins (as a zoo inspector) both jump back and forth between good and bad scenes and Elle Fanning, who was so good in this summer’s Super 8, doesn’t have any feel for her character whatsoever. I think she’s supposed to be the teenage version of the manic pixie dream girl but instead she just comes off as an idiot. Add in a will-they-won’t-they romantic relationship between Benjamin and his head zookeeper, Kelly (Scarlett Johansson), that would have been better off left on the cutting room floor and you get a cliché-riddled narrative that doesn’t do much to inspire.

When We Bought a Zoo excels is when it gets real. Damon gives a subtle, craftsman-like performance and does an outstanding job of conveying an awful lot about his character in unspoken ways. You genuinely feel for Benjamin and it is the genuine sympathy that Damon elicits that serves as an example of what could have been had the film gone in a different direction. Interactions between Benjamin and Dylan and Benjamin and Kelly in the second act are powerful, filled with emotion that is wholly appropriate for the situation. There’s a story arc involving Benjamin’s relationship with an aging tiger that hits home on a number of levels. The flip side of this is that these moments are much more tense and dramatic than the family-fun exhibited throughout the rest of the film and if Crowe had continued to expound upon these plot points, there’s no way We Bought a Zoo would succeed with the kiddos.

It should be noted that none of this film’s issues are deal breakers. It is funny, entertaining, and totally acceptable family film that never allows its flaws to become cringe-worthy or painful. In essence, it is Dolphin Tale and there’s nothing wrong with Dolphin Tale. But with Crowe, Damon, and a potentially impactful subject matter involved, it could have been better than it is.

Grade: B 

In Home Viewings Review: "30 Minutes or Less"

Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) is a pizza delivery guy with exceedingly low ambitions, one of those guys who doesn't really enjoy what he's doing but doesn't have the drive to change it. With his best friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) not speaking to him and his semi-girlfriend moving, things can't get much worse in Nick's mind. That soon changes, however, when he takes a late-night delivery run to a construction site and finds himself confronted by Dwayne (Danny McBride) and Travis (Nick Swardson), two would-be thieves in gorilla masks. In order to obtain the money needed to get a business idea off the ground, Dwayne and Travis strap a home-made bomb to Nick's chest and force him to rob a bank. Frantic, Nick enlists the help of Chet and the pair stumble through a series of obstacles on the way to pulling off a heist and subsequent money exchange.

There were reasons to think that 30 Minutes or Less would be a solid comedy. The reunion of Eisenberg with director Ruben Fleischer was one reason. Their compilation in Zombieland was nothing short of hilarious and that film itself ranks exceptionally high on the re-watchability scale. Then there is the inclusion of Aziz, one of the single funniest humans on the planet. (If you need references on that statement, look no further than his brilliant portrayal on Park and Recreation or his most recent stand-up album which might be one of the best ever). The concept itself has appeal and potential as a perfect way to spend an evening. Where 30 Minutes succeeds is when these three elements come together: the best portions of the concept come alive when it is just Eisenberg and Ansari working together and running through crazy situations. One stretch in particular that sees the pair buy all the necessary equipment for a heist followed by the robbery itself is quite humorous and serves as a taste of what could have been.

But here's why Zombieland works while 30 Minutes falls flat: Woody Harrelson and Emma Stone (not to mention an unnamed cameo in case anyone out there hasn't seen the movie). The supporting characters at play in Zombieland are fantastic, whereas this time around Fleischer surrounds his leads with McBride, Swardson, and Michael Pena, a threesome that is rarely funny in my book. (McBride has his moments but generally speaking, he is at his best when he's the eighth-billed actor. Examples: Tropic Thunder and Up in the Air.) To make matters worse, Fleischer insists on developing a pointless storyline involving Dwayne and Travis that brings absolutely nothing to the movie other than lengthening the runtime. Every moment within 30 Minutes that is spent away from Nick and Chet is at best lackluster and at worst barely watchable. It's quite clear that Fleischer and his team of writers couldn't draw enough out of the main plotline to fill 83 minutes so they turned to the side plots that do nothing but distract from the central figures. As a result, the Dwayne and Travis narrative comes across as nothing more than filler. And let's be honest: if you need filler for an 83 minute movie, your movie isn't very good.

Grade: C

Review: "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol"

NOTE: If you have the opportunity to view Ghost Protocol in an IMAX setting, I encourage you to do so. It is the type of experience that could prove to be a game-changer for the industry. 

Say what you will about Tom Cruise (and there’s an awful lot that could be said). For me, his name has always been synonymous with, “entertaining.” For all his shortcomings, including his inability/refusal to incorporate appropriate accents and his wackadoo personal life, he makes wholly entertaining movies. From Top Gun to Knight and Day, he has put together a three decade-long career that is chock full of thrilling excitement. You can’t always say that his films are good but very rarely can you deny the man his ability to enthrall the masses. Ghost Protocol, then, serves as a return to form and a pronouncement to the man’s detractors that Tom Cruise is still a force to be reckoned with.

At the outset, we find Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) locked away in a Russian prison. Within minutes (really seconds), however, his old pal Benji (Simon Pegg) and newcomer Jane (Paula Patton) have busted him out in order for Hunt to resume his duties at IMF. He and his team immediately take on a new assignment that unfortunately goes quite bad, resulting in their being framed for the bombing of the Kremlin. Having been disavowed by the US government, the trio, along with the help of William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), an analyst with a mysterious past, is forced to go on the run, one step ahead of Russian operatives who would see them brought to justice. In an effort to both clear their names and, you know, save the world and all, Hunt and his comrades pursue Alex Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), a nuclear extremist bent on destroying civilization as we know it, using a variety of elaborate and frantic methods in a host of exotic locations.

As an action movie junkie, I have a healthy respect for two of the previous three Mission: Impossible films. The first M:Iis the prototypical mid-‘90s action flick, smarter than what we were treated to in the ‘80s but not quite intelligent enough to fit our standards in a post-Inception world. M:I2 is a heap of rubbish, plain and simple. From a plot standpoint, M:I3 is the best of the group and it’s a movie I quite like though I believe I am in the minority. Even still, the Mission: Impossible franchise has long been just another set of action movies that blends together with a host of other acceptable-to-above-average entertaining exhibitions in special effects.

Ghost Protocolis different, however. MUCH different. This is the very rare sequel to a sequel to a sequel that is by far and without question, the best of the group (see also: Fast Five). No longer can this series be relegated to the overcrowded ranks of “fun-but-forgettable” action flicks. Ghost Protocol is a clever cross between Bourne and Bond with a touch of cool intelligence that is reminiscent of Ocean’s 11. This is a much smarter film than the average action movie, much of which should be attributed to director Brad Bird (Incredibles). “Smart” should not be confused with “complex” or “real”; Ghost Protocol has more than its fair share of plot points that could be blasted for inaccuracies and absurd stunts that could never, ever happen. But these potential issues are presented in such an overwhelmingly appealing way that it seems foolish to quibble when it’s so much easier to just get on board. The gadgets and technologies used by the team are better than anything James Bond ever had at his disposal and each item is used splendidly. In essence, this is a popcorn blockbuster with a Pixar brain, which turns out to be just as glorious as it sounds.

From the opening shot, Ghost Protocol moves a mile a minute and delivers some of the most ambitious action sequences of the year. The impact of this movie goes deeper than the outlandish stunts, however. It would be easy to film what will undoubtedly be an awesome scene and leave it at that. But Bird and his crew take these shots to a whole new level with impeccable technical work. The cinematography and shot selection are about as good as you can ask for in a blockbuster. Some of the camera work, especially the scenes in Dubai, is absolutely stunning. Likewise, the sound mix is perfect, adding to the impact of each gun shot, car crash, and punch to the jaw. These elements serve to put the audience into the heart of the action and give the impression that Bird cared about creating a great film not just a passable popcorn flick.

The supporting cast around Cruise rounds into form nicely, coming together to make up Hunt’s best team yet. Pegg’s brand of comedic relief is predictable but nonetheless enjoyable and he displays a little more grit than he has in the past. Patton is a welcome addition and she brings real value to her role, the rare female action hero who actually carries her weight. This is what I think Zoe Saldana is supposed to be and I look forward to seeing more of her in the future. And then, of course, there’s Renner who plays slightly against type and, while he’s certainly not reinventing the wheel, he displays enough quiet power behind his character’s lack of confidence to make his role work very well.

But Ghost Protocol goes nowhere without a strong lead and Cruise is more than up to the challenge. I have always been a serious fan of the man and I feel like he’s gotten an unfair shake over the last half-decade or so. What I have always appreciated about Cruise is his earnest desire to make his movies great (whether he succeeds or not). A buddy of mine hit the nail on the head regarding Cruise when he said that he always tries really hard. Every movie, every scene, every shot, Cruise strives to make it the best he’s ever done. I think he truly cares about his films in a way that most movie stars do not. Ghost Protocol is no exception as Cruise goes after every scene like it’s the one that will bring home an Oscar. For me, it is this commitment to the moment that sells Ghost Protocol as more than just a run-of-the-mill action movie and makes it one of the most deliciously appealing, wonderfully entertaining, and decidedly multi-dimensional films of the year.

Grade: A

The Collected Works: Cameron Crowe

Whenever anyone asks me who my favorite underrated director is (this has happened all of twice), I always respond with the same answer: Cameron Crowe. Underrated might be the wrong word but the point is, if you asked 25 film buffs to make a list of the top ten directors in the industry today, Crowe probably doesn't even come up. And I think that's wrong, especially if you made the list exclusive to writer-directors. He has an incredible ability to create characters that are inherently easy to invest in and therefore, he is able to connect with his audience in whatever setting he chooses to work in. Crowe is also, of course, a soundtrack marvel, the rare filmmaker who not only knows music but also knows how to use music. And that last part is the key. Crowe always gets credit for picking great songs but the reason those songs are so great is because they fit the film, the scene, the moment. He does this better than anyone else. Crowe loves music and he loves film, two things I happen to love myself. (If he ever makes a sports movie and combines my three pastimes, my head will probably explode upon viewing the first trailer.) With We Bought a Zoo opening this weekend (Crowe's first non-documentary since 2004), I thought it prudent to take a brief look back at the director's career and consider the merits (and faults) of each of his films (excluding documentary features).

6. Vanilla Sky (2001) - Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz
I just rewatched this film for the first time in about a decade and I have to say, it's not nearly as bad as I remembered. It isn't good, you understand, but I've been pegging it as "terrible" whereas in reality, it's only "below average." Vanilla Sky has some promising concepts at its core and I actually think Cruise delivers an earnest, quality performance. It is so overly complex, however, that it quickly becomes convoluted and tiresome. I can understand why Crowe took on the project and why he would want to stretch himself. But the film seems unsure of itself and I think that's indicative of Crowe's feelings. In a post-Inception world, there's a place for Vanilla Sky but it simply couldn't work (at least in this configuration) in 2001.

5. Say Anything (1989) - John Cusack, Ione Skye, John Mahoney
I saw this movie for the first time only a year or so ago and therefore my opinion of it is probably somewhat lower than those who experienced it as teenagers. I don't think it's one of Crowe's better films but it is one of the better performances by Cusack. His boombox-over-the-head scene is iconic, of course, but it is his disaffected, directionless persona that makes Say Anything work. His "plans for the future" diatribe is one of my favorite scenes from the '80s.

4. Singles (1992) - Campbell Scott, Kyra Sedgwick, Bridget Fonda, Matt Dillon
Like Say Anything, I was late to the party on Singles. In fact, I just watched it for the first time all the way through a few days ago. The feeling I get from this film is that it is a personal project trying not to be a personal project. Crowe was living in the Seattle area at the time of its filming and wanted to do something about the burgeoning grunge music scene. Personally, I would watch a movie about a fictitious band or group of bands coming together in early '90s Seattle but maybe I'm alone in that. Anyway, the interconnected story lines of several twentysomethings are woven together nicely and the occasional fauxumentary interviews that pop up from time to time are enjoyable. Pulling Eddie Vedder into the mix was a nice touch, too.

3. Jerry Maguire (1996) - Tom Cruise, Renee Zellweger, Cuba Gooding Jr.
It bothers me that it has become accepted, even expected, to bash on Jerry Maguire. Yes, it has been cheapened over the years by constant replays on TNT and yes, its more iconic lines have been spoofed a thousand times. But that's because it's a good movie. Crappy movies don't get replayed over and over or quoted in lame sitcoms. To me, the backlash against Jerry Maguire is like dissing a quality rock band because their song gets picked up on top 40 radio. It's not their fault that the song gets driven into the ground. I will always argue that if you woke up from a 15-year long coma and had never heard anyone say, "Show me the money", you'd really dig Jerry Maguire. This is one of Cruise's better roles and perhaps the only time Zellweger hasn't made me want to punch a puppy.

2. Elizabethtown (2005) - Orlando Bloom, Kirsten Dunst, Susan Sarandon
The difference between the dislike directed at Jerry Maguire and that aimed at Elizabethtown is that I understand it this time around. Elizabethtown is not for everyone; it moves at a snail's pace and if truth be told, it doesn't cover just a whole lot of ground. But that's what I love about it. Elizabethtown is primarily about self-discovery and sometimes self-discovery isn't a roller coaster of excitement and a whirlwind of activities. It also serves as Crowe's ode to the American road and it delves deep into the father-son relationship, a topic that goes uncovered in most of his other works. I will say that I think Bloom was a poor choice; it's not that he's bad so much as he just doesn't quite fit the character. But Dunst is near-perfect and the soundtrack is SPECTACULAR.

1. Almost Famous (2000) - Patrick Fugit, Kate Hudson, Billy Crudup
Just about anytime someone asks me to recommend a movie they might have missed somewhere along the line, I answer with Almost Famous. It is easily one of my ten favorite films of all-time and one of the few that I will hold up as a masterpiece. Based on Crowe's own experiences as a teenage journalist for Rolling Stone, Almost Famous is an exceptionally well-crafted film filled to the brim with powerhouse performances, exquisite dialogue, and brilliant music. Crowe put together a perfect cast and got the absolute best out of each member, especially Crudup (Russell Hammond is one of my favorite characters ever) and Hudson (go watch Something Borrowed and marvel at how Crowe managed to get that woman an Oscar nomination). Almost Famous isn't underrated, it is criminally underrated. This scene is just one of the many wonderful sequences contained within.

"War Horse" Review

Generally speaking, I’m a big fan of animals. I enjoy a good dog movie as much as the next guy and I think zoos are just swell. It may come as a surprise then to learn that I don’t care much for horses. I’ve just never understood their appeal. As such, horse movies haven’t historically been a favorite genre of mine. I enjoyed The Black Stallion as a kid but if I’m being honest, I think I liked that one because it had a scene or two involving a cobra and I was really into cobras at the time. But I’ve never been able to muster up much excitement for Seabiscuit, Secretariat, Hidalgo or any other horse-related movie you might name. I imagined, however, that War Horse would put these feelings to the test because if any storyteller could make me give a rip about horses, it would probably be Steven Spielberg. But were my imaginings proven true? Yes and no.

War Horse tells the story of World War I through the experiences of a very special horse. We open with an introduction to Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) and his beloved horse, Joey (worst horse name ever). After Albert’s father, Ted (Peter Mullan), foolishly purchases Joey, Albert trains the horse and teaches him to pull a plow despite not being the sort of work horse the family so desperately needs. The two are inseparable until the day comes that Ted is short on the rent and has to sell Joey to a British cavalry officer (Tom Hiddleston) who swears to take care of Joey and bring him back when the war is over. But war is an ugly affair, of course, and soon Joey sets off on a years-long journey that will see him change hands a half-dozen times and come close to death a hundred more while bringing him closer to being reunited with Albert than either man or beast could ever imagine.

What I enjoyed most about War Horse is exactly what I would have expected to be my least favorite part: the horse. Spielberg does a magnificent job of creating and honing the film’s tone to emphasize the horse properly without allowing that narrative to become tiresome. What I mean is, I think it is very easy in an animal-focused film to focus on said animal so much that it becomes difficult for the audience to relate. Instead, Spielberg uses the horse to shine a light on the lives of the people he comes in contact with and in doing so, allows for more opportunities for the audience to get invested (this works to varying degrees but more on that in a moment). As Joey moves from place to place, we are introduced to a litany of characters, most of whom are caught in some sad state of affairs, and all of whom are impacted in one way or another by the horse. It is a very intriguing and unique concept and one that Spielberg works well within.

As War Horse progresses, it gets stronger and hits its stride when Joey comes into the possession of a sickly French girl (Celine Buckens) and her grandfather (Niels Arestrup). Buckens is a real delight and her character plays well to the whimsy of the film’s lighter moments, providing one last breath of fresh air before War Horse truly delves into the darkness that is war. But while Joey finds himself in more and more dire situations, the film itself comes together nicely and it seemed to me that at this point, Spielberg found a comfortable groove that is missing in the early goings. In the third act we are treated to a series of scenes that reek of Spielberg in the very best sense of the word and display the true heart of the film. One sequence in particular, in which a British soldier and a German soldier meet on the field between their foxholes to come to Joey’s aid, is one that, in my mind, belongs on the Spielberg highlight reel. Indeed, there is an awful lot to like about War Horse in the final two acts.

What I did not enjoy about this film was that blasted first act. Early on, it is unclear whether War Horse intends to be a family-friendly, holiday movie or a hard-hitting war drama. In one scene a goose is chasing an unwanted guest through the Narracott’s yard and in the next we’re hit hard with the sobering reality of life below the poverty line. Later, Spielberg blunts the brutality of war in order to secure a PG-13 rating (which I understand) and then follows that up with the non-explicit but no less depressing execution of two young soldiers. In addition, I didn’t care for the shot selection in the first act, a shocking criticism considering I don’t believe I have ever questioned Spielberg’s work with the camera before. His persistent close-up of the plow as Joey pulls, for example, comes across as cheap and distracting and left me scratching my head. But perhaps the film’s biggest issue in the early stages is the performance of Irvine. I wouldn’t go so far as to say his portrayal is unwatchable but that terminology wouldn’t be too far off. Irvine had very little cinematic experience coming into War Horse and like the film, he gets better as he goes. But if I’m being completely honest, his work in the first act made me cringe more than once. I thought he was terrible.

All told, what you have with War Horse is a good film that is being treated as a great film because of its final act. If the audience in my theater is any indication, this is a film that has the power to invoke real emotion, enough to make you forget the lackluster first third. I won’t argue that Spielberg didn’t know how to blend the family-oriented portions of this film with the harsher realities of war contained in other parts but I would say that he tried too hard to reach out to everyone rather than focusing in on a target audience. A PG family film would have brought a ton of cash and an R-rated serious look at war through the eyes of the horse would have undoubtedly garnered serious award consideration. And hey, it’s entirely possible that he’ll be able to get both by splitting the difference; that combination just didn’t quite work for me.  It did, however, make me kind-of-sort-of care about a horse and that is somewhat of an achievement in and of itself. 

Grade: B

In Home Viewings Review: "The Change-Up"

Dave (Jason Bateman) and Mitch (Ryan Reynolds) live very different lives. Between the demands of his wife (Leslie Mann), his children, and soul-crushing job, Dave doesn't have enough hours in the day. Mitch, on the other hand, spends his time playing video games, smoking pot, and sleeping with a variety of women while waiting for his acting career to take off. On a rare night spent hanging out with one another, the two friends end up peeing in a fountain together (because, you know, that happens) and voicing a mutual desire to have the other's life. Of course, when they wake up, they have switched bodies, granting the hastily-made wish from the night before. But as they each go through a litany of shenanigans, they soon discover that their own lives weren't so bad after all.

I'd like to take a moment and list for you, dear readers, the reasons why I saw The Change-Up.

1.) I was bored (always a good start);
2.) I wanted to watch something that wasn't too serious, too time-consuming, or too intelligent. Usually in these situations I end up renting a bad action movie or a lame comedy;
3.) (And I swear this is the truth.) I've given out a ton of positive reviews lately. When I've seen so many good movies in a row and I start to feel like I'm becoming Peter Travers, I often feel the need to watch something terrible just so I can rail against it and feel better about myself.

That's the recipe for watching a crapfest like The Change-Up (and by the way, if that wasn't your recipe for seeing this movie, if you actually wanted to see it, we need to talk). It was essentially a personal challenge to see if I could make it through the are-you-serious-it's-that-long??? 112 minute runtime and a chance to use all my favorite negative adjectives, like "excruciating" and "painful." Mission accomplished. This movie is, to put it nicely, completely and totally worthless. I laughed only a handful of times and even those moments were semi-awful. The characters are miserable and while director David Dobkin would like you to invest in their transitions, they start off so low and unappealing that I found it impossible to care whether or not they'd get their lives together within the runtime (again, 112 minutes; that's only 9 minutes less than Star Wars). In addition, haven't we all had enough with the body switching plotline? I'd be fine if Hollywood retired this concept forever; it's tired.

My biggest issue with The Change-Up, however, is in its need to tie the whole mess up with a nice and neat, "everyone learned their lesson and became better people" bow. This is a conclusion that simply does not fit the tone of the movie. One of the things that made The Hangover so successful (besides being, you know, actually funny) is that the characters don't suddenly become great people because of the events of their night out. Sure, Stu comes back with a spine and Phil softens up a bit but there's no "moral of the story" ending because that doesn't fit the film. The Change-Up goes the exact opposite route, tacking on a conclusion that goes against the grain of the movie. As a result, the movie seems like a PG-13 movie that was raunchy-ed up to get an R-rating, which is one of my biggest pet peeves. Either go full bore into that realm or stay out of it altogether. Of course, nothing could have made The Change-Up worth seeing but it could have at least been tolerable. As it is, however, this is an abysmal movie that will certainly wind up on more than a few "worst of the year" lists.

Grade: D

In Home Viewings Review: "Beginners"

Growing up, Oliver Fields (Ewan McGregor) always felt there was something off about his parents' relationship. His father, Hal (Christopher Plummer), showed great affection for his family but was very distant and that left his mother (Mary Page Keller) often feeling alone. Stuck in the middle, Oliver internalized the lessons learned at home and as a thirtysomething in 2003, he lives a guarded life filled with broken relationships that he never really invested in. His way of living begins to change however, when Hal informs him that not only is he gay, but that he has been stricken with terminal cancer. Beginners spends its time cutting back and forth between Oliver's final interactions with Hal and the start of his relationship with Anna (Melanie Laurent), a French actress who immediately puts his new outlook to the test.

I confess I was not all that interested in Beginners when it debuted earlier this summer. Despite its positive reception, the subject matter isn't within my general level of interest. But as Award Season draws closer, I often find myself playing catch-up on this sort of film when it becomes clear that it will be a player when nominations start rolling out. What brought me to Beginners is the esteemed performance of the impeccable Christopher Plummer, a role that will almost certainly warrant a Best Supporting Actor nod (and you'd have to say he's the favorite to win at this point). Always a commanding figure in each of his films, this is perhaps the best and certainly the most vulnerable. Plummer plays Hal with a double portion of charm that is only somewhat dampened by an ever-present undercurrent of shame for the distance he kept between himself and his family and the life he feels he wasted. His demeanor is happy-go-lucky and lively but his eyes convey a sense of pain and sorrow and it is this combination that makes his portrayal seem so genuine. This is a landmark performance for Plummer and one for which he deserves any and all attention that comes his way.

The rest of Beginners, however, fails to measure up to Plummer's work. Simply put, I couldn't stand to watch any of the other characters. McGregor's wary loner with childhood scars is adequate but he is routinely overshadowed by Plummer. I'm not sure if the blame for that should fall on McGregor or if he was given little to work with but in their shared scenes, I felt Plummer ran circles around him. Meanwhile, Laurent's take on the manic pixie dream girl (maybe this phenomenon doesn't work in French) annoyed the fire out of me, beginning with the early scenes in which she only communicates by writing out questions and answers on a pad of paper. I guess this is supposed to be charming but it didn't work for me. Then there's Hal's young lover Andy (Goran Visnjic), who may or may not have been retarded but I'm not sure. I truly did not understand this character. Likewise, the non-linear storyline was distracting for me and it kept Beginners from ever getting into a solid groove and even when it was working within its element, it was all a bit too boring for me. As a result, I never could invest in the characters or their interactions and the overall product suffers mightily from these shortcomings.

Grade: B

Just Let Me See Your Movie!

Before I went to bed last night, I headed over to Moviefone to have a look at Friday's midday schedule. I have a busy weekend ahead of me, you see, and the only opportunity I would have to make it to the theater would be the first showings of the day. To say that I was excited to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy would be an understatement. The prospect of Gary Oldman in a rare leading role, and one that promised to provide serious award consideration, has been bounding around in my mind grapes and I've been looking forward to this film for the better part of the year. I based my work schedule around seeing this film, for goodness sake, and if that seems sad, well...so be it. But to my surprise, Moviefone (and really the entire movie industry) let me down. TTSS wasn't showing at any of the theaters I frequent, nor was it available at the arthouse theaters in Dallas. What the what?!, I thought to myself. I Googled the subject and found a release schedule from Focus Features, the studio behind TTSS, and discovered that the film was only opening on four US screens this weekend, all of which are, of course, in Los Angeles or New York. To make this injustice even worse, the release schedule informed me that TTSS would not be available near me until the 23rd and even then, only at a single arthouse theater 45 miles away. Considering the advertising campaign TTSS has received for the last six months, this move is unbelievably short sited and goes to prove a deeper issue within the movie industry as a whole.

Let's rewind a few months, back to the September release of Drive. Nothing about Drive suggested that it should receive a wide release, at least as far as the typical distributor rules go. It's a hyper-violent, artsy-action mix backed by a synth-pop soundtrack, made by a foreign director (Nicolas Winding Refn) who has no mainstream credits to his name, and starring an actor (Ryan Gosling) who is certainly well-respected but hardly the type of guy who draws the average moviegoer. It also happens to be a near-masterpiece and the best movie of the year in my book (thus far, anyway). And remarkably, Drive was given a nation-wide release that didn't require interested viewers to make a trek to an out-of-the-way arthouse theater or wait until it came to DVD (or steal it off the Internet). And guess what: people went to see it. Despite it's challenging subject matter, Drive pulled in a hearty $34 million domestically (and another $30 million overseas). While that number may not seem like a huge breakthrough, remember that this film cost $15 million to make and was shown on only 2,900 screens (compare that to 4,375 screens for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2). That's a wildly successful release. Likewise, 50/50, another indie film that I absolutely loved and that received a wide-release, pulled in $34 million domestically while showing on 2,479 screens and working from a budget of only $8 million. So in summary: both of these movies were independent films, both received a reasonable release, both made a considerable amount of money, and both were available in a theater three miles from my office, allowing me to see them in the middle of a slow day. 

Now compare those numbers to those of Take Shelter. If you haven't heard of Take Shelter, don't worry, it's not your fault. Starring Michael Shannon (one of the kings of obscure, challenging roles), Take Shelter focuses on a family man who has hallucinations about an apocalyptic world event and begins building a shelter to protect his family, though it is unclear whether he wishes to protect them from the coming events or from himself. Mark Harris of Entertainment Weekly (more on him in a moment) said of Michael Shannon's performance, "...the more people see this movie, the more votes he gets. It's that simple." That's a powerful statement coming from a leader in the critical community. The problem is, no one is going to see this movie. To date, it has earned $1.5 million (against a $5 million budget) through its release on a whopping 91 screens. Right now, the most important time for an independent film like this, it is available on 55 screens.  No one has seen this movie and when it comes time for "educated voters" to make their lists of nominees for Best Actor, you can bet most of them will not have seen Michael Shannon's portrayal. And maybe more importantly, even if they have been given the opportunity to see Take Shelter, I haven't and neither have you. So even if Shannon or the film itself gets nominated for an Oscar, why would any average moviegoer care to root for it when most have never heard of it, let alone been given the chance to see it?

In a recent column for Grantland, Harris listed out the likely candidates for a Best Picture nomination (a list that includes a couple of independent films but is, overall, dominated by bigger features) and asked his readers to Tweet in their picks for which other films deserved to be included on the list. Today he released the results and unsurprisingly, the list was topped by Drive, a film that, by traditional Hollywood standards, should never have been given a wide-release. Moreover, every other film on the list (including 50/50 and Take Shelter) was an independent film. 

I highlight this because it illustrates two trends. 1.) In spite of what Hollywood big wigs would have us believe, viewers are willing to see smaller films; and 2.) Hollywood is doing a crappy job of giving their viewers what they want. This industry is fixated, even obsessed, with online piracy as well as preserving the box office and DVD rental/sales returns. To make this happen, the studios have gone to extremes to limit the viability of On Demand and streaming services while consistently raising ticket prices, effectively pricing-out a number of would-be customers. (Side note: I recently held a Family Movie Night event for the participants of my youth sports program. You would be SHOCKED at the number of kids/parents who came up to me afterward and informed me that they'd never been to a movie before because they couldn't afford it.) At the same time, studios have dictated what the average moviegoer can and cannot see, and have thereby cut out a fairly significant profit margin based solely on a single assumption: that viewers are too stupid, too unsophisticated, to buy into indie films. 

That's exactly what is playing out with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Universal/Focus Features is telling you and I that because this is a slow-burn of a film that will feature far more dense dialogue than it will action sequences, we won't get it and therefore, won't like it. In doing so, Universal has not only ensured that their film will not turn a profit on these shores (a $31 million budget can't possibly be recovered with a 40 screen release), they've also relegated moviegoers to the host of horrible, stupid selections that await us at the local theater. I do not want to see New Year's Eve because I'm not a moron and I do not want to see The Sitter because I'm not stoned but these are my choices in terms of new releases since both TTSS and Young Adult are only being given the "limited release" treatment. Don't get me wrong, I love mainstream, big budget, popcorn films and my record as a proponent of comic book movies and dumb comedies speaks for itself. But I am proof that there are in fact moviegoers out there (and recent box office numbers suggest there are a lot of them) who can thoroughly enjoy both Drive and Captain America, both 50/50 and Super 8, both Tree of Life and X-Men: First Class. Yet despite the trends suggesting that viewers are ready and willing to take on smaller films and despite the fact that I live in the fifth-largest media market in the country (let that sink in for a moment), Hollywood continues to look down upon the average moviegoer and deprive middle America of the opportunity to avoid Twilight or Jack and Jill. It is a crappy, elitist, short-sited mentality that is costing Hollywood money, films cross-country notoriety, and moviegoers themselves a chance to see some outstanding films. Something needs to change and never should that be more obvious than this coming Sunday when we see New Year's Eve top $40 million despite its atrocious reviews. We didn't have a choice, Hollywood, and the blame falls squarely on you. 

In Home Viewings Review: "Another Earth"

Rhoda Williams (Brit Marling) is an exceptionally intelligent 17 year-old with a very bright future ahead of her. On the same night that she is out celebrating her acceptance into MIT, a new planet is discovered that scientists deem identical to earth (cleverly named "Earth 2"). While driving home drunk, Rhoda looks up into the sky to get a look at this new planet and smashes into another car, instantly killing the wife and child of Yale music professor John Burroughs (William Mapother) who goes into a coma. Four years later, Rhoda is released from prison and finds herself drawn to John who never saw her face or read her name during the trial. Posing as a cleaning woman, she works her way into John's life, hoping to find the courage to confess her crime and thereby clear her conscience. Simultaneously, earth and earth 2 are drawing closer to one another (more on this later) and it is learned that the planets are exact copies: anyone who exists on earth also exists on earth 2 and theoretically, their events of their lives would be the same leading up to the moment of mutual discovery. Displeased with the direction of her life, Rhoda enters and wins a contest to be among the first to travel to the new planet (more on this later as well), an opportunity she sees as a chance to start over. But as her relationship with John deepens, she must decide not only whether or not to leave for the new world but also if she can confess her identity to the man she took everything from.

Somewhere inside Another Earth there exists a worthwhile indie drama that has a bit of promise. Marling, who also wrote the film, has genuine appeal and you can see why she's become a hot name around Hollywood. This is an actress who could really be something in a few years, provided she finds the right projects. There's no reason she couldn't fill some of the roles going to Felicity Jones or pick up the scraps from Jennifer Lawrence's table. Likewise, I think director Mike Cahill (also co-writer) shows some talent behind the camera and a knack for finding the right shot for the situation, heightening the drama in the already tense atmosphere of his film. Both of them will go on to bigger and better things...

...which is good because Another Earth is a convoluted mess. The problem with this type of indie drama is the hook; in order to set your film apart from a glutted market of similar films, only a few of which receive any kind of mass marketing, you have to come up with something different that brings attention. If you're a studio executive and Mike Cahill is pitching this film to you (which I know is not the way it works for these films but go along with me), you're saying something to the effect of, "Okay, so you've got a messed up relationship between two opposites who are brought together by tragedy. That's great. But tell me, why am I going to see your movie instead of Like Crazy or Away We Go? Oh, there's a subplot involving a second earth that's (inexplicably) getting closer and closer to our own planet? Bingo!" The end result is essentially a sci-fi concept film and as I've said before, concept films, even artsy ones like this, rarely work. Science fiction is tough enough to get right (and that's coming from a huge sci-fi nerd) and it's even tougher when you've got an inexperienced hand guiding the ship. Cahill and Marling pay little attention to the details surrounding their sci-fi subplot and as a result, these sloppy elements are almost all I could focus on.

Don't get me wrong; there are a number issues with this film that have nothing to do with the haphazard hook. Every actor outside of Marling and Mapother ranges in talent from, "extra who was given a couple of lines" to "professional actor who should probably start looking for another profession." None of these supporting players are given much screen time (mercifully) but when they are...ouch. All of the characters are extremely shallow, making their transitions seem insignificant. And the storyline itself is so slow and unclear that I actually had to go online and search forums in order to piece together the film's intent.

But none of these issues hold a candle to the sheer idiocy of the subplot. I pride myself on my ability to not hold movies to the laws of reality. It's a movie; things are going to happen that could never happen in real life and honestly, that's the way we all want it more often than not. All I ask of a film is that it either A.) Stay within the realm of "reasonably realistic enough to pretend I don't notice the inaccuracies" or B.) Outs itself in the beginning as a film that should in no way shape or form be taken seriously. But I would maintain it is impossible to sit through Another Earth without asking some real questions. For example, in the beginning earth 2 is a tiny blue dot in the far distance but by the end of the film, the planet is a giant colossus dominating the skyline both day and night. No reason is given for this change nor does it ever seem to bother the inhabitants of either planet that they are headed for, you know, a catastrophic collision. This made me more than a little crazy. Another major issue comes along with the whole, "win a seat on the first trip to earth 2" which is organized by a Richard Branson-like billionaire. So, basically, we're to believe that a new planet is rapidly invading our orbit and not only does NASA not make a trip of their own, they're totally cool with renting out their equipment to a rebel businessman. Even a cursory line about this being the "first commercial trip" to earth 2 would have sufficed but apparently this never occurred to anyone involved with the making of the film. These (and many others) are stupid mistakes that only come along when a filmmaker doesn't know how to handle a given topic or doesn't care enough to try and make the subplot blend with the main theme. And if the people behind a film don't care enough to make their film work, then why should anyone else care enough to see it?

Grade: D

In Home Viewings Review - "Cave of Forgotten Dreams"

In 1994, three speleologists stumbled upon a remarkable find in the south of France. Sealed perfectly by a centuries-old rockslide and hidden entirely was a deep cave (known as the Chauvet Cave) that contained perhaps the greatest collection of prehistoric drawings. The cave was filled with ancient prints of wildlife as well as a large number of animal tracks and bones, some belonging to species that have long since become extinct. Most remarkable of all, everything within the cave was perfectly preserved through the many thousands of years and looks so fresh that upon their discovery, many scholars believed they must be fakes. Given unprecedented access, filmmaker Werner Herzog took his camera and a small film crew into the cave to document the wonder of this place and share it with the world.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams is as visually compelling as a film could possibly be given that it was shot with a simple handheld camera. The world inside the Chauvet Cave is, quite honestly, beyond description. It is incredible, almost surreal, to look at the images Herzog shows us and realize that they date back as far as 35,000 years. These are the oldest known human drawings and yet they look like they could have been sketched yesterday. The magnificent detail these paintings display is mindboggling; many of the beasts (cave bears, ibex, and other animals) are drawn with eight legs instead of four but by sweeping a torch across the wall, the image gives the appearance of movement. And the complexity of the paintings (including some abstract works) is remarkable, providing a glimpse into the time period that previously had been unknown. I found myself wondering, at least in passing, about the lives of these artists, their people, and their culture.

Forgotten Dreams is a simple, straightforward film and that is both its strength and its weakness. Herzog allows the cave to tell its story. There is very little production value within the film; what you see within the cave is basically what you get for the movie. Herzog provides a few interviews with some of the lucky few who have worked inside the Chauvet Cave and assorted experts who provide a look into the lives of those who would have lived in the area around such a cave. But beyond these brief dalliances, what you get for 90 minutes is the cave, the cave, and some more of the cave. For the most part, this focus works well but I admit there were a few moments wherein my attention drifted. (My ADD was bound to kick in at some time.) When this happened, however, Herzog's ability to highlight the beauty and mystery of the cave's interior brought me right back to the action (as it were). And while it was completely Herzog's choice, the use of the small camera and the crew that didn't always have a place to duck out of shot serves to create the illusion that the audience is actually in the cave themselves instead of just watching the world unfold on a screen. All of this makes Forgotten Dreams an awesome example of my favorite type of documentary; that being the sort that sheds a bright light on a fascinating and previously little-known universe that is wholly deserving of more attention.

Grade: A-

Review: "Hugo"

Recently I had a conversation with a friend who noted that his enjoyment level with a film is often influenced by those he’s attending said film with. If his fellow moviegoers are having a good time, he’s more inclined to follow suit; if they’re less than enthusiastic, so is he. I haven’t found that to be the case for me personally, except when it comes to comedies; I’m probably more inclined to laugh hysterically when my cohorts are doing the same. I guess the whole “laughter is contagious” thing is true. But otherwise, I pretty much go my own way and my level of enjoyment is based on my personal experience. However, there have been times when I’ve had a moment of realization wherein I suddenly become aware that no one else in the theater is as into whatever we’re watching as I am. So it is with Hugo. While I became more and more enamored with Martin Scorsese’s beautifully crafted ode to film, it became abundantly clear that my friends and the rest of the audience were less than impressed. In some ways, this general disinterest from those around me may have made my appreciation for Hugo even deeper; I almost felt I needed to get up in front of the crowd and defend the film and point out its many merits. Since I did not deliver my speech at that time, I’m afraid we’re going to have to cover it in this space.

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) has lived an unfortunate life. When his father (Jude Law) dies in a fire, he is snatched up by his uncle Claude(Ray Winstone), a drunkard who forces him to quit school in order to take up a job repairing the clocks within the Paris train station (and thereby allowing Claude to spend his time at the bottom of a bottle). After Claude disappears, Hugo finds himself living all alone within the walls of the depot, always mindful of staying out of the sight of the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). In his limited spare time, Hugo uses the skills his superior mechanical skills working on the repair of an automaton his father found in a museum attic shortly before his death, a machine he believes will deliver a message from his father. To make it work, Hugo begins stealing gears and parts from a small store and soon draws the ire of its proprietor, Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley). Georges allows him to work off his debt by repairing things in the shop and soon this job leads to a friendship with Georges’ goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), who happens to own a key that fits the automaton perfectly. But instead of a message from his father, the automaton draws a picture that traces back to Georges and leads Hugo and Isabelle on a journey of great discovery.

To boil the plentiful elements and concepts contained within Hugo into a few paragraphs is a tough task. It is a tremendously complex film with a wide range of plots and purposes that don’t always interact in the most straightforward way. It is all at once a poignant family film, a coming of age film, an adventure epic, and an extremely personal homage. The mix of genres is a strong indicator as to why Hugo is having such a hard time finding an audience. Its rating and the inclusion of the 3D component make it an obvious draw for families but the truth is, this is not a film kiddos are going to enjoy. (Case in point: the young boy sitting behind me who spent the entire second half of the film telling his mother in a not-so-quiet voice that he wanted to go home.) This is the rare “children’s movie” that’s actually made for adults, designed to make us remember how magical everything could be when we were younger. So, basically, Scorsese’s take on a family movie.

 Hugo is a deep and nuanced film that draws you in a little more with each passing scene. It starts slow (too slow, honestly) but builds consistently to the climax that, for me at least, delivered tenfold on the promises made throughout the runtime. As the movie progresses, Scorsese seems to be asking the audience to invest in Hugo’s struggles, a call to action I had no problem responding to. Butterfield provides a quality performance that peaks at the right times and his relative lack of experience is tempered quite well by Moretz, who always displays a maturity beyond her years. Their dynamic works well and Scorsese does an excellent job of relying on his young stars just enough to draw the audience’s attention but not so much as to put too much pressure upon them. The supporting actors, particularly Kingsley and Michael Stuhlbarg, all play their parts with subtle flair and each does a great job of highlighting the main characters. The surrounding storylines, while a bit distracting in the early going, come together with precision to expand the film’s narrative and

But where Hugo truly excels is when it delves into the world of the early cinema. A forgotten filmmaker, Georges has retreated within himself and locked away the many painful memories that came from his post-war exile. It falls to Hugo and Isabelle, along with the help of a film expert (played exquisitely by Stuhlbarg) to reawaken Georges’ love of film. Scorsese uses this piece of storytelling to unveil his own admiration for the early films and the further he takes Hugo into this realm, the more enamored with his work I became. It is a supremely well-made, beautifully shot film (as all Scorsese films are) that is nearly overpowering in its personal nature. You get the impression that Scorsese loves this film and wants you to love it as well. I only wish more viewers would join me in reciprocating that love.

Grade: A

Review - "The Muppets"

I live my life by a simple creed that has worked fairly well for me over the years: anything that involves the Muppets is better than it would be without the Muppets. It’s just that simple. If you have a concept, whether it is a film, TV show, or life plan, just add Kermit and I would say your concept will be bettered by a solid 21 percent. Case in point: Muppet Babies: better than regular babies. Babies cry, sleep, and poop all day (says the guy who’s a little bit afraid of babies); Muppet Babies, on the other hand, sing, dance, and create glorious imaginary dreamscapes in which they take the form of Star Warscharacters. This is a no brainer. Needless to say, I’m a big fan of the Muppets. I don’t trust people who don’t like the Muppets because, honestly, how is that possible? Like, what happened in your life that you’ve now become incapable of being entertained by a singing frog and a menopausal pig? This seems un-American. I mean, if you don’t like the Muppets, I’d expect you’re also not such a big fan of apple pie, baseball, and, you know, constitutionalized freedoms. You’re dead to me, person who doesn’t like the Muppets. Please go away. *Waits* I mean it. *Waits* Okay, now that we’ve rid ourselves of those joy-stealers, on with the review of what will surely by my favorite movie of the year.

Walter and Gary (Jason Segel) are as close as brothers can be despite their obvious differences. Gary is a near lummox of a man while Walter is a Muppet. (How these two came to be brothers is never explained and I, for one, love this fact.) Growing up, Walter is obsessed with the Muppets and whenever things get tough, Gary always cheers up his little brother by watching the famous TV show with him. When Gary plans a trip to Los Angeles with his fiancée Mary (Amy Adams), he invites Walter along for a tour of the Muppet Studios. But when they get to their destination, Walter finds the studios to be in severe disrepair and completely devoid of Muppets. To make matters worse, he overhears a conversation involving oil tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) describing his plot to take over the studio and tear it to the ground. Distraught, Walter and Gary track down Kermit the Frog to warn him of the studio’s impending doom. With limited funds available, the trio must get the old band back together in order to put together a Muppet telethon to save the studio.

From start to finish, The Muppets is about as much fun as you could possibly ask for in a movie. Segel’s script (along with the help of Nick Stoller) is a delightfully nostalgic piece of work that not only pays homage to the Muppet way of old but revels in it, making the decidedly retro feel of the film’s humor seem like a breath of fresh air. I love sarcasm as much as the next guy but to come across a movie that is genuinely funny without becoming snarky or mean-spirited in the slightest is a rarity these days. At the same time, the vast majority of the bits and jokes aren’t near as easy as I thought they might be. Instead, when confronted with low-hanging fruit, the dialogue takes the road less traveled to the betterment of the film as a whole. Very little within The Muppets is what you would call witty but that doesn’t mean it isn’t smart; it is just straightforward comedy that should appeal to both adults and children without any problem.

The story itself is a simple one as the tale of getting the Muppets back together and putting on one big show takes up the majority of the film’s narrative and isn’t in and of itself exceedingly original. But as a Muppet fan, it is a narrative that I greatly appreciated and I would imagine that’s exactly how Segel felt as he wrote it. I would love for the Muppets to get back together and become relevant again and that’s an overriding theme throughout the movie. Segel and director Jason Bobin know that this is somewhat of a last chance for the Muppets as a whole; if this movie succeeds, we’ll soon be talking about sequels and a rejuvenation of the Muppet brand; if it fails, Kermit and the gang will be reduced to nothing more than a fond memory that may never again capture the imagination of a generation. This leads to a sort of self-awareness, making The Muppetsalmost a movie within a movie and that element is one that brought me absolute joy and leads to a number of hilarious moments that had me and the entire audience cackling.

In addition, there’s an extreme liveliness to The Muppets that I would say bests anything done in the previous Muppet films. As Kermit gets the group back together, we get to see the Muppets at their worst: Fozzy is playing in a cover band (called The Moopets) in Reno, Gonzo has put away the childishness of youth and become a toilet businessman, and Animal is no longer allowed to drum because it triggers his rage. It’s cool to see the Muppets in a different setting than we’re used to and it makes their final production all the more special. And speaking of the music, each and every number, from the delightful “Man or Muppet” to the shocking-but-hilarious rap song to the inevitable but no less satisfying singing of “The Rainbow Connection”, are all exquisite. Bret McKenzie (from Flight of the Conchords) did a masterful job of constructing smart, entertaining songs that both progress the film and stand alone as fun and addicting tunes that will almost certainly pop up on my iPod from time to time.

The finished product plays as a Pixar-like version of the Muppets with a little bit of Flight of the Conchords mixed in for good measure (this ingredient should come as no surprise since both Bobin and McKenzie made their names through that show). The Muppets is riotous, uproarious fun and thoroughly refreshing and balances the perfect amount of heart and comedy. It is, in many ways, a passion project and that excitement oozes through in every wonderfully constructed scene. It stands as my favorite film of the year thus far and holds up against any non-animated family film of the last decade (or more).

Grade: A

In Home Viewings - "Terri"

Terri (Jacob Wysocki) has been dealt a rough hand. A heavy-set teenager with more than a touch of social anxiety, Terri finds school to be a hellhole where he goes unnoticed (when he’s lucky). His home life is not much better. He doesn’t know where either of his parents are and he lives with his uncle (Creed Batton) who is slipping further and further into dementia. When he gets in trouble for firing back at one of his many mockers, the school’s principal, Mr. Fitzgerald (John C. Reilly), sees a kid who desperately needs a friend. He sets up weekly meetings with Terri and attempts to take the boy under his wing. But the many years of loneliness have taken a toll on Terri and despite the influence of Mr. Fitzgerald, transitioning into a fully functioning member of high school society proves more difficult than originally thought.

There is serious promise to be found within Terri. Up-and-coming director Azazel Jacobs has a firm handle on his subject matter and he works hard to show Terri for the good hearted boy that he is. It is a very simple and understated film (more on this in a minute) as Jacobs lets his protagonist move at his own pace. You can see why so many respected critics have identified Jacobs as a name to watch in the future. Wysocki himself gives an honest performance and displays solid chops for a kid who has almost no acting experience. He makes it easy to identify with Terri and that brings about a sense of natural empathy that is essential to the film’s success. Likewise, Reilly is a perfect choice for the would-be-cool principal who tries extremely hard to be relevant and accessible to his students but can’t quite make it work. The relationship between Terri and Fitzgerald is poignant and heartfelt and without question their shared scenes are the best of the film.

When Terridiverts from its main storyline, however, it tends to bog down. What starts out as sympathy for Terri eventually turns into near depression as his narrative struggles to find an upswing. His interactions with his friends Chad (Bridger Zadina) and Heather (Olivia Crocicchia) are tenuous and never fully realize the potential they have together resulting in a choppy feel that I never could quite shake. Jacobs adds very little in the way of production value, too, and while I can appreciate that sort of simplicity, in this case a pronounced soundtrack and the like would have added to the experience. I found myself growing bored with Terri and had a hard time staying invested when Terri and Fitzgerald weren’t on screen together. That’s a real shame because I really wanted to care about Terri’s relationships with Chad, Heather, and his uncle but Jacobs story didn’t quite give me enough reason to get there. With a little more focus, Terri would be a touching and possibly even uplifting coming-of-age vision based around the Terri-Fitzgerald dynamic. Instead, it becomes too dull and convoluted for my tastes and limited my ability to stay connected.

Grade: C+

Review - "Tower Heist"

Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller) is the type of employee that you want running your business. A tireless worker, Josh has pulled himself up from the ground floor to become the assistant manager of the prestigious Tower apartment building in New York. Josh knows everything there is to know about each and every one of the tenants and he serves as a trusted advisor for all of his employees. His most prominent tenant is billionaire Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), a proud New Yorker who Josh has developed a friendship with. But when Shaw is indicted for fraud and accused of bilking his clients out of hundreds of millions of dollars, Josh is forced to tell his employees that their pensions accounted for some of the stolen funds. With desperation seeping in, Josh learns that Shaw has a $20 million “security blanket” tucked away somewhere and becomes convinced that it’s hidden inside The Tower. Josh puts together a rag-tag team that includes his brother-in-law (Casey Affleck), a DeVry drop out (Michael Pena), a former stock broker (Matthew Broderick), and a small time crook (Eddie Murphy) and formulates a plan to reclaim the cash and provide justice for those who Shaw wronged.

There are moments within Tower Heist in which you almost (ALMOST) find cause to get on board and enjoy the ride. Stiller gives a quality, understated performance that probably deserves a little more attention than it’s going to receive. He gives Josh a little more authenticity than I expected and that serves his character well. Likewise, you can never go wrong with Affleck, who always manages to steal just about any scene he’s in. The plot is timely and interesting and that shines through from time to time, illustrating why the very talented cast signed on in the first place. And there is an undeniably fun energy that runs through Tower Heist which continually tries (unsuccessfully) to keep the movie’s pulse high while encouraging the audience to get involved with the storyline.

Unfortunately, that’s where the positives stop. In fact, for my money, Tower Heist is the true definition of sloppy filmmaking. But then again, what else should I expect from director Bret Ratner? Throughout his time in Hollywood, Ratner has spent far more time making a fool of himself than he’s ever spent actually working on his craft. He’s a guy who enjoys being famous far more than he does making movies. None of his movies are particularly good and most of them are downright awful and despite the fact that he usually works within the action-comedy genre, he’s still unable to figure out how to carve out any sort of a positive niche for himself within said genre. Even Michael Bay has perfected the special effects shot, creating occasional moments of visual brilliance in each of his films and giving audiences a reason to come back for more despite the fact that he has no understanding of dialogue, plotlines, or casting. Ratner can’t even do that; instead, all of his movies are a hodge-podge of haphazard stupidity.

Every aspect of Tower Heist reeks of indifference and laziness. Plot holes abound, ridiculous actions are accepted as totally reasonable, and the dialogue is often to the level of a fourth grader. Basically, Ratner doesn’t know how to effectively tell his story and so any part of it that you might enjoy is painted over by absurdities and general stupidity. He routinely traps his actors in corners that they can’t get out of and thereby wastes their talents. Murphy in particular seems like he’s stuck in glass box acting out his greatest hits from his former glory years, almost like a caricature of himself. Is he funny? I guess, but not in the laugh-out-loud way that he’s trying to be. That doesn’t stop with Murphy, however. There are shockingly few truly humorous moments within Tower Heist and that leaves it feeling overly long and even dull at times. It’s as if Ratner was under orders to shoot, edit, and ship this movie in 30 days and paid no attention to little details like, you know, a cohesive storyline and jokes that actually make the audience laugh. All of this makes Tower Heist a disappointing, waste of time.

Grade: C+

In Home Viewings - "Blitz"

Detective Tom Brant (Jason Statham) isn’t exactly what you’d call a “by the book” cop. A no nonsense type of guy, Brant is an alcoholic whose consumption is only bested by his affection for violence and propensity for thrashing criminals who don’t have the good sense to cow down in his presence. While under investigation for assaulting a gang of petty thieves, Brant takes on a case involving a serial cop killer known as The Blitz (Aidan Gillen). He teams with Detective Nash (Paddy Considine), an outcast copper who isn’t quite as brazen about crossing the line but shares Brant’s willingness to use any means necessary to take down bad guys. Together, Brant and Nash must find a way to catch up to The Blitz and put an end to his killing spree.

Every time a new Jason Statham movie opens (usually three or four times a year), I find myself going through what I call “The Statham Cycle”:

Step 1: The trailer debuts and I tell myself, “Good gracious, that looks awful.”

Step 2: Said trailer rolls for approximately the 37^thtime and I catch myself smiling reluctantly and immediately chastise myself.

Step 3: I forget about the movie until it shows up on this week’s DVD Roundup in which I type, “There’s no way this is any good.”

Step 4: Each time I walk past the movie in my local video store or bypass it on Netflix Instant, my resolve weakens just a bit.

Step 5: With more than a little self-loathing, I rent the movie and watch it on a night when there’s nothing happening in the world of sports and I’m too tired to watch, you know, a good movie.

Step 6: I kind-of-sort-of enjoy myself while watching the movie.

Step 7: Overwhelmed by a sense of shame, I vow never to watch a Statham epic again and feel better about myself. And then the cycle repeats itself.

In these situations when my inner Neanderthal gets the best of me, I feel like I almost always write something to the effect of, “You could do a lot worse.” Blitz is no exception. A smaller film that was released straight to DVD on these shores, I came across it during one of my many trips to Family Video and after forcing myself to ignore it for weeks on end, it finally popped up on Netflix giving me an excuse to watch it without directly paying for it. And you know what? It’s not that bad. It is ripe with plot holes and an overly convoluted storyline that tries to cover way too much ground. And, of course, you don’t go to Statham for a Clooney-like performance. But beyond these facts, Blitz provides solid entertainment and allows Statham to do what he does best: beat the crap out of bad guys and say cool things that you know you shouldn’t think are cool but nevertheless cause you to smirk and nod in agreement. Seriously, how far away are we from an action movie in which Statham actually acknowledges the camera and talks directly to the audience? Tell me that wouldn’t sell some tickets. (If this has already happened and I somehow missed it, I’m going to need you to tell me about it NOW.) Considine is a quality compliment to Statham and sets him up with plenty of opportunities to show off his array of skills. He’s like the straight man to Statham’s over-the-top man child and their dynamic works well. The action sequences within Blitz are acceptable as well and overall, the film creates an easy if unoriginal environment that is hard to dislike. And after all, that’s about as good as it gets for The Statham Cycle.

Grade: B-

Review: "The Descendants"

I’m not entirely sure where George Clooney ends up if you ranked all living and active actors in the industry today but I know he’d be high up the list. I’m of the opinion that, from a performance standpoint, there is nothing the man cannot do. Comedy, drama, voice work, or sheer power, Clooney delivers no matter what his assignment might be. One thing we haven’t seen from him, however, is vulnerability. He’s had a few sobering moments to be sure, like the gut wrenching moment of truth in Up in the Air, but never a wholly open performance. I would guess that’s by design and that Clooney’s roles take a cue from his real life wherein he is usually extremely smooth and enviably cool while remaining private and somewhat mysterious. With The Descendants, however, Clooney shows off another side of his abilities and further establishes his dominating presence in the pantheon of great American actors.

Matt King (George Clooney) is by his own admission, “the back-up parent.” As the heir to a massive tract of Hawaiian land, he spends most of his time working on a huge deal that will make him and his cousins all filthy rich while simultaneously juggling the needs of his law firm. His life is put into perspective, however, when his wife is involved in a boating accident that results in a deep coma which doctors fear she will not come out of. When dealing with the antics of his youngest daughter, Scottie (Amara Miller), proves more than he is capable of handling, Matt brings his oldest daughter, Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), home from boarding school. Alexandra, though, has her own set of issues and soon informs Matt that his wife was cheating on him, leading to the conflict between mother and daughter. Frantic and torn between his ever-increasing responsibilities, Matt takes his daughters, along with Alexandra’s friend Sid (Nick Krause), on a short vacation that conveniently serves as an opportunity to track down and confront his wife’s lover.

Written and directed by Alexander Payne (Sideways), The Descendants serves as a master class in storytelling. The opening scene pulls you in and engrosses you in a supremely compelling narrative that refuses to let go until the closing credits roll. Matt’s relationships are often complicated and far from perfect but Payne paints a picture in which you are able to see the heart of the man beyond his flaws, which is for me a key to this film’s success. Nothing about The Descendants is especially easy or comfortable (as you can probably tell from the summary) but the story is crafted so well that you can’t help but play along through the many awkward situations Matt finds himself in. Moreover, Payne manages to find real and genuine humor within what should be tragic circumstances and his actors bring that to life tremendously. At the same time, the humor never becomes disrespectful or foolish but rather sensitive and mature. The drama-comedy blend is near seamless, making the truly funny moments laugh-out-loud worthy and the more serious scenes all the more impactful.

All of this brilliant behind-the-camera work would be for naught, however, without an outstanding cast which thankfully The Descendants has. As he always does, Clooney nails his part, bringing a sense of fragility to Matt while still exhibiting that calm and easy manner that makes him so appealing. Multiple times he takes Matt to the brink of breaking down then pulls himself back together in time to save face in front of his daughters. I’m not sure it is his absolute best portrayal (I think his work in Up in the Air is slightly better), but it is a powerhouse performance that will undoubtedly earn some major award nominations. This isn’t all about Clooney, however, which is what I expected. Each actor that comes on screen brings something to the table, leaving their own marks on the film as a whole. Krause and Miller are both better than I could have hoped given their respective lack of experience and Judy Greer gives a turn that I didn’t know she was capable of. Then there’s Woodley who goes toe-to-toe with Clooney on a number of occasions and more than holds her own. This is a girl who starred on The Secret Life of the American Teenager, one of the worst TV shows in recent memory and yet in this setting, she is outstanding. Alexandra is foul-mouthed and harsh but Woodley brings a sense of humanity to the part and makes you feel as if this is exactly how this character should be. The dynamic between Alexandra and Matt is exquisite, at times the driving force behind the film. There is a remarkable chemistry that exists between each member of the cast and I think that’s partly due to Clooney’s easy manner and partly due to Payne’s efforts to have his actors grow together long before the cameras rolled.

To top it all off, the gorgeousness of the Hawaiian backdrop along with a native-themed soundtrack helps set the tone for The Descendants and adds a “trouble in paradise” theme that only deepens the drama-comedy blend. In a sense, Hawaii itself is a supporting actor and just like the rest of the cast, it carries its weight with flair. While it isn’t perfect (there’s a certain lack of connection with the audience despite the film’s excellence), I walked out of The Descendants under the impression that I had just seen the eventual Best Picture winner and its award aspirations should not end there.

Grade: A

In Home Viewings - "Scream 4"

Ten years since her last deadly encounter, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns home to Woodsboro to do a signing for her bestselling book. Having worked hard to put herself back together after the three (count 'em, three) runs of serial killing that ruined her teenage years, Sidney is happy to reunite with her old friends Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courtney Cox). Unfortunately, another old friend, Ghost Face, is back in town, too, and soon Sidney is forced to jump back into the old habit of, you know, trying not to die and all.

The original Scream made my top 10 list of best/favorite scary movies. I wouldn't say it's a classic but it caused me more than a few sleepless nights as a teenager and it gets credit for shifting the genre. I've never seen Scream 2. Scream 3 is one of those films that I know is pretty bad but for some reason I've seen numerous times. I even watched part of it fairly recently and if I'm being honest, I didn't hate my life while watching. Given my disdain for horror films, all of this makes Scream a franchise that I'd be willing to call a "quality" series and there aren't many of those in my book. As such, while I wasn't excited about seeing Scre4m (that's actually the title, not Scream 4) and while I'm never stoked for a sequel that debuts ten years after the last installment, I thought this could very well be a positive endeavor.

I was wrong.

I was really wrong.

I assume you're all familiar with the phrase, "like shooting fish in a barrel." (I also assume that it is, indeed, easy to shoot fish in a barrel because I've clearly never tried it and surely someone knows better than me.) To pinpoint all of the negatives in Scream 4 would be like shooting fish in a barrel...if the gun was a machine gun...and if the fish were the size of sea lions...and if those sea lion-sized fish were retarded. It just wouldn't be fair and frankly, I've got better things to do. Like maybe getting punched in the stomach or something.

Instead, let me simply say this: to date, I have seen 59 movies that were released in the calendar year 2011. It hasn't been a great movie year and I've seen some pretty sub-par stuff. I would re-watch any one of them before I would put myself through Scream 4 again. Priest? Sure. Larry Crowne? No problem. Green Lantern? *Gulp* Done. I will not go so far as to call this movie the worst of the year because I pride myself on my ability to avoid awful films and that title undoubtedly belongs to Bucky Larson. But it's definitely the worst movie I've seen this year. Scream 4 is sickeningly campy, ripe with atrocious dialogue, and laden with more groan-inducing "plot" points than I care to remember. There's also an air of desperation that works its way into every facet of the film which drowns out any cheese-tastic fun there might be had. Arquette in particular seemed to me to be pleading with the audience, "Please...PLEASE...care about me again." (We never did, David. We never did.) Everything that made Scream a trendsetter has become so terribly old, ESPECIALLY the confounded self-awareness that seemed edgy in the original but has been done a thousand times over in the last 15 years. There's not a single positive thing I can say about this movie and I'm amazed at the number of relatively positive reviews this piece of junk received. Vomit.

Grade: D

In Home Viewings: "Arthur"

Arthur (Russell Brand) is your typical man-child. A twenty (or thirty) something, he acts more like an eight year old and everyone treats him accordingly. The only difference between Arthur and the typical Will Ferrell character is that Arthur is filthy rich, the heir to a business conglomerate and the fortune that comes with it. He lives in a New York high rise with his chauffeur/friend, Bitterman (Luis Gonzalez) and his nanny, Hobson (Helen Mirren), and spends his days terrorizing the police in his Batmobile and buying ridiculous things at auction (like the suit Abraham Lincoln died in, which he then wears). His carefree life is put to the test, however, when his mother, Vivienne (Geraldine James) decides she's had it with his embarrassments. She offers Arthur a choice: marry Susan (Jennifer Garner), an ambitious woman who Arthur hates or lose his claim to the family money. Complicating his decision is Naomi (Greta Gerwig), a lower class free spirit that Arthur has become infatuated with. With limited time available, Arthur must grow up quickly and figure out what it is that truly makes him happy.

Arthur had three strikes against it going in:

1. The trailer is horrendous, the type of "advertisement" that sandbags its intended beneficiary before viewers even step into a theater. It's almost as if the studio purposefully picked out the most annoying parts of the movie to include in the trailer. Ouch.

2. I'm not a fan of Brand and I've never understood his charm. To be fair, Get Him to the Greek (and his performance in particular) grows on me every time I happen to catch a part of it on HBO but everything else he's ever done has left me unimpressed.

3. I, like almost everyone else in the world who does not work in Hollywood, am against unnecessary remakes. No one wanted a new Arthur. NO ONE.

But for all the negatives coming in, I confess I quite enjoyed my time with Arthur. The entire movie is one absurdity after another, to be sure, but I had fun regardless. Arthur operates within a vacuum in which it creates its own environment and sets its own rules(a New York in which everyone treats Arthur the way a small town would treat a pre-teen in the 1950s) almost like you'd see in a fantasy or sci-fi film. More importantly, the film holds to that environment and those rules and this sort of total escapism serves it well. From a comedy standpoint, too, you could do a lot worse than Arthur. It's all very juvenile, of course, but when you're in the right mood and the jokes are plentiful, sometimes easy jokes are the best kind. Arthur is filled to the brim with those and I laughed more than I would have ever dreamed coming in.

As far as the performances go, I suppose you couldn't really call what Brand does "acting" since he is basically portraying a cartoon-like version of himself. But what he manages to do with Arthur as opposed to some of his other characters is to make him extremely likeable and sympathetic, much more so than I would have thought possible given that he is a selfish, wealthy, immature man-child. I did not expect to root for Arthur but I did, in large part due to the healthy amount of heart that Brand infuses him with. Arthur is a good person who just doesn't really know how to be a good person and while his redemption isn't the same as what you might get from a drunk (like the original Arthur), it is nonetheless appreciated. Mirren, too, is solid. Now, I have no idea why in the name of The Queen she took this role but since she does bring an element of respectability to Arthur that the film definitely benefits from. She and Brand develop a fun relationship throughout the course of the film and she serves as a quality straight man to Brand's ridiculousness. Their underplayed dynamic is what makes Arthur work and what keeps it from becoming the disaster that I anticipated at the outset.

Grade: B

Review - "Dolphin Tale"

Live-action family movies are a tough sell for me. I’m quick to jump on board for an animated adventure. I’ve willingly seen more cartoon kid’s movies over the last few years than any non-parent really has the right to see and I often quite enjoy them. But I generally draw the line on family films when the characters stop being toy cowboys and flying dragons. I’ve grandfathered in the ones I saw as a kid, from Swiss Family Robinson to The Goonies to Jumangi, but their current counterparts hold nothing for me. I find that this genre is overly cheesy and whereas the escapism of animation allows me to overlook this in the standard Dreamworks or Disney cartoon, I can’t do it when there are real humans on the screen. I confess, however, that the trailers for Dolphin Tale piqued my interest despite my internal protestations. Maybe it was the animal element (I’m a softie for a lost or injured pet), maybe it was the manipulative and uplifting music, or maybe it was just the presence of Morgan Freeman. Whatever the case may be, I sat down for this film with moderate anticipation and came out satisfied and slightly wet-eyed.

Dolphin Tale is the big screen adaptation (and adaptation is key this time around) of real life events that took place a few years ago on the Florida shoreline. Sawyer Nelson (Nathan Gamble) is a pre-teen with bad grades, an absent father, and no friends. His mother (Ashley Judd) worries how he’ll handle the departure of his one confidant, Cousin Kyle (Austin Stowell), when he ships off to his military assignment. Everything changes for Sawyer, however, when he stumbles across a dolphin trapped on a beachside entangled in a fishing net. Sawyer follows the dolphin to an animal hospital where he meets Dr. Clay Haskett (Harry Connick, Jr.) and his daughter, Hazel (Cozi Zuehlsdorff). They name the dolphin Winter and Sawyer becomes more invested in her recovery than he has ever been in any living thing. He despairs when he learns that Winter will lose her tail fin due to the damage but as the dolphin continues to fight for her life, Sawyer comes up with a wild idea: he recruits a prosthetics expert, Dr. Cameron McCarthy (Freeman), who agrees to create a new fin for his first non-human subject. As Winter struggles to adapt to her new way of life, Sawyer and the Haskett’s work tirelessly to preserve the life of their new friend and save the facility in which she lives.

All cards on the table, there are many elements of Dolphin Tale that I could pick on. It has numerous cheesy moments that brought about full-body cringes, the story is as predictable as you might expect, and the child actors are…well…child actors. Gamble and Zuehlsdorff both have a lot of work ahead of them should they wish to extend their respective careers. Despite these obvious obstacles, however, as Dolphin Tale progressed, I found myself less willing to criticize and more willing to simply enjoy the film for what it is: quality family fare with an endearing narrative that is almost impossible to ignore. It is like a Top 40 pop song that you normally wouldn’t enjoy but is so catchy that you find yourself singing along so often that you eventually just bite the bullet and buy the thing on iTunes, hoping that no one looks through your playlist. In essence, Dolphin Tale is to cinema what Lady Antebellum is to my iPod. I couldn’t help but like it.

Where Dolphin Tale excels is in its ability to tell a story with authenticity. I bought into Winter’s will to live and the need for Sawyer and the Hasketts to see her through to recovery (this is aided by the fact that Winter plays herself here rather than relying on a CGI stand-in). The narrative was, for me, very organic, more so than you usually find in this type of “tug-at-your-heartstrings” family film. Don’t get me wrong, director Charles Martin Smith (yes, that Charles Martin Smith, the accountant-turned-gunslinger in The Untouchables) uses music and shot selection just like you might expect to build up the bigger moments of the film, but I didn’t feel manipulated. Whereas most movies of the genre become sluggish and lazy in their attempts to get the audience to connect, I found it very easy to engage the story this time around. Dolphin Talehas a tremendous amount of heart and that shines through genuinely and consistently, making it both emotionally relevant and accessible. There were not many dry eyes in my theater and those that were probably belonged to soulless robots but I’m just guessing on that point. Dolphin Tale is an all-around likeable film that should have a much more wide-ranging appeal than many of its contemporaries.

Grade: B+

Dolphins have got to be a top 10 animal on the scale of awesomeness,

Brian

In Home Viewings - "Tree of Life"

NOTE: I'm about to write what is sure to be one of the shorter (or at least insubstantial) reviews of my professional (read: "not professional at all") career. I have been trying to put my thoughts into words regarding Tree of Life for the better part of three weeks now and both attempts to write have resulted in long-winded, dull, and filled with tangents that really didn't make a lot of sense. As a result, I've gotten to a point where I just need to spit this review out and be done with it because the further I am away from my viewing, the tougher it becomes to put together a cohesive review. Please do not take my limited words to be an indication of the value of this film as a whole.

Ostensibly, Tree of Life is about Jack (Sean Penn and Hunter McCraken), a child of the '50s whose father, Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt), was a hard man to live with. I say ostensibly because...well...you'll see. O'Brien isn't a drunk, abusive, or even particularly mean; he's simply hard, the poster boy for the hardworking, blue collar man of his generation. He loves his sons tremendously but has a tough time showing it and Jack takes the brunt of that difficulty. Most of the time Jack is shown in his teenage form and he is used to illustrate the concept of growing up. TOL cuts back and forth between the past and present which finds Jack as a businessman who shows many of the same characteristics of the father who he's always struggled to connect with. In many ways, Tree of Life could really be called Circle of Life and I think (think is a key word here) that's a big part of what director Terrence Malick is going for.

But really that's only about 25 percent of the story. Using a non-linear narrative that is all at once difficult to stick with and wholly engrossing, Malick weaves together a tapestry that appears a bit jumbled when looking at each stitch individually but becomes a near masterpiece when viewed as a whole. TOL stretches out its focus to include the creation of the earth, the reign of dinosaurs (yes, this movie has dinosaurs), and the dawn of man. It then diverts to include nature of God, the role of prayer, and what I believe is Malick's own vision of heaven. If that sounds too wide-ranging, let me say that I'm probably not hitting on a number of other subjects that make their way into this film and yet it all blends together spectacularly. It is an insanely personal film, too, and that comes screaming through in every almost every scene. I have no idea what Malick's beliefs may be but whatever they are, he's clearly wrestling with his spiritual identity (again, no idea if that identity is Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever else). You can see why it took Malick so long to fine-tune and craft TOL and why the reactions to it have been so extreme between those who would call it the best film ever to those who couldn't make it through the first 15 minutes.

I wouldn't say I fall into either of those camps. TOL is so challenging that I would stop short of calling it perfect or "one of the best ever." Personally I think there has to be a level of accessibility for a film to be included in those categories and that's definitely not a big part of TOL. At the same time, it is a supremely well-made film that is almost completely left up to the interpretation of the viewer and that in and of itself is a stroke of genius. (It's also the most beautiful film I have ever seen; if TOL does not receive some serious attention from the Academy Awards then I may have to consider anarchy.) In truth, my review and any other review you might read couldn't possibly do Tree of Life justice. It's the sort of film you simply have to see for yourself before judging it one way or another.

Grade: A