Review: "The Help"

in ,

DISCLAIMER: I do not know how historically accurate this film is nor do I care. There has been some controversy, on both racial and factual levels, regarding “The Help” and while I’m sure some of it is valid, much of the negative press seems at best nitpicky in my book. Regardless, I am here to report on this film and the story it tells and nothing more. If you’re looking for a historical commentary, I would suggest finding another review.

There was a time in my life when if you’d asked me what I wanted to do for a career and excluded all ridiculous things like professional basketball player and Will Smith’s best friend, there’s a decent chance I would have told you civil rights historian. This was a short period of time, mind you, because I soon learned that to be a historian you had to spend a LOT of time studying which was never my strong suit. Even if I managed to master the art of studying, between interviews for features on the History Channel and the extras they put on disc two of a special edition DVD that no one watches, I would have to do something else like teach History or manage a museum, neither of which held any interest for me. Still, I’ve long held an interest in civil rights and I can very rarely resist a film or book centered on this topic no matter how historically inaccurate it may be. I didn’t read “The Help” (because if I don’t stand up to Oprah’s immeasurable power then no one will) but my wife did and I kept the film adaptation on my radar as a result. My attention was rewarded with one of the better films of the year and one that will certainly garner plenty of attention when Award Season rolls around.

After her college graduation, Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone) returns home to Jackson, Mississippi with a new job and a new outlook on life. She soon finds, however, that she is much different from her group of childhood friends, particularly their leader, Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas-Howard). Looking to make a name for herself as a journalist, Skeeter begins interviewing two lifelong maids, Aibileen (Viola Davis) and Minnie (Octavia Spencer), in hopes of putting together a book written from the perspective of the help. In the very midst of the civil rights movement, Skeeter’s book (and those who lent their voices to its creation) becomes a hot button issue that has much more impact than even Skeeter could have imagined.

The narrative of “The Help” is engrossing and relevant. Very rarely does a film grab my attention on an emotional level as quickly as this one did. While I am a self-professed cry baby, I usually don’t have to fight the urge to weep within minutes of the opening credits like I did this time around. “The Help” is emotionally charged but in an organic way that doesn’t feel forced. Given that this is the first real film for writer/director Tate Taylor, I was a little concerned going in that he would overload the audience with fake emotionalism. That’s an easy trap to fall into but Taylor navigates around the typical “tug at your heartstrings” pitfalls with the panache of a much more experienced hand. The script is strong, providing natural moments for both laughs and tears. Taylor’s characters are extremely well defined; they know who they are and so does the audience and through that, their personal evolutions are much more meaningful. He also takes great pains to avoid the vilification of most of the white characters. What I mean by this is that it would have been very easy (because it’s been done a hundred million times before) to turn all of the white characters aside from Skeeter into vile, racist scumbags one step away from membership in the KKK. Instead, Taylor illustrates the ignorance and the cultural failings that many people would exhibit in 1960’s Jackson, Mississippi. Skeeter seems more open minded than her counterparts and that, I feel, leads the film away from becoming a prolonged celebration of the white woman who led the way and allows for more focus on the true stars of the show, Aibileen and Minnie.

The cast of “The Help” is exquisite, almost perfect across the board. Bryce Dallas-Howard makes Hilly sufficiently hateable and as the only character in the film that is truly a bad (or even evil) person, she’s asked to carry a lot of the load. It is somewhat of a one-note character, truth be told, but Dallas-Howard maximizes her screen time and shows just what a force she will one day be. Allison Janie and Sissy Spacek are both excellent in limited screen time with Spacek providing quality comedy and Janie embodying the change that Skeeter hopes to provoke. As a social outcast, Jessica Chastain is absolutely dynamic. She brings a presence to the screen that is eerily similar to that of a young Julia Roberts (incredibly high praise in my book). Stone isn’t overly impressive but then again, she isn’t much to work with. Every time she is called upon to carry a scene she does so beautifully but “The Help” really isn’t about Skeeter and as such, Stone isn’t asked to do much.

In the end, the power of “The Help” comes down to the performances of Davis and Spencer, both of whom are MAGNIFICENT. Aibileen and Minnie are wholly different but together they form a brilliant team. Aibileen exhibits quiet strength; she says little but when she does speak, it is always worthwhile; she misses nothing and the years of witnessing the changes in the children she’s raised have clearly worn on her. Minnie, meanwhile, is filled to the brim with sass; she is quick to speak and even quicker to lash out with hilarious if truly unfortunate methods; she is hard but not unsympathetic to those around her. Both of these actresses absolutely nail their parts and bring humanity to the struggle for equality that is often, quite frankly, lost in many civil rights films. Both seem born to play their parts and both deserve the accolades which will undoubtedly come their way.

“The Help” tells a sprawling tale, though at times at times it deviates a little too much from what makes it special and becomes a bit long winded. I imagine readers of the book will enjoy the tangents (such as a love interest for Skeeter) more than I did but still, the transition from second to third act is a little sluggish. That said I found “The Help” to be bold and compelling, a human drama that pulls the audience in and doesn’t let go until the final credits roll. It shines a light on an underexposed segment of the fight for civil rights and portrays its subjects not as larger than life heroes but instead real people with genuine courage.

Grade: A-

How is “hateable” not a word?
Brian

"The Debt"

in ,

I’ve always had a slight fascination with Nazi war criminals and their pursuers. I can’t tell you why, exactly, other than the obvious appeal of justice being done but regardless, the whole concept always piques my interest. I never miss a film that centers on this subject and if I come across a TV show that delves into the subject, I’ll record it every time. “The Debt”, therefore, has been on my radar for quite some time. Originally slated for a late 2010 release, it’s been pushed back a couple of times until finally being dumped at the end of the summer, which is never a good sign. Still, with its quality cast and interesting subject matter I went in to “The Debt” with relatively high expectations and was rewarded nicely for my patience.

In 1966, three young Mossad agents are sent to East Berlin and given the task of capturing Nazi doctor Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen) and bringing him to trial in Israel. The team consists of Stephan (Marton Csokas), David (Sam Worthington), and Rachel (Jessica Chastain), who is the key to their plan as Vogel, known as the Surgeon of Birkenau, has been working as a fertility doctor since the end of the war. Posing as a wife unable to get pregnant, Rachel drugs Vogel and her teammates smuggle him out of the clinic. But when their plan to get him across the Berlin Wall fails, the agents are left to wait in East Berlin with their silver tongued hostage. On a rainy New Year’s Eve, Vogel is shot dead during an escape attempt, allowing the agents to return home without their prize but as heroes nonetheless.  We fast forward 30 years when rumors begin to circulate about a great secret the agents have held on to since that fateful night in Berlin. With their reputations on the line, it is left up to Rachel (now played by Helen Mirren) to cover up their secret once and for all.

“The Debt” weaves a compelling tale that doesn’t so much keep you guessing as it does keep you engaged, a slow burn that stalls at times but never becomes boring. It’s a fairly straight forward thriller though the narrative unfolds in a non-linear form, jumping back and forth between 1966 and 1997. “The Debt” is taut and director John Madden (not that John Madden though now that I think about yes, yes I would watch a movie director by that John Madden) does an excellent job of keeping the film’s momentum moving through the first two acts. The third act was a bit of a letdown for me. The conclusion is fairly obvious and while I don’t think it was the desire of the filmmaker’s plan to keep the twist a giant secret (I believe you’re intended to know the majority of what’s going to happen) I would have liked the film to get to it with a little more urgency.

Where “The Debt” excels is in the outstanding performances of its pitch perfect cast. Top billing goes to the older versions of the Mossad agents, Mirren, Tom Wilkinson (Stephan), and Ciaran Hinds (David), and each hold their own. Mirren is asked to do the most work amongst these three and she does a solid job of exhibiting the mark that the weight a 30 year secret would leave on a person. Wilkinson isn’t used much, quite honestly, and isn’t given much to work with. Hinds, though, is exquisite in each of his limited scenes. One of my very favorite “Actors Who Rarely Get Starring Roles but Are Always Awesome No Matter How Little Attention They Get” (a list known as the “Barry Pepper All-Stars”), Hinds absolutely nails his role and made me want for more. As their younger versions, both Csokas and Worthington give strong portrayals. Their characters are dramatically different, Stephan overflowing with arrogance and confidence while David boils with quiet rage, and each is given depth by the actors. Jespersen, too, gives Vogel a terrifying aura of refined hatred and menace. Vogel really isn’t given much room to develop but Jespersen makes the most of his screen time.

But in the end, “The Debt” hangs entirely on the performance of Chastain who gives Rachel equal parts fear and courage, which is exactly what I would imagine an inexperienced field agent would have when confronted with a monster like Vogel. Her portrayal is measured and cautious and often her best moments are those in which she does not speak but instead lets her eyes and body language do the talking. You have to wonder what life must be like for Chastain, an actress that virtually no one had heard of at the beginning of the year. With only a handful of credits to her name, the best of which is a short stay on one of the “Law and Order” spinoffs, by the end of the year, she will have appeared in no less than six films in 2011 and has vaulted herself into the “Leading Lady” category. In a film featuring some incredible actors who have garnered a ton of attention over the years, it is Chastain who stands out and who carries the film. It is a terrific performance.

In the end, I don’t think “The Debt” as a whole is equal to the sum of its better parts. There’s a lot of good here but beyond Chastain, there’s nothing truly great about the film. Madden and his group of writers (including “X-Men: First Class” director Matthew Vaughn) have crafted a quality thriller that has plenty of moments but isn’t overly impressive. In essence, it is good but not special, though certainly worth the price of admission.

Grade: B+

Would that John Madden use a telestrator on his own film?
Brian

Review: 50/50

in ,

If I had a time machine (this flux capacitor thing is turning out to be much more complex than I originally thought) I’d go back to around 1995, find some underhanded Hollywood oddsmaker, and lay down some serious cash on Joseph Gordon-Levitt becoming a big deal. Whether it was his turn in my generation’s most uplifting sports movie, “Angels in the Outfield” (I’m only half kidding) or his consistent scene stealing on “3rd Rock from the Sun”, I just always had a feeling that this guy was going to make a serious mark. He disappeared for a few years and I bided my time, knowing that he was just one role from a breakout, hoping to be proven right. And then, BAM! 2007 rolls around and JGL shows up in “The Lookout”, a smart thriller that Roger Ebert himself raved about. From that point on, it’s been one well-respected film after another (we can all forget about “G.I. Joe”, right?). JGL is now a go-to-guy for leading indie roles and a mainstay for Christopher Nolan, perhaps the biggest director in the industry right now. I’ve been wrong many times (how is Danielle Fishel not taking roles from Ginnifer Goodwin?!) but I was spot on with JGL and “50/50” is my sweet vindication for touting his many virtues. Adam (Gordon-Levitt) is a rule-following, mild-mannered twentysomething who lives in 50-50-movie-poster1Seattle with his girlfriend, Rachael (Bryce Dallas-Howard), and works at Seattle Public Radio. His life takes a sudden and dramatic turn when he is diagnosed with a rare form of cancer that has taken over his spine. A laidback kind of guy, Adam handles each hurdle with surprising ease and levity while engaging in somewhat helpful counseling from Katie (Anna Kendrick), a young psychologist the hospital assigns him. Before long, though, his complex relationships with Rachael, his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), and his needy mother (Angelica Huston) become even more convoluted with the introduction of chemotherapy and medicinal marijuana into his life. As the severity of his condition increases, Adam begins to reassess his life, his relationships, and the nonplussed façade he uses to get himself through.

The inevitable comparisons between “50/50” and 2009’s “Funny People” are unfortunate. While I stuck up for “Funny People” more than most of my colleagues, even I will admit it is an incredibly flawed film that misses the mark on many levels. “50/50”, then, plays out a bit like what “Funny People” should have been, right down to the performance of Seth Rogen. It is, first and foremost, a very funny movie and that is where “Funny People” first went awry. You can’t make a comedy about cancer, or any other serious illness for that matter, and fail to produce a genuinely funny script. Laughs come often and organically. I also quite liked that writer Will Reiser (who based his script on the events of his own battle with cancer) makes it clear early on that he intends to laugh at cancer and if you’re not up for that, you’re in the wrong theater. That is not to say that the disease itself or the havoc it wreaks on Adam’s life is disrespected or ignored; in fact, “50/50” gives a fairly realistic view of the hell that is aggressive cancer and the sometimes even more aggressive treatment. “50/50” is bold but soft, a combination that works well.

The dialogue between the characters in “50/50” flows with tremendous ease, especially in the scenes involving Adam and Kyle. This dynamic between JGL and Rogen is the meat of the film and the two play it out brilliantly. They have a chemistry that Anne Hathaway only wishes she could develop with…well, anyone. (That was an unnecessary shot at Miss Hathaway. My apologies.) They reminded me of the type of friendship I might have with any one of my closer pals if we cursed more and occasionally smoked pot. Adam’s other relationships are a bit awkward but whether this was done on purpose or not, it serves the narrative well. In my mind he would have a tense partnership with Rachael because they’re clearly not suited for each other and any furtherance of his friendship with Katie beyond doctor-patient would be a bit odd.

All of the supporting actors hold their own. As spot-on as I might have been with JGL all those years ago, I would have never guessed, after reluctantly watching “Twilight”, that Kendrick would be an actress whose performances I truly look forward to. This isn’t quite to the level of her work in “Up in the Air” but it is good and believable nonetheless. Huston’s character seems a bit over-the-top in the early going but the depth of her character comes to light in the late stages and Huston pulls it together splendidly. And Rogen gives what might be his best performance to date. To be fair, I’m not much of a Rogen fan so I’m far from an expert on his value as an actor. But whereas he was completely outclassed in “Funny People” and pretty much plays the same character in almost every film, he shows a little more strength in “50/50” than he ever has before (with the possible exception of “Knocked Up”). I actually liked him and I haven’t felt that way toward him very often.

But of course, the weight of “50/50” rests almost entirely on the shoulders of JGL and he holds up to the challenge. One of the best compliments I can give an actor is to say that he and his character become one and the same. That’s what JGL does here and that’s why “50/50” succeeds. He envelopes himself into the Adam character and makes his portrayal incredibly believable. It is almost like watching a documentary on a young cancer patient. Adam handles his disease with class and dignity but not without emotion. His outbursts are few but powerful and through them JGL sells the story beautifully. Simply put, this guy is a star and “50/50” serves as the announcement of such to those of you who didn’t already know this to be fact.

“50/50” is honest and at times tough to watch but never purposefully harsh or depressing. In fact, it is generally positive but in a way that isn’t all sunshine and unicorns. It is smart, hilarious, and even touching while all the time remaining respectful of the audience’s ability to relate to difficult circumstances without artificial emotional fishing. It is an excellent film marked by one outstanding performance that deserves the attention received come Award Season.

Grade: A+

I used italics a lot this time around, Brian

Review - "Our Idiot Brother"

in ,

I am, if nothing else, a planner. I think ahead, do my research, and put together an agenda, whether in my head or in written form, for just about anything. It doesn’t really matter if what I’m planning for is something life altering (like a career move) or something as frivolous as seeing a film. If I’m going to the movies, I plan ahead and figure out the what, when, and where just like I would if I was trying to determine a course of action regarding a major medical procedure. And when my plan gets derailed, I’m starting to believe that whenever possible, it’s better to just go home, reboot, and come up with another plan rather than forge ahead. In other words, the next time I head to the theater to see “The Help” and it’s sold out, I’m headed home to watch “24” reruns rather than going to see “Our Idiot Brother” instead.

“Our Idiot Brother” begins with Ned (Paul Rudd), a genuinely nice, simpleminded hippie making the unfortunate mistake of selling weed to a (uniformed) police officer. Eight months later, after being release from prison on good behavior, Ned finds that in his absence, his girlfriend (Kathryn Hahn) has left him and taken control of all his possessions, leaving him homeless and dog-less. Unsure of what to do with his life, Ned begins jumping from couch to couch, crashing with his sisters (Emily Mortimer, Elizabeth Banks, and Zooey Deschanel) and intruding on their assorted social and professional lives. Despite his good heart, Ned manages to wear out his welcome with each of his sisters and likewise, each of his sisters manage to let him down in some way or another, forcing Ned to come to grips with reality and make some tough choices.

On paper, the makers of “Our Idiot Brother” did a number of things right. They assembled an outstanding and diverse cast. It doesn’t seem possible that a film that features Rudd, Deschanel, Banks, and Adam Scott could fail. Rudd, while not what I would call a movie star, has shown the ability to carry a film and has wide ranging appeal. They kept the production budget extremely low ($5 million) keeping monetary expectations low. And they cut a set of outstanding trailers that pegged “Brother” as a fun but sensitive R-rated comedy that could be a breath of fresh air in a summer so heavily packed with less sophisticated comedies.
Would you trust this guy with the direction of your film?
Unfortunately, movies aren’t made by what you see on the IMDB profile. If you will allow me a generic sports metaphor, “that’s why they play the game.” From the outset, “Our Idiot Brother” is one uncomfortable misfire after another. Outside of Ned, none of the characters are likeable or relatable in the slightest, creating an immediate and awkward disconnect with the audience. They are also uncommonly shallow and one-dimensional and their relationships with one another reflect that, especially when the sisters are involved. The actors almost across the board seem somewhat lost and aimless which is (clearly) an indictment of director Jesse Peretz, best known for his work on “The Ex” (yikes). Rudd is able to create passable chemistry with a number of supporting actors (especially Scott and T.J. Miller), but his interactions with Banks, Deschanel, Mortimer, and Rashida Jones (who plays the girlfriend of Deschanel) range from unsatisfying to downright depressing. The way in which Ned is treated by his family occasionally strays into the territory of being cruel. Even so, the inevitable change, when Ned’s sisters realize how poorly they’ve treated him is too easy and too sudden to hit home, leaving the distinct taste of underdevelopment in the audience’s mouth.

Still, the greatest crime “Our Idiot Brother” commits is its overall lack of humor. I must be honest: I’m an easy laugh. I like dark comedy, physical comedy, witty comedy, and stupid comedy. I’m the guy you want in the room when you’re telling a joke because the odds are stacked in your favor in terms of getting a laugh. So I think it’s a bad sign when I can sit through a comedy without having a good hearty laugh or two and “Our Idiot Brother” didn’t provide that. I wasn’t alone in my laughlessness, either. I cannot remember seeing a true comedy that elicited less laughs from the audience as this one did. It was almost silent in my theater as one “joke” after another failed to land. It was a truly uncomfortable situation for us all and I felt like everyone in the room had the same thought: “So…when is this going to get funny?”

Without question, Paul Rudd is the best part of “Our Idiot Brother” and his performance is solid enough. But the film falls apart around him scene by scene. In the end, you’re just left to wonder what the point of all this is in the first place. I really wanted to like this film but it simply is not smart, is not funny, and is not quirky enough to recommend.

Grade: C

I just created the word “laughlessness”,
Brian

Review: "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"

in ,

I have mixed feelings about the “Planet of the Apes” franchise. The 1968 original is one of my favorite sci-fi films. In spite, or perhaps because, of the cheesiness and ridiculousness of that film, it brings joy to my heart every time I catch a few minutes of it on TV. In high school, because we were really cool, two of my best friends and I once rented every “Apes” film Blockbuster had in stock and watched them all back-to-back. We probably should have tried to find dates instead but oh well. I loved this franchise. Then the summer of 2001 came and brought with it Tim Burton’s reimagining of “Planet of the Apes.” It’s a terrible film. Just terrible. Honestly I get a little angry every time I even think about it. In general I have a pretty open mind as far as what films others like and dislike; it’s all subjective. But I judge harshly anyone who actually likes Burton’s “Apes”; that movie sucks, plain and simple. The 2001 version left a bad taste in my mouth and took away some of my zeal for the “Ape” universe. I couldn’t muster up any excitement for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” when the trailer started running and I just wasn’t up for throwing my support behind another reimagining. But the overwhelmingly positive buzz surrounding this movie finally wore me down and I was able to step into the theater with guarded optimism.

Will Rodman (James Franco) is an elite geneticist on the verge of a cure for Alzheimer’s through his experimentation with a group of apes. Just as he is ready to present his findings to his company’s board of directors, something goes horribly wrong and an ape on Rodman’s drug gets loose and causes havoc before being killed. With his findings rejected and the rest of his apes put down, Will’s life is changed when he is given charge of a newborn ape (the offspring of the ape who went mad) who becomes an unlikely companion for his father, Charles (John Lithgow), who is slipping further and further into the darkness of the disease Will had hoped to eradicate. The ape, named Caesar, is far from ordinary, however, and soon Will finds that Caesar’s cognitive abilities were enhanced through the drug that was given to the ape’s mother during her pregnancy. Will uses these findings to create a new, better drug that works wonders on Charles and transforms him back into the person he once was. Their happy new life is threatened when Caesar, now a full grown beast, attacks a neighbor and is locked away in a shelter. Here Caesar discovers his true power and stages an uprising that will eventually change the face of the world and lead to Charlton Heston’s horrible discovery.

I must say I didn’t love “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” as much as many of my colleagues did. We’ll get into the reasoning for this in a bit. But what “Apes” does exceptionally well, however, is provide an example to Hollywood of how to make a quality summer blockbuster without breaking the bank. “Cowboys and Aliens” was tagged with the “bust” label last month but it certainly wasn’t alone in failing to perform relative to the budget. “Apes” has a much more reasonable budget ($90 million) than many of the other blockbusters despite the fact that it has a brand and a history to rely upon, making it easier for the film to turn a profit in a shorter amount of time. (With overseas returns and DVD sales, “Cowboys and Aliens” will probably break even eventually but that won’t stop it from being considered a huge bust. Part of the issue is the engorged budget that “Apes” avoided.) In addition, the success of “Apes” wasn’t pinned on a single actor or pair of actors. We live in an age that is lacking in movie stars and more importantly, research will tell you that actors don’t draw audiences anymore, at least not the way they used to. Banking on the star power of a given actor or actress, especially when you throw in a huge budget, has become a risky proposition. I’ll be honest and tell you that I am still extremely actor oriented; there are many actors and actresses who can and will get me to a theater based solely on their involvement with a film. But I am by far in the minority these days. Franchises and brands (“Harry Potter”, “Twilight”, etc.) replaced actors in the hierarchy of Hollywood power some years ago and now we’re seeing that story, director, and good old fashioned word of mouth (read: “this blog”) are taking more and more pull away from this or that actor. “Apes” features a solid, well respected cast but almost all of the press and attention was smartly directed at the branding and the amazing special effects.

And make no mistake, the special effects of “Apes” is truly amazing. Andy Serkis, best known for his work as Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” films, provided the movements and facial expressions of Caesar and several of the other apes and his work is breathtaking. I’m not sure exactly what award he should be nominated for as I’m not certain you can nominate a guy for Best Supporting Actor if he never actually appears on screen but he deserves some attention when Award Season rolls around. The blend of CGI with the actors and sets is seamless and the apes move effortlessly. It’s quite beautiful, really. Given how extensive the CGI work is on this film, it’s almost unbelievable that this is the film that had a lower budget than most of its compatriots. Director Rupert Wyatt (“The Escapist”) is relatively new to the scene but the structure of this film is that of a seasoned pro. Wyatt has earned himself a major pay raise on his next project. Franco gives an understated and honest portrayal that I appreciated very much. I never know what to expect with Franco and I think he takes the “quantity over quality” approach to choosing his roles. But as “127 Hours” showed, when he’s on, he’s an outstanding actor. Lithgow, too, is excellent and steals almost every scene he’s in. And like any good origin film, “Apes” gives the fanboys a few quality references to the source material it draws upon which I greatly appreciate.

The rest of the cast, however, fails to deliver. I think Bryan Cox is an outstanding actor when he’s asked to stretch himself but as the owner of the “ape refuge” that Caesar is sent to, he’s just Bryan Coxing all over the place, playing a caricature of the same character he plays in every movie. Frieda Pinto (“Slumdog Millionaire”) provides the inevitable love interest for Will but unfortunately the character is completely and totally worthless. A note to Hollywood: if you don’t invest in a romantic relationship then neither will we. Many of the side characters (the hothead neighbor, the cravenly ape attendant, etc.) are all painfully over-the-top and take away from the more centered, balanced personas of the main characters. All of these issues are nothing, however, in comparison to the cringe-inducing performance of Tom Felton. I thought Felton was probably the worst actor in the “Harry Potter” cast (Draco Malfoy) and after having seen “Apes”, I would guess that his best days are behind him. As the angry and power hungry lead handler in the ape shelter, Felton’s character is so paint-by-number that I actually let out an audible groan at one point and it infuriates me that this was the character given the opportunity to repeat Heston’s trademark “Apes” line. He may have single handedly knocked this film down a grade.

My real problem with “Apes”, though, is the mediocre script that plays out too much like a horror movie for my liking. The supporting characters do things they would never do and too much of the plot is driven by a chain of events that would have to happen exactly as they happen in the film’s narrative or else it would never work. For example, in the opening scenes an experienced, supposed world-class ape handler leaves the door to the rest of the facility (where Will is conducting his meeting with the board of directors) open while trying to essentially capture an ape that he knows to be hostile and ready to attack. I realize this is a small complaint but there are dozens of issues like this and it makes for a plotline that is too easy to poke holes through. “Apes” deserves better than the lackluster script it was given.

Overall, I found “Apes” to be a frustrating but worthwhile film. Its strengths are impressive and engrossing, particularly the relationship between Will and Caesar and the development of Caesar’s power. But its weaknesses make it impossible for me to recommend wholeheartedly. If nothing else, though, “Apes” has helped erase some of my memories of Burton’s version and might just help with my ape-related anger management issues.

Grade: B

Keep your stinking paws off me,
Brian

In Home Viewings - "Priest"

in ,
After generations of battles between mankind and vampires, the humans introduce a new weapon into war: a group of super warriors called priests. Their skills allow for the defeat of the vampires, the remainder of which are placed on reservations in the desolate land that has become the earth. Some years later, vampires begin ransacking desert settlements and take captive the niece of one of the best priests (Paul Bettany). Against the wishes of the church/government, Priest sets out to track down his niece with the aid of a local sheriff (Cam Gigandet). What he finds, however, could signify the end of mankind altogether.

Here's a sample of a conversation I had with a buddy of mine concerning "Priest."

Me: "So I watched "Priest" last night."
Buddy: "I've been seeing commercials for that. What's that about?"
Me: "It's a post-apocalyptic deal. Vampires but not "Twilight" vampires, like big monstery vampires."
Buddy: "Oh, cool. Who's in that?"
Me: "Paul Bettany."
Buddy: "Wait, are you sure you're not talking about "Legion?"
***Awkward Silence While I Think About It***
Me: "No, I think "Legion" was about angels, not vampires."
Buddy: "Oh, right. So...basically, "Legion" but with vampires instead of angels?"
Me: "Yup."

Beyond the vampire-angel conundrum, the only difference between "Priest" and "Legion" is that I actually finished watching "Priest" whereas "Legion" now resides on the very short list of movies I sought out (theater, rental, DVR, etc.) and didn't bother finishing. I have a feeling I would consider "Legion" to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen if I'd been able to sit through the whole movie. "Priest", meanwhile, is just another pretty awful post-apocalyptic vision of the future that does nothing to distinguish itself from every other post-apocalyptic vision of the future. I keep coming back to this type of movie despite the fact that I know 99 percent of them are horrible and I can't seem to make myself stop. If you've ever seen the intervention episode of "How I Met Your Mother", know that I fully expect my friends and family to hold a similar event for me and ask me to stop post-apocalypting myself. But in the end I'd just reject post-apocalyptic rehab. "I'm not addicted! I can quit when I want!" (he quietly sobs while settling in to watch the newest "Resident Evil" movie). 

But if I'm in need of an intervention, then what do we need to do for Paul Bettany? He's an incredibly talented and respected actor with some very strong performances on his resume. But almost all of his films are terrible and lately he seems hellbent on running his career into the ground. He's better than "Priest" and he's certainly better than "Legion" but how much longer can we say that he's better than these roles? Two more bad movies? Three? At some point he'll no longer be considered a good actor who chooses roles poorly, he'll just be a bad actor who only does bad movies. This is what happened to Val Kilmer and he's now making straight-to-DVD flicks for $50,000 apiece. Make no mistake: "Priest" is a bad movie. The base concept is somewhat entertaining and I guess the action scenes are decent enough. But everything else about this film is just bad. The acting is bad, the story is porous, and the dialogue is painful. With that said, I can half-way enjoy a bad action movie as long as I'm not distracted by good actors wasting their lives away. If Jason Statham replaced Paul Bettany, I wouldn't bat an eye. This is what Jason Statham is supposed to do: show up in three or four action movies every year, kick some tail, and hope that one of the three or four is pretty good. That's his role in Hollywood and he's incredibly good at it. Bettany, though, is a real actor, not just an action movie guy but he doesn't seem to be aware of this fact. Maybe he just has low self-esteem or perhaps his agent owes a lot of money to the mob and the mob hates Paul Bettany so they keep insisting he show up in movies that make one want to kick a puppy. Either way, this needs to stop before Bettany is forced to appear in "Firewall 2" with Beau Bridges.

Everyone else in the cast and crew of "Priest" gets a pass from me except for Gigandet. I don't know how to put this nicely so I'm just going to come out and say it: this guy should never, EVER, be allowed to show up in a major studio release again. In the conversation I noted above, I asked my buddy to think of the worst actor he'd ever seen in a real movie...and then multiply that by five. That's how bad this guy is. I've seen him in another role or two here or there ("Easy A") but he was generally able to blend into the background. This time around, however, he announces his presence to the world in such a way as to make even his mother shudder. His forced delivery of EVERY SINGLE LINE almost caused me to turn "Priest" off in favor of a "Golden Girls" rerun. Do yourself a favor and stay away from "Priest." In fact, for future reference, stay away from all post-apocalyptic films and just come here for the inevitably negative review.

Grade: D

Review - "The Guard"

in ,

Despite the fact that I live in a bustling metropolis, all of the theaters that show smaller films are somewhere between 30 and 50 miles away. In “Dallas Traffic Time”, that translates to somewhere between 90 minutes and 16 days. As a result, I don’t get time to see many of these films until they come to DVD, if at all. In my experience, art house films are often the most difficult to write about and even more difficult to properly judge, particularly in the summer. When almost everything I’ve watched in the last three months has involved superheroes, aliens, or jokes related to bodily functions, I have a tough time transitioning to more mature and cinematic endeavors. So it is with “The Guard, a film entirely unlike anything else I saw this summer.

Sergeant Gerry Boyle (Brendan Gleeson) is an off-the-wall, somewhat crotchety veteran police officer who patrols a small Irish town. Shortly after beginning an investigation into a peculiar murder, Boyle discovers that his case is related to a major drug ring that is currently being hunted by FBI agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle). As straight-laced as they come, Everett is an odd pair for Boyle but the two are forced to work together to take down the cartel. When the case pulls Boyle in deeper than he would have ever imagined he is forced to reexamine his life’s work and turn himself into an unlikely hero.

If that synopsis makes “The Guard” sound wholly serious, bear in mind that it is completely and totally a comedy. A dark comedy to be sure but a comedy nonetheless. If you’ve ever wondered what “Hot Fuzz” would be like if it was subtle and less over-the-top, “The Guard” fits the bill. This is writer/director John Michael McDonagh’s first full length film but I would never have guessed it if not for the magic of IMDB. It is a witty, well-written film that makes its tone clear from the first scene. The pacing isn’t exactly what I would call slow but instead calculatedly casual; it knows where it intends to go and it makes its way with balanced determination. This is a film that knows its own identity and doesn’t stray from the dark comedy path more than a time or two. Its humor is smart and lively. Even with the thick accents (which probably caused me to miss a joke or two) “The Guard” is filled with exquisite dialogue and understated jokes that brought more laughs than anything from all but the very best big budget comedies this year has brought.

The plot of “The Guard” is simple but refined and that pushes all of the attention onto the characters and the actors who portray them. Cheadle is a solid straight man and as he always does, he makes the absolute most of every scene he is given. As one of the ringleaders of the drug ring, Mark Strong’s character is straight out of a Guy Ritchie film, a role Strong is great at playing. Please Mr. Strong: stick to these films and stay away from popcorn crap like “Green Lantern.” But despite all of the excellent actors around him, “The Guard” is all about Gleeson. His work in 2008’s “In Bruges” (coincidentally directed by McDonagh’s brother Martin) finally brought him the attention he deserves, but Gleeson has always been a favorite of mine, a magnificent actor who never fails to impress no matter how little screen time he is given. Boyle is a without a doubt a curmudgeon (and a slightly racist one at that) but Gleeson makes him exceedingly likeable. He is a wild card, the type of guy who does the right thing when you’re absolutely sure he’s going to continue to disgrace himself and Gleeson pulls this off perfectly. Moreover, he once again exhibits the brilliant comedic timing that has made him one of the best and most versatile actors Ireland has to offer. I’m not saying it’s his best performance but rather another in a long string of quality portrayals that illustrate just how undervalued this guy really is.

Fun, intelligent, and genuinely hilarious, “The Guard” is an excellent departure from my typical fare this time of year. I’ve made no bones about the fact that I really like summer blockbusters. I love them, in fact. But when a movie like “The Guard” comes along in the midst of the “Conan the Barbarians” of the world, it serves as an incredibly refreshing reminder of what we have to hope for in the coming months.

Grade: B+

I think we need a conversion chart for “Dallas Traffic Time”,
Brian

In Home Viewing: "Limitless"

in ,

Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) is a struggling writer whose life hasn't gone the way he thought it was. His girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) leaves him, his publisher won't read his material, and he's about to get kicked out of his shack of an apartment. All that changes when he runs into Vernon (Johnny Whitworth), his ex-brother-in-law and a known drug dealer. Vernon gives Eddie a pill that he accepts as FDA approved (the first in a long list of plot holes) and which he is told will allow him to use 100 percent of his brain. Upon taking it, he discovers that with that much brain capacity he can basically do anything. He turns a few bucks into big money, reunites with his girlfriend, and is soon working for a Wall Street bigwig named Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro). Soon, though, the drugs side effects become painfully obvious and he is forced to fight for survival while being pressed upon from all sides.

Occasionally I dislike a film so much that I can't come up with the words to sum up my dislike. So it is with "Limitless." I saw this movie two weeks ago and I've been struggling with how to write a constructive criticism ever since. Well, I can't. I hate this movie. I won't even go so far as to say this is necessarily a "bad" movie; I'll just say that I absolutely hate it. I've seen a few bad films this year but I'd rather watch almost all of them again before taking in a re-viewing of "Limitless."

First and foremost, I hated Cooper's character and I cared not if he lived or died. Cooper is good at playing unlikable characters ("Wedding Crashers") but I don't think that was the goal here. His transition from near-homeless writer to Wall Street baller is pathetic and stupid. It's like in a teen film when the "ugly nerd" cuts her hair and loses her glasses and suddenly becomes the new hottie. Actually, it's EXACTLY like that minus the glasses. Laughable. The narrative itself is ripe with plot holes and inconsistencies and it makes you wonder if the script was unfinished when director Neil Burger said, "Screw it, we're shooting" and off they went. Nowhere is this more evident than in the conclusion which literally feels like Burger called everyone together a week before the film's release because, "wouldn't you know, we forgot to put an ending on this thing, hahaha!" It's terrible. There's a very Philip K. Dick-esque story somewhere in here but it's so convoluted as to become embarrassing. None of the cast is used effectively. Cooper becomes obnoxious, Cornish is as one-dimensional as they come, and De Niro isn't even trying. (To be fair, if I'm De Niro, I probably wouldn't try here, either. As Michael Caine said, sometimes it's just about the pay check.)

If all of that wasn't enough, the production value behind "Limitless" is worthless. The "opening sequence in the future then flash back to the beginning" bit is tired. Only the best-told stories need to be told this way and yet we continually get average to below average films running blindly down this path. Add in a voiceover that probably could have been avoided through clever writing and you get a bundle of clichés that fail to impress on every level. Worst of all, "Limitless" wants desperately to be smart but doesn't have the brains to figure out that it simply isn't. It is like the "C+" student who is accidentally placed in the "honors" class but instead of pointing out the error in the office, he heads straight to the front of the class and writes out a jumbled equation that leaves everyone in the room scratching their heads and wondering if the "C+" student is actually a bit slow. I hate "Limitless" and now that I've written this review, I think I'm more willing to just say it's bad and be done with it.

Grade: C-

Review: "Attack the Block"

in ,

Occasionally I am fortunate enough to draw passes to a screening of a film before it opens in wide release. It’s always a bit of a thrill because I feel like an actual member of the press and it’s cool to have someone else pay for my movie obsession. I never know, however, what kind of crowd I’m going to encounter at one of these screenings. I have been to screenings in which the number of critics, paid or unpaid, far outnumber the casual moviegoers. Other screenings, though, have brought out the craziest collection of movie watchers the world has ever seen. I’ve had some of my best film going experiences in a screening and some of my worst. Unfortunately the screening for “Attack the Block” fell into the latter category. Never in my life have I been surrounded by a bigger group of loudmouthed, foul smelling, obnoxious toolbags in a setting that didn’t involve the DMV or a Nickleback concert. I’m not above telling someone to shut it or to stop texting during a movie but in this case, I, the considerate movie goer, was in the vast minority so I just had to grin (read: “grit my teeth and mutter curses under my breath”) and bear it. Because of this, my attention was placed only half on the screen and half on the laughing buffoon next to me who smelled more of booze than anyone who is not currently homeless. Therefore, should you see “Attack the Block” and disagree with my review, I ask that all of the blame be placed upon Cinemark 17 on Webb Chapel and the brutally distracting crowd they assembled.

While a group of young London thugs are in the midst of a robbery, a mysterious object crashes into a nearby car. Upon further investigation, Moses (John Boyega), the group’s leader, is attacked by a strange animal. After chasing it down and beating it to death, the group realizes that they have an alien on their hands. Juiced up from their triumph, Moses and his crew take the alien creature back to their apartment building (a low-rent complex that borders on a slum) and store the body in the pot room of the building’s drug dealer. Shortly thereafter, they begin to see more falling balls of fire and their neighborhood is soon infested with vicious, eyeless gorilla-bear creatures that seem to find Moses and his gang wherever they go. With no one else to help, the young crew is forced to battle against the extraterrestrial beasts with an assortment of fireworks, kitchen knives, and a showpiece samurai sword.

“ATB” falls right in line with the better works of executive producer Edgar Wright, such as “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz.” It is an alien invasion-comedy that transitions into more of a horror-comedy as the action unfolds. These three aspects come together beautifully and at no point does “ATB” become too bogged down in one genre or the other. Meaning, it isn’t overly funny to the point of becoming an out-and-out comedy but neither does it delve too deeply into a heavy sci-fi plotline or a gory blood fest. The blending of the different genres in a movie like this is always the tough part (see: “Cowboys and Aliens”) and writer/director Joe Cornish displays a sly ability to do just that and makes “ATB” a film that should appeal to a wide range of nerdy fanboys. The well-crafted story is wild fun, easily engaging, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to call it witty, it is much smarter than you might think.

Our young heroes (or anti-heroes if you prefer) are, for the most part, highly enjoyable. Their thick accents and un-Americanized lingo is at times hard to understand but generally quite engrossing. You have to pay close attention to the dialogue or you’ll miss the better jokes (the would-be hobo next to me probably forced me to miss about 15 percent of these utterances) and “ATB” is the better for this. Boyega, in particular, shows some real promise and does a good job of displaying the depth of his character without allowing his portrayal to become overly cumbersome. There is very little backstory or character development within this film but that shouldn’t be construed as a negative. In fact, I found this to be very refreshing; Cornish throws you head first into the alien invasion pool and simply asks you to swim along. This move also takes a TON of pressure off of these young, inexperienced actors in that they are rarely asked to do much beyond crack a few jokes, swear a little, and kick alien butt.

There is no pretense to “ATB” and that may be its stroke of genius. Whereas “Cowboys and Aliens” leads with a simple and bold title but bogs down in an overly complex and burdensome plot, this film avoids complexity to the extreme. It’s just teenagers fighting aliens, plain and simple. Even the explanation for the aliens coming to London is simple and sufficient, enough to create a plausible reason for making the film in the first place but it doesn’t lead “ATB” off into an abyss of sci-fi mythos. In short, it’s a great time at the movie theater, or at least it will be if the pair behind you isn’t arguing about the merits of their favorite respective Disney films: “Shrek” and “Ice Age.” I could not make that up.

Grade: A- 

“Shrek” is clearly a better “Disney” movie than “Ice Age”,
Brian

Review: "Crazy, Stupid, Love"

in ,

It’s not often that I pull out the, “Just See This Movie” card. I half-way did it with the most recent “Harry Potter” film but that was as much a plea to read the books as it was see the movie so I don’t think it counts. I allot myself no more than two “Just See This Movie” cards a year though many years I pass on playing one altogether. Movies are subjective and interpretive by their very nature; what works for me may not work for you and vice versa and I try to keep that in mind when I review a film (unless it’s a particularly bad one; I’ll smash on those films with no regard to differences in opinions). Therefore, I want to say upfront that I’m playing a “Just See This Movie” card on “Crazy, Stupid, Love.” I’m not going to promise you’ll love it; I won’t even promise you’ll like it. But I have a feeling that in five years I’m going to be the only person who remembers this film and it’s too intriguing to be forgotten. So…just see this movie.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” presents the audience with no build up. We are introduced to the Weavers right as Emily (Julianne Moore) tells Cal (Steve Carell) that after having cheated on him with a coworker (Kevin Bacon), she wants a divorce. Within minutes of screen time, Cal is forced to move out and starts trying to figure out what exactly happened to the life he spent 25 years creating. Lonely and depressed, Cal begins to frequent a bar where he notices Jacob (Ryan Gosling), a ladies man in the vein of Barney Stinson (“How I Met Your Mother”). To Cal’s surprise, Jacob takes an interest in him and begins mentoring him on the finer points of single life and picking up women. Cal is nervously but sufficiently transformed and regains some of his former strength under Jacob’s tutelage. The only question is whether or not he’d rather start anew or find a way to work things out with his wife. At the same time, Jacob finds himself enthralled by Hannah (Emma Stone), a would-be conquest who initially rejects him before embracing the spontaneity that Jacob symbolizes, a relationship that throws them both for a loop. All of this, along with another love-related story line or two, creates a skillfully designed yet unrefined look at the highs and lows of love.

It’s not often that we talk about the technical or behind-the-scenes work done on a romantic comedy. If anything, you might hear that the dialogue is well written but that’s usually about it. “CSL” is an exception to this rule. The directing team of Glenn Ficarra and John Requa and up-and-coming screenwriter Dan Fogelman made every effort to position this film as much more than a simple date movie. For one thing, the shot selection and camera work is exquisite. I’m not sure I’ve ever said that about a rom-com before but it must be noted. Angles, close-ups, and fades are used to simply and subtly enhance the tone of a given scene in a way that is usually reserved (or at least noticeable to an average filmgoer like myself) for Oscar bait. The story (or many stories) told within “CSL” is extremely intelligent and one that treats the audience with respect. The characters are multi-dimensional, the story isn’t black-and-white, and the film doesn’t superficially tug at your heartstrings, rather allowing the organic elements of the narrative to do that on their own. It is also gloriously self-aware, a cherry on top of the already appealing sundae.

That’s not to say “CSL” is a perfectly made film. The various plotlines don’t all come together for quite some time and that gets slightly annoying and puts a lot of pressure on the conclusion (which thankfully handles the pressure very well). Just when you really get into a particular story, the scene cuts and you’re taken back to another set of characters. Fogelman’s script is complex and the dialogue therein is even more so, requiring the actors to talk in bursts in a way that is similar to an Aaron Sorkin film. I’m a huge Sorkin fan so that didn’t bother me in the slightest but it can be difficult to keep up. Even some of the character relationships seem odd at times; not bad, mind you, but simply a bit awkward. (Though when you consider the differences in the characters and the situations they’re put into, it should be awkward.) In addition, this is not a seamless blend of drama and comedy. Many of the tougher, more impactful scenes pull back and allow for a tension-breaking joke when I might prefer the directors to take it a step further.

For me, however, “CSL” is better for its flaws. I can relate to flawed characters and situations that aren’t ideal and that relevance is where “CSL” excels. All of these characters are human; exaggerative examples of humans, sure, but human nonetheless. And each and every member of the cast (with the exception of Marisa Tomei who really isn’t given ANYTHING to work with) grabs hold of that humanity and runs with it. I’ve always been fairly lukewarm on Ryan Gosling fan but his performance here has won me over for good. “Womanizing hot guy with a dark past” is a tired, often overdone role but Gosling brings incredible depth to Jacob Palmer. At his heart he is a good person and Gosling makes that believablewhereas other characters of this type seem only to be “good” in theory alone. He also shows a distinctly humorous side that I didn’t know he had. The story goes that when he took the role, Steve Carell essentially demanded Gosling be his co-star, a decision which seemed strange at the time but is proven wise time and time again throughout this film.

Speaking of Carell, I don’t think there is an actor in Hollywood who is able to blend comedy and real, genuine heart like he does. He elicits sympathy from the audience without becoming pathetic and his timing as far as well-placed jokes go is uncanny. Meanwhile, Emma Stone continues to assert herself as a legitimate movie star. She’s had bigger and perhaps better performances in the recent past (“Easy A”) comes to mind but I don’t think she has shown the depth or versatility that she does her. Funny as always, she adds an element of mystique that makes it easy to believe that Jacob would leave his wayward ways to chase after her. Moore, Bacon, and even relative newcomers Jonah Bobo (who plays the Weaver’s son) and Analeigh Tipton (love-struck babysitter) all carry their weight as well, making this a well-rounded ensemble worthy of the many storylines the script weaves together. And the chemistry between the involved parties of each storyline (Carell-Gosling, Gosling-Stone, Carell-Bobo, etc.) ties “CSL” together wonderfully.

“CSL” is a sometimes jumbled collection of interconnecting stories, all of which stand well on their own and all of which are hell bent on exploring the truth about love. It is frustratingly beautiful, flawed but whole, hilarious at times and heartbreakingly harsh at others. Most of all, though, it is honest and that is what makes it such a worthwhile viewing. Consider the “Just See This Movie” card played and act accordingly.

Grade: A

Emma Stone is seriously close to stealing me away from Rachel McAdams,

Brian


For a much less sunny take, check out the review at Anomalous Material.

Top 10 Favorite Animated Disney Films

in ,

Yesterday in the weekly DVD Roundup, I chose "The Fox and Hound" as my New to Blu Pick of the Week and even went so far as to call it a top 5 animated Disney film of all time. That statement set the blogosphere ablaze (no it didn't) and numerous readers clamored to their keyboards (no they didn't) to lodge complaints. This (fictional) outrage has forced me to do two things: 1.) Revise my statement to be, "top 5 favorite Disney animated films of all time" and 2.) Make a list. I love lists and I don't do nearly enough of them. So today I present to you my Top 10 Favorite Animated Disney Films of All Time. (Pixar obviously does not count.)

10. "Sleeping Beauty" - 1959
This one is somewhat of a departure from the majority of the other films on this list in that it's all about a princess. Still, you have to appreciate a "chick flick" (so to speak) that features a totally wicked dragon. Of all Disney's princess films, "Sleeping Beauty" is the one I've always liked the most.

9. "Tarzan" - 1999
I'm going to be honest here: the reason this film makes the list is the killer soundtrack. As a hardened fan of rock and folk, I know that I should dislike Phil Collins but I have found this to be an impossible principle to live up to. "Tarzan" is a quality piece of children's entertainment but Collins' musical backing pushes it over the edge towards excellence.

8. "The Emperor's New Groove" - 2000
Also known as the last really good film Disney made before "Tangled." "Groove" is fun, it's lively, and the voice talent (David Spade, John Goodman) is solid. This is one of those films that probably no one will remember in 10 years (or maybe right now for that matter) but the rewatchability of "Groove" is incredibly high.

7. "Tangled" - 2010
In my mind, Disney spent the 10 years between "Emperor's New Groove" and "Tangled" building new theme park attractions and riding the coattails of Pixar with little attention paid to the animated films coming from their own studio. You could perhaps get me to watch "Lilo and Stitch" again but every other film from the decade is awful. I had low expectations for "Tangled" but I was pleasantly surprised to find that this film recaptured the Disney magic that had been lost for so long. It is also an excellent example of how to create a kid's movie that appeals to both genders.

6. "The Sword in the Stone" - 1963
Often forgotten when considering the great Disney films, "Stone" reached out to a group of young viewers (read: "boys") who had been placed on the backburner during the preceding three films ("Lady and the Tramp", "Sleeping Beauty", "101 Dalmatians"). King Arthur is always interesting to guys  (with the exception of "The Once and Future King", the "literary classic" that ruined my life during the summer before my sophomore year) and this is a great introduction to legend. Also, Archimedes is awesome.

5. "The Jungle Book" - 1967
Has any orphan EVER had a cooler life than Mowgli? He gets protected by a rockin' panther (Bagheera), pals around the jungle with a fun-loving bear (Baloo), and learns some of the catchiest songs in animated movie history. What a life! It's probably been 15 years (at least) since I've seen "Jungle" but I can still blow through the lyrics of "Bear Necessities" with ease.

4. "Aladdin" - 1992
At one time this was probably my second favorite Disney film. But then I had to take choir in the 6th grade and my teacher forced us to sing "Never Had a Friend like Me" every day for an entire semester. (That woman would probably get some hateful Facebook messages if I could remember her name.) Still, the narrative in "Aladdin" appeals to both genders and they managed to grab Robin Williams when he was still funny and put him in a role that was perfect for him. Great film.

3. "The Fox and the Hound" - 1981
And you thought I might back off my "top five" statement from yesterday. Well, you should know better by now. I love "Fox and Hound" so much that I should probably be its official spokesman. It seems like no one remembers this film and that fact gives me great pains. I can tell you right now, when I have kids they will either love or hate "Fox and Hound" due to the number of times I make them watch it but they will definitely remember it.

2. "The Lion King" - 1994
This is the bookend to what you could argue is the best five film run in Disney's history. Think about it: "The Little Mermaid" (rebooted the studio, much like "Tangled" last year), "The Rescuers Down Under" (the low point in this run), "Beauty and the Beast" (won a pair of Oscars), "Aladdin" (another pair of Oscars and a TON of money), and then "The Lion King." Wow. This is nearly a perfect film; beautifully animated, well-voiced, magnificent soundtrack, and an awesome storyline. "King" also gets bonus points for spawning a hit Broadway show and several re-releases, including a 3D version that'll open next month.

1. "Robin Hood" - 1973
If you put a gun to my head and asked me what the best animated Disney film is, I would probably say "The Lion King." But my favorite? "Robin Hood" by a mile. I absolutely wore this VHS out as a kid so we re-taped it (back then it wasn't considered piracy somehow), and I wore that one out. I love this film so much that as a college freshman my mother gave me a DVD copy for my birthday and I was totally stoked. A COLLEGE FRESHMAN. I've always been enamored by the Robin Hood story so that's a plus but even beyond that, the characters are wildly entertaining and that soundtrack...if you were a guest in my house, there's a pretty solid chance that at some point you'd catch my humming or whistling one of the songs from "Robin Hood." I love this film. In fact, I'm going to watch it now.

That's my top ten. What films would make your list?

In Home Viewing - "The Lincoln Lawyer"

in ,

Mick Haller (Matthew McConaughey) is a well-known but little-respected defense attorney with a knack for getting his often shady clients out of sticky situations. He operates exclusively out of his Lincoln and revels in the negative spotlight this puts him in in the eyes of prosecutors and cops alike. When Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), the heir to a vast real estate fortune, is accused of the attempted murder of a prostitute and asks for him specifically, Haller thinks he's hit the jackpot. Before long, however, his entire life is thrown into flux as he finds his new client to be much more cunning and sadistic than anyone he's represented in the past. Knowing that he can't let Roulet get free, Haller must find a way to incriminate him without throwing his own life away in the process.

I have spent the last 10 or 15 years slamming on Matthew McConaughey's acting ability at every opportunity. It's not that I hate the guy or think that he's the worst actor in the world; I just don't think he's very good and I do not understand his appeal. I've never found him to be very charismatic and other than a few rare exceptions ("Dazed and Confused", "A Time to Kill") I usually hate his films. In his defense, he's been pigeon-holed into a relatively bad position wherein he's not getting offers for leading roles in high quality films so he ends up starring in worthless romantic comedies ("Failure to Launch") or dreadful action flicks ("Sahara") over and over again. His genuinely funny turn in "Tropic Thunder" suggests that he will be able to sustain a solid career if he can transition to a supporting role kind of actor but until then, we're all going to be treated to films like "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past."

With that in mind, "The Lincoln Lawyer" was a very odd experience for me. I'll be honest: I expected to hate this film. Instead, I found it to be quite entertaining and at least half-way intelligent. Even more shocking, McConaughey was without question the best part of the film. He's essentially the same character that he is in every film (overly confident, abundantly shallow, and constantly walking the line between sleazy and charming) but for some reason (and believe me, I'm having a hard time writing this), it just works this time. Haller is an absurd caricature, of course, and only a slight exaggeration of who I expect McConaughey is in real life, but there's more depth to him than to the majority of McConaughey's characters which I didn't expect. I actually rooted for Haller and McConaughey kept me interested in the film's plot even when it bogged down into the typical shenanigans that plague most courtroom thrillers.

On the flip side, though, there's Ryan Phillippe who yet again displays that he only has one skill: overacting. If you can harness that power for good ("MacGruber" and to a lesser extent, "Crash"), you can make Phillippe seem like a good actor. Most of the time, however, the result is painful. Not to bash on McConaughey again but the truth is, if you're the second billed star in a film starring McConaughey, you should dominate him from an acting standpoint. Instead, there are scenes in this movie in which you can almost feel the pain in McConaughey's voice as he delivers his line knowing full well that Phillippe is about to brutally murder any momentum he just created. Honestly, dear readers, this is one of the premier performances of the year if, in fact, you are a voter for the Razzies. Just terrible.

The rest of "Lincoln" pulls together nicely (with the exception of the stop-start-stop conclusion that lasts 10 minutes too long and involves at least two more scene changes than necessary). It seems far too easy to compare this film to those based on the works of John Grisham but that's exactly what this is: a Grisham byproduct. You know and expect there to be twists and turns but the film manages to prevent them from becoming too obvious and the methods Haller uses to work against Roulet are, at times, pretty darn smart. "Lincoln" is flawed but enjoyable and managed to keep my attention through each and every Phillippe assault on my brain.

Grade: B

Blu Ray Review - "Unknown"

in ,

Shortly after Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) and his wife Elizabeth (January Jones) arrive in Berlin, Martin realizes his briefcase was left at the airport. During the cab ride to retrieve it, his taxi is involved in an accident that leaves him in a coma. When he wakes up three days later, he finds that his wife doesn't know who he is and he had been replaced by another man (Aidan Quinn) claiming to be him. He begins to think he's gone mad until he is nearly captured and killed. With the assistance of the taxi driver Gina (Diane Kruger), he begins to piece his memory back together and tugging at a thread of a vast conspiracy.

"Unknown" has been unfairly branded as "Taken 2" when in reality the two are hardly similar beyond their star and European setting. Don't get me wrong, I quite like "Taken." I consider it to be one of the more enjoyable film experiences of 2009, a guilty pleasure if you will. But I have to be honest, it's an absurd movie. Actually, "absurd" might be putting it lightly. "Taken" is like "24" on steroids and that is saying something because as much as I love Jack Bauer (favorite TV character from an hour long drama/action ever), he is nothing if not absurd.

"Unknown", on the other hand, is a much more reasonable action-thriller, comparatively speaking. The film does an excellent job of keeping you guessing and refusing to allow you to get comfortable with one idea or another. You know Harris isn't insane because the film opens with him and his wife together but you start to wonder if perhaps he created all of that in his mind. When it becomes apparent that he really isn't nuts, you start working to piece together how anyone could pull a conspiracy of this magnitude off such a short period of time. And when the gears of the final twists and turns begin to whirl into motion, you're not sure exactly what's going to happen but you know it's going to be big. Throughout all of this, Harris serves as the voice of the audience. He wonders aloud throughout his searching and asks the questions that I myself was asking while sitting in my easy chair. As confused as we might be watching the mess unfold, it's no more confused than Harris is himself and it is this element that allows it to truly excel.

The actors that surround Neeson all range from marginally mediocre to half way decent and that at times can create an issue or two. In particular, Jones comes off as hollow and one note, just like everything else she's ever been in. But "Unknown" starts and ends with Neeson which is a pretty darn good bedrock on which to build a film's foundation. He's always been an excellent actor but in the last few years it seems that he's figured out how to make himself more approachable and therefore more enjoyable to watch. He plays characters that you root for no matter what and that's an underrated talent in Hollywood. He makes bad films pretty good and pretty good films very good. "Unknown" is the latter; the concept and subsequent twists would make a solid film regardless but Neeson sells his part wonderfully and pushes the movie to new heights.

Grade: B+

"Cowboys and Aliens"

in ,

The combination of the Western genre and science fiction is nothing new in Hollywood. In my mind, “Firefly” (briefly) perfected the mix in the early 2000s but it was only the descendant of “Westworld”, the original “Star Trek” series, and a host of other films and television shows that found a natural cross-pollination between the Old West and the vastness of space. I cannot, however, remember a film that so purposefully and blatantly threw the two themes together without any measure of pretense like “Cowboys and Aliens” does (at least not a mainstream film). Everything you really need to know about “Cowboys and Aliens” is right there in the title: it is two hours of cowboys fighting aliens. And on some level you have to respect director Jon Favreau and the powers that be behind this film for being so bold and open about the film’s subject matter, even if the finished product doesn’t quite live up to that boldness.

When Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the New Mexico desert, he finds a strange metal bracelet strapped to his wrist and he cannot remember who he is or where he came from. Upon his arrival in a local town, he is promptly identified and arrested as a notorious bandit who recently robbed a stagecoach carrying gold belonging to a tough rancher named Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). As Lonergan is about to be handed over to Dolarhyde, a group of alien spaceships roar into town firing devastating guns and snatching up hostages, including Dolarhyde’s son. Suddenly the bracelet on Lonergan’s wrist begins to makes noises and converts itself into a powerful gun with which he is able to shoot down one of the ships. Soon after he remembers that he and his woman (for lack of a better term) were also abducted at one point and so he joins in the hunt for the aliens along with Dolarhyde, Doc (Sam Rockwell), and Ella (Olivia Wilde), a mysterious outsider who seems to know a thing or two about him. What they discover forces all differences and conflicts between cowboys, outlaws, and Indians to be put aside as former adversaries must come together to defeat a common enemy.

“Cowboys and Aliens” enjoys a pedigree that most movies can only dream of. An incredible cast, a hot director, and a highly sought-after writing team including Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman. At the beginning of the year, it seemed almost impossible that this type of quality talent could turn out anything less than a spectacular action film and yet the end result excels in only a few moments and becomes stagnant in many others. It all boils down to the fact that there’s not much done with the concept as a whole. The story isn’t so much cliché as it is just a rather bland infusion of Old West and sci-fi. The aliens look the way you’d expect aliens to look, the cowboys act the way you’d expect them to act, and the arrival of the Indians just throws the whole film into a frenzy of Western generalities. There’s absolutely nothing new in “C&A” and that causes the film to bog down when it should build momentum. Lonergan and Dolarhyde move from a fight with one group of people to a fight with another group of people and there’s very little room for development beyond some mediocre flashbacks that feel more “C.S.I”-like than I’d really care for in a major motion picture. The script is neither consistently humorous nor particularly gritty or edgy which leaves the film to tread water in the middle of a fairly shallow pool of mediocrity. I would also say that the combination of the two genres is a bit rocky; Favreau builds a pretty solid base for a traditional Western in the first 15 minutes and then suddenly the aliens arrive and throw everything off. Honestly, in spite of being a huge sci-fi fan, I would have probably preferred to see Craig and Ford in a Favreau Western than I would in a rough combo film like this one is. And while most of the actors hold their own, Wilde continues to vex me. I don’t understand her or her appeal. Clearly she’s extremely attractive and I wouldn’t call her a bad actress but I am never affected by any of her performances. That’s no different here as she just embodies the blandness of the film as a whole.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to like about “Cowboys and Aliens.” Craig and Ford are both excellent and perhaps even more important, as a friend of mine said, neither of their performances brings to mind their previous, more iconic roles. This isn’t James Bond and Indiana Jones riding around in the Old West and the fact that they avoid that trap is a testament to both their abilities and the ability of Favreau as a director. I might argue that this is the best Ford has been in many, many years but then you would counter with the fact that he hasn’t had a meaningful role in many, many years. Touché. Seriously, though, “C&A” serves as a reminder that Ford is still a very capable, charismatic actor who deserves better than middling rom-coms like “Morning Glory” or childhood-erasing disasters like the fourth “Indiana Jones” movie. Rockwell provides solid comedic relief though considering the overall humorlessness of the film he almost seems out of place. The action sequences are all very good and the infusion of CGI and special effects is seamless (even if the aliens themselves are somewhat lackluster). And it is, if nothing else, wholly entertaining, the base component of any summer blockbuster.

“Cowboys and Aliens” has some value and certainly provided me with an enjoyable afternoon in the middle of a busy work week. I would also hold out hope that it could lead to some better roles for Ford and a rejuvenation of his magnificent career. Yet it seems to be simply uninspired and that takes away from the immense fun I expected to get from a film as boldly titled as “Cowboys and Aliens.”

Grade: B-

I’ve found that "B-" films are the hardest to write about,
Brian

For a deeper look at the "could have been better as a Western" thought I expressed above, check out the coverage by Anomalous Material.

"Larry Crowne"

in ,

Recently a colleague of mine hosted an event on his blog called “The Greater Good” in which he asked readers to pick a film that they would wipe off the face of the planet in order to better the movie industry as a whole. You know the concept: if “Grease” was never made, would I have been forced to live through 28 years of a non-talent like John Travolta parading his way across my film consciousness and prompting any number of murderous thoughts within my brain? Probably not. After seeing “Larry Crowne” I’m not entirely convinced that my entry into this event shouldn’t have centered on 2002’s “My Big Fat Greek Wedding.” That was, after all, the film that launched the career of one Nia Vardalos, who is unfortunately responsible for the horrendous script that hamstrings “Larry Crowne” from the outset and attempts to drive a stake through the brain of every mild mannered audience member who happened to be stupid enough to put themselves through this mess.


Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) is a long-time floor manager of a Wal-Mart-like superstore who happens to love his job. Due to the recession, however, his company begins downsizing redundant employees and because of Larry’s lack of a college education, he soon finds himself without a job. In order to make himself more marketable, he registers for some classes at a local community college. Here he meets a set of new friends, led by Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and Dell Gordo (Wilmer Valderrama), who share his passion for scooters and who attempt to revamp his image. He also meets Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts), an alcoholic speech teacher in a failing marriage and an even less fulfilling job. The two strike up an awkward friendship that ultimately benefits them both in this story of revitalization and renewal in the face of adversity.

First off, I love Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. At one time or another, I would have listed them both as my favorite actor and actress respectively. Hanks is the classic All American Actor, the guy you root for at all times and who seems to genuinely understand his massive appeal. Roberts is the female version of Hanks, the beautiful girl next door who’s managed to remain a fan favorite for 20 years in an industry that forgets women the second they turn 35. I am always happy to see either of them on screen (unless it involves “The Da Vinci Code”) and despite the dip in productivity that each have experienced over the last decade, they can still get me out to a theater based solely on their names. I have long believed that you can’t make either of these great actors unlikable.

Well, I was wrong.

“Larry Crowne” is an absolute disaster in every sense of the word. None of these characters are in the least bit relatable or likeable. Tainot is an awful old bat that I pretty much hated the moment she stepped on screen. I’m all for a good redemption story and I understand that you have to start low to make the high more significant, but if this character had been hit by a bus in the tenth minute, I would have been fine. Larry himself is so thoroughly hapless that I just couldn’t bring myself to invest in him despite the numerous times my brain told me, “Come on dude, that’s Tom Hanks! You’ve got to love his character! It’s just a rule.” He is a painful mix of Forrest Gump (my least favorite Hanks film until now) and the kid from “Big” that comes across as wholly unbelievable. No one is this naïve. No one. The rest of the cast, which includes George Takei, Cedric the Entertainer, and Rob Riggle, ranges from totally worthless (Pam Grier) to cringe-worthy and one dimensional (Bryan Cranston, how in the name of “Breaking Bad” did you get talked into this role?!). That’s not even mentioning Mbatha-Raw who probably shouldn’t be allowed to act again. Shockingly, Valderrama gives the best performance of anyone in the film but in some ways, isn’t that all I need to say? The foreign dude from “That ‘70s Show” who has done absolutely nothing else of note in his career is the best part of this film. Ouch.

All of these retched characters are nothing, however, compared to the excessively cheery and somewhat pointless nature of the film’s narrative. There is no real humor in “Larry Crowne”, only watered-down jokes that might suffice on a middling CBS sitcom but don’t do the job in a feature film. The overt cheeriness goes hand-in-hand with Larry’s naivety but as I said before, this naivety is irritating, not endearing. Everyone is happy all the time (except for Tainot) and as a result there is no depth to the characters or the story. The events simply play out in front of the helpless audience instead of bringing them into the story. That’s not always a bad thing, I guess, but when you’re working with an extremely relevant topic like job loss, you’re wasting an opportunity to engross the audience. “Crowne” really doesn’t even make an attempt to do so and that is perhaps its most egregious offense.

In short, this film has Nia Vardalos’ fingerprints all over it. IMDB will tell you that Hanks co-wrote “Larry Crowne” with Vardalos but I don’t believe it for a minute. This mess has Vardalos’ fingerprints all over it: one note characters, a shallow plot, and abysmal dialog. That’s all Vardalos has treated us to since “Greek Wedding” scored $350 million at the box office and I was willing to accept that she would always be involved with horrible movies that I would simply stay away from. But now that she’s infected the glorious careers of both Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts…well, I think I’m ready to preserve the greater good and rid the world of “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” and everyone who had anything to do with it. Since I’m out of plutonium, however, I’ll just have to implore you, dear readers, to stay away from “Larry Crowne” and pretend you’ve never heard of Nia Vardalos.

Grade: C-

I never liked that movie in the first place,
Brian

"Captain America"

in ,

I always have and always will stand in support of the summer blockbuster. Heady dramas, witty comedies, and hard-hitting documentaries will generally be considered more significant, more meaningful, of course, and rightly so. But I believe the core of the movie industry is entertainment and no film quite embraces the idea of entertainment like a good summer blockbuster. By that logic, I very much enjoy comic book and superhero films. Excluding the rare and horrible outlier (read: “Green Lantern”), I am almost always entertained by the superhero genre and after all, that’s what I really want in July when it’s 129 degrees outside. So keep that nerdy bias toward superheroes in mind as we delve into “Captain America.”


Set during World War II, “Captain America” opens on Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) who has all the makings of a great soldier locked away inside a frail, 90 pound body. When a government scientist named Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) offers him a chance to join the fight, Rogers jumps at the chance and becomes Erskine’s guinea pig for an experimental program that would create an army of super soldiers. After successfully transforming Rogers into a muscly, athletic beast, Erskine is killed when a Nazi spy sabotages the laboratory and steals the formula. Unsure of the results, Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) turns Rogers over to a senator who uses him as a propaganda tool to sell war bonds. Feeling a new level of uselessness while on a USO trip to the front, Rogers, now known across the country as Captain America, becomes aware of Hydra, a secret Nazi organization run by Johann Schmidt/Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) who once worked with Erskine. After a daring rescue of a group of POWs that includes Bucky, Colonel Phillips sends Captain American and his team of commandos on a blitzkrieg across Europe, forcing a final confrontation with Red Skull that could determine the outcome of the war.

Coming in, I questioned whether or not Chris Evans could headline a film but that tentative uncertainty was stowed away quite early in this film’s runtime. Given what a make-or-break film this is for Evans I would have been willing to forgive some overacting as he tried to prove he belonged but there’s none of that in “Captain.” I’m not sure that Evans has the charisma of, say, Ryan Reynolds and yet he seems wholly comfortable within the role, as if it comes naturally. This version of Captain America (I know very little of the comics) is an unassuming and humble hero, the kind of guy who is willing to do incredible things because he is capable of such acts, not because he needs to do them. Evans embodies and exemplifies these personality traits well and this makes Captain America as relatable as a scientifically engineered super freak can be. Make no mistake about it, this is a career changing performance that will keep Evans away from horrifying romantic comedies (like “What’s Your Number” which he co-stars in this fall) for years to come.

His supporting cast, though, should not be overlooked. As special agent Peggy Carter who works with Colonel Phillips, Hayley Atwell is charming and strong enough on her own to make you overlook the fact that she’s a British woman who has somehow become a major player in the American military. In short, she does everything that Natalie Portman could not do in “Thor.” While her screen time is limited, this is the kind of strong female character that Hollywood desperately needs in their action movies. The inevitable romantic dynamic between Carter and Rogers is far more natural than you might expect and treads lightly upon the love interest clichés that run rampant through many blockbusters. Weaving, meanwhile, is sufficiently menacing and intimidating, a worthy villain for a superhero of Captain America’s stature. And then there’s ol’ Tommy, one of the great American actors that you sometimes forget about. Christie Lemire said in her review for “Ebert Presents” that this is the kind of role Tommy Lee Jones could play in his sleep and I whole heartedly agree. There is an ease with which Jones works that creates an overwhelmingly fun and thoroughly entertaining environment and that carries over to the rest of the cast and the audience.

The action sequences in “Captain America” are slightly more subdued than what you’d find in “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” but they’re no less powerful and engrossing. The script, put together by a collaborative host of writers, is lively and quite humorous in places. None of it is new, really, and much of the dialogue is easy but sometimes easy fits well and this is one of those situations. “Captain” is also a beautifully shot and colored film. Director Joe Johnston went with a sepia tint that truly works with the film’s nostalgic ideals and concepts. It’s a nice finishing touch that only adds to the overall fun of the film.

There are, of course, some flaws within “Captain America” that I can’t completely pass over. We are treated to a tired montage (similar to the ones found in “X-Men: First Class”) that needed a fresh take and a voice over sequence illustrating how Schmidt became the Red Skull that plays out like a bad horror flick. There are also a few moments in which the nostalgic wholesomeness of both the film and the leading character jump over the kitschy fence and roam freely in the Land of Cheese, all of which I could have done without. But on the whole, “Captain America” is everything you could ask for in a summer blockbuster. If you’re not a fan of superhero movies, this one isn’t going to change your mind. But being the nerdy guy that I am, I believe I’ll have to make room for it on my personal list of favorite comic book films.

Grade: A-

Can’t wait for “The Avengers”,

Brian

Blu Ray Review - "The Eagle"

in ,

At the height of the Roman Empire, young up-and-comer Marcus Aquila (Channing Tatum) is given his choice of assignments. Surprisingly, he picks a remote garrison in Great Britain, a short distance from where his father, along with a legion of 5,000 men and a golden eagle representing the Empire's power, went missing 20 years before. Soon after, he is injured in battle and is given his discharge from the army. Lost and purposeless, his uncle (Donald Sutherland) purchases a slave named Esca (Jamie Bell) for him and the two become constant companions. When word of the lost legion reaches Marcus, he and Esca set out for the great unknown beyond Hadrian's Wall in an effort to discover the fate of the legion and reclaim the lost eagle.

Here are the top three reasons why "The Eagle" sucks.

1. Channing Tatum is horrendous. I've been wondering aloud for some time now as to what in the name of Jason Statham it is that Channing Tatum brings to the table (beyond the obligatory looks). "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints" is literally the only thing I've seen him in that that didn't cause me to begin plotting his murder. Just an awful actor. But I don't really blame him for "The Eagle" because he should have never been cast in the first place. Whoever thought it was a good idea to cast a muscly, hair gelled, American jock type as a hardened Roman commander should be dragged through the streets and locked in the stocks in a place that other casting directors can come and throw rotten vegetables at him/her. Here's a guy who struggles with the subtle nuances of "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra" so what would make anyone think that he could handle a role like this? There is no way that ANYONE could watch "The Eagle" and take Tatum seriously as a garrison commander. To make it worse, Tatum seems to know this himself and so he tries oh so hard to seem Roman and the result is rigid overacting at its absolute worst.

2. The entire narrative of "The Eagle" could have been compressed into a 15 minute short film. There are approximately three plot points and they're all repeated over and over again. And even the film's main focus, the reclamation of the eagle, is kind of pointless. No one in the whole of the Roman Empire gives a rip whether or not the eagle ever shows up again except Marcus himself and that, in turn, prompted me to not care whether or not the eagle ever shows up again. Perhaps it's Tatum's terrible acting or maybe the script is just crap; I don't know. But I know that there was not one second during the journey of Marcus and Esca that I cared if they found the eagle or, for that matter, if they lived or died.

3. The historical inaccuracies within "The Eagle" are bountiful and egregious. The book it is based upon is referred to as "historical fiction" and I think that's putting it rather nicely. Much has been made about the American accents that each of the actors display but that doesn't really bother me. That never really bothers me, honestly; if you cast American actors, I'd rather them speak normally rather than force a bad accent. No, what absolutely killed me was the manner of historical indifference with which "The Eagle" operates. From the Romans not having any archers in their garrison (dumb) to the honorable discharge (that's the exact terminology) that Marcus is issued after his injury, virtually nothing within this film fits the time period. I'm FAR from a history scholar and I rarely get up in arms about inaccuracies as a whole. But "The Eagle" is so blatant about its disregard for the time period. If you changed costumes to military fatigues, weapons from swords to guns, and the setting from ancient Rome to, say, post-war Europe, you could literally take this script and make it a modern day "find the lost soldiers" film. The dialogue, the terminology, and the events are pretty much what would happen in your average American war movie. It is offensively dismissive of the time period in which it chooses to operate.

Beyond some decent action scenes and quality cinematography, there's almost nothing to like about "The Eagle." It's a complete waste of time that only furthers the negative stereotypes concerning American actors and films.

Grade: C-

"Cars 2"

in ,

When “Toy Story” opened in 1995, I was 12 years old and fully entrenched in the, “I’m too cool for cartoons” phase of life. “Toy Story” rocked my world and it was only the tip of the Pixar iceberg. Over the last 15 years, Pixar has put together perhaps the greatest track record of any studio in the industry. They simply haven’t missed. They craft visually stunning, intelligent, and hilarious films that kids love and adults appreciate even more. The real genius, though, is in their ability to take seemingly inhuman characters, such as toys, bugs, and robots, and make them so remarkably human. No matter what type of being the central characters are, Pixar always finds a way to make them and the stories they work within relevant and connectible. I’ve often said that Pixar’s slogan should be, “Making Grown Men Cry Since 1995.” Very rarely can I sit through a Pixar film without tearing up and some of the films, like “Toy Story 3”, manage to bring me to the brink of openly weeping no matter how many times I see them. With that in mind, I guess I can’t fault them too much for the misfire that is “Cars 2.”

“Cars 2” takes us back to Radiator Springs with famous racecar Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) returning home after winning his fourth consecutive Piston Cup. After briefly reuniting with his best friend Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), McQueen accepts a challenge to participate in an international race to promote a new form of fuel. There are greater things at stake, however, than a trophy. British spy car Fin McMissile (Michael Caine) has discovered that a syndicate of lemon cars (Gremlins, Pintos, etc.) have conspired to sabotage the race. McMissile and his colleague, Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer), mistake Mater for an American spy and soon incorporate him into their plan to counteract that of the lemons. Shenanigans ensue as the trio tries to unravel the lemon’s plot before they are able to get to McQueen.

First of all, there’s really nothing inherently wrong with “Cars 2.” It is a perfectly acceptable children’s movie. The negative press that this film has gotten is based solely on the fact that it is a Pixar film and you expect more from Pixar than quality children’s entertainment. And that’s exactly what it is: quality children’s entertainment. If you have a kid, you’d be thrilled if he/she got attached to “Cars 2” instead of, say, “Alpha and Omega” or “Hoodwinked 2.” But it simply doesn’t come anywhere close to measuring up to the strength of its Pixar brothers.

For one thing, there’s too much Mater. WAY too much Mater. Mater is designed for plucky comic relief not a starring role and his extended screen time gets old pretty quickly. There’s also just not a whole lot to build upon from the previous entry in the franchise. “Ratatouille” is my least favorite Pixar film but I think “Cars” is probably the weakest overall. The characters are the least relatable and the story is the least compelling. Moreover, the real strength of “Cars” is in the personification of Smalltown, USA and the loss of its simplicity. When you take the “Cars” characters away from that setting, they really lose all importance.

The real issue with “Cars 2”, though, is that none of this matters on any sort of emotional level. That’s what I want and have come to expect from Pixar films: strong stories that are allegories or illustrations of bigger issues that bring about genuine connection and elicit emotion. We get none of that in “Cars 2.” Instead, it plays out like a children’s rendition of a James Bond film. Only one scene, a tribute to the great Paul Newman who voiced the Hudson Hornet in the first film, is accessible from an emotional standpoint. Again, there’s nothing wrong with creating a fun kid’s movie but Pixar has always seemed above that. In truth, this is basically Pixar’s version of a straight-to-DVD film that was really only made because it is a passion project of Disney/Pixar chief John Lasseter.

All of that said if you’re a parent, you could do a lot worse than “Cars 2” (“Zookeeper” comes to mind). It is rich visually, has a handful of laughs, and the kids will undoubtedly enjoy it. But if you go in expecting the typical Pixar magic, you will be sorely disappointed.

Grade: B

I’d like to be done with Larry the Cable Guy now,
Brian