Review: "Lockout"

The similarities between Lockout and 2008’s Takenare so abundant that it almost seems lazy to make the comparison (notice, however, how that will not stop me). Both come from the Luc Besson School of Filmmaking, both feature Maggie Grace in desperate need of some life savin’, and both center around tough guys who can kill you with a neck chop just as easily as with a machine gun. In theory, these two films are so close, in fact, that I’ve been referring to Lockout as Taken 1.5 or Taken in Space for several months. Really, besides the outer space setting, the one real difference between these films is that Taken is good and Lockoutis not.

Snow (Guy Pearce) is the prototypical anti-hero. He’s a bit of a loose cannon who plays by his own rules and he still smokes so you know he’s cool. After he is framed for the murder of his CIA superior, Snow is sentenced to a prison term on MS One, a prison that resides in orbit around the earth and houses the world’s worst criminals. But before Snow can be transferred to his new residence, an uprising begins on MS One and soon the prisoners have control of the space station. To make matters worse, the president’s daughter, Emilie (Maggie Grace), just happens to be aboard the station and is being held hostage along with a host of less important civilians. Given an opportunity to earn his freedom, Snow agrees to take on the rescue mission, though he has a much more important agenda for getting on board the station.

What you have to love about Lockout is its brazenness. There’s no pretense involved with this movie; if you ever saw one of the trailers, you know exactly what you’re getting. Much like its counterpart Taken, Lockout doesn’t take itself seriously whatsoever and as such, it invites the viewer to step into a world of complete absurdity in which we’ll have a few laughs while watching things explode. More often than not, that’s an invitation I can’t resist. And for its part, Lockout does its best to live up to the low-quality, high-fun standard it set for itself.

The problem is that that brazenness (which was Taken’s second greatest strength behind Liam Neeson) becomes this movie’s downfall. Lockoutis rife with bad shots, overdone supporting characters, and abysmal special effects. All of this is presented in a, “Yeah, this is terrible, so what?” sort of way that bothered me. I didn’t expect a Nolan-esque approach to action but there’s a limit to what I should be asked to accept from a film in the way of corner-cutting. The effects in particular were a tremendous letdown. With this sort of film I anticipate bad dialogue and paper thin characters but that those issues will be at least partially covered up with spectacular action sequences. The graphics within Lockout are some of the worst I’ve ever seen in a mainstream movie. And by mainstream, I mean anything higher in quality than the straight-to-DVD knock offs that find their way onto Netflix Instant a week after a big action flick debuts (see: Transmorphers). While Lockout wouldn’t work if directors James Mather and Stephen St. Leger had attempted to turn in a more significant, hardcore action piece, much of this movie comes across as if the filmmakers didn’t care about turning in a decent product.

That’s a real shame because Guy Pearce is an absolute riot in the lead role. Snow is irreverent, overly confident, and brash and completely unapologetic which, of course, makes him exceedingly appealing. Pearce hits every mark perfectly and he gives the character a lighter edge that works well in this setting and keeps Lockoutfrom becoming too one-dimensional. I expected Snow to be Pearce’s interpretation of Liam Neeson and while that might not have been a bad thing, what we’re really treated to is a character that is part Neeson (in any action movie) and part Captain Jack Sparrow. He’s got a Sparrow-like flowiness to him and while you can’t exactly call his one-liners witty, they are delivered with a pinpoint precision that drives the jokes home expertly. It’s unfortunate that this performance comes in a movie that doesn’t really deliver much else in the way of value but it is still a fun turn for a great actor and one that keeps Lockout from becoming a total loss.

Review: "Goon"

Doug Glatt (Seann William Scott) is the real-life personification of the term, “Black Sheep.” Coming from a family of well-respected doctors, Doug is a less-than-cerebral tough guy who works as a bouncer specifically called upon to rough up unruly customers. His luck begins to change, however, when his friend Ryan (Jay Baruchel) takes him to a minor league hockey game during which he lays a beating on an opposing player. This catches the eye of the team’s coach and soon Doug has suited up and become a local celebrity. Even more remarkable, Doug is soon called up to a real minor league team and tasked with protecting Xavier Laflamme (Marc-Andre Grondin), a young hotshot who has lost his way since a violent on-ice hit from longtime enforcer Ross Rhea (Liev Schreiber). While Doug initially struggles with his role as a goon who isn’t valued as a hockey player, he and his teammates come together with a playoff berth on the line, setting up a dramatic confrontation between the old veteran (Rhea) and the young upstart (Doug).

There isn’t just a whole lot that can be said about Goon other than this: it is fun. Not an excessive, “I can’t wait to see that again” amount of fun but a reasonable, “This just popped up on HBO and I have 90 minutes to kill” amount of fun. The movie doesn’t have much of an agenda and there isn’t much of a plot to speak of, but it sets out to cover the life of a minor league hockey enforcer and it does that quite well. I’ve never been much of a hockey guy so I have no idea where this movie ends up on the “realistic” scale but it is at least as believable as The Mighty Ducks which is, I think we can all agree, the gold standard for hockey movies. (I’m half kidding there.) Goon is predictable and overtly paint-by-numbers but it is not without charm and it handles its subject matter with a light-hearted affection.

What is not predictable about this movie is the strength of the performances provided by the leads. Scott is, in my opinion, one of the more underrated comedic actors of his generation. He’ll never be taken all that seriously because his most widely-known character (Stifler from American Pie) is an over-the-top, offensive buffoon but I’ve always been impressed with his timing and his ability to make a movie or scene funny when it really shouldn’t be. (Case in point: Cop Out.) Here he turns Doug into a likeable and appealing hero, a very important aspect in an underdog sports movie. Baruchel’s hockey fanatic with a Wayne’s World-like cable access TV show is ridiculous and absurd but he is nonetheless an entertaining and dare I say essential part of the film’s equation. And Schreiber, truly one of the great character actors of our time, contributes a solid and believably menacing performance that provides the genial Doug with a much meaner counterpart. I’m not arguing that Scott, Baruchel, or Schreiber should be given consideration during award season but the truth of the matter is low-rent comedies like this one are often rife with mailed-in, half-hearted performances. Instead, Goon offers stars that seem invested in the material and the film benefits substantially from their interest.

In Home Viewings: "The Way"

Tom (Martin Sheen) and his son, Daniel (Emilio Estevez), have had their differences. Tom is a well-respected dentist with a traditional lifestyle while Daniel has always embraced a more free-spirited, nomadic life. The two have a healthy respect for each other but clearly that has not always been the case. But when Tom learns that Daniel has died while on an adventure in France, he begins to seriously question the way in which he related to his son. After retrieving Daniel’s ashes, he decides to hike the Camino de Santiago, a trek that takes experienced travelers weeks and sometimes months to traverse. Along the path, he comes in contact with a rag tag group of fellow travelers, each with their own reasons for making the journey and each looking for companionship and closure in one way or another.

Everything I liked about The Way boiled down to the performance of Martin Sheen. Sheen has certainly done better in his esteemed career but this is the type of showing that serves as a strong reminder of how good a given actor really is when he wants to be. This is a very complex, vulnerable character and Sheen is able to display a great range of emotion without ever allowing any of them to become overdone or to even take precedence over the other. Tom is in constant conflict with himself and Sheen brings that to the forefront beautifully. It’s a meaty, heavy role that offers Sheen a chance to shine, an opportunity of which he takes full advantage. I only wish that some of his contemporaries would give us a similar sign of their respective abilities. (Are you listening, De Niro and Pacino?)

Unfortunately for Sheen, virtually every other aspect of this movie is a mess. Estevez makes some brutally generic choices regarding the narrative of his film and the post-production decisions were even worse. Case in point, the soundtrack (something I always focus on for better or for worse) feels like a, “Recycled Collection of Hits from the Early 2000s”, like Estevez has kept a journal of his favorite songs from movies he’s seen over the last decade and wanted to cram them all into his film. Perhaps I’m being overly picky but this rubbed me the wrong way and cheapened the overall impact of The Way.

These troublesome choices behind the camera, though, could be overlooked if not for the painful missteps taking place on screen, courtesy of Sheen’s supporting actors and their excruciatingly cliché characters. Yorick van Wageningen (as a loud-mouthed, chubby Dane) and James Nesbitt (as a haunted travel writer) both have scenes that aren’t horrible but these are few and far between and they are always trumped by the cringe-inducing way in which Deborah Kara Unger (an embittered divorcee) sulks through every single scene. I haven’t seen enough of Unger to know whether this is typical of her acting abilities or if she was just following orders but regardless, this performance would have ruined a great movie, let alone a borderline acceptable one like this. All of these characters are as paper-thin as you can get and all of the actors seem to be in a competition to determine who can turn in the most unrealistic, forced delivery of a would-be sympathetic backstory.

I came away from The Way feeling almost angry for Sheen, who routinely has his legs cut out from under him by his surroundings. There are some appealing landscape shots here and there but again, the journey through the French countryside isn’t worth it if you have to travel with infuriating companions. 

Review: "The Cabin in the Woods"

I’ve never been one to follow with the crowd. In fact, if something it popular, it’s far more likely that I will oppose it rather than join in the love fest just out of principle. At the same time, however, I hate it when I don’t like a film that all of my colleagues seem to adore. When this happens (which isn’t very often), I always feel like I’m missing something or that I didn’t understand the film which, in turn, makes me feel like a moron. In these situations, it takes everything in me to stand by my initial reaction and deny the peer pressure that would have me reverse course and join in the love fest. So let’s get it out of the way up front: I did not care for The Cabin in the Woods.

Needing some rest and relaxation, Dana (Kristen Connolly), her best friend Jules (Anna Hutchison), and Jules’ boyfriend Curt (Chris Hemsworth), retreat to a remote cabin recently purchased by Curt’s cousin. The trio is joined by stoner-buddy Marty (Fran Kranz) and scholarly Holden (Jesse Williams), a friend of Curt’s who Jules would like to set up with Dana. The cabin, while a bit on the rustic side, seems to be the ideal spot for the group to chill out and let loose. But before long, a hidden cellar full of creepy and mysterious artifacts is discovered and when Dana reads from an old journal, she unwittingly unleashes a terror upon the cabin that comes straight out of a nightmare that perhaps none of them will survive.

To write a completely spoiler-free review of Cabin seems borderline impossible but I will try my best to stay away from the important facts. The behind-the-scenes concept of what is really taking place at the cabin is one of the cooler ideas I’ve seen in a film like this in quite some time. Someone or something pulling the strings in the background is not entirely unique within this genre but writers Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard (also the director) bring a fresh take to the idea and make it their own beautifully early on. The happenings which take place away from the cabin (the spoiler-rific portions I shan’t get into here) were BY FAR my favorite parts of the film and really left me wanting more when it was all said and done. By cutting back and forth between the events taking place at the cabin and those going on unbeknownst to our protagonists, Goddard creates a fun contrast through the first half of the film and gives dials up a sense of self-awareness that I almostloved for a while.

But before long, I found that Cabin had no sense of true identity. Or rather, that its identity isn't one that I want to get to know. I think the point of the film is to both poke fun at the horror genre while at the same time creating enough gore to satisfy genre enthusiasts. At times, Goddard and Whedon succeed in this but over the course of the film, I felt that instead of mocking the typical hallmarks of a horror film in hopes of creating a laugh in the midst of the scares (see: Scream), the duo only succeeded in laying the ground work for their own demise. That is to say, the film goes out of its way to point out the generic pratfalls that you could to expect from a slasher film and then deliberately falls directly into those traps over and over again. In essence, the film ends up becoming exactly what it sets out to make fun of in the early going. As a result, almost all of the jump-out-of-your-seat moments have been hamstrung by the Goddard telegraphing what was about to happen for the sake of the self-aware jokes. At the same time, I didn’t find the film to be consistently funny enough to play as a real comedy (see: Shaun of the Dead). To be clear: there are some truly brilliant, witty moments and more than a few laugh-out-loud pieces of dialogue but not enough to keep the comedic ball rolling for 90 minutes. I think Cabin wants to be both a capable slasher film and a hilarious R-rated comedy but for me, the mix comes off almost as a half-hearted spoof.

I think that all of that would have resulted in a three star, “totally acceptable entertainment”-type review from me had it not been for the fact that the vaunted twist which has had so many critics and viewers in a titter is really not that big of a deal. Again, I won’t spoil anything but you can guess the basics of the twist within the first 15 minutes of the movie. (I promise I’m not one of those people who says, “I could totally see the twist coming” or, “I knew Bruce Willis was dead the whole time”; this is just a onetime thing.) I kept waiting and waiting for a real turn to catch me off guard and not only did it never come, that waiting took away from my enjoyment of the back half of the film. So while the whole, “Don’t tell anyone the secret!” marketing campaign got me into the theater for a movie I probably wouldn’t have seen otherwise, it also caused me to come out feeling extremely dissatisfied with the finished product.

Believe me when I say, I wanted to love Cabin in the Woods. I wanted to write about Joss Whedon had reinvigorated the horror genre. And maybe more importantly, I wanted to see what all of my colleagues saw in a movie that almost everyone seems to love. But while the concept is fantastic and there are some definite and delicious Whedon-isms that play out through the course of the film, I just could not get completely on board. You may now begin to cast stones.

In Home Viewings: "Immortals"

Long after the famed battle between the gods and the titans, a new terror threatens to rip the world of ancient Greece apart. The mad King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) will stop at nothing in his search for the Epirus Bow, a weapon of great power, and as such, he sails from place to place, killing and enslaving the people and ransacking the land. In the midst of this stands Theseus (Henry Cavill), a peasant from a fishing village, who catches the eye of Zeus (Luke Evans). Theseus sets out on a suicide mission to bring down King Hyperion and keep the world from being overrun by the blood-thirsty titans.

There are three things I wanted from Immortals, a film for which I held very limited expectations:

1.) I wanted to see Henry Cavill show me what he’s capable of in an action capacity leading into next year’s Superman film, in which he will play the title character;

2.) I wanted a fun, entertaining film that I could watch while working and enjoy myself;

3.) I wanted some outstanding visuals to counter balance the inevitable plot holes and weak dialogue I expected from a film of this ilk.

Unfortunately, this film fails on all three counts (and virtually every other measure that you might judge a quality film by). I’m willing to extend a pass to Cavill in this situation. Though he doesn’t do anything overly impressive here, I don’t think he was given much of anything to work with. This is a throw-away role in a movie that won’t be remembered in five years if Cavill’s career takes off. On the other hand, 300 (which I believe Immortalsaspires to be) gave a Gerard Butler a very similar role which he seized by the horns and rode to industry notoriety with great charisma. Cavill displays no such charisma nor does he fully embody the action-centric role the way I might have hoped. I admit, at this point I’m quite nervous about his turn as Superman but time will tell.

I’m less willing to extend to director Tarsem Singh the courtesy than I’ve given Cavill. Michael Bay has built a ridiculously luxurious career out of creating shallow-but-pretty blockbusters that bring nothing to the table except stylish effects and somewhat enjoyable. It’s easy to rail against Bay and his contemporaries but at least he has the decency to make his movies entertaining, even if it is low-level entertainment. Immortalscan’t even do that. It is neither fun nor entertaining, engrossing nor in any way, shape, or form enjoyable. The visuals, marketed, quite frankly, as the film’s greatest strength, are mostly unappealing and sometimes downright shabby. Perhaps it would have made a difference to see the print in a theater but many of the film’s bigger action sequences were almost unwatchable due to a horrendous color balance mixed with mediocre-at-best effects. I don’t expect every film to have awards-caliber post-production elements but let’s be honest here: the only reason anyone went to see Immortalswas because of the action. If the action sucks in an overtly action-oriented movie, then what are we left with? In this case, we’re left with a boring, dark, and jumbled mess highlighted by color-by-numbers acting and generic plot points. Do yourself a favor and skip this one entirely.

Review: "Dr. Suess' The Lorax"

I think it’s fair to say that we have yet to see a full length film based upon the work of Dr. Suess that measured up to the value of the written versions. Ron Howard’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas came the closest to hitting the mark but I think most Suess fans would agree that they’d just as soon watch the old cartoon classic Grinch over the Jim Carrey interpretation. The Lorax falls closely in line with its Suessian brothers, providing a decent piece of family fare that doesn’t live up to the charisma of the book.

Like many young teenagers, Ted (Zac Efron) has a crush on a slightly older girl, a neighbor named Audrey (Taylor Swift). When Audrey reveals that the one thing she wants the most is to see a real life tree, Ted sets out on a quest to find the Once-ler (Ed Helms), a hermit who has some knowledge of trees. Ted gets more than he bargains for, though, as the Once-ler draws him into the vivid tale of how he met the fabled Lorax (Danny Devito) and ultimately became responsible for the extinction the trees. And when all is said and done, Ted is tasked with reviving the growth of trees in the town of Thneedville.

The hatred being spewed by (overly angry) viewers in the direction of The Lorax is more than a little shocking. If you were to browse through the user reviews on IMDB, you’d think you’d stumbled upon a right-wing message board, not a collection of thoughts on a kid’s movie. The reason for all the venom is the environmental message at the core of The Lorax which apparently angers, like, a LOT of people. Here’s where I stand on the whole thing and then we’ll move on to the actual film. I’m far from a classic environmentalist. I enjoy hunting and fishing, support the expansion of oil drilling operations, and think Styrofoam cups are just the best. But is it really all that bad to maybe suggest that we give a passing thought to not chopping down every tree on the planet? I really don’t think that’s asking too much of anyone. At times the message of The Lorax becomes heavy handed and overwhelms the, “I’m just here to watch a cartoon” vibes but personally I didn’t find it to be inappropriately preachy. Then again, this was always one of my favorite Suess books and I was fully aware of the deeper message going in.

Now that I’ve set myself up for sniper fire from the people who hate trees (I kid, I kid), let’s move on to the non-controversial portions of The Lorax which is a fairly mixed bag. There are moments and scenes within this film that elicited genuine laughter from me but these bright spots are swallowed up by a fairly ho-hum narrative that never aspires to be much more than adequate. The lively, beautifully colored animation is contrasted, and ultimately equaled, by the boringness of the main characters and the uninspired script. The musical numbers come about far too infrequently, leaving me to wonder why they had any musical scenes in the first place. In addition, while the cast is strong, only DeVito shines consistently, though Helms does a quality job when he is actually called upon to do something. It’s not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with the path taken by The Lorax but I would have liked to see it turn a corner in the early going and strive for excellence rather than settle for alright-ness.

All of this makes The Lorax just another in a long string of Suess adaptations that fail to live up to the source material. It is cute and not entirely worthless but it lacks the charm that it needs to truly excel. If nothing else, a larger portion of Suessian verse within the dialogue would have made it more memorable and reduced the blandness. As is, The Lorax is an acceptable children’s movie that shouldn’t be too difficult for most non-tree hating adults to sit through.

Review: "The Hunger Games"

As a bit of a book nerd, I’ve had a fair amount of experience when it comes to watching film adaptations of books I’ve read previously. These experiences have led me to the following conclusions about the best big screen adaptations of beloved books:

1.) The best adaptations work in conjunction with the book, serving as a companion piece to the written word;

2.) In keeping with that companion-like relationship, the best adaptations create a film that can be enjoyed by those who did not read the book but which is deepened by the knowledge brought to the table by those who love the source material;

3.) Maybe most importantly, the best adaptations ask the viewers who have read the book to respect the companionship of print and film.

The Hunger Games hits the mark on all three of these points and as a result, what you have is an excellent film that lives up to (and sometimes betters) the book it based upon.

The Hunger Games takes place within a futuristic America that has been divided into twelve districts and a massive capitol. Each district has its own specialized industry and the further you are from the Capitol, the poorer your district is. As penance for an uprising which took place 74 years ago, once a year a ceremony called “The Reaping” is held in which each district gives up one girl and one boy ("tributes") between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in a fight to the death known as The Hunger Games. During this particular Reaping in District 12, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) sees her younger sister, Prim (Willow Shields), selected and volunteers to take her place, a feat that has never before happened in District 12. Katniss is paired with Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), a baker’s boy whom she has a history with, and the two are whisked away to the Capitol. After training with their mentor, Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), and competing for the attention of wealthy sponsors, Katniss and Peeta are sent into a diabolical arena along with 22 other tributes from which only one person can come out alive. But as if their very lives weren’t enough, we soon find there’s more at stake than meets the eye.

From the outset, it is clear that director Gary Ross wants to make sure that no one confuses his film with a certain teen-oriented series of books and movies which may or may not involve shiny vampires. There’s very little prettiness to The Hunger Games and I mean that in the best possible way. It is without question a stylized, purposefully shot film that employs a variety of camera techniques and post-production effects that go beyond what you might expect from a blockbuster film of this type but none of it is done with an eye on just making the film look “cool” or “glamorous.” Instead, these elements are used in order to deepen the experience, to enhance the tone, and to lend significance to the content. In the early going, Ross uses a handheld camera approach which results in the often maligned shaky, first person look. This is something I’m sure he’ll be skewered for in other reviews but I personally loved it. This technique brings you firmly into the lives of Katniss and her fellow District 12ers while also further differentiating The Hunger Games from the Twilight saga. It might be a little too much when it’s all said and done but I give Ross a ton of credit for doing too much and trying too hard rather than just allowing the film to rest on its laurels, as it were. What I mean is this: this is a movie that was going to make $200 million no matter what and it would have been easy to just take the money and run. Instead, Ross shows early on that he’s intent on crafting a good film, not just riding a cash cow. It’s a bold move that works well in my book.

On top of the camera work, Ross brilliantly uses a color wash to illustrate the stark contrast between the Capitol and the outlying districts. District 12 looks like rural Kentucky, complete with dilapidated buildings and bland colors. It’s a sad, depressing place that fits the descriptions within the book to a tee. On the other hand, the Capitol is a world of luxury, debauchery, and bastardized beauty. The people of the Capitol have lost all connection with the realities of the outside world and that shows in the print. When Katniss and Peeta step off of the train in the Capitol, it’s almost like when Dorothy takes her first steps into the colorful world of Oz. This vast difference between the two areas is not only a big part of the book but also a key to the tone of the film. It’s a nice touch that I don’t think every director would have gone with.

Perhaps my biggest fear with regard to the screen adaptation of the book was that the gravity of the situation and the violence within the arena would be lost when translating a book to a PG-13 movie. We’re talking about kids being called upon to kill other kids while the wealthy look on and cheer. It would have been very easy for Ross and his team of writers to dumb down the impact of these scenes to make it more family friendly. On the contrary, he quickly shows that he understands the seriousness of what is transpiring on screen and manages to show a healthy respect for the weight of his subject without allowing his film to become a true, R-rated blood bath. I cannot commend Ross and his team enough for finding ways to illustrate the awfulness that is the Hunger Games while simultaneously keeping the violence from becoming too graphic. In doing this, not only does he make the film acceptable for teens and tweens (the core audience), he also allows The Hunger Games to become more about the characters than about the action and gives his actors some room to shine.

I think of Jennifer Lawrence as one of the very best young actresses in Hollywood and I was stoked about her casting in the role of Katniss. There’s an edge to Katniss that Lawrence exhibits beautifully and maybe more importantly, Katniss has to give off an air of reluctant charisma; she’s not so much charming as she is appealing because she’s NOT genuinely charming. Lawrence nails this quality as well. I expect more will be asked of the star in future films in this series but this is still an excellent start for her. Hutcherson struggles to find his role early in the film but I think his character comes together well as the action unfolds and the awkward chemistry he and Lawrence share is perfect for the scenario in which these two characters have been thrust. But as good as the two young stars are and as much as this franchise will become all about them as it progresses, the surrounding cast is the stabilizing force behind The Hunger Games. Ross surrounded his leads with some of the best supporting actors money can buy. Donald Sutherland, Wes Bentley, Toby Jones, and even Lenny Kravitz all have their moments. More often than not, though, the film is stolen by Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, or American Treasure Woody Harrelson. Harrelson in particular is tremendous in his somewhat limited screen time and for me, his character is vital to the success of the film. Haymitch provides both comedic relief and rock-solid-if-slightly-inebriated support for Katniss and Peeta and it’s a much deeper role than one might expect going in.

The Hunger Games isn’t perfect and there were a few marks missed along the way. I wasn’t as emotionally invested in the relationships (particularly the one between Katniss and fellow tribute Rue) as I thought I would be and many of the action sequences are somewhat lackluster. But on the whole, this is an exceptional example of how to adapt a film from a book and displays much more significance than we are used to seeing from a blockbuster of this nature. It is quite faithful to the source material and personally I think most of the changes (especially the way in which Ross uses the game commentators in place of Katniss’ introspective thoughts) were not only necessary but actual beneficial to the narrative. This is a wonderfully made film that grows on you after leaving the theater and sets the table beautifully for the sequels which are to come.

In Home Viewings: "A Better Life"

Carlos Galindo (Demian Bichir) wants nothing more than to provide his son, Luis (Jose Julian), with the life he himself never had. An illegal alien who has lived in the US for many years, Carlos works as a gardener and keeps his head down, always mindful of what deportation would mean for his son. Luis, meanwhile, is a typically rebellious teenager who doesn’t understand or appreciate his father’s sacrifices and who is on the brink of joining the local gang. When Carlos’ boss planning to leave the gardening business and head home, he offers to sell his truck and equipment to his loyal employee. Desperate to make something happen for himself, Carlos accepts the offer and goes into business for himself, a risk he normally would not take. But when the truck is stolen by a day laborer, Carlos and Luis go on a journey to recover their property and in the process, rebuild the relationship that they’ve both sorely missed.

I think it was a surprise to many to find Demian Bichir’s name among those nominated for Best Actor at this year’s Academy Awards. On a list that includes Gary Oldman, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and eventual winner Jean Dujardin, Bichir seemed a bit out of place, especially considering some of the great work done by accomplished actors who were not recognized by the academy (Ryan Gosling, Michael Shannon, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, etc.). This is one of those situations, however, that demands a viewing before judgment because, having now seen A Better Life, I can certainly understand the Academy’s decision. Simply put, this is a heartfelt, power house performance by an actor that perfectly embodies his role. Carlos encapsulates elements of heartbreak and hope, misfortune and motivation and in doing so creates a deeply layered and personal portrayal. Bichir plays Carlos with subtlety, acting as much with his eyes as with his words, giving notice of the internal conflict waging within the man throughout his various struggles. It is truly an outstanding performance and one that carries significant weight.

The rest of A Better Life, though, doesn’t quite measure up to the brilliance of the lead performer. Many of the early scenes come off as manufactured rather than organic, a polar opposite to the path that Bichir takes with his character. It is too earnest at times and that could cause cynical jerks like me to bail on the film before it ever really gets going. To be fair, A Better Life gets better as it goes and eventually leaves the safety of borderline-manipulative Oscar bait behind in favor of a more genuine tone but in some ways that makes the first act even more frustrating. There are also a handful of scenes that could have been edited out or restructured more purposefully and many of Bichir’s colleagues fail to deliver at a compatible level with the film’s star. Julian shows flashes of excellence but overall I found his performance to be spotty and less-than believable. I can’t say whether the blame for this rests on Julian or the film’s director, Chris Weitz, but the dynamic between father and son didn’t always deliver. It would have been interesting to see Bichir go toe-to-toe with a more challenging co-star, similar to the interactions between George Clooney and Shailene Woodley in The Descendants.

What saves A Better Life from becoming yet another independent film that doesn’t live up to the strength of its leading performer is the conclusion. Weitz saves his best work for last, creating a stirring, emotional scene in the very end in which Bichir delivers beautifully and which exhibits the very best of the relationship between Carlos and Luis. It is a hopeful, impactful finale that covers over the film’s previous missteps and allowed me to leave with a higher opinion of the film than I might have had otherwise. The result is a good movie highlighted my one fantastic performance and brought home by one stirring scene.

Review: "21 Jump Street"

To say that I am surprised, dear readers, by my full-on, unabashed enthusiasm for 21 Jump Streetwould be the understatement of the year. When the project was announced, I thought it sounded terrible and the first time I saw the trailer, I thought the same thing. That trailer, though, grew on me with each and every viewing and by the time I got to the theater this weekend, I was primed for a darn good time, and that’s exactly what the movie delivers.

Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) are unlikely pals. In high school, Schmidt was a loser whom Jenko routinely humiliated. But when they both join the police force, they develop a mutually beneficial friendship and eventually become partners on the beat. After a poorly executed drug bust, they are transferred under the command of Captain Dickson (Ice Cube), who runs an undercover unit out of a church on 21 Jump Street. The pair is sent in to a local high school and tasked with infiltrating and bringing down a drug ring that threatens to spread its new product to the surrounding city. But with their roles reversed and the abilities put to the test, can these two misfits get the job done before the entire operation is shut down?

One of the things that gave me pause concerning 21 Jump Street is the headliners. I appreciate Hill’s talent both as a comedian and an actual actor (as displayed in Moneyball) but his isn’t a name that gets me excited. For every Get Him to the Greek (which I love), there’s a film like The Sitter (which appeared to be horrendous). I have no such conflict over Tatum’s involvement with this project. Aside from his acceptable work in She’s the Man (a film I have an odd affection for), I’ve never seen a movie involving Tatum that I did not leave with a little vomit in my mouth and a little hate in my heart. I’ve long thought that he might be the worst actor in Hollywood. Surprisingly, not only do Hill and Tatum turn out to be a perfect match for this sort of raucous action-comedy, Tatum is actually the best part. He plays the dumb jock well, a role he is well suited for, but he also displays an excellent comedic timing I wouldn’t have thought he had. I’m not saying this will completely change my opinion of the man but it certainly won’t hurt. Hill, meanwhile, brings an element of authenticity to his role; he’s a nerd at heart who jumps on the chance to finally become cool. It’s an antiquated trick that Jump Street pulls but Hill makes it work. Together these two show great chemistry and they work off of each other quite well, giving the feeling of a natural partnership that doesn’t always come off with this sort of mismatched pairing.  

The first act of 21 Jump Street is one of the funniest openers in recent memory. It is an absolute laugh riot, jam-packed with the juvenile-but-well-thought-out humor that is expected from an R-rated comedy in a post-Hangover world. No time is wasted on the set-up as the set of circumstances Schmidt and Jenko find themselves in are established within the first ten minutes and the film’s plot is set into motion. I felt the second act, which brings into play the inevitable conflicts between the two buddies, wanes a bit and becomes slightly bogged down, though the fun never stops entirely. Perhaps the worst I could say about this middle portion is that it stretches on a few minutes too long. But before long, the pace again quickens and Schmidt and Jenko get back to the shenanigans that make the first act such a blast.

What directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) have crafted with Jump Street is an homage to the buddy cop movie with a hint of delicious self-awareness that seems appropriate given its ‘80s roots. They also surround their leads with an outstanding surrounding cast, including the aforementioned Ice Cube (perfect casting), a slightly underused Dave Franco, and the always funny Rob Riggle. Most importantly, the actors are provided with a hilarious script filled with a non-stop stream of jokes that never allows the audience to catch on to the abject stupidity of the characters’ actions.

Review: "John Carter"

It isn’t often these days that a film comes around that can truly be called an epic flop. With home viewing options becoming more and more affordable, higher ticket prices inflating the true box office value of most movies, and the ever-expanding overseas markets, it’s become quite difficult for a film to lose a ridiculous sum of money. Even recent domestic flops like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (which grabbed only $90 million on these shores versus a $200 million budget) scored big overseas, allowing Disney to save face. Mars Needs Moms comes to mind as a tremendous failure but that status is at least somewhat cushioned by the fact that no one expected much from it and it essentially sat on a shelf in the Disney vault prior to its release. Epic flops like Waterworld, Cleopatra, and Cutthroat Island just don’t happen anymore…until now.

After discovering a mythical cave of gold, surly Civil War vet John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) suddenly awakens to find himself on an unknown plain on what he soon discovers is Mars (or Barsoom, as the natives call it). The thinner atmosphere imbues his earth-body with near super powers as he can run faster, jump higher, and punch harder than he ever could back home. John is taken captive by the Tharks, a tall alien race with four arms, and their leader Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe), and remains a prized pet until he saves Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), a princess of a humanoid race, from the clutches of the feared warlord Sab Than (Dominic West). Before long, John is embroiled in a Martian war that threatens to spread to earth if a group of powerful beings, known as the Therns, are not stopped.

In a piece I wrote before John Carter debuted, I detailed the numerous missteps Disney made during the production of this film that led to its inevitable flopitude (a word I just made up but which fits perfectly in my mind). As a true fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ books, I was already disappointed going in over the poor handling and I’m even more disappointed now. At its heart, John Carter is a darn good, enjoyable, popcorn flick. It was blessed with an entertaining, simple source material that seems ripe for adaptation if done correctly and a strong cast of characters, both on screen and off, were brought together to put this film together. The execution, however, is deeply flawed.

Beyond the issues detailed in my preview piece (obscene and unnecessary budget, limited familiarity with the subject, and an egregious marketing campaign), the on-screen product suffers more than anything else from a weak script. The dialogue isn’t bad (somewhat surprising) but many of the plot points are convoluted and poorly developed. If I didn’t have previous knowledge of this series, I’m not sure I could have accurately followed along with the course of the action. This is a puzzling issues for me because, as much as this sci-fi nerd loves Edgar Rice Burroughs, his work isn’t especially complex. This should have been an easy story to tell and instead it seems that writer/director Andrew Stanton couldn’t figure out how to translate the book to film. Too much attention is paid to plot points that aren’t especially important but not enough time is given to the significant portions of the narrative. Not only does that cause confusion, it also leads to boredom as I had to fight the urge to zone out more than once and my viewing partner (read: “gracious wife”) became borderline disinterested at times. John Carter is also overly long and never finds much of a rhythm, leading to the dreaded roller coaster effect which hampers so many blockbusters.

It’s a real shame, too, because what John Carter does well, it does REALLY well. The vast majority of the $250 million spent on this movie was used in the visual departments and that definitely shows. Stanton and his team bring a fresh look to Mars and its inhabitants and give real life to Burroughs’ visions. It is a beautiful print with lavish colors and the blending of live action with computer generated images is seamless. Most of the actors are given little to work with but Dafoe, Mark Strong, and Ciaran Hinds all give the workmanlike performances that you might expect. Collins does an admirable if not entirely believable job of combining elements of both the damsel and distress and the strong, confident warrior woman. Some of her moments are better than others but on the whole, she comes through. Kitsch is really the only member of the cast who is asked to do much of the heavy lifting and for my money he gets the job done quite well. Kitsch exudes rugged charm in every role, a necessary part of the John Carter persona, and here he displays a comedic timing that I wasn’t sure he had. There are shades of Harrison Ford and Timothy Olyphant (I wish I could take credit for this comparison but that honor belongs to Christopher Orr of The Atlantic) within this performance, a characteristic that gives me great hope for Kitsch’s career moving forward.

At the end of the day, John Carter is an acceptable way to pass the time; no more and no less. At times it is quite fun though I think some more action sequences would have helped to lessen the strain of the narrative-related doldrums. It’s just too bad that Disney didn’t impose more checks and balances, both on set and on the studio end, to keep John Carter from becoming an epic financial blunder.

In Home Viewings: "Puss in Boots"

As a prequel to the Shrek series, Puss in Boots serves to tell the origin story of the titular character’s (Antonio Banderas) rise to prominence. A slick thief with a haunted past, Puss takes on a dangerous job in which he attempts to steal the fabled magic beans from a pair of hardened criminals known as Jack and Jill (fortunately not Adam Sandler in drag). His plan goes awry, however, when he comes into contact with another thief, Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek). Softpaws engages Puss in a (dance) battle and eventually brings him to meet Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), an old friend-turned-enemy. But Humpty has a plan to right an old wrong and convinces Puss to join him in the undertaking of a dangerous but lucrative adventure.

I have to hand it Dreamworks animation, they know how to make a solid children’s movie that adults can sit through comfortably. They’ve developed a formula that goes something like this: Likeable Characters + Outstanding Visuals + Recognizable Voice Talent + Borderline-Illicit Jokes That Kids Won’t Get - Any Semblance of Heart and Emotion = A 3-Star Film That Kids Will Flock To. Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar and the rest all work within this equation and Puss in Boots is no exception.

Let’s work our way through that formula as it applies to this film. The characters at play within Puss in Boots are good-enough, though none of them quite measure up to the best of the Dreamworks universe. Puss is probably better served as an ancillary role but he is not overmatched with carrying his own film and his surrounding characters are all enjoyable if underwhelming. Puss looks predictably beautiful with rich scene structure and exquisite character details. The soul of Dreamworks animation is in their visuals and this film is nothing if not gorgeously animated. Another staple of the Dreamworks feature is the use of big name actors to voice the characters as opposed to the Pixar method which often employs lesser-known performers. The risk of using well-known voices is that it can cause the audience to see the characters not as themselves but as the actor providing the voice. Here, though, I think Banderas and especially Galifianakis do a good job of putting their respective characters above themselves, not always an easy task. The jokes, meanwhile, come early and often and fall right in line with the line of humor we were treated to in the Shrekfilms. Dreamworks has mastered the art of cramming adult-oriented jokes into their films without ever allowing young minds to become the wiser and that is, of course, a large part of their success. Puss manages to push the envelope in sly ways and that provides a handful of big laughs.

The major issue with Puss is the same one I have with just about every Dreamworks feature: there’s almost nothing in the way of emotional connection. Whereas Pixar always strives to create organic connection between the characters and the audience, Dreamworks doesn’t always seem interested in taking their films beyond above-average children’s fare. I feel like steps have been taken to correct this problem in recent years. Kung Fu Panda comes closer to striking an emotional note from time to time and How to Train Your Dragon is absolutely up to the Pixar standard in every way. But Puss in Boots is decisively shallow, never bothering to even scratch the surface in terms of resonating beyond a mildly entertaining level. There’s simply no depth whatsoever and while that does indeed fit into the Dreamworks formula, at some point you have to ask yourself if the studio is progressing or simply painting by numbers.

In Home Viewings: "Take Shelter"

Curtis (Michael Shannon) is the prototypical working-class American male. He is a good husband to his wife, Samantha (Jessica Chastain), a caring father to his deaf daughter, Hannah (Tova Stewart), and a dependable employee. Curtis’ life starts to unravel, however, when he begins to have disturbing dreams. Nightmares which always revolve around a storm and always involve someone close to him trying to kill him plague his every sleep and soon Curtis becomes a paranoid, distracted man. As the dreams increase in frequency and intensity, Curtis becomes convinced that he is being given visions of the future. He puts aside all other responsibilities to build a shelter that will protect his family from their impending doom. But as he slips further and further from reality, it becomes more and more unclear as to whether these dreams are actually visions or the first signs of the mental illness that runs in his family.

Take Shelter is a prime example of independent filmmaking at its finest. Writer/director Jeff Nichols has crafted a brilliant, completely organic thriller that creates more heart-pounding drama than I would have ever imagined. Nothing about Take Shelter is overstated or flashy; rather, it is a workmanlike film that starts with one dramatic crossbeam and builds upon itself in deliberate, well-paced fashion. No time is wasted, no side-plot is elaborated upon unnecessarily, and no scene fails to deliver. Nichols drops us into Curtis’ life, quickly gives us a glimpse into his situation, and then begins the process of creating a tense, riveting environment that continues to grow until the final credits roll.

But with all due respect to Nichols (whom I suspect we’ll hear a great deal more from in the future), the immense value of Take Shelter comes as a result of the work of Michael Shannon. Though he is an outstanding actor, my complaint about Shannon has always been that he generally chooses difficult, inaccessible roles that are difficult to relate with. As a result, he often gives performances that are excellent but which fail to strike much of an emotional chord with me. Not so with Take Shelter. Beyond the sheer quality of his acting ability which is most certainly on full display here, Shannon empowers Curtis with an incredible believability. You’re never sure if Curtis is going crazy or not, just as Curtis himself isn’t sure, and that, for me at least, is what truly makes Take Shelter work. Above all else, Curtis wants to protect his family but at times, you’re not sure whether he means to protect them from the horrible future he sees in his visions or from himself. Shannon exemplifies this conundrum with as few words as possible, lending serious weight to an already dense role. This is unmistakably Shannon’s finest moment to date. It’s just a shame that his film happened to drop during a year that was dominated by outstanding male performances. His portrayal deserved FAR more attention than it received and it is this powerful work that makes Take Shelter a true achievement in filmmaking.

The John Carter Fiasco or How NOT to Make a Film

Since the first John Carter work was published in 1912, there have been countless attempts at a film adaptation (chronicled so well in David Hughes’ book The Greatest Sci-fi Movies Never Made) that never quite fit the bill. The reasons for this void in the cinematic landscape always came down to two things: technology and money. Other than the very beginning of the first book, the John Carter universe operates entirely on the Red Planet and often involves lavish landscapes and extreme battles between two Martian races. Translating those scenes to the screen has long been deemed impractical and if it could be done, it would cost a ridiculous amount of money. This is why, in an industry that aims to suck the life essence out of every book ever written, the John Carter has gone unfilmed for 100 years. Enter Disney and its massive, overly expensive adaptation which opens in theaters today.

For the record, I don’t expect John Carter to be a bad movie. I’ve seen enough reviews that fall into the range of positive to mildly positive to expect that, as a fan of popcorn movies, I’ll enjoy this one to at least some degree. In addition, the novels upon which this movie is based are favorites of mine and their author, Edgar Rice Burroughs, is sci-fi royalty. It disappoints me greatly, therefore, to know that this movie is going to wind up as one of the biggest failures in the history of the cinema. What could be the cause of such an historic flop? Let’s break it down into three briefly detailed categories of screwiness.

Source Material

As noted above, I love Edgar Rice Burroughs’ series of books. They represent perhaps the first real examples of mainstream science fiction and while they’re far from complex, they are exceedingly fun to read. But how many average moviegoers have heard of Edgar Rice Burroughs or, more importantly, John Carter? I would guess (without any research to back me up beyond informal polling among my friends) that the percentage of casual moviegoers who’ve heard of Burroughs, let alone read his work, is quite low. Again, we’re talking about a series that was first published 100 years ago and which hasn’t gone through a rediscovery renaissance in quite some time. It’s not that it’s hard to get your hands on one of the books if you want; in fact, Barnes and Noble printed a nice, inexpensive collection of three John Carter stories a few years back. But you do have to know what you’re looking for and seek it out. Unlike some more fortunate sci-fi and fantasy pieces from past decades, these aren’t books that get introduced in school (The Hobbit, Ender’s Game) or go through constant reprinting (Dracula, the Sherlock Holmes collection).

Moreover, if you have heard of Burroughs, it’s likely that you know him because of his other famous series, Tarzan. The similarities between the John Carter series and the Tarzan series are extensive but it is Tarzan who has enjoyed a century of notoriety. Everyone knows the basic gist of the Tarzan story; you can’t say the same for John Carter. That lack of familiarity with Burroughs, Carter, and the source material that brings the two together can be a tough hurdle to overcome. Keep in mind that we just came off of a year in which the top nine films at the box office were sequels. What that means is that now, possibly more than ever, familiarity with a film’s source material is crucial to box office success. Building a tent-pole movie around an unknown commodity is risky at best, especially when you consider our second category.

Budget

Remember that the issues which have kept John Carter off the big screen have always been technology and money. If you go see John Carter this weekend, you will see things that wouldn’t have been possible even five years ago. So the technology has come around. Unfortunately for Disney, the technology is absurdly expensive. How expensive, you ask? The estimated budget for John Carter is somewhere in the range of $250 million and I’ve seen articles that would suggest that’s a conservative estimate. To put that into perspective, Avatar, for which much of the technology used to make John Carter had to be created, cost “only” $235 million to make. To take that a step further, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which featured some of the most amazing extended special effects shots I’ve ever seen, came in at a cool $93 million.

Spending $250 million on any movie that doesn’t involve Harry Potter, Batman, or Bilbo Baggins is essentially cinematic suicide. To make matters worse, while the source material is largely unknown to the general public, the cast of John Carter doesn’t exactly set the world on fire. I love Taylor Kitsch to the point that I may name my hypothetical, future son after his character on Friday Night Lights. But Kitsch is not a movie star (at least not yet). There are some known names within Kitsch’s supporting cast (Willem Dafoe, Bryan Cranston, Mark Strong) but none that are going to bring in the average moviegoer. To put that kind of money into a film without a well-known name is ludicrous.

Apparently, however, Disney has never heard the phrase, “throwing good money after bad.” I’d love to know what this project’s original budget was but regardless, this type of spending can only be classified as “stupid.” Movies go over budget all the time but at some point, someone has to say enough is enough and cap the sucker before it gets out of control. In this case, “enough is enough” should have come about $100 million ago.

Marketing

Considering the unknown source material and the “could fund several small countries for a year” budget, you would think the marketing campaign behind John Carter would be dynamite. And you would be wrong. The missteps involved with this aspect of the filmmaking process of have been remarkable and could be considered a master’s class in what not to do.

For me, it starts with the lack of attention paid to Pixar’s involvement with this project. For a while I think John Carter was labeled in news blurbs and articles as, “The first live-action Pixar movie.” But when the first trailer and poster debuted, Pixar’s involvement was ignored. Sure, this is not technically a Pixar film. But director Andrew Stanton comes from the Pixar stable and is responsible for two of that company’s biggest successes, WALL*Eand Finding Nemo. Did you know that the director of John Carter directed those movies as well? Many of my friends did not, which begs the question: why wasn’t Andrew Stanton’s previous film history trumpeted throughout the marketing for this movie? Why doesn’t everyone know that John Carter is brought to you by the guy who gave us WALL*E?

Worse, though, is the way in which Disney has ignored the fanboy. Instead of embracing the key demographic for John Carter, Disney has gone out of its way to stay away from what should be the target market. There was no promotion at Comic Con, a grievous and confusing mistake that goes against the methods Disney has used in the past. Then there’s the title change that took the film away from its roots. The difference between John Carter and John Carter of Mars may seem insignificant but to me and many other would-be fanboys, it signified a shift in what Disney was going for. It’s a blander, all-encompassing title that I suspect exemplifies what we can expect from the film. This is what happens when you spend foolishly on a film: instead of focusing on the market that is most likely to embrace your film, you end up having to aim for every moviegoer and in most cases, the result is overwhelmingly disappointing.

By bringing all of these factors together, Disney has set 2012’s first blockbuster hopeful up against a tremendous mountain that it has no chance of scaling. And for me, that makes John Carter one of the most fascinating films of the year for me. I am both stoked to see Burroughs’ work brought to life on the screen and thoroughly intrigued by the (great) possibility of a trainwreck. Regardless of how it turns out, I’ll be in a theater on opening day, eagerly awaiting the unknown which is to come. Unfortunately for Disney, I expect I will be somewhat lonesome in that theater.  

EDITOR'S NOTE: I got about halfway through this piece before stumbling across a similar column written by Anne Thompson over at Indiewire. Thompson has already seen John Carter and provides a much more in-depth look at the curious choices I touched on here. I highly encourage reading her article if you have an interest in this subject. 

In Home Viewings: "Martha Marcy May Marlene"

After a tumultuous stint with a cult, Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) finally decides she’s had enough and makes her escape in the wee hours of the morning. She is taken in by Lucy (Sarah Paulson), her overbearing sister who can’t understand the choices Martha has made. At first, Martha feels safe with Lucy and her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy). Soon, however, she begins to have serious issues with reintegrating herself into society and the strain of what she’s been through becomes readily apparent to all parties, resulting in Martha’s unstable, fragile mental state and a break from reality that may or may not be happening throughout the film’s runtime.

When I see a movie, I usually try my best to avoid any in-depth reviews before writing my own entry. I’ll look at grades, maybe catch a quote or two from some valued critics but I don’t want my review to be subconsciously influenced by the writing of a colleague. Occasionally, however, I find myself needing to browse through the work of others in order to reaffirm my take on the film (not my opinion, mind you, but rather the facts of the film) or even to help me understand what the heck just happened. Such is the case with MMMM.

This is a dense, multi-layered film that should probably be seen more than once before forming a complete opinion. Told in a non-linear fashion, it’s never clear when events are happening or even if they’re happening at all. Martha is a deeply disturbed and borderline dysfunctional human being. Her mental state is often the underlying subject of the film and director Sean Durkin does a masterful job of bringing the audience into her mind. MMMM is an all-together uncomfortable experience and one that raises far more questions than it answers. You are left to wonder if Martha is just being paranoid or whether she has good reason to be fearful as the film builds layer upon layer of tension and Durkin does nothing to help you connect the dots. This would be very frustrating if MMMM wasn’t so exquisitely well-made. There are more genuine heart-pounding moments within this movie than just about any horror film and each scene is purposeful and carefully measured.

Much is asked of this film’s cast and without some stunning performances, it is likely that MMMM becomes a convoluted mess. Paulson and Dancy each play their roles well though neither is asked to do much comparatively. As the cult leader, John Hawkes is hauntingly spectacular. Embodied with equal parts charm and menace, Hawkes shows exactly why damaged and weak-minded individuals would buy into what he’s selling yet he always allows a terrifying sliminess to ooze through his every word and action. He literally made me shiver. Above all, however, MMMM hinges on the work of Olsen. This is a truly difficult and complex role that many quality, well-known actresses might have mishandled. Martha has to be a sympathetic figure and believably troubled but she also has to be mystery with regard to her true mental capacity. For me to say that this character is sane or insane, fully there or mentally retarded would be a guess on my part and that’s a large part of what makes MMMM work. You don’t so much root for Martha but rather you struggle to understand her which makes her circumstances all the more terse and complex. Simply put, this is a star-making performance that should have earned Olsen far more attention than she received and one that makes Martha Marcy May Marlene a significant cinematic entry.

Review: "This Means War"

If you’ve ever wondered what would happen if you took two charismatic young stars in the prime of their careers and threw them into a movie that made absolutely no attempt to provide them with something to work with, then this is the film for you. A decent-enough concept that never gets off the ground, This Means War stands as an exercise in lazy futility with no hint of ambition.

FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) are lifelong friends who work together as CIA agents. While on desk assignment after an operation goes wrong, Tuck, a hopeless romantic, enrolls in an online dating site and gets setup with Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), a market researcher with a painful relationship history. Shortly after their successful first date, Lauren runs into FDR (no explanation is ever given for his ridiculous name) and strikes up a playful conversation with the consummate lady’s man, eventually settling on a date. When FDR and Tuck discover that they’re dating the same woman, their friendship is put to the test as they engage in an all-out war to win Lauren over. But while the two friends put everything on the line for one woman, an old nemesis arrives in town looking for revenge.

Whatever there is to like about This Means War hinges entirely upon the inherent appeal of Pine and Hardy. In their brief careers, Hardy has probably shown more diversity but both have proven themselves to be impressive on-screen talents (if not bankable stars). Here their combined likability and stellar chemistry are all that stands between This Means War turning into an abject disaster instead of the slightly above average action comedy that it is. Indeed, these two do their parts and then some…and then some more. They had me laughing during scenes that shouldn’t have been funny and paying much closer attention than This Means Warreally deserved. I’m actually somewhat angry that their interactions were wasted on this film instead of occupying space in a more worthwhile endeavor.

Virtually every aspect of This Means War outside of the male leads falls somewhere between barely-passable and downright embarrassing. Witherspoon falls into the former category; there’s nothing diametrically wrong with her performance, it’s just very one-dimensional and unimportant. Lauren is less a character and more a vessel for the furthering of the meager plot. Chelsea Handler, meanwhile, goes far beyond “one-dimensional and unimportant”; her involvement with This Means War could be described as nothing less than soul-crushingly painful. If she’d received five more minutes of screen time, I’m not sure I would have made it through the movie.

More importantly, though, the plot, action, and dialogue contained within This Means Warare laughably ineffective and amateurish. Director McG made a name for himself with TV shows like The OC and more recently Chuck and This Means War proves that old habits die hard. I like Chuck and I’ve always found it to be a fun show but what works on TV doesn’t always (or usually) work in a movie. Unfortunately, this movie plays out like a giant, excessively long episode of Chuck that never aspires to do anything new, fresh, or even overly entertaining. At times it can be fun but only when Pine and Hardy are both on screen and even then, only in short doses. So much more could have been done with what McG had to work with but in many ways it never seems like he had any desire to create a film that had any semblance of cinematic value.

Review: "Safe House"

I’m of the opinion that out of all the movie stars and would-be movie stars in Hollywood, Denzel Washington is one of, if not THE, safest bet. I say this because I don’t think I’ve ever met a person who dislikes the man. In a culture that is built upon strong opinions and holding to said opinions fiercely (this is the backbone of the industry in many ways), it is a remarkable feat to put together a 20+ year career like Denzel has without drawing the ire of someone or some group. Age, race, and gender seem to matter not when it comes to Denzel, whose films almost always find a way to exceed expectations whether they are magnificent (Training Day, American Gangster) or wholly lackluster (John Q, Unstoppable). There is an overriding sense among a high percentage of moviegoers that if Denzel is in, so are they. Safe House, a solid if uninspired action thriller, has proven this theory to be true.

Instead of the undercover investigations and shoot outs he expected when he joined the CIA, Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) has been relegated to manning a safe house in Cape Town, South Africa. He is bored and he wants some action, a desire that is all too well fulfilled at the outset of the film when former CIA agent-turned-traitor Tobin Frost (Washington) is brought to his house for interrogation. Soon after his arrival, a militant force arrives to take possession of Frost, killing the highly-trained team that brought Frost into the house. With no other option, Weston grabs Frost and makes a bolt for it, barely escaping the unknown villains who killed his comrades. With no other teams in the area, Weston’s superior, David Barlow (Brendan Gleeson), tasks him with keeping Frost alive and in custody until he can be collected, a proposition which turns out to be much more difficult and complex than Weston would have ever imagined. With the assailants hot on their trail and Frost crawling deeper and deeper in Weston’s head, the young agent must think fast and learn on the run before he becomes another casualty of a dirty battle that Frost has sucked him into.

There are a few departures from the main storyline at work within Safe House but these distractions are only there to lengthen the film and add some uninteresting depth. This film lives and dies on the performances of Reynolds and Washington, both of whom come through beautifully. It’s been a rough year for Reynolds whose star status has been thrown into serious question with the failures of Green Lantern and The Change-Up. This role, however, is a better fit for him, allowing him to share the load with an established genre veteran instead of being relied upon to carry a major film on his own. I was pleasantly surprised at his ability to give Weston more depth than what you usually get with this sort of film and I thought he hit the right balance between being a half-terrified, inexperienced field agent and being that hardened, “see this thing through to the bitter end” character that Safe House had to have. Washington, meanwhile, is a tour de force, exuding both charisma and menace in just the right amounts. Always a commanding presence on the screen no matter what his role, Washington is at his best when delivering his lines in that quiet, calm, measured manner which he has become famous for and this is a role that calls upon that ability several times. I can’t say that this is one of Washington’s best portrayals and it’s certainly a safer choice than I’d like to see an actor of his caliber make, but it is nonetheless a reminder of exactly why just about everybody digs what this guy has been selling for two decades.

Every other element of Safe House plays second fiddle to the work done by the two leads. The action is intense and somewhat gritty; when a shot is fired, you feel it as much as hear it, a characteristic I quite like in a serious action film. The plot itself is rife with generalities and clichés, making the film about as paint-by-numbers as they come. Personally, though, I didn’t get caught up in these half-hearted missteps too often. Better choices could certainly be made; the major “twist” could be seen from a mile away and the conclusion was unsatisfactory for me. But given director Daniel Espinosa’s relative inexperience behind the camera and the sheer power of Washington’s star appeal, these are issues I found easy to overlook as the film progressed. It’s nothing new and it’s not a film I want to watch a dozen times over but for what it is, Safe House provides an entertaining and appealing experience.

In Home Viewings: "Higher Ground"

Corinne (Vera Farmiga) grew up quite fast. The child of a mismatched, unhappy marriage, she sought attention elsewhere and married young and had a baby. Her husband, Ethan (Joshua Leonard), tried his hand as a musician and on a band road trip their child nearly dies in a bus crash. After this brush with death, Corinne and Ethan turn to the religion Corinne knew as a child and end up becoming part of an evangelical community. In this commune the young family finds peace and meaning and they embrace the conservative ideas of the group’s leader, Bill (Norbert Leo Butz). But as her family grows, so does Corinne’s doubt and as she wrestles with her faith, she finds that her community is unable to handle her unrest.

Higher Ground is based upon the memoir of screenwriter Carolyn S. Briggs and represents Farmiga’s directorial debut. It is a bold, well-crafted film that, even in its weaker moments, gives notice of what is to come from Farmiga from behind the camera. Higher Ground displays a thoughtfulness that is uncommon in religiously-oriented tales of this sort. Rather than jumping head-first into stereotypes and harsh judgments, Farmiga shows her characters to be simply human; these are good people with good hearts even if they are misguided. The lack of condescension (for the most part) within the film was refreshing and resulted in a deeper experience than I might have expected. This isn’t a story about corporate religion so much as it is about one woman’s personal struggles with faith and that difference is what makes Higher Ground worth watching.

On screen, Farmiga is charming and charismatic as ever. For me, there are very few actresses who command attention the way Farmiga does. She’s a tremendous talent, to be sure, but there is also an inherent presence about her that makes her a wholly intriguing, captivating performer no matter what role she takes on. Her portrayal here is understated and quiet but nonetheless powerful, an excellent illustration of what a great actress can do when given room to work.

Unfortunately for Higher Ground, Farmiga’s work both behind and in front of the camera is no match for the dull nature of the film’s narrative. This is one of the more boring experiences you’ll likely have with a film this year, which is a shame because I found the lacking storyline to be an immense hindrance to becoming invested in the film. I don’t think this is a case of poor pacing or bad choices from the director. In fact, I feel that Farmiga does a good job of piecing together the story and fleshing out the parts that have the best chance of becoming connectible. I believe the problem is found within the source material which is simply doesn’t translate well to the screen. There’s very little within Higher Ground that you could describe as exciting, relevant, or even mildly intriguing. Some stories work well both as pieces of literary non-fiction and films; some do not. In this case, that lack of cinematic value results in a somewhat meaningless and decidedly uninteresting viewing that doesn’t measure up to the quality of Farmiga’s work on the project.

Review: "Wanderlust"

Whether good or bad, love or hate, movies should always elicit a reaction; the stronger the better in my book. When I come out of a theater, I want to have an opinion of the film I just saw and I want to be bubbling over with comments to process and compile into a review. As such, one of the worst traits a film can have is a lack of noteworthy content. If I cannot muster up a few hundred words on a given film, then I can’t exactly give a hearty recommendation. Such is the case with Wanderlust.

Life isn’t going well for George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston). Just days after paying too much for a small New York apartment, George’s company goes under and Linda’s new business idea is wrecked. Jobless and penniless, the couple heads to Atlanta where George has a job waiting for him, courtesy of his obnoxious older brother (Ken Marino). On the way down, however, they stop in at a remote bed and breakfast which turns out to be a commune. Led by a charismatic free spirit named Seth (Justin Theroux), this group of hippies have embraced a simpler way of life that comes complete with all the amenities and ideals you might expect of such a community. Intrigued by the happiness the group exudes, George and Linda decide to move into the commune for a two-week trial run. Shenanigans ensue.

Most of what I liked about Wanderlust boiled down to my affection for the leads, Rudd and Aniston. Rudd is one of the most likeable, perpetually enjoyable comedic actors in the field today and he always manages to come across as a bright spot even in a bad movie. I think Rudd’s charm comes as a result of his ability to bridge the gap between nerd and cool guy; he doesn’t exactly belong in either camp and yet can walk in both. As always, Rudd gives an endearing and appealing performance here and exudes a natural, everyman charisma. I’m pretty sure several of the funnier scenes within Wanderlust are the product of Rudd’s improvised banter and as such, this film owes a great deal to its star. Aniston, too, is a favorite of mine (despite some of truly terrible films) who has proven to possess a comedic touch when given something to work with. Her chemistry with Rudd is solid and while her role isn’t as well developed as Rudd’s, she does her job well and the pair makes for a solid combination.

The other elements of Wanderlust, however, are lackluster. The narrative contains a few promising storylines but they aren’t fleshed out with much pizzazz. There are plenty of laughs but most of them come from easy, “low hanging fruit”-type jokes that get old as the film progresses. And most of the supporting characters are as one-note as they come; each brings a few laughs here and there when they’re in their respective elements but then run out of gas and become tiresome. Theroux, Malin Ackerman, Kathryn Hahn, and several others have their moments but none of them ever really get moving or show any signs of development. This lack of depth and development results in the feeling that Wanderlust is not so much a film as it is a bundle of individual scenes, vignettes if you will, tied together by George and Linda in loose, unsatisfying fashion.

There’s nothing inherently or irrevocably wrong with Wanderlust but outside of a few laughs and the appeal of the leads, there’s nothing truly right about it, either. It simply is and that lack of significance makes for an overly ho-hum experience.

Ranking the Last 20 Best Picture Winners

Perhaps my favorite thing about the cinema (behind massive explosions, Morgan Freeman’s voice and Rachel McAdams, of course) is the varying opinions moviegoers have about certain films. Most of us can objectively pick out “good” movies and “bad” movies; everyone except Nick Swardson knows Bucky Larson is a cow chip of a film and everyone knows The Shawshank Redemption is a masterpiece (see what I did there?). But when you add in concepts like interpretation, entertainment, and enjoyment, objectivity goes out the window and the whole process becomes complicated. I love that differing of opinion and the good natured debate that often follows. In no setting is the debate of what is good and what isn’t more prevalent than during award season. The Academy Awards in particular bring out the critic in just about every moviegoer and more often than not, I think it’s safe to say we cinephiles disagree with what the Academy thinks is best. This list is not about pointing out what films should have been honored over the last two decades (though that idea may sneak in a time or two); it is simply a ranking (taking into account quality of film and personal connection/appreciation) of the films that have taken home a Best Picture Oscar in the last twenty years. Let the debate begin.

20. Shakespeare in Love (1998) - Joseph Fiennes, Gwyneth Paltrow, Geoffrey Rush

There are several BP winners on this list that I personally do not care for but Shakespeareis the only one I hold as a straight-up bad film. I feel like I could probably just say, “Shakespeare features Ben Affleck trying to pull off an accent” and leave it at that. Under the impression that perhaps I had given this movie an unfair shake due to the fact that it beat out Saving Private Ryan (a personal favorite of mine) for BP that year, I tried to give Shakespeare another chance recently. I made it through about 15 minutes.

19. The English Patient (1996) - Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Kristin Scott Thomas

From a technical standpoint, English Patient is a fantastic film. Landscapes, cinematography, etc. - all of those elements are great. But from a storytelling standpoint, there are very few films that bore me faster than this one. I’ve seen the whole film in various pieces but I’ve never been able to manage a full viewing from beginning to end. I just can’t make myself care enough to sit through it.

18. Million Dollar Baby (2004) - Hilary Swank, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman

All cards on the table, I’m not sure why I dislike this movie so much. I’ve watched MDBtwice: once right after its release on DVD and once more recently. Both times I had the overwhelming desire to stop watching movies altogether. Maybe it’s just that I’ve never understood the merits of Hilary Swank or maybe Clint Eastwood’s “grizzled old man” bit has worn thin. I’m actually getting a little angry just thinking about this movie now so I’m going to move on to the next film.

17. American Beauty (1999) - Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Mena Suvari

I will not question the quality of the filmmaking that went into American Beauty and I understand why so many people champion it as a great piece of work. But if I were to take all the characters from every film on this list and line them up from my favorite to my least favorite, the bottom half would be dominated by those from American Beauty. There’s not a likeable character in this movie for me and that results in a wholly dissatisfying experience.

16. Chicago (2002) - Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta Jones, Richard Gere

Chicago suffers in my book for three major reasons:

1.) Zellweger has never done anything for me on any level;

2.) I don’t like musicals;

3.) Hearing “All That Jazz” played 100 billion times during that year’s broadcast left me with an indelible hatred for this film.

I also just don’t think it’s a Best Picture-caliber film. 2002 was a down year for award-worthy films (Two Towers excluded) but I have a hard time accepting this as the best film a given a year has to offer.

 15. Forrest Gump (1994) - Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Sally Field

Much like Chicago, one of Forrest Gump’s problems is that I can’t accept it as a Best Picture-caliber film. A heart-warming story? Sure. A well-acted film? Sure. But a Best Picture winner? Really? The final act alone, in which Forrest changes the world through a serious of dumb coincidences, should have kept this film out of contention. Its bigger crime, however, is that it somehow beat out Shawshank and Pulp Fiction for BP. Those are two of the greatest films of all time and somehow neither was recognized in the year of their release.  I hate Forrest Gump; truly and unequivocally hate it.

14. Titanic (1997) - Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane

I must be completely honest: Titanic could have been the greatest film in the history of the medium and I probably still would have hated it. I was borderline obsessed with the tale of the Titanic as a kid and my excitement was immeasurable when, as a young teenager, I heard they were making a movie about the ill-fated voyage. I was furious, then, to learn that my beloved fascination had been turned into a romance; it was a punch in the stomach that I’ve never been able to get past. It was years before I even saw this movie and it’s for the best that I never take it in again.

13. A Beautiful Mind (2001) - Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly

I am less sure about my opinion of this film than I am any other on the list. I saw ABM in theaters and loved it but upon my second viewing a few years later, I was less impressed. It didn’t leave much of an impression the second time around and maybe that’s indicative of its overall value.

12. Crash (2005) - Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Matt Dillon

I think Crash has developed an unfair reputation as a disgraceful BP winner. You could convince me that Brokeback Mountain should have taken home the hardware that year but I personally think Crash is a powerful, well-made film that deserves more respect than it gets these days.

11. The King’s Speech (2010) - Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter

If I’d had a vote last year (crossing my fingers that it’ll come through in time for next year’s voting), I, like most of you, would have thrown my support behind Inceptionor The Social Network. But if those two were eliminated from contention, I’d have no trouble jumping on this movie’s bandwagon. The dynamic between Firth and Rush is superb and while it may have been a bit hokey, I dig the speech in the final scenes.

10. The Hurt Locker (2009) - Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Guy Pearce

The Hurt Lockeris not nearly as iconic of a film as Renner’s lead performance is. But wow, what a magnificent piece of acting Renner turns in here. He more than carries the load; in fact, I think he’s the reason this film took home six Oscars. That’s not to say it isn’t a great film, because it is. Kathryn Bigelow manages to dive into the fragile psyche of soldiers at war in a way that dozens of other films have failed to accomplish. It is Renner, however, who makes this film work.

9. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) - Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Anil Kapoor

I don’t have a whole lot to say about Slumdog other than I love it. I love how fresh and lively it is. I love how Danny Boyle’s unique style comes to life. I love how the blended story comes together. And I love that, generally speaking, it has a happy ending. Very few well-respected, BP-quality films conclude on a high note and while I’m not someone who needs that to enjoy a film (obviously), it’s refreshing when a filmmaker is able to pull it off.

8. Gladiator (2000) - Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Djimon Hounsou

There’s a lot to like about Gladiator, including some outstanding action sequences and a strong narrative that works on a number of levels. But there are two reasons why Gladiator ranks high on this list:

1.) It marks the comeback, as it were, of Ridley Scott, one of the industry’s best directors who, in 2000, hadn’t had a hit in nearly a decade (Thelma and Louise);

2.) I think the hero-villain dynamic between Crowe and Phoenix is one of the most underrated of its type in recent history. Phoenix is a perfect match for Crowe. They are exact opposites and yet strangely similar except in the way they react to life’s hurdles.

7. Silence of the Lambs (1991) - Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster, Ted Levine

If you weren’t legitimately freaked out by Hopkins’ Hannibal Lecter, then you’re either exceptionally desensitized to sheer horror or you weren’t 8 years old when Silencedebuted (like me). Holy crap. In the pantheon of great movie villains, I’m not sure I could keep Lecter out of the top ten. Truly terrifying. Beyond Hopkins, though, Silence is a chilling, well-written film that still holds up quite well 20 years later.

6. Braveheart (1995) - Mel Gibson, Sophie Marceau, Angus Macfayden

I’ve heard plenty of criticism of Braveheart over the years but I refuse to truly listen to any of it. Historical inaccuracies, bad accents, and whatever else, the issues don’t matter to me when compared to this film’s wholly engrossing narrative, beautiful sets, and terrific acting. This is a powerful epic that sticks with me no matter how long I go between viewings (which usually isn’t very long).

5. Unforgiven (1992) - Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman

I literally just watched this film for the first time years and it strikes me as one that gets better not only the more times I see it but also the older I get. I don’t think I could appreciate it when I was 18 the way I do now. Unforgiven contains what is in my mind Eastwood’s greatest performance and the blurred line between good and evil that his character exhibits is exquisite. Likewise, Hackman provides the perfect antagonist. The dialogue, too, is MAGNIFICENT. If there’s a problem with Unforgiven, it is Jamiz Woolvett’s somewhat painful acting. I get that he’s trying to pay homage to the Westerns of old but yikes…

4. Return of the King (2003) - Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood

When I think about the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I consider them one giant film (and if we’re talking about the director’s cut, then it’s like one Godzilla-sized film) rather than three separate entities. That one giant film is one of my five favorite films of all-time. I probably watch my copies of this film more than any other. But if I’m forced to cut the film into thirds and consider their merits individually, I think Return of the King is the “worst” of the three. The conclusion is especially long and somewhat anti-climactic (warranted when considering the three films as one whole). Obviously, however, the slightstep down Return is from the first two LOTR installments doesn’t prevent it from being a wonderful film. Just know that if I put the three together for this list like I do in my mind, it would definitely hold the top spot.

3. The Departed (2006) - Leonard DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson

You either LOVE The Departed like I do or you DESPISE it. I’m not sure I know anyone who falls into the middle ground of those two categories; it’s simply a polarizing film. Personally, I don’t think you can get much better from an acting, writing, or straight filmmaking standpoint. An impeccable cast, a brilliant script, and a genuine sense of passion on Scorsese’s part that exudes through every scene. I would have been fine with The Departedtaking home every major award in 2006.

2. Schindler’s List (1993) - Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes

This is, without question, the greatest movie that I will never watch again. One viewing is plenty enough to sufficiently haunt me for the rest of my life. Spielberg’s passion for the project is evident but without two perfect portrayals, Neeson as the hero and Fiennes as one of the most disgusting bad guys ever, Schindler’s List probably doesn’t have quite the same impact. Then again, the closing scene in which the real life survivors that Schindler saved walk by his grave is one of the most harrowing and powerful film-related experiences I’ve ever had with a film. The only “knock” on this film is just what I said at the outset: I won’t/can’t watch it again and, perhaps unfairly, that brings it down a notch.

1. No Country for Old Men (2007) - Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones

When I wrote my review for NCFOM a few years back, it was the first time I ever used the word “masterpiece” to describe a film. And that’s exactly what it is in my mind. It is the picture of perfection. From the phenomenal, understated performances of all the actors involved to the meticulous way in which the film moves right on down to the use of natural noise for a soundtrack, there are no misses within NCFOM. Perhaps the master stroke is the way in which this film concludes, an ending many people disliked but that, for me, served as a perfect representation of the film as a whole. This is, for me, the Coen Brothers’ crowning achievement and that is, of course, saying something.

In Home Viewings: "Real Steel"

Set in the not-so-distant future, Real Steal brings us into a reality in which human boxing has been replaced by bouts between Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em robots on steroids. (This appears to be the only difference between our current society and the one portrayed in the film.) Charlie Kenton, a former boxing champ, makes a quasi-living taking a robot from town to town, engaging in low-rent and sometimes illegal fights for whatever cash he can get his hands on. Needless to say, he also owes some bad people some serious money. Just as he runs out of money and useable robots, he finds out that the mother of his illegitimate child, Max (Dakota Goyo), has died and he is forced to take Max out on the road with him for the summer. After breaking into a robot parts center, Charlie and Max stumble across an aging robot buried in the ground, a machine that Max takes a liking to. As the robot, named Adam, proves to be more important than originally thought, Charlie allows Max to enroll Adam in various underground fights, a path that ultimately leads to the major fighting circuit and a chance at the prize fight that Charlie never got.

On my personal list of 2011’s biggest surprises, Real Steel reaching a high level of profitability would rank fairly high. I thought, along with just about everyone else, that this movie was headed to “disaster” status, especially considering its $110 million budget. Instead, it stayed atop the domestic box office for two weeks and then managed to bring home a huge chunk of cash overseas. Even more surprising, Real Steel found some actual praise from noteworthy critics, earning enough good press that I had to switch move it from “Don’t See” to “Rent” on my upcoming movie spreadsheet (yes, I have an upcoming movie spreadsheet; stop laughing). When I finally did get a chance to check this movie out, I was actually somewhat excited about the prospect of taking it in, a sentiment I did not expect. In hindsight, I probably should have stuck to my original thoughts.

More than anything else, Real Steel is a prime example of how one misstep in the filmmaking process can bring the whole thing crashing down. In truth, most of the elements at play in this movie are good-enough for a family action flick, if not downright solid. The plot is shallow but also light and breezy, the type of narrative that certainly isn’t inspired but does a serviceable job of staying away from embarrassing or irritating. (For the record, I feel that’s all you can ask of a film like this.) Jackman is believable in his role and you get the sense that he enjoyed making this movie, a “plus” that should never be overlooked. The supporting actors around Jackman, including Anthony Mackie (The Adjustment Bureau) and Evangeline Lilly (Lost), do an admirable job of holding up their end of the bargain and even the marginal background actors are fine in most cases. And the action sequences are fun and lively, providing an illustration of how to use CGI effectively in this sort of movie. Real Steel doesn’t suck you in or create an investment the way a normal sports movie does but the action is rapid fire and enjoyable.

You would think that would make for a pretty good movie overall. But you would be wrong. Because no matter how entertaining the fights are, how enjoyable Jackman is, and how easy the plot moves, the combination cannot overcome the head-meets-wall pain brought on by Goyo. I really, really, REALLY try hard not to bag on child actors on the grounds of, “it’s not his/her fault.” They’re just kids, after all, and it’s unfair to expect greatness from a kid. This is, however, a special case. I wish the best for Goyo; I hope he gets better and I hope he has a long and glorious career. But as of right now, this kid is TERRIBLE. His deliberate and overdone mannerisms and disposition are painful and with every word he spoke, I became more and more aware of the tiny gremlin that was stabbing me in the ear with an appropriately-sized trident. Even worse (and unfortunately unforgivable in my book), Goyo bears a strong resemblance, both in appearance and in general acting style, to Jake Lloyd, the poor unfortunate soul whom George Lucas picked to play Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace. (Also known as, “The Worst Child Actor Ever in the History of the Cinema Including Any and All Cinematic Endeavors That Take Place on Hereto Now Unknown Planets.”) Every time I looked at the screen I experienced a Vietnam-esque flashback to the most painful experience of my movie going life. The desire to cry and then punch the poor kid grew each time he uttered an excruciating sentence and his presence made the final product nearly unbearable for me. His casting is a giant screw-up that, at least for this Star Wars junkie, overshadowed everything else Real Steel had to offer and left a bad taste in my mouth when it was all said and done.