In Home Viewings: "Higher Ground"

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

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

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

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

Review: "Wanderlust"

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

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

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

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

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

Ranking the Last 20 Best Picture Winners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago suffers in my book for three major reasons:

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

2.) I don’t like musicals;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Home Viewings: "Real Steel"

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

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

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

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

Review: "Chronicle"

Since The Blair Witch Project debuted in 1999, I have been intrigued by the concept of the found-footage film. Obviously I am not alone in that sentiment seeing as the genre has exploded over the last decade, resulting in a number of low-budget, low-quality films that consistently disappoint across the board. Still, however, I remain interested in the concept as a whole because I believe that, if it used correctly, the technique could lend itself to an outstanding film. Enter Chronicle.

Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan) is your typical high school nobody. He is routinely bullied, his home life is a mess, and he has only one friend, Matt Garetty (Alex Russell), a cousin who he isn’t really close to. As a defense mechanism, Andrew starts filming everything he does, earning the ire of just about everyone around him. At a party that Matt drags him to, Andrew is approached by the school’s most popular student, Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan), who asks him to bring his camera over to check out what he and Matt just discovered. What they find is a deep hole in the ground that brings them into contact with a foreign object that imbues the boys with special powers. As the film cuts from scene to scene, we see the trio learning more and more about their abilities, beginning with simple telekinesis tricks like stopping a baseball in midflight and moving up to flying high above the earth with ease. But as they grow stronger, Andrew becomes more powerful than both Matt and Steve and he begins to abuse his powers, prompting a cataclysmic confrontation in the streets of Seattle.

Chronicle hits its projected target on just about every level. It is all at once a sci-fi thriller, a superhero origin story, and, possibly most importantly, a coming-of-age drama. Andrew, Matt, and Steve may be somewhat cliché but they embody their respective roles with ease and comfort. Their relationships, actions, and motivations are completely believable; they behave exactly the way you would expect three teenagers with brand new super powers to behave. These guys aren’t immediately concerned with changing the world for the better or using their powers for good; instead, they compile numerous hand-held shots of pranks and hijinks, toss a football around at 20,000 feet, and enroll in the school’s talent show. Meanwhile, though, Andrew’s worldview becomes darker and darker, bringing the narrative back around to the concept at the core of virtually every superhero film: with great power comes great responsibility. Andrew is set up not as an evil character but rather a mere boy who can’t handle the abilities he’s been gifted along with the emotions of a troubled youth. That is an important difference that keeps Chronicle from becoming the standard good-versus-evil affair and brings more depth to the film than I might have expected going in.

First-time director Josh Trank (rumored to be Marvel’s choice to helm the Fantastic Fourreboot) displays great talent but also great restraint. He meshes the teenage angst and drama beautifully with a score of high-quality special effects shots and sequences and never stretches his film too far. Chronicle is less than 90 minutes long and while I usually take that as a red flag, in this case it fits perfectly. Any longer and the film would have run out of steam. Instead, it finishes with a bang, an extended FX sequence that concludes exactly when and how it should. Moreover, Trank’s film is perhaps the first of the genre to properly incorporate multiple viewpoints. Most of the found-footage is taken from Andrew’s camera but throughout the film, Trank interweaves shots from several other sources, particularly in the final, explosive act.

Above all else, I think what sets Chronicle apart from just about every entry from the genre is that it is a good, worthwhile story without the found-footage aspect. Rather than using the technique as a crutch to prop up a pointless story or to simply provide cheap scares, Trank and writer Max Landis crafted together an excellent film that just happens to use found-footage as its medium. Overall, Chronicle stands as a compelling and sometimes thrilling film that represents perhaps the very best the found-footage genre has ever had to offer.

Review: "Man on a Ledge"

When I think of January movie releases, I generally fixate on bad action movies. Unfrightening horror movies are a big part of the month, too, but action movies display the soul of the January Film Calendar. This year alone we were treated to Contraband(meh), Haywire (well received by critics, not audiences), The Grey (a different breed entirely), and Red Tails(underperforming in every way), all of which outshined poor little Man on a Ledge. If any January action film sums up the lackluster nature of the pre-Oscar releases, it’s this one, a hodge-podge of lazy plot points and painful clichés.

Man on a Ledge begins with Nick Cassidy (Sam Worthington), who we learn later is an ex-cop and a prison escapee, renting a room in a high-rise Manhattan hotel and promptly walking out onto the ledge (duh) 20+ stories up. This action catches the eye of onlookers from the street and soon cops rope off the area and send in Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks), a haunted police negotiator who Nick requests by name. As she digs deeper into his story, Lydia becomes convinced there is more here than meets the eye and soon Nick lets it be known that he has taken these drastic actions in order to clear his name of the crime that sent him to prison, that being the theft of a $40 million dollar diamond from real estate mogul David Englander (Ed Harris). As it turns out, however, all of Nick’s exploits are done with the intention of distracting the cops while his brother, Joey (Jamie Bell), and his girlfriend, Angie (Genesis Rodriguez), break into Englander’s vault across the street to steal the item he was falsely accused of stealing in the first place.

The most amazing thing about Man on a Ledge is that director Asger Leth was able to assemble such a large collection of quality actors for such a droll film. Worthington, Banks, Bell, Harris, Anthony Mackie, Kyra Sedgwick, Titus Willever, Ed Burns…everywhere you look, there’s a recognizable face. And yet most of these faces are given next to nothing to work with. Harris delivers a watered-down-but-acceptable version of his role in A History of Violenceand Banks is, as always, lively and entertaining to watch. Even Worthington is good-enough, though his inability to hold his accent borders on Cageian levels. In fact, if I may be so bold, the scenes in which Nick is actually out on a ledge, often speaking with Lydia, are solid. Not great, mind you, but certainly above average for a January action film.

But just about every positive is overwhelmed by a decisively more aggressive negative. Every scene that focuses on Joey and Angie is awful. AWFUL. And I mean EVERY scene. Angie becomes more and more generic and stereotypical of a spicy Latin hottie and with each line of dialogue, I found myself more and more compelled to leave the theater. I don’t know why Bell insists on taking bad roles in crummy movies. By all accounts he’s a talented guy and yet he keeps popping up in films like The Eagle, Jumper, and this jumbled mess. Maybe he just needs better representation. Regardless, his uninspiring chemistry with Rodriguez is at best awkward and he displays an uncanny ability for having no comedic timing whatsoever. Moreover, each “twist” and “turn” within the movie’s plot is as cliché as the one before, as Man on a Ledge falls into every action movie trap that you can imagine. 20 minutes into the film I could have written down everything that would happen throughout the rest of the runtime and I would have been spot on about 85 percent of the time. Even worse, none of the cliché plot devices are executed with any sort of precision. It’s as if, when writing the film, Pablo F. Fenjves got stuck and said, “Oh, I saw this in a movie one time, let’s do that” and then repeated this pattern multiple times. It is a boring, “going through the motions” narrative that never manages to get its wheels moving properly.

In Home Viewings: "In Time"

At an unspecified time in the future, humans are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. Everyone has a bright green counter imbedded on their forearms which show how much time they have left to live. As a byproduct of this new system, time becomes currency; the rich have decades, even centuries to live, while the poor are lucky to have more than 24 hours on their arms at any one time. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) works at a factory and never has more time than hours in the day until a chance encounter with Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), a rich man whose life he saves from a vicious gangster (Alex Pettyfer). Hamilton, though, doesn’t want to go on any longer and while Will sleeps, he transfers over his 116+ years of time. Before he can celebrate with his mother (Olivia Wilde), she runs out of time and dies, prompting Will to make it his mission in life to bring down the system. After being tracked to a mansion by Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy), Will makes a hostage of his host’s daughter, Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), and sets out on the run. The pair soon becomes a futuristic version of Bonnie and Clyde as they attempt to stay one step ahead and right the wrongs their society has imposed on the poor.

Concept films almost never pan out, the reason being that ideas are easy to come up with; putting those ideas into motion is a different story. Make no mistake, writer/director Andrew Niccol has a great concept to work with. But as is often the case with sci-fi films, the concept at the heart of In Time is approximately one hundred billion times better than the film itself. This movie could succeed as a sci-fi book or short story but the way in which it is executed on screen makes for an excruciatingly bad experience.

In Time misses the mark on virtually every front. To start, it is rife with poor acting. No, that’s not enough. In truth, most of the performances within this movie are downright terrible. Niccol assembled a cast of attractive individuals who unfortunately have yet to figure out their way as actors, aside from Murphy, who looks like a man who knows he’s boarded a sinking ship. Timberlake, Seyfried, and Wilde may end up being worthwhile performers at some point but at this stage of their respective careers, they need real guidance and good material, neither of which is provided by Niccol. (It should be noted that I did not include Pettyfer in that list because while the others show at least some promise, Pettyfer does not. He is genuinely talentless.) In the end, though, the numerous sleepwalking portrayals and elementary-level dialogue don’t come close to measuring up to the train wreck that is this movie’s plot.

To list the holes within the plot would be to craft a short novel. Absolutely nothing about In Time works the way it is supposed to. The film simply doesn’t make a bit of sense on any level whatsoever. I’d love to know how it got green lit in the first place or how it made it past the test screening phase. It seems that no one anywhere in the chain of command ever asked some rudimentary questions about why this or that happens. Add to these crater-sized holes a staggering number of side plots that serve no purpose and receive no payoff. The most interesting character within the entire mess of a film is Timekeeper Leon and yet his development never enters into the equation.

Really what I’m saying in this review boils down to this: In Time is stupid. (I almost just wrote that sentence as my review but I felt that wouldn’t be received too well.) It is riddled with head-scratching plot holes, anemic dialogue, and cringe-inducing acting and worst of all it is a waste of an interesting and potentially dynamic concept which, as a sci-fi nerd, makes me furious. Stupid. It’s just stupid.

In Home Viewings: "Apollo 18"

In 1972, the crew of Apollo 17 made the last manned moon landing. Shortly after their return to earth, NASA cancelled the flights of Apollo 18, 19, and 20, respectively, and instead turned focus towards the creation of the space shuttle. At least, that’s what the government wants you to think. (Cue the ominous “conspiracy” music.)The found footage within Apollo 18 would have you believe that the Apollo 17 mission was just the tip of the iceberg. With John (Ryan Robbins) orbiting above the moon, Nate (Lloyd Owen) and Ben (Warren Christie) descend upon the surface for a secret mission, carrying a payload provided by the Department of Defense. Their two day mission takes a strange turn, however, when they find a Soviet landing craft and the body of a cosmonaut not far from their own landing spot. Soon weird things begin to happen and before long the two astronauts find themselves under attack from a mysterious presence that always seems to evade eyesight. When Nate is injured and begins to show signs of infection, it is left to Ben to try to get the pair back to their orbiting shuttle before it’s too late.

The found footage genre, which has become far too prominent in recent years, presents a challenge for me. As a concept, I think it’s rather intriguing. There are things that you can do with a found footage narrative that you can’t do with the standard storytelling and when done right, it can create an atmosphere that feels more realistic than it would be otherwise. I think it’s that presencethat brings me back to found footage flicks. The problem is it’s almost never done right. In the same way that 3D has been bastardized by bad filmmakers with bad films that use the technology for evil rather than good, found footage is mostly used as a crutch for lazy, uninspired storytelling. It is used, essentially, as a gimmick more often than not rather than a tool for crafting a quality film.

Apollo 18 is the personification of that last paragraph. As a concept, it is thoroughly intriguing to me. It asks the question, “Why haven’t we been back to the moon?” and pretty soon I found myself wondering the same thing. I’m anything but a conspiracy theorist but still, the base of the film worked for me. I also think the decision to have almost the entire film take place with only two characters was a brave choice even if it didn’t come together seamlessly. But beyond the concept, Apollo 18 falls flat on its face, a perfect illustration of what bothers me most about this genre. Director Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego attempts to build suspense, even terror, throughout but he never manages to pull it off. Very little happens throughout the film’s runtime and what does happen is completely swallowed up by the boredom that the slow pace inspires. And instead of trying to do anything unique or fresh, instead Apollo 18 represents a check list of generic gags and gimmicks that plague the average found footage film.

On top of all this, Apollo 18 isn’t frightening in the least. I tire of film critics attacking suspense films and thrillers for not effectively scaring them out of their seats. But a film billed as a sci-fi horror flick needs to pack at least a bit of a punch and this film is decidedly punchless. Weak dialogue and plot holes can be overlooked (see: The Blair Witch Project) if your film is bringing legitimate scares but every time Apollo 18 tries to ramp up the scare factor, I found myself yawning and wondering how much more I had to sit through. It is lazy, half-hearted filmmaking that could have done much more with the concept it had to work with.

In Home Viewings: "Midnight in Paris"

Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) aren’t a particularly good match. Gil is a successful screenwriter who would prefer to be a struggling novelist while Inez is an upper-class snob who prefers Beverly Hills’ brand of culture to that of the Old World. During their vacation to Paris, Gil and Inez spend their days touring with Paul (Michael Sheen) and Carol (Nina Arianda), Inez’s insufferable friends, and their nights dining with Inez’s parents. As Gil becomes more infatuated with Paris and less happy with Inez, he begins to take midnight walks around the city to clear his head. On one of these walks he is beckoned by the occupants of an antique car to join their party, an invitation which he graciously accepts. When he arrives at the party, however, he realizes that he has journeyed back in time to the Roaring ‘20s and comes in contact with celebrities of the past such as F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston) and Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll). Each night he journeys back to the past and upon his return to the present each morning, he finds his transition more and more difficult and leading to the inevitable confrontation between Inez and himself.

I’ve never been a big fan of Woody Allen or his films. It’s not that I don’t think he makes quality films; it’s that I’ve never really enjoyed his particular sense of humor. Maybe more to the point, I’m 28 years old which means very, VERY, few of the films Allen has made in my lifetime have mattered whatsoever and those that do matter haven’t resonated with me. In fact, Midnight in Paris is probably the first Allen movie made in my lifetime that actually made an impression on me. I’m not quite so willing to jump on the bandwagon so aggressively as to add this film to my personal top ten list, but it’s a tremendous improvement on most of Woody’s recent works.

There are three types of characters in the standard Woody Allen romance:

1. The Woody character - Woody inserts himself in basically every one of his films whether he plays the protagonist himself or farms the role out to another actor;

2. The Muse - There’s always someone or something that inspires, confuses, or otherwise entices the Woody character;

3. Everyone else - Everyone other character in a Woody Allen film is generally some form of jerk who doesn’t understand the Woody character.

Midnight in Paris is no stranger to this formula. One of the reasons this film works so well is the brilliant performance of Owen Wilson. Gil is, of course, Woody’s representation of himself within this film and Wilson plays perhaps the best Woody Allen yet (besides the man himself). Wilson exemplifies the neurosis and idiosyncrasies needed for the Allen character with flair and he delivers the requisite banter exquisitely. The Muse, in this case, is not a person but rather the collective that makes up Paris in the ‘20s. Gil falls head over heels for the glamour and the nightlife, the writers and the musicians, the dancing and the garb. He is inspired by a generation that he feels is significantly better than the one in which he was born. Everyone else is, well, everyone in Gil’s real life. Inez, her parents, and her friends are all, quite simply, horrible, boring, and obnoxious people. This is always the part of the Woody Allen Equation that bothers me, as I’d prefer it if at least one character outside of Woody and the Muse could act like a real human. In this case, however, I think Allen does a great job of playing down the stupidity of “everyone else” while focusing more on the glory of the muse and the life Gil so desperately desires. I found myself rooting for him in a way I can’t always manage in a Woody Allen film. It is a stunningly shot, richly structured film that presents a thrilling, beautiful portrait of Paris in what is undoubtedly Allen’s best film in 25 years.

Review: "The Grey"

There’s never been any question that Liam Neeson is not a man to be trifled with. Whether he was freeing Jews in Schindler’s List, avenging the defilement of his wife in Rob Roy, or giving the only worthwhile performance in Phantom Menace, Neeson has always been a charismatic and thoroughly believable leading man with an edge. 2009’s Taken took that to a whole new level, though, and simultaneously changed the culture (and relative importance) of the ridiculous action film and Neeson’s overall impression. When the trailer for The Grey started making the rounds, my friends and I had a grand time comparing it to Taken and joking about how nature didn’t stand a chance against a Liam Neeson throat chop. (In fact, I should probably just put together a timeline of the text messages we exchanged and let that stand as my review.) I very much enjoy the ridiculous notion that Neeson is engaging in some sort of gladiator-like event in which Hollywood sends their most blood-thirsty champions to battle him and he unceremoniously dispatches them: Serbians (Taken)? No problem. German spies (Unknown)? No problem. A tank falling like an anvil from the sky (The A-Team)? No problem. Finally, in a last ditch effort to save face, Hollywood called upon CGI wolves with a taste for human flesh. How could Neeson possibly stave off such an onslaught?

John Ottway (Neeson) is at the end of his rapidly fraying rope. Left alone by his wife and with very few marketable skills, he winds up in the Alaskan wilderness, hired to shoot wolves that threaten the safety of the roughneck employees working on a pipeline. He has nothing to live for and is on the verge of suicide. But on his way home to Anchorage, his plane crashes and he finds himself as one of seven survivors in the middle of a winter wasteland. Ottway springs into action, gathering up the survivors and formulating a plan to hike out to safety. But before his plans can come to fruition, the small group is beset upon by a pack of hungry and blood thirsty wolves who furiously pick off the survivors one by one. With the wolves at his heels, the blistering cold in his face, and no definite sense of where he is, Ottway finds his desire for death put to the test.

The success of Taken has created a two-sided phenomenon in my mind. On the one hand, at nearly 60 years old, Neeson’s career has hit a new stride that very few actors are able to achieve wherein millions of younger viewers will see whatever movie he is in, at least in large part, because he is in it. That’s where I’m at, anyway. I know if I’m going into a Neeson film, I’m going to have a darn good time and I’m going to be impressed with what a boss the man is. On the other hand, however, it’s difficult to go into a Neeson action movie and not expect Taken Part 2. In my mind, Unknown was Taken: Germany, The A-Teamwas Taken with Friends, and Battleship will be Taken: Alien Invasion (all of this leading up to, of course, Taken 2 which comes out later this year). That feeling makes it difficult to transition to a different concept if a given film aspires to be something other than an unofficial Taken sequel.

And that’s where I’m at with The Grey.

When you’re expecting Liam Neeson to be himself (a grade-A boss) and just kickpunch the crap out of every wolf who happens to cross his path, it comes as quite a shock when it turns out that the wolves are actually far more up to the task of killing Neeson than any group of Serbians ever were. There is a lot more at play than meets the eye with The Grey and that serves as both a pleasant surprise and a bit of a letdown. I was not prepared for the deep, philosophical undercurrent that runs through every aspect of this film. As I adjusted, I found that for the first two-thirds at least, the two sides of the film (the awesome, butt-kicking side and the deeper, serious side) complemented each other quite well. And for a while director Joe Carnahan had his cake and ate it, too: his in-depth exploration into the darker elements of the human soul went hand-in-hand with Neeson’s general awesomeness, including his utterance of one of the five greatest tough-guy quotes I can ever remember (seriously, this movie is worth seeing just to hear him threaten one of his fellow survivors with one of the most blunt, harsh, and menacing statements I’ve ever heard).

But I confess the conclusion of The Grey has me perplexed. Without spoiling anything for anyone, it’s fair to say that there essentially isn’t a conclusion. It closes on a note that is about as ambiguous as you’ll ever experience, perhaps one step short of the masterful/infuriating (depending on your opinion) close to No Country For Old Men. Just when you think the film is going to ramp up into a fresh round of throat chops and jump kicks, the screen goes black and the closing credits roll. And if I’m being totally honest, I still don’t know how I feel about this. I admire Carnahan’s willingness to take a risk and there’s no questioning the quality of the filmmaking involved here. But it takes a special film to properly execute the non-ending-ending and I’m not sure that The Grey qualifies. The conclusion flips the course of the film on its head and makes you reconsider its overall focus and while that could be considered a stroke of genius, it didn’t completely work for me. All said, The Grey is a complex, worthwhile film but not one that I’m ready to anoint as a “great” action flick. I guess I’ll have to hold onto that title until Taken 2 rolls around.

Review: "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"

I know that I’m quite prone to hyperbole. When describing a movie I’ve used the terms “best”, “worst”, and “favorite” more than any man should. I’ve tried to curb that desire over the last couple of years and I now think long and hard before I jump off the hyperbolic ledge. So when I say that Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is the most frustrating movie I have EVER seen, please know that I do so after a serious amount of consideration.

Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) is a troubled boy, stricken with a set of social disorders (never defined in the film but readily apparent) that only get worse when he experiences “the worst day ever.” His father, Thomas (Tom Hanks), was in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and died in the building’s collapse. The loss leaves Oskar struggling to make sense of his life while his mother, Linda (Sandra Bullock), drifts further and further away into depression. A year after the tragedy, while snooping around in his father’s possessions, Oskar discovers a mysterious key labeled, “Black.” Feeling that his connection to his father is slipping away, Oskar postulates that the key must be a part of one of the numerous adventures his father sent him on. With the help of a mysterious mute (Max Von Sydow) who rents a room from his grandmother, Oskar begins a cross-city search for the owner of the key who he believes will be able to tell him something about his father.

The story contained within EL&IC is truly spectacular. It is equal parts beauty and heartbreak, a haunting and yet triumphant narrative that should draw a natural connection from its audience. Obviously the 9/11 overtones make up a portion of the emotion within the film but the real value is found in Oskar’s struggle to remain in touch with his father and as a byproduct the distance from his mother. Make no mistake, at times this story is gut-wrenchingly painful and difficult to endure but at the core of the sorrow there remains hope, a combination that elicited quite a response from me. When describing the narrative to a friend I got choked up and nearly broke down, an action that isn’t typical for me (I’m a movie crier, sure, but I’m usually done with it after the movie is over). I realized how deeply the story had affected me after the fact, so to speak, and that’s what makes this such a frustrating movie: while the narrative is fantastic, virtually everything else about this movie is a bloody mess.

Okay, to be fair, the acting of the supporting players isn’t a mess. Hanks is charming as always in his limited screen time and as the film goes on, Bullock’s character displays more depth than originally expected. Von Sydow, too, makes every second of his wordless appearance count, a performance worthy of his Oscar nomination. All of them, however, are overshadowed by Oskar and I don’t mean that in a good way. Oskar is, quite simply, a beating for the majority of the film. The fault does not belong with Horn, a young actor who does an excellent job with what he was given to work with. The problem is that director Stephen Daldry makes Oskar excruciatingly annoying in order to illustrate his various ticks and issues. At times you want to ignore all the stuff this kid has been through and just tell him to shut up. Actually, it’s not “at times”; it’s almost all the time. Oskar grated on my nerves and Daldry’s insistence on playing up his idiosyncrasies essentially strips this film of its rightful impact. Add in a HORRIBLE, painful voiceover that never seems to stop, a distracting and obnoxious score, and a few truly bizarre production choices (a man falling from the WTC building in disturbing detail, for example) and what you’ve got is a sloppy, haphazard mess of a film that undercuts the power of the narrative.

Numerous times over the last few years I’ve said that a given film contains 20 minutes of a good film that can’t quite escape the trappings of mediocrity (or something to that effect). EL&IC is different: it is 20 minutes of a GREAT film, an ICONIC film, that is maddeningly handicapped by incessant and infuriatingly poor choices from Daldry and his writing team. It is a frustrating and infuriating cinematic experience that perfectly illustrates the term, “what could have been.” 

In Home Viewings: "Killer Elite"

After his last job goes badly, Danny (Jason Statham), a world renowned hitman, leaves the game and moves into isolation in Australia. His mentor, Hunter (Robert De Niro), keeps taking jobs and before long he gets himself into trouble with a Middle Eastern sheik. In order to win Hunter's freedom, Danny must take on that inevitable "one last job", a contract that will require him to kill three former SAS agents who were connected to the deaths of the sheik's sons during a military operation. Danny assembles a team and sets out to fulfill the contract, an easy any task for a man of his skills. He draws the attention, however, of Spike (Clive Owen), another former SAS agent and a member of a secret society known as The Feathermen, who takes it upon himself to prevent the hits from taking place and to bring Danny in for interrogation.

I didn't expect much from Killer Elite, a sentiment I attempt to take in with me whenever watching a Jason Statham movie. I assumed the plot would be thin and the dialogue would be to the level of a third grader and I was willing to accept that as long as the movie delivered quality action sequences and a general good time. In essence, I did my part by bringing a low standard and a good attitude to the table. Unfortunately, Killer Elite failed to carry its share of the load. This movie is so bad that I almost didn't write a review because I'd already wasted two hours of my life by watching it and didn't want to give up another hour or so to writing about it. I'm sad that I didn't see it earlier so that I could include it in my "Worst Movies of the Year" list because it DEFINITELY should own a place in the bottom five. Simply put, there is absolutely nothing to like about this film. Nothing.

Killer Elite manages to squeeze every action movie cliche you can think of into its plot. You've got the "one last job" element at play. You've got the mentor-mentee-bad-guy relationship thing happening. You've got the villain who's really not a bad guy and he shows it by shooting people in the knees (crippling them for life) instead of killing them. And the list goes on. It's embarrassing how unoriginal and completely uninspired Killer Elite really is. With a cast as talented as this one is, the least director Gary McKendry and writer Matt Sherring could do would be to create a plot and an atmosphere in which the actors could thrive. Clearly no one in the cast cared about making this movie. I've sadly come to expect that from De Niro in these settings (that's one of the most depressing statements I've ever made in this space) but even Statham seems completely disinterested, like a man who knows he's working on a doomed project. This is a guy who goes all out in Crank, a wretched film that only made it to theaters because Statham rocks it so hard; how bad does the on-set vibe have to be for that guy to not care?

None of this would make Killer Elite a "Worst Movie of the Year" candidate (probably) without the following issues:

1.) The plot is so overly complex that it's next to impossible to follow from a logical standpoint. By that I don't mean that it's "smart" or "over my head." I mean that it's a jumbled, convoluted mess that was structured poorly in the first place and probably edited poorly in re-writes. This is a bad, extremely thin plot that doesn't make a bloody bit of sense and in order to cover those holes, the writer(s) adds in a whole bunch of junk to make it look more complex than it really is. There are approximately 100,000 worthless plot twists and turns in this movie and I'm probably under valuing that number.

2.) More egregious in my book, pretty much every character in this film makes idiotic decision after idiotic decision and these decisions are the only way that the plot can keep moving. This is perhaps my least favorite movie trick ever; it's the main reason I hate horror movies. If your plot depends on your characters making decisions that no human with the IQ of a three-toed sloth would make, then it's a bad plot and you should stop making your movie. In Killer Elite, every character operates under the three-toed sloth line. Keep in mind, these are all highly trained, intelligent covert agents who have only lived as long as they have because they were, presumably, good at making decisions and keeping themselves alive. But that doesn't stop them from running off into the path of a large truck or not searching a known enemy for weapons. I'm pretty sure even my wife knows that if your adversary is strangling your colleague and they're close enough to touch noses, you probably shouldn't shoot said adversary in the back of the head with a high-caliber pistol because, gosh wouldn't you know it, the bullet is likely to go through and kill your friend, too. Unfortunately for one of the characters in this movie, another highly-trained, super-awesome special agent did not know this scientific fact.

Basically what I'm saying, dear reader(s), is that you absolutely should not see Killer Elite. I know it looks like it could be fun, I know it looks like the perfect, "It's Midnight and I've Already Watched Sportscenter and this Just Came on HBO" movie. But trust me, it isn't. Save yourself and stay away.

In Home Viewings - "Pearl Jam 20"

When the grunge rock movement began in Seattle in the early ‘90s, filmmaker Cameron Crowe was living in the area and spent a good deal of time covering the music scene. At the forefront of the movement, which spread like wildfire across the globe, there were two bands: Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Yes, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and a number of other bands made significant marks but it was the aforementioned duo that made grunge the all-encompassing phenomenon that it was. If you’ve ever seen a Crowe film, you know he has a connection with Pearl Jam; I’m pretty sure at least one PJ song can be found in each of his films, including We Bought a Zoo, an addition that made no sense but was nonetheless awesome. Pearl Jam 20 serves as Crowe’s ode to his favorite band as he traces their origins back to the pre-Eddie Vedder days and follows them up through their most recent album, interspersing concert footage with intimate interviews and some home videos to create a portrait of what could be America’s last great rock band.

Much like Crowe himself, I am borderline obsessed with the grunge era. I think Nirvana saved music and you can’t convince me otherwise. Pearl Jam is probably my favorite band going right now and so for me, PJ20 was an outstanding way to spend two hours. This isn’t exactly the in-depth, investigative sort of documentary that many critics were hoping for. Rather, it’s almost a love letter to the band and the music of the era from a fan to the fans. And personally, I’m okay with that. It was thrilling to catch a glimpse of the inner workings of the band and the history of how they came together. I’ve read some of this information before but it’s different to actually watch the band talk about themselves and about their music. The grunge era is such a fascinating, exciting subject and Crowe’s ability to weave together the various elements he uses to tell Pearl Jam’s story is incredible.

The early days of the band are of particular interest as Crowe examines the way in which the members of the group came together and the work that led to their breakout album, Ten. Through the various interviews and video clips, you are able to get a real feel for the brotherhood not just among the members of Pearl Jam but also among all members of the Seattle music scene, regardless of band affiliation. In one clip, Chris Cornell (Soundgarden) stated that his musician friends from New York couldn’t believe how supportive each band was of the next; New York bands viewed themselves as competitors while the grunge acts saw themselves as parts of a whole. In many ways, that feeling of togetherness is representative of a movement that was embraced by millions of (young) people from different walks of life who felt disenfranchised by society in general, let alone the crap that dominated the airwaves at the time.

One of the more intriguing parts of the film is the way in which it displays the changes in the both the personalities of the band members and the music they put together. As PJ20progresses, you witness the evolution of both band and individual. Front man Eddie Vedder is almost out of control in early footage, both on and off stage. There’s a sense of frustration, almost rage, that pours through in every song. Later concert footage and interviews show a much more controlled and mature man who has traded anger for political and social angst but one who still knows how to put on an incredible show and make fantastic music. It was engrossing for me to watch the changes take place over the course of 20 years and brought a new appreciation for some of the band’s music that I haven’t always been as impressed with.

If nothing else (and perhaps above all else), PJ20 offers up an enthralling anthology of Pearl Jam on stage. The concert footage is exquisitely cut and distributed throughout the runtime so that it never becomes a true concert film but also never allows the viewer to forget that these guys represent a powerhouse on the stage. The mix of early footage with more recent shots (including an IMPECCABLE performance of Release from a few years ago) provides a powerful sampling of the truly special body of work Pearl Jam has put together over the years. I would have loved for Crowe to delve deeper into the middle years of the band in which there was an apparent, if unspoken, conflict between the band members or give more insight into the origins of some of Pearl Jam’s more popular songs. But as it stands, PJ20 provides a beautiful and heartfelt look at one of the world’s most prolific rock bands.

Review: "Roadie"

After 20 years of lugging gear and setting up equipment for the Blue Oyster Cult, Jimmy (Ron Eldard) is unceremoniously fired and abandoned by the band members he considered to be friends. With no identity outside of his status as a roadie and no life plans, Jimmy ends up heading back home for the first time in a decade. After crashing in his old bedroom, Jimmy comes into contact with Randy (Bobby Cannavale), his high-school nemesis who happens to be married to Nikki (Jill Hennessey), an old flame he never really got over. With nothing to show for his time away from home, Jimmy begins making up stories and eventually draws Randy's ire, creating an uncomfortable situation that further messes with Jimmy's already fragile mental state.

Roadie is like a conflict between two mountain goats (I know that "bighorn sheep" would be a more scientifically correct title but "mountain goat" just sounds better): one goat represents the acting in this film, chiefly that of Eldard, and the other represents the storyline and general exposition of said storyline. The Acting Goat is an outstanding specimen. Eldard is one of my very favorite character actors, a guy who always draws my attention no matter how big or small his role in a given movie may be. (This makes him a member of the "Barry Pepper All-Stars", a list of actors I really need to write a piece about one of these days.) This is a rare leading role for Eldard and he shines brilliantly. Jimmy is easy to root for despite not really showing many qualities that usually make one likeable and that is due to Eldard's ability to convey a measure of truthfulness, or perhaps relevance, to his character. The lack of purpose and the search for meaning in his life work make Jimmy an appealing protagonist in this sort of slow-paced, character-driven drama. There is also an edge of genuine desperation to Jimmy and through this trait Eldard gives real weight to a character which otherwise might have been pointless. The supporting players around Eldard are all solid as well, though none quite measure up to the work of the leading man.

The Story Goat, however, is an equally impressive beast but one that works for evil instead of good. Simply put, the events of Roadie are about as bland as you can get. It isn't what I would call "boring" necessarily and yet nothing much happens. Jimmy comes into town, Jimmy pals around with some old friends, and then Jimmy threatens to leave town once more. That's about it. The settings that Roadie inhabits are uninteresting and the dialogue within is unimpressive. As a result, the story undermines Eldard's work and leaves him virtually trapped in a dull and somewhat meaningless world that serves as a stark contrast to the appealing lead character. In the end, neither the Acting Goat nor the Story Goat really win; instead, the two tire out and settle in for a nice nap, a genuine shame considering all that this film had going for it.

Top 10 Anticipated Movies of 2012 (Part I)

Two quick primers on the list you're about to read/flip through absentmindedly:

1.) Last year I started breaking this list into two parts: January through June and July through December. That allows me to highlight ten more films, of course, but it also gives me more time to have a feel for what in the world I can expect from the year's later releases.

2.) This is FAR from a science. I pride myself on my ability to pick out bad movies and avoid them but my foresight has limits. I'm lucky if I've even seen a teaser trailer for anything scheduled for release later than mid-February, let alone the titles you'll see below that debut in the summer. This is a crapshoot. I looked back at last year's Part I and was embarrassed to see a couple of truly awful films made the list. But hey, that's how things go sometimes and I'm more than willing to stick my neck out one more time.

I firmly believe 2012 will be a great year for film but it is extremely bottom heavy. That is to say, most of its value will be found in the back half of the year while the front half is somewhat lackluster. So please bear that in mind as we delve into my Top 10 Anticipated Movies of 2012 (Part I).

Honorable Mention: Jeff Who Lives at Home - Jason Segel, Ed Helms, Judy Greer
The only reason this film, about a thirtysomething who still lives in his mother's basement, didn't make the list is that it will receive a limited release (the bane of my moviegoing existence). That means I probably won't end up seeing it until it hits DVD shelves and if I'm not going to see it in theaters, then I don't feel good about giving it a spot here. That's too bad because I think this is going to be stinking funny.

10. Men in Black 3 - Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin
I'm well aware that the trailer for MIB 3 is, shall we say, less than promising. I admit I'm nervous, especially taking into consideration the whole time-travel thing which is usually a bad sign. But here's the thing: I love Will Smith. Always have, always will. I wish the guy would take on more challenging roles from time to time (Django Unchained would have been PERFECT) but I almost always enjoy his movies and often times, I enjoy them quite a bit. Smith hasn't been in a movie in 3 years and as a result I've been looking forward to this one for a long time. I'll take my chances with a haphazard plot. Also, the idea of Josh Brolin playing Tommy Lee Jones sounds uber-appealing.

9. Dr. Suess' The Lorax - Zac Efron, Danny DeVito, Ed Helms
It is always smart to be at least somewhat suspicious of any animated film that isn't related to Pixar and Dr. Suess books haven't translated well the screen overall. But the visuals on The Lorax looks fantastic, this is one of my very favorite Suess books, and the studio busted out a Polyphonic Spree song for the trailer which is ALWAYS a smart move. So consider my interest piqued.

8. Chronicle - Michael B. Jordan, Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell
There will always be a spot for a low-budget sci-fi film on my list. Deal with it. This one, about three friends who are mysteriously given super powers, looks extra appealing even if it will, undoubtedly, touch on teenage angst a little more than I'd like. Looks like we'll be treated to solid special effects and what could be a compelling, if unoriginal, storyline. I'm also on the lookout for a quality performance from Jordan (of Parenthood and Friday Night Lights fame) who has the chops to be a hot name in Hollywood over the next couple of years.

7. M.S. One: Maximum Security - Guy Pearce, Maggie Grace, Peter Stormare
If you enjoyed Taken and are excited about Taken 2 (which will open later this year), then you will certainly appreciate MS One which is basically Taken 1.5. It centers on a falsely-convicted criminal who is given his freedom in exchange for rescuing the president's daughter from a prison colony on the moon and it is produced by Luc Besson. I can't tell you, dear readers, that this will be a "good" movie but I can tell you it will be a "ridiculously fun" movie that I will be in attendance for on opening weekend. I honestly can't wait. Also, I think it's high time that the world recognizes how boss Pearce really is and maybe his subbing in for Liam Neeson will make that happen.

6. The Five-Year Engagement - Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, A Whole Lot of Really Funny People
This R-rated comedy (title should be explanatory as far as the plot goes) reunites director Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel who previously collaborrated on both The Muppets and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Stoller's other work, Get Him to the Greek, is one that grows on me every time I run across it on cable. These are just genuinely funny guys. Add in the Bridesmaids feel and the RIDICULOUS supporting cast (Chris Pratt, Mindy Kaling, and Chris Parnell to name a few) and you've got a potential smash hit.

5. Moonrise Kingdom - Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Frances McDormand, Bill Murray
One of my simple rules for picking good movies is this: if Wes Anderson directed it, it's good. Like I said, simple. Anderson's unique style is irresistible for me and I don't think the guy has ever made a bad movie. His last venture, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, MIGHT be his best (heresy, I know). Moonrise, about two pre-teens who run away together, sounded appealing enough sight unseen. Then the first trailer hit last week and I'm now completely on board. What a great cast! Really, really excited for this one.

4. Prometheus - Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Noomi Rapace
Ridley Scott's "it's not an Alien prequel but yeah, it's an Alien prequel" sci-fi extravaganza will have been garnering serious Internet attention for the better part of two years by the time it actually opens in theaters.   With an incredible cast and an established fan base, I think we can bet on Prometheus bringing in a haul at the box office this summer. And that's good because, in all honesty, Scott could really use a hit. Since Gladiator brought him a Best Picture Oscar, he's been at the helm for Hannibal (awful), Black Hawk Down (critical success but not a huge winner at the box office), Matchstick Men (good, not great), Kingdom of Heaven (I love this movie, most people do not), A Good Year (beating), American Gangster (not the success it aspired to be), Body of Lies (bombed), and Robin Hood (one of the most disappointing movies of 2010). "Needs" a hit would be strong terminology but his return to space could provide a major boost.

3. The Avengers - Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo
I have conflicting feelings about this one. The nerd in me is absolutely freaking out about seeing this many superheroes together at one time. (Add in the fact that Nerd King Joss Whedon is at the helm and it becomes almost too much to handle.) At the same time, however, I haven't been quite as enamored by the trailers as my fellow nerds have. I don't think there's any way this movie will be bad; I'm just nervous that it isn't going to be the world beater it needs to be in order to justify the unique way Marvel has built its programming toward this release. The task of blending all of these actors together is another hurdle in my mind. This isn't the same as the standard ensemble film. It's one thing to take a back seat to another actor when you're a part of a big cast working for a great director; it's another entirely to do so while also playing a character for which you are famous. Obviously I'm STOKED to see this movie but I've got a bit of anxiety regarding whether or not the idea of this movie is better than the movie itself.

2. The Hunger Games - Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson
Three things about my experience with this franchise:
1.) I love the first book in the Hunger Games series (on which this movie is based);
2.) I think the two that follow are shoddily put together and repetitive;
3.) I have NO IDEA how well the book will translate to the screen. While reading I kept wondering how in the world Gary Ross would be able to maintain the book's harsh reality and keep it PG-13. I'm still not sure if it's possible.
The trailer for The Hunger Games, though, is outstanding. I love the look of the film and I am thoroughly excited to see Lawrence take on a role I believe she will excel in. And lest we forget, American Treasure Woody Harrelson is going to be GREAT in this movie. Expect this movie to make a RIDICULOUS sum of money this Spring.

1. Brave - Kelly Mcdonald, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson, Kevin McKidd
I debated what order this top three should end up in and settled on Brave at number one for two reasons:
1.) Pixar is the best film studio. Ever.
2.) Coming off of Cars 2, the studio's only miss in its 16 year history, I think Pixar is going to bring the thunder even more than usual. That is to say, I expect they've gone even further above and beyond to ensure that Brave is incredible.
This will be Pixar's first film that centers on a female character. I'm genuinely excited to see what they can do with that concept in mind and while the trailer doesn't give away much as to the plot, I think it looks amazing. Plus, can we all agree that it's just cool when a movie is based in Scotland? I mean, who doesn't love it when we have an excuse for Billy Connolly to show up? By the end of June, I imagine no one will even remember that Cars 2 was a thing.

Review: "Contraband"

When I posted my Weekend Movie Guide last week, I wrote that Contraband had three things going for it: Mark Wahlberg, Kate Beckinsale, and a general look of “fun.” I figured the combination of a quality leading action actor, an exceptionally attractive lead actress, and a heist-related, energetic plot would make Contraband a “decent enough” flick. In the end, I guess I can say I was right about Wahlberg. The rest? Not so much.

At one time, Chris Farraday (Wahlberg) was a well-known second generation smuggler who made a hefty living bringing just about anything (except for drugs) into the country through the port of New Orleans.  Farraday got out of the game, however, in order to become a family man and he pulled his best friend and former partner, Sebastian (Ben Foster), out with him. But when Chris’ brother-in-law, Andy (Caleb Landry Jones), gets tangled up with Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi), a vicious drug dealer, Chris finds himself taking on a major job in order to clear Andy of his debt and keep his family safe. Unfortunately for Chris, things don’t go quite according to plans.

Contraband is a remake of an Icelandic film that actually starred director Baltasar Kormakur. Kormakur has made a name for himself overseas but that potential has yet to manifest itself on these shores. This film is no exception as there are several moments that stand out as respectable action movie sequences which are lost in a sea of bad plot points and slow pacing. Too often Contraband attempts to make itself a “thinking man’s action movie” when it really lacks the narrative or script to be anything more than a throw away popcorn action romp. I think Contrabandwants to be an unofficial sequel to The Italian Job when it would be better off as an over-the-top action flick. The goal of a film like Taken (the ultimate example of how to make a January action movie) is to have a riotous good time in the form of a movie. No one involved with that movie intended it to be a serious piece of cinematic art and therefore, it was easy to suspend reality and enjoy the ride. That’s what we all want from an early-in-the-year movie like this.

But that’s not the case with Contraband. Instead of being able to revel in the ridiculousness of a middle-aged man single handedly bringing an end to the entire population of Serbia or a group of misfits attempting to “fly” a tank, the audience is asked to pay attention to a litany of plot points that just don’t make any sense. At times this movie actually becomes boring as Farraday and his team try to put his plan into action, a plan which, by the way, would require everyone else in the world to be complete morons in order for it to succeed. Ocean’s 11 this is not. For long stretches of runtime, basically nothing happens, stalling and ultimately killing any momentum the film tries to create for itself. And when things actually do pick up, too many of the twists and turns can be seen from a mile away, making all the buildup seem even more tedious. In addition, the cuts back and forth between Farraday and his team out on their mission and Briggs stalking Farraday’s family back home distracts from the overall direction of the film. I applaud Kormakur’s attempts to make Beckinsale’s character more important than the standard “damsel in distress” that often plagues this sort of movie but it doesn’t work and these jumps in the narrative just serve to make Contraband overly long. 

I wouldn’t say this movie is a complete loss. Wahlberg is a favorite of mine and he does an admirable job of providing entertainment here even if he is sleepwalking through his role a bit. And when the action does pick up it is mostly satisfying. I just needed more action, more excitement, and more fun in order to truly enjoy Contraband.

Review: "The Adventures of Tintin"

I’d like to believe that everyone agrees in the following sentiment: the fourth Indiana Jones film is terrible. (Well, everyone except George Lucas.) Even Steven Spielberg seems to understand the train wreck he put on screen in 2008, though he won’t come out and say that in order to protect Lucas. That movie stands as one of the worst experiences of my cinematic life, a slap in the face of Phantom Menace proportions. But after having seen The Adventures of Tintin, I feel a little bit better. And I move that we officially strike Kingdom of the Crystal Skull from the record and name Tintin the fourth Indy film. Seconded?

Tintin (voice by Jamie Bell) is a young journalist with a knack for breaking major stories. When he comes across a model of a man-o-war ship known as The Unicorn, he senses a story and begins digging around into the history of the ship and its cargo. Soon he finds himself caught up in the midst of a generations-old battle between two seafaring families, the Haddocks and the Rackhams. After joining forces with Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), the last of his line who keeps an important secret buried beneath years of alcoholism, Tintin and his dog Snowy undertake a globetrotting trek to foil the plans of Sakharine (Daniel Craig), who wants to steal the Haddock birthright.

There aren’t a lot of animated movies that qualify as true adventure flicks but Tintin is one of them. From the dynamic opening credits until the conclusion, the film runs at full sprint, rarely stopping to take a breath. It is the very definition of a thrill ride as Tintin and his pals find themselves in one dangerous situation after another. At times it plays out like a video game, jumping from one level (as it were) to the next but in this case, I think that fits the story well. This is sheer fun and exhilaration and the quick shifts in setting and plot should make it easy for kiddos to follow along while parents dig into the Spielbergian adventure.

The characters within Tintin are strong if somewhat limited. Tintin himself is kind of a baby-faced Jack Bauer, a master of all trades from shooting guns to flying planes who always manages to stay one step ahead of his opponents. Haddock provides outstanding comedic relief and a touch of brute force to back Tintin’s brains. In fact, I think the film takes off when Haddock shows up. His presence provides a second gear to Tintin and his relative buffoonery allows for fun and outlandish plot points that keep the ball rolling. All of this begs the question: has any actor ever had a better year without actually appearing in person on camera than Andy Serkis has this year? He’s THE reason why Rise of the Planet of the Apes worked and he is easily the best part of this film in my book. If Tintin doesn’t quite measure up to Indy, Haddock is a better Sallah than John Rhys Davies ever was (heretical statement, I know). And while Sakharine isn’t exactly a pre-war Nazi, his power grows throughout the movie and he becomes a suitable villain.

The only real complaint I might voice about Tintin is the paper-thin plot. While the video game-like feel works overall, there are times when I might have preferred some exposition. There are a few interconnecting storylines that serve to advance the narrative and that’s good because there isn’t a whole lot of time devoted to character or plot development. Even still, at times it comes across as if the plot was picked out of a list of creative writing prompts, though the way Spielberg dives into said prompt is often deliciously entertaining. In addition, Tintin is to motion capture animation what Avatar was to 3D: it is the exception not the rule, the example of what the technology is capable of delivering in the right hands. Robert Zemeckis bankrupted a company trying to master the art of motion capture but in my mind, he never came close to achieving what Spielberg does here. Tintin is an absolutely gorgeous film that thrives on beautiful landscapes and exquisite details. Tintin may be light one plot but it is heavy on excitement and the visuals serve to deepen the experience, making this one of the more enjoyable films of the year.

Grade: A-

Review: "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a prime example of why you should pay attention to the messages a given movie is trying to send before heading willy-nilly into a theater. This is a film that is based upon a deeply disturbing series of books that spawned a deeply disturbing series of foreign films and which features the tagline, “The feel bad movie of Christmas.” If you read between the lines here, I believe you should be able to make an educated guess as to the kind of movie this really is.

Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a journalist whose career appears to be over. After publishing a scathing expose on a powerful Swedish businessman, Blomkvist is sued for libel and is found guilty, a finding that will cost him his life savings, his reputation, and a short prison sentence. At a loss for what to do next, Blomkvist takes a meeting with Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), an aging but prominent corporate leader. Blomkvist is presented with a proposition that turns out to be more tempting that he could have ever imagined. Vanger promises to give Blomkvist the evidence he needs to clear his name and in exchange, Blomkvist will attempt to solve a mystery that has vexed the old man for 40 years: the murder of Harriet, Vanger’s niece and favorite family member who went missing at the age of 16. With the help of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a socially stunted but immensely valuable private investigator, Blomkvist soon finds himself embroiled in a vast and complex cover up that threatens to consume every aspect of his life.

To describe Dragon Tattoo as “rough” would require that you change the definition of the word. More like “exceptionally brutal” and “not at all something you’d want to see with your parents.” I feel sorry for anyone who made the mistake of taking a post-Santa trip to the theater with the family without knowing for sure what they were getting themselves into. I was 14 when Titanic debuted and I had a number of friends who had their Christmas Day movie with the family ruined by the unexpected awkwardness of Kate Winslet’s breast popping up on the screen. Dragon Tattoo is approximately one hundred thousand times worse. Even the opening credits are a bit demented (though visually stunning) and that’s just a sample of the brutality that follows. Dragon Tattoo is about as raw as it gets for a mainstream movie and despite the fact that I had read the book and knew what to expect, it still made me squirm more than once.

If you can get past the cringe factor, Dragon Tattoo is a quality but ultimately flawed film. Director David Fincher put together a fantastic cast filled with actors who fit their roles perfectly. Led by Craig’s usual calm and understated demeanor, the performances within this film are strong to quite strong, though none compare to the work of Rooney. I don’t think this is an Oscar-caliber portrayal but it is certainly one that will move her to the top of the list for a number of high profile roles over the next few years. And as always with a Fincher film, the technical aspects of Dragon Tattoo are exquisite. From the score to the shot selection, this is barely a step down from The Social Network, which was nearly perfect from a behind-the-camera standpoint. Fincher uses every element like it belongs to his directorial Swiss army knife, heightening the intensity here, providing subtle detail there. Fincher is the master of creating imperceptible tension within each audience member, building it until you suddenly realize that you’re sitting on the edge of your seat and your heart is pounding. In this regard, Dragon Tattoo provides the perfect subject matter.

But where the film struggles is in the way Fincher tries to tell a convoluted, web-like story. In the book, author Stieg Larsson weaves together several stories that don’t initially seem to connect in the beginning and he does so in excruciating detail. It is a slowburn of a read but one that I found compelling. In order to present every concept within the book, however, Fincher makes the mistake of jamming almost every ounce of story from the source material into the film. The first third of the movie, then, moves at a rapid pace that doesn’t fit the story, the characters, or even the actors. There’s a hint of Aaron Sorkin in the dialogue but it doesn’t contain the expert craftsmanship that usually accompanies a Sorkin script and it doesn’t fit Craig’s brand of subdued acting. Moreover, Fincher tries to pack an excessive amount of information into the first act and none of it connects very well. As a result, we get a number of short, choppy scenes that don’t flow together and make it quite difficult to settle in. I’m a big fan of Fincher overall but I think Dragon Tattoo displays his limitations, or at least his weaknesses. Far from Fincher’s master work, it is nonetheless an intriguing and worthwhile film that you may not want to take in on a full stomach.

Grade: B+

Movie Rankings 2011

A+
50/50
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Warrior

A
Hugo
The Muppets
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
The Descendants
Crazy, Stupid, Love
Tree of Life
Drive
Fast Five
X-Men: First Class
Super 8
Take Shelter
Pearl Jam 20

A-
Captain America
The Help
Midnight in Paris
Thor
Mary Marcy May Marlene
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Moneyball
Bridesmaids
Attack the Block
Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop
The Adventures of Tintin
Cave of Forgotten Dreams

B+
Horrible Bosses
Source Code
The Adjustment Bureau
Coriolanus
The Guard
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Debt
Blackthorn
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Kung Fu Panda 2
A Better Life
Cedar Rapids
Young Adult

B
The Ides of March
The Beaver
Into the Abyss
Contagion
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Dolphin Tale
Unknown
The Mechanic
We Bought a Zoo
Beginners
The Thing
The Lincoln Lawyer
Puss in Boots

B- 
Super
War Horse
Arthur
My Week with Marilyn
Battle: Los Angeles
Just Go With It
Cowboys and Aliens
Paul
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The Green Hornet
Gnomeo and Juliet
The Company Men

C+ 
Limitless
Cars 2
Real Steel
Tower Heist
Rango
Rio

C
Hanna
The Hangover Part 2
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Three Musketeers
Rampart
Apollo 18
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Higher Ground
Our Idiot Brother
Friends with Benefits
Immortals
30 Minutes or Less
No Strings Attached

C-
Immortals
Dream House
Bad Teacher
Machine Gun Preacher
Larry Crowne
The Eagle
The Way
Suckerpunch

D
I Am Number Four
The Change-Up
Another Earth
Killer Elite
Green Lantern
The Sitter
J. Edgar
Scream 4

F
Priest
In Time

In Home Viewings Review: "Kung Fu Panda 2"

Kung Fu Panda 2 reunites the audience with Po Ping (Jack Black), the tubby and somewhat lazy panda bear who has been named the fabled Dragon Warrior. He still has much to learn, however, and Po’s teacher Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) spends most of his time trying to make Po understand the concept of inner peace. Things take a bad turn when Shen (Gary Oldman), an evil and power hungry peacock who was banished from the country long ago, returns to his former kingdom in the possession of a diabolical weapon. Po and his team are tasked with ending Shen’s reign of terror before he can take over the whole of China but as their battle unfolds, Po is faced with the realization that this is a much more personal fight than he ever could have imagined.

I didn’t see the first Kung Fu Panda until a couple of years after it was released. Looking back, I’m not sure why I chose to stay away because I really enjoyed it. It isn’t up to the level of Pixar, of course, but then again, that is an unfair standard to hold any film up against, let alone a kid’s movie. KFP is pure, unadulterated fun and contains just enough brains to make the storyline run smoothly. This sequel picks up right where the original left off and the two films work together in almost perfect harmony. KFP2 jumps directly into the action and it doesn’t let off the gas very often, exactly what you need to keep the attention of the kiddos while simultaneously preventing adults from finding issues to nitpick at. It’s one of those films that would become tiresome if it was even ten minutes longer but at 91 minutes, there’s nothing to complain about. This is a very lively film and (I would imagine purposefully) a bit reminiscent of the better elements of a Bruce Lee flick, only if Bruce Lee was funny and a bit overweight.

KFP2 has an outstanding collection of talented voice actors, ranging from Angelina Jolie to Seth Rogen to Jackie Chan and director Jennifer Yuh uses them well. I’ve said this before but one of my pet peeves in an animated film is when a character (or characters) is relegated to second fiddle behind the actor providing the voice. I don’t want a constant reminder that “actor X” is the face behind the drawing. I never had that issue here. In the back of my mind, I knew that the praying mantis is actually Seth Rogen but it wasn’t constantly shoved in my face. And then there’s Gary Oldman, of course, who brings a brilliant, villainous tone to the role of Shen. I’ve often said that if you want to make your film better, just add Gary Oldman and you’re done. Shen is a more intimidating baddie than you could reasonably expect from this movie and an improvement over the villain in the first Kung Fu Panda.

The area in which KFP2 sets itself apart from the average kiddie movie is in the sheer beauty of its animation. This is a gorgeous film that mixes sweeping landscapes with exquisitely detailed characters and powerful action sequences. For my money, the Kung Fu Panda franchise is the most visually compelling of the Dreamworks properties and I almost (almost) think it might have been worth seeing in 3D. All told, this is a highly enjoyable and funny movie that should please viewers of all ages. And in a year that is devoid of a strong Pixar entry, I would make the case that this is the best animated film of the year.

Grade: B+