Have you ever heard the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses"? It's one of those sayings you hear said about someone else, usually because they own the most extravagant, expensive products on the market. They want to give off the idea that they are financially successful because they own things you don't. If there's a similar family living near them, it becomes a rivalry to see who can come out on top. Well, what if that family wasn't competing with you to be the best, but rather faking it to sell their clients' products?
The Joneses follows a family who does just that. The thing is, though, they aren't really a family. They are four separate employees who work within their age and gender to sell things fasionable to their crowd. There's Steve (David Duchovny), who spends the majority of his time golfing to sell sporting goods, Kate (Demi Moore), who talks up beauty products to her gal pals, Mick (Ben Hollingsworth), who does his best to sell video games and other toys to high school boys, and Jenn (Amber Heard), who, well, doesn't seem to do much at all.
She does, of course, but her character is so underdeveloped that you never really get a sense that she is doing anything other than exploring her promiscuity. If she's not crawling naked in bed with her unknowing "father," she's heading off to be the mistress to a married man on his private yacht. When things go wrong for her, you simply don't care.
But that's about as far as the negatives go in The Joneses. She may be benched for the majority of the movie, but that's because it spends most of its time with the other characters who are all dealing with their own issues. Mick isn't quite the person people think he is, Kate is job obsessed and won't allow herself to fall in love despite her obvious attraction to her fake husband and Steve is in inner turmoil over the falsity of his life. He pretends to be someone else to sell products, but in the process starts to lose his real self. He starts to want nothing more than to simply settle down and be with Kate in the real world rather than living behind this false façade.
It's an interesting dynamic because they are not a family, yet they still fall apart like a real family would. They have their good times, they have their bad, and it seems like nothing will be able to save them.
Then you have the underlying themes of commercialization and consumerism that drive the meaning of the movie home. The Joneses embody the walking billboards of America. They embody every person out there who walks around with the latest Nike shoes or Gucci handbag. They embody the celebrities and athletes who wear a particular brand because they are promised money in return. They even embody the young middle school boy who shows off his brand new handheld video game system to get his friends jealous, all of whom eventually shell out the money for one of their own.
It may be a pretty outlandish concept to think that companies would pay good money for a fake family to live in a neighborhood simply to sell a handful of products to those people—that business philosophy would surely cost more than what they're taking in from it—but at the same time it gets you thinking. The Joneses neighbor is the perfect example of the American way of life in that he spends more than he can afford in order to keep up a false veil of stature amongst his peers. He, like many Americans, spends himself into debt and finds it difficult to crawl back out. The movie makes the case, in a fairly literal fashion, that our material objects are weighing us down. See the movie and you'll know exactly what I mean.
All of that is handled with style and assurance from first time writer and director Derrick Borte. His debut is a mighty one indeed and he tells this tale with a sense of authenticity, conveying drama perfectly while still interjecting some hearty laughs in the midst of things. This is a man who knows what he's doing and I expect great things from him in the future.
The Joneses is a film that will, sadly, go under the radar. Even I had no clue what it was before I sat down to watch it, but those who seek it out will find a sweet, funny, dramatic, meaningful and hard hitting story that will connect with everyone from the poorest of the poor to those so rich they blow their noses with 100 dollar bills. They may find different meanings, but that's the beauty of the film. There's so much here on the surface and under that many will walk out with conflicting analyses, yet none will be wrong. The Joneses is shaping up to be one of the best films of the year.
The Joneses receives 4.5/5
Friday, April 16, 2010
Death at a Funeral Remake a Poor Imitator of the Original
Rarely does a movie come along that is so funny you laugh until you can't breathe. The British 2007 comedy Death at a Funeral is one of those rarities. While a lot of British humor is hit and miss with American audiences, Death at a Funeral successfully bridged that gap and made itself accessible to everyone domestic and abroad. The remake can only wish to attain that status. It tries hard, but ultimately this Americanized Death at a Funeral feels like a shoddy rehash of the wonderful original.
The film stars Chris Rock as Aaron, the oldest son of his recently deceased father. Today is his burial day and the turnout is great. Everyone from his family, as well as many of his friends, have all shown up to give him a fond farewell. Among them are his brother Russell (Danny Glover), his author son Ryan (Martin Lawrence), his nephew (Columbus Short), his niece Elaine (Zoe Saldana) and her boyfriend Oscar (James Marsden). But thanks to some hallucinogenic drugs and a little person named Frank (Peter Dinklage), who claims to have had some, shall we say, uncouth rendezvous with him, his funeral is about to get a little more zany than the usual.
Death at a Funeral follows its British predecessor to the letter. The writer, Dean Craig, penned both scripts, though it really seems more like a copy and paste job than a whole new script in and of itself. This version follows the original, quite literally, scene by scene and rehashes the exact same jokes word for word. There are minor differences here and there, but by and large this is the same movie.
Which is to say the writing is brilliant. The absurd twists and turns both movies make are delightful and work despite their inherent goofiness. The writing takes a morbid subject and somehow wrings laughs out of a period normally set aside for grieving.
Or at least that's how the original worked. What this remake proves is how crucial comedic delivery is to a film. Despite using the same jokes that came from the same writer who more or less used the same script, this version of the film lacks laughs because the actors simply aren't up to the challenge. Rock is a poor replacement for Matthew Macfayden, who played his part in the original. Macfayden brought the character to life. He played him in a soft spoken kind of way. You could tell he was grieving over his father and in distress by the crazy events unfolding around him. All he wanted was to get the day over with and move on. Rock doesn't do that. You never sense that he, or any other attendee for that matter, is grieving in any way. He stands up there and does his usual schtick better suited for a stand-up routine, but never brings any depth to his character. Most actors fall into this category.
That is except for James Marsden. Playing the role Alan Tudyk knocked out of the park in the original, Marsden breaks from the monotony of the rest of the cast and switches his performance up. Rather than simply mimicking the cast of the original, he is allowed to roam free and be as goofy as he wants. Being the unfortunate victim of an accidental acid hit doesn't hurt of course, but nevertheless he plays his part wonderfully and produces the most laughs of anyone in the film.
But that doesn't change the fact that this is simply an inferior product to the original. Contrary to last week's Date Night, which had bad writing, but was saved by excellent performances from two hilarious leads, Death at a Funeral has terrific writing, but is hurt by poor performances from actors who don't know what to do with their characters. I wouldn't say I hated this Americanized remake, but why would I recommend it when I can simply point readers to the far superior original?
Death at a Funeral receives 2.5/5
Kick Ass a Solid, Jumbled Superhero Tale
Here we are. The movie that will have comic book lovers the world over joining in a collective nerdgasm. Kick Ass, the popular novel from the mind behind Wanted, is hitting the big screen and the geeks of the world are more eager to see it than a sex tape between Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba. I'm one of those geeks. After reading the comics it is based on (which a friend so graciously lent to me), I was hyped for the movie. The comic was amazing; well written, well drawn, violent, hilarious and fun. It was everything I wanted a comic book called Kick Ass to be. The movie, while still a rollicking good time, lacks the wit and style of its source material.
The movie follows Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a mild mannered high school outcast. He and his friends, played by Clark Duke and Evan Peters, are comic book nerds. Like many similar to them, they dream of fighting crime in extravagant outfits, leaping from rooftop to rooftop in pursuit of an evildoer, standing up for justice and integrity in a world spiraling to hell. The difference is that Dave takes that to heart. He's sick of being a nobody. He's an outcast, a guy who can't get a girlfriend to save his life, much less his crush Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca), so he decides to strap on a scuba suit he buys online and attempt to make his city a better place through his new persona, Kick Ass. But this is the real world, not a comic book, and he soon finds himself lying in the middle of the road beaten, bloody and bruised with a knife wound to the stomach. After his recovery, and despite his better judgment, he returns to the streets where he meets Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) and Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage), a father/daughter superhero team who have been working their ranks through the local mafia, eliminating them all in the hopes of eventually getting to the head honcho, Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong). In fear of these superheroes, Frank enlists the help of his son Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), a fellow comic book nerd, to disguise himself as a new hero, Red Mist, and lure the trio into a trap where he can finish them off once and for all.
I'm no comic book connoisseur, I admit. I couldn't tell you why one works and another one doesn't. I'm not aware of the inner workings that go into the construction of one of these tales. All I can tell you is how I perceive it and I loved the Kick Ass comic book. I couldn't put it down. I loved the gruesome violence, the spot on humor and the interesting narrative. I hoped for the movie to excite me in the same ways and it did, but not as consistently.
For what I assume are practical purposes, the violence isn't nearly as abundant, the humor is hit and miss and the interesting narrative from the comic is changed enough that it didn't hold the same appeal. I found more emotional connection between drawings on a page than I did the live action film.
Although some of the humor is forced, it can be funny, but that's why I didn't care. It doesn't do a good job of balancing its comedy with its more dramatic moments and when a major character bit the dust, I could only stare blankly at the screen wondering if I was supposed feel something. Consider the fact that jokes aren't only thrown in before and after this scene, but during it and you start to wonder why the filmmakers tried to create any drama at all.
Besides, it's called Kick Ass. Just as nobody watched Zombie Strippers for the choreography, nobody will watch Kick Ass for the drama. Luckily, the action scenes are top notch. They're wild, crazy, over the top and damn fun. Though toned down from the comic, this things gets bloody and watching an 11 year old girl do most of the killing makes things even crazier.
At times, the film gives off a Scream type of vibe by parodying the genre it is portraying. But whereas Scream was steady in its self-spoof, Kick Ass fluctuates. It's amusingly self-deprecating at first, but then drops that angle only to pick it up again later, and so on. It's smart at times, but it's not consistent and you'll quickly see how jumbled it can be.
But you know what? This is still a great time at the movies. Nicolas Cage gives his best performance in years and had me laughing all the way down to my toes, Chloe Moretz is brilliant as the adorable little girl that can put a bullet through your head before you even realize she's packing and its excessive nature is a welcome treat in a cinema world that is getting increasingly picked on by past generation curmudgeons who are intent on finding something they can complain about. Kick Ass looks at those people and flips them the bird, welcoming their hatred.
I like that.
Kick Ass receives 3.5/5
The movie follows Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a mild mannered high school outcast. He and his friends, played by Clark Duke and Evan Peters, are comic book nerds. Like many similar to them, they dream of fighting crime in extravagant outfits, leaping from rooftop to rooftop in pursuit of an evildoer, standing up for justice and integrity in a world spiraling to hell. The difference is that Dave takes that to heart. He's sick of being a nobody. He's an outcast, a guy who can't get a girlfriend to save his life, much less his crush Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca), so he decides to strap on a scuba suit he buys online and attempt to make his city a better place through his new persona, Kick Ass. But this is the real world, not a comic book, and he soon finds himself lying in the middle of the road beaten, bloody and bruised with a knife wound to the stomach. After his recovery, and despite his better judgment, he returns to the streets where he meets Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) and Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage), a father/daughter superhero team who have been working their ranks through the local mafia, eliminating them all in the hopes of eventually getting to the head honcho, Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong). In fear of these superheroes, Frank enlists the help of his son Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), a fellow comic book nerd, to disguise himself as a new hero, Red Mist, and lure the trio into a trap where he can finish them off once and for all.
I'm no comic book connoisseur, I admit. I couldn't tell you why one works and another one doesn't. I'm not aware of the inner workings that go into the construction of one of these tales. All I can tell you is how I perceive it and I loved the Kick Ass comic book. I couldn't put it down. I loved the gruesome violence, the spot on humor and the interesting narrative. I hoped for the movie to excite me in the same ways and it did, but not as consistently.
For what I assume are practical purposes, the violence isn't nearly as abundant, the humor is hit and miss and the interesting narrative from the comic is changed enough that it didn't hold the same appeal. I found more emotional connection between drawings on a page than I did the live action film.
Although some of the humor is forced, it can be funny, but that's why I didn't care. It doesn't do a good job of balancing its comedy with its more dramatic moments and when a major character bit the dust, I could only stare blankly at the screen wondering if I was supposed feel something. Consider the fact that jokes aren't only thrown in before and after this scene, but during it and you start to wonder why the filmmakers tried to create any drama at all.
Besides, it's called Kick Ass. Just as nobody watched Zombie Strippers for the choreography, nobody will watch Kick Ass for the drama. Luckily, the action scenes are top notch. They're wild, crazy, over the top and damn fun. Though toned down from the comic, this things gets bloody and watching an 11 year old girl do most of the killing makes things even crazier.
At times, the film gives off a Scream type of vibe by parodying the genre it is portraying. But whereas Scream was steady in its self-spoof, Kick Ass fluctuates. It's amusingly self-deprecating at first, but then drops that angle only to pick it up again later, and so on. It's smart at times, but it's not consistent and you'll quickly see how jumbled it can be.
But you know what? This is still a great time at the movies. Nicolas Cage gives his best performance in years and had me laughing all the way down to my toes, Chloe Moretz is brilliant as the adorable little girl that can put a bullet through your head before you even realize she's packing and its excessive nature is a welcome treat in a cinema world that is getting increasingly picked on by past generation curmudgeons who are intent on finding something they can complain about. Kick Ass looks at those people and flips them the bird, welcoming their hatred.
I like that.
Kick Ass receives 3.5/5
Friday, April 9, 2010
Carell and Fey Find Excitement in Date Night
What do you get when you combine the two hottest actors working on the two funniest sitcoms on television? You hope for the answer to that question to be more than a reluctant shrug, but here we are. Combining Steve Carell and Tina Fey should make for a hilarious and fun adventure, but the material in Date Night simply isn't there and doesn't accommodate their talents.
Carell and Fey play Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple who go about their humdrum lives repeating the same menial tasks daily. They spend their days at work and come home to two young children who occupy their lives at night. Their sex life is basically non-existent, though they try to keep things fresh by having a date night every so often. After they learn that their two best friends are going to get a divorce, they decide to make their next date night extra special and travel to New York for an evening at a fancy restaurant. However, they didn't call in a reservation beforehand and their chances of getting a table are slim. Fortunately for them, a couple by the name of Triplehorn hasn't shown up for their reservations, so the Fosters pretend to be them and take their table. What happens next is less fortunate. Two thugs show up claiming that they have stolen a prized possession from them and want it back. It's a case of mistaken identity and the Foster's find themselves in more trouble than they could imagine.
The premise of a couple seeking excitement only to run into more excitement than they bargained for is nothing new in the world of cinema. In fact, it's been played out by this point. Date Night is merely another blip on the radar of the tired subgenre, featuring mediocre writing and a ridiculous plot that nobody could take seriously. But the dream pair-up of Carell and Fey, two of the funniest people working in Hollywood today, do more than enough to salvage it. This movie works because of them. Without them, it fails.
Their chemistry together--romantic and comedic--is second to none. Their witty banter back and forth is a blast to listen to and they are capable of taking jokes that really aren't that funny and making them so. Considering how hilarious their two shows, The Office and 30 Rock, are, it's shocking how long it took someone to realize how perfect they would be together on the big screen.
Still, this movie is merely tolerable, far from what a movie starring the two should be. Where's the heart? Where's the emotion? Date Night tries to include some, but the outlandish situations the two find themselves in don't lend well to emotion. When you have Carell climbing onto the front of a speeding car and diving into another one, you start to get too far away from reality and the heartfelt conversations start to feel kind of pointless.
What else is there to say, really? Humor is subjective and opinions on the movie will surely be split. I'm not even completely sure how I feel about it. It's one of those rare films that I walked out of and didn't feel like discussing or analyzing. I only wanted to get home so I could write this and get it out of my mind. I'll revisit it one day just to spend more time with the charismatic actors, but the mediocrity of the movie may make it a long before that happens.
Date Night receives 2.5/5
Carell and Fey play Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple who go about their humdrum lives repeating the same menial tasks daily. They spend their days at work and come home to two young children who occupy their lives at night. Their sex life is basically non-existent, though they try to keep things fresh by having a date night every so often. After they learn that their two best friends are going to get a divorce, they decide to make their next date night extra special and travel to New York for an evening at a fancy restaurant. However, they didn't call in a reservation beforehand and their chances of getting a table are slim. Fortunately for them, a couple by the name of Triplehorn hasn't shown up for their reservations, so the Fosters pretend to be them and take their table. What happens next is less fortunate. Two thugs show up claiming that they have stolen a prized possession from them and want it back. It's a case of mistaken identity and the Foster's find themselves in more trouble than they could imagine.
The premise of a couple seeking excitement only to run into more excitement than they bargained for is nothing new in the world of cinema. In fact, it's been played out by this point. Date Night is merely another blip on the radar of the tired subgenre, featuring mediocre writing and a ridiculous plot that nobody could take seriously. But the dream pair-up of Carell and Fey, two of the funniest people working in Hollywood today, do more than enough to salvage it. This movie works because of them. Without them, it fails.
Their chemistry together--romantic and comedic--is second to none. Their witty banter back and forth is a blast to listen to and they are capable of taking jokes that really aren't that funny and making them so. Considering how hilarious their two shows, The Office and 30 Rock, are, it's shocking how long it took someone to realize how perfect they would be together on the big screen.
Still, this movie is merely tolerable, far from what a movie starring the two should be. Where's the heart? Where's the emotion? Date Night tries to include some, but the outlandish situations the two find themselves in don't lend well to emotion. When you have Carell climbing onto the front of a speeding car and diving into another one, you start to get too far away from reality and the heartfelt conversations start to feel kind of pointless.
What else is there to say, really? Humor is subjective and opinions on the movie will surely be split. I'm not even completely sure how I feel about it. It's one of those rare films that I walked out of and didn't feel like discussing or analyzing. I only wanted to get home so I could write this and get it out of my mind. I'll revisit it one day just to spend more time with the charismatic actors, but the mediocrity of the movie may make it a long before that happens.
Date Night receives 2.5/5
Labels:
30 Rock,
Date Night,
Movie Review,
Steve Carell,
The Office,
Tina Fey
The Runaways a Familiar Biopic
If you've ever seen a biopic about a musician, you know what to expect from The Runaways. Chronicling the rise and fall of the titular band, the film, like so many others, is a conventional biopic, down to the letter, but it's done well and the central performance from a rapidly growing Dakota Fanning keeps it fresh.
Many know of Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, the punk rock band responsible for classics like "Bad Reputation" and "I Love Rock 'N Roll," but few know of Jett's first band that shot her to stardom, The Runaways. Popular overseas, but lacking in appeal here in the states, her band fell into the pitfalls many rock bands do: sex, drugs and rock 'n roll (not necessarily in that order). Kristen Stewart plays Jett who dreams of forming an all girl rock band. One day she meets record producer Kim Fowley, played by Michael Shannon, who loves the idea and helps her. For her, it's all about the music, but to him, it's the sex appeal. He claims that men don't want to see women playing guitar. They want to see them work their assets, so on his quest to find a good frontman (woman?), he stumbles upon Cherie Currie, played by Fanning. After playing a few low key shows, they land a record deal, but their excessive personalities soon lead to their downfall.
I'm a huge fan of Joan Jett. I love her music. I love her look. I love her don't-give-a-crap attitude. I've even seen her in concert. She may be over 50, but she can still rock a nightclub out of its senses. I walked into The Runaways expecting to learn more about her, including her career with the Blackhearts, but much to my surprise, the film is centered largely around Cherie. If I had done my research prior to my viewing, I would have known it is based off of Cherie's memoirs titled "Neon Angel: A Memoir of a Runaway," so it instead explores her life and while it may not necessarily be the Joan Jett biopic I was hoping for, Cherie's life intertwines with hers and the accompanying story is interesting, if not familiar.
But familiarity is not the movie's problem. It may be derivative of other musician biopics, but that's simply the life these people lead. What really prevents it from reaching the status of recent biopics like Ray or Walk the Line is its over-the-top feeling. At times, the whole movie feels a little excessive, but nothing matches Shannon's terrible performance as the eccentric record producer. His exaggerated personification of this man brings the film to a hault. Every scene he is in, every line of dialogue he utters, every movement of his body reeks of bad acting. While I suppose we are to assume he is hopped up on drugs in every scene, the film never shows him taking any and regardless of whether or not the actual person acted this way, dramatically the character doesn't work and needed to be toned down.
The other performances, however, are fantastic, including Kristen Stewart, who gets a lot of flack for looking like she doesn't care in those silly Twilight films. She still looks like that here, but the difference is she's not supposed to care. She's rebellious. A rock 'n roll punk. Anti-establishment. Stewart's poor acting abilities actually benefited her in this role and she ably supported Fanning's wonderful grown-up performance, which was the crutch of the movie.
If I had to sum up The Runaways in one sentence, I would call it this: an understandably cognate, somewhat over-the-top biopic with a great soundtrack and mostly good peformances. It's little more than that. As far as these films go, I've seen better, but it's a solid movie that finally gives punk rock its dues. And as far as this head banger is concerned, that's a good thing.
The Runaways receives 3.5/5
Many know of Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, the punk rock band responsible for classics like "Bad Reputation" and "I Love Rock 'N Roll," but few know of Jett's first band that shot her to stardom, The Runaways. Popular overseas, but lacking in appeal here in the states, her band fell into the pitfalls many rock bands do: sex, drugs and rock 'n roll (not necessarily in that order). Kristen Stewart plays Jett who dreams of forming an all girl rock band. One day she meets record producer Kim Fowley, played by Michael Shannon, who loves the idea and helps her. For her, it's all about the music, but to him, it's the sex appeal. He claims that men don't want to see women playing guitar. They want to see them work their assets, so on his quest to find a good frontman (woman?), he stumbles upon Cherie Currie, played by Fanning. After playing a few low key shows, they land a record deal, but their excessive personalities soon lead to their downfall.
I'm a huge fan of Joan Jett. I love her music. I love her look. I love her don't-give-a-crap attitude. I've even seen her in concert. She may be over 50, but she can still rock a nightclub out of its senses. I walked into The Runaways expecting to learn more about her, including her career with the Blackhearts, but much to my surprise, the film is centered largely around Cherie. If I had done my research prior to my viewing, I would have known it is based off of Cherie's memoirs titled "Neon Angel: A Memoir of a Runaway," so it instead explores her life and while it may not necessarily be the Joan Jett biopic I was hoping for, Cherie's life intertwines with hers and the accompanying story is interesting, if not familiar.
But familiarity is not the movie's problem. It may be derivative of other musician biopics, but that's simply the life these people lead. What really prevents it from reaching the status of recent biopics like Ray or Walk the Line is its over-the-top feeling. At times, the whole movie feels a little excessive, but nothing matches Shannon's terrible performance as the eccentric record producer. His exaggerated personification of this man brings the film to a hault. Every scene he is in, every line of dialogue he utters, every movement of his body reeks of bad acting. While I suppose we are to assume he is hopped up on drugs in every scene, the film never shows him taking any and regardless of whether or not the actual person acted this way, dramatically the character doesn't work and needed to be toned down.
The other performances, however, are fantastic, including Kristen Stewart, who gets a lot of flack for looking like she doesn't care in those silly Twilight films. She still looks like that here, but the difference is she's not supposed to care. She's rebellious. A rock 'n roll punk. Anti-establishment. Stewart's poor acting abilities actually benefited her in this role and she ably supported Fanning's wonderful grown-up performance, which was the crutch of the movie.
If I had to sum up The Runaways in one sentence, I would call it this: an understandably cognate, somewhat over-the-top biopic with a great soundtrack and mostly good peformances. It's little more than that. As far as these films go, I've seen better, but it's a solid movie that finally gives punk rock its dues. And as far as this head banger is concerned, that's a good thing.
The Runaways receives 3.5/5
Labels:
Dakota Fanning,
Joan Jett,
Kristen Stewart,
The Runaways
Interview with Jeffrey Johnson, Star of Letters to God
Recently, I had the opportunity to talk with Letters to God star Jeffrey Johnson. Based on a true story, the film follows the life and death of a young boy battling with cancer who writes letters to God as his way of praying. Through his struggle, he unites the community and bonds with the local mailman, Brady, played by Johnson. As humble as can be, Johnson obliged me for as long as I needed and told me about his experience on the film. Letters to God opens today.
So Letters to God is based on a true story. How familiar were you with the real story before you received the script for the film?
Oh, I didn’t know anything about the real story. In fact, it’s funny, I knew so little about it that my manager called me up and said “Hey, listen I’m going to send you a script. I just wanted to make sure you’re cool doing a faith based movie.” What I heard was, “Hey I’m going to send you a script and I wanted to make sure you’re cool doing a space age movie.” I started reading it thinking it was going to be a science fiction thing and after a couple pages I thought, “Where are all the laser guns? Why aren’t we in space yet?” The story literally developed for me page after page so I knew nothing about it going into it.
So was it the fact that it was such an extraordinary true story that made you want to make it or were there other deciding factors?
Yes, it’s an extraordinary story, but I thought it was an extraordinary character too. I just really liked Brady. He’s a guy who’s done some pretty bad things in the past and you’d think by now he would have turned his act around and he hadn’t yet. That’s what was really interesting and it took meeting this inspirational, amazing child to really open his eyes to what life could really be about.
The writer of this movie, Patrick Doughtie, is actually the father of the real Tyler, right?
Yeah, this happened to his boy some years ago and it was this situation that he built the script around. My character didn’t actually exist. That’s something he just created as fiction, but there was very much his son Tyler who was writing letters to God as a way to pray and he more often than not wasn’t praying for himself. He was praying for his friends, his brothers, neighbors, just praying for everybody to give them strength.
I read that Patrick wrote himself out of the movie. As you mentioned, your character didn’t exist so he does fictionalize a little bit. How much does it deviate from the actual story? Do you know?
Well, like I said, my character’s relationship with Tyler is all fictional, but I think situation-wise there are a lot of things that were more or less the same. And I think certainly what the family was going through when they were dealing with the kid’s cancer, I think a lot of that hits pretty close to home.
So was it more or less the themes that were real rather than the dramatic moments?
No, I’m not sure about that. There were just some things he had created just to make it more of a movie like writing himself out and writing the postman in.
I know he also served as co-director. What was it like having him on set where he was basically watching you replay out the life and death of his kid?
It was incredible. It was unlike anything I had ever done before. There were so many times where he tried to put this experience out of his mind and all of a sudden for the sake of the film, he’s reliving these things over and over again. We had this one scene where Tyler’s at a soccer game and he has a seizure and we had to ask him, “What exactly happened? Did his head shake this way? Did he fall down that way?” He’s just reliving it and after a minute or so of doing it, the reality just sunk in and it just became such an emotional day for us all. I just have a lot of respect for him because he was willing to remind himself and explain all these things in this vivid detail. It was just a tremendous amount of bravery he brought to the set everyday and I really respect that.
I thought that was interesting too. I didn’t know he wrote it until after I watched it and I read through the Baptist Press that he actually struggled with his faith during the time that his kid was suffering. There's a scene where Tyler’s mother is questioning God and saying “I don’t agree with God’s plan.” Now, regardless of how strong a person’s convictions are, put in this situation, I imagine a lot of people would question their faith. Do you think that was him kind of speaking out and showing that he went through that moment in his life?
Obviously, I can’t speak for him, but I think you’re right on the money. I think there is a reason that those scenes ring so true to you and to the audience because they came from such a surreal place for him and I think people identify with that.
Well, I know you’ve also done a lot of work on television. I know this movie is kind of bittersweet. It’s not happy what happens to the kid, but at the same time it’s very uplifting. How different was the atmosphere on set for this as opposed to gritty crime dramas you’ve been on like CSI or Criminal Minds?
Well, films and TV share a similar style of acting, but on TV things are pretty rushed. It’s chop-chop, shoot and you don’t have as much time to really understand your character. So this movie was real to us during some of the emotional stuff and then when it was done, we all knew it was done and we could breathe a little bit easy. The first day of filming was this scene where my character had this breakdown in his apartment. That was a tough day to start a shoot. You know, welcome to day one.
Everyone I talk to seems to say the same thing, that they do the hardest scenes first, but I don’t know why.
I think people are just like “Let’s just go for it and get it out of the way so we don’t have to think about it too much.” Maybe they were saying, “Hey, maybe if he doesn’t get it on day one it will be a lot easier to fire him than it would be if we were a couple weeks into the shoot.” I hope that’s not the case, but you never know.
I have to ask you my stock question now. I ask everybody that has been on television and in movies this. Do you prefer the faster pace of television or the slower pace of film?
I think I prefer making movies because it’s really more like doing a play. You spend so much time with the character. They kind of keep you company, so every day you’re thinking, “What would he do? What would he listen to? What would he order for breakfast?” And I really like that whereas on TV you’re just in and out unless you’re a serious regular on a show and you don’t have much time to explore the character.
A few minutes ago you said your manager sent you the script and said “I hope you don’t mind doing a faith based movie.” Now, this movie comes from Possibility Pictures, a Christian production company. Did you have any reservations going into this film knowing that its audience could be limited?
No. That might be an interesting point, but it didn’t concern me at all and it certainly didn’t concern me when I met everyone and we started working together. The good thing about doing a film like is that everyone is just so onboard and everyone is so positive and eager to do the best they can. They started every day with a prayer meeting before safety call, which really sets the tone for a very loving, productive atmosphere. So no I didn’t. Maybe it might have been different if my character were a different kind of guy, but I just appreciated his struggle and his doubts and ultimately his outcome.
See, that’s the thing. The audience could be limited, but I think if people give the movie a shot, they’ll find it’s pretty accessible to everyone.
Oh absolutely. I was with the writer this afternoon and he was on the phone for over half an hour speaking with a reporter who’s Jewish and she was saying she can’t wait to spread the word as much as she can about this film because she wants people to understand that it speaks to everyone, not just one set or one branch of any kind of religion. I hope it’s universal. It speaks to so many people. It speaks to families dealing with it. It speaks to children dealing with it. It speaks to the friends. My character thought it was over. He thought he was never going to be able to live a life of peace. I think what I learned was that it’s never too late to turn things around.
So Letters to God is based on a true story. How familiar were you with the real story before you received the script for the film?
Oh, I didn’t know anything about the real story. In fact, it’s funny, I knew so little about it that my manager called me up and said “Hey, listen I’m going to send you a script. I just wanted to make sure you’re cool doing a faith based movie.” What I heard was, “Hey I’m going to send you a script and I wanted to make sure you’re cool doing a space age movie.” I started reading it thinking it was going to be a science fiction thing and after a couple pages I thought, “Where are all the laser guns? Why aren’t we in space yet?” The story literally developed for me page after page so I knew nothing about it going into it.
So was it the fact that it was such an extraordinary true story that made you want to make it or were there other deciding factors?
Yes, it’s an extraordinary story, but I thought it was an extraordinary character too. I just really liked Brady. He’s a guy who’s done some pretty bad things in the past and you’d think by now he would have turned his act around and he hadn’t yet. That’s what was really interesting and it took meeting this inspirational, amazing child to really open his eyes to what life could really be about.
The writer of this movie, Patrick Doughtie, is actually the father of the real Tyler, right?
Yeah, this happened to his boy some years ago and it was this situation that he built the script around. My character didn’t actually exist. That’s something he just created as fiction, but there was very much his son Tyler who was writing letters to God as a way to pray and he more often than not wasn’t praying for himself. He was praying for his friends, his brothers, neighbors, just praying for everybody to give them strength.
I read that Patrick wrote himself out of the movie. As you mentioned, your character didn’t exist so he does fictionalize a little bit. How much does it deviate from the actual story? Do you know?
Well, like I said, my character’s relationship with Tyler is all fictional, but I think situation-wise there are a lot of things that were more or less the same. And I think certainly what the family was going through when they were dealing with the kid’s cancer, I think a lot of that hits pretty close to home.
So was it more or less the themes that were real rather than the dramatic moments?
No, I’m not sure about that. There were just some things he had created just to make it more of a movie like writing himself out and writing the postman in.
I know he also served as co-director. What was it like having him on set where he was basically watching you replay out the life and death of his kid?
It was incredible. It was unlike anything I had ever done before. There were so many times where he tried to put this experience out of his mind and all of a sudden for the sake of the film, he’s reliving these things over and over again. We had this one scene where Tyler’s at a soccer game and he has a seizure and we had to ask him, “What exactly happened? Did his head shake this way? Did he fall down that way?” He’s just reliving it and after a minute or so of doing it, the reality just sunk in and it just became such an emotional day for us all. I just have a lot of respect for him because he was willing to remind himself and explain all these things in this vivid detail. It was just a tremendous amount of bravery he brought to the set everyday and I really respect that.
I thought that was interesting too. I didn’t know he wrote it until after I watched it and I read through the Baptist Press that he actually struggled with his faith during the time that his kid was suffering. There's a scene where Tyler’s mother is questioning God and saying “I don’t agree with God’s plan.” Now, regardless of how strong a person’s convictions are, put in this situation, I imagine a lot of people would question their faith. Do you think that was him kind of speaking out and showing that he went through that moment in his life?
Obviously, I can’t speak for him, but I think you’re right on the money. I think there is a reason that those scenes ring so true to you and to the audience because they came from such a surreal place for him and I think people identify with that.
Well, I know you’ve also done a lot of work on television. I know this movie is kind of bittersweet. It’s not happy what happens to the kid, but at the same time it’s very uplifting. How different was the atmosphere on set for this as opposed to gritty crime dramas you’ve been on like CSI or Criminal Minds?
Well, films and TV share a similar style of acting, but on TV things are pretty rushed. It’s chop-chop, shoot and you don’t have as much time to really understand your character. So this movie was real to us during some of the emotional stuff and then when it was done, we all knew it was done and we could breathe a little bit easy. The first day of filming was this scene where my character had this breakdown in his apartment. That was a tough day to start a shoot. You know, welcome to day one.
Everyone I talk to seems to say the same thing, that they do the hardest scenes first, but I don’t know why.
I think people are just like “Let’s just go for it and get it out of the way so we don’t have to think about it too much.” Maybe they were saying, “Hey, maybe if he doesn’t get it on day one it will be a lot easier to fire him than it would be if we were a couple weeks into the shoot.” I hope that’s not the case, but you never know.
I have to ask you my stock question now. I ask everybody that has been on television and in movies this. Do you prefer the faster pace of television or the slower pace of film?
I think I prefer making movies because it’s really more like doing a play. You spend so much time with the character. They kind of keep you company, so every day you’re thinking, “What would he do? What would he listen to? What would he order for breakfast?” And I really like that whereas on TV you’re just in and out unless you’re a serious regular on a show and you don’t have much time to explore the character.
A few minutes ago you said your manager sent you the script and said “I hope you don’t mind doing a faith based movie.” Now, this movie comes from Possibility Pictures, a Christian production company. Did you have any reservations going into this film knowing that its audience could be limited?
No. That might be an interesting point, but it didn’t concern me at all and it certainly didn’t concern me when I met everyone and we started working together. The good thing about doing a film like is that everyone is just so onboard and everyone is so positive and eager to do the best they can. They started every day with a prayer meeting before safety call, which really sets the tone for a very loving, productive atmosphere. So no I didn’t. Maybe it might have been different if my character were a different kind of guy, but I just appreciated his struggle and his doubts and ultimately his outcome.
See, that’s the thing. The audience could be limited, but I think if people give the movie a shot, they’ll find it’s pretty accessible to everyone.
Oh absolutely. I was with the writer this afternoon and he was on the phone for over half an hour speaking with a reporter who’s Jewish and she was saying she can’t wait to spread the word as much as she can about this film because she wants people to understand that it speaks to everyone, not just one set or one branch of any kind of religion. I hope it’s universal. It speaks to so many people. It speaks to families dealing with it. It speaks to children dealing with it. It speaks to the friends. My character thought it was over. He thought he was never going to be able to live a life of peace. I think what I learned was that it’s never too late to turn things around.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Clash of the Titans an Unbridled 3D Mess
Something's wrong in Hollywood. It's called 3D. Now, before you naysay my statement, know this. I do not hate 3D. It has a place in film and, perhaps unfortunately, is the next evolutionary step in the future of filmmaking. However, with Avatar still going strong at the box office, Alice in Wonderland still climbing out of the rabbit hole and last week's How to Train Your Dragon enjoying its debut, the last thing we need is another 3D movie, yet here we are with the remake of the 1981 cheese-fest Clash of the Titans. Forget about what those big wig execs up in their ivory watchtowers want you to think. Clash proves that not every movie needs the extra dimension.
What separates this apart from those movies previously mentioned is simple. It was never meant to be in 3D. It was not filmed with that technology, like Avatar, or with the mindset for it to later be converted, as was the case with Alice in Wonderland. No, it was bumped up after the movie studio discovered just how profitable the format could be, considering the extra cost to see one in theaters. Thus, it looks horrid. Some scenes feel unfinished, certain visuals look blurry and at times, the characters seem misshapen with distorted heads and cut off body parts, as seen with the ear in multiple shots. Sometimes, I took my glasses off only to find much of it was barely converted, if at all. I watched whole scenes in crisp clear 2D without the glasses in a supposedly 3D movie. It's a nasty trick by the studio to force you into paying extra money with the notion that you're getting something more. Don't be fooled. You're not.
Regardless of how you're looking at it, you'll most likely wish you weren't at all. Clash of the Titans is an action bombshell, taking the genre and forcefully deflowering it with no regards to style or substance. It uses Greek mythology to prove itself as an epic, but it never does anything to warrant such a title.
Sam Worthington plays Perseus, son of Zeus, played by Liam Neeson. Zeus, a god, mated with a human in an act of revenge, who eventually gave birth to Perseus. Being half-human and half-god, a demi-god if you will, he is thrown into the thick of things when the battle between humans and the gods heats up. You see, the humans have betrayed the gods and Zeus is angry, so he joins with his brother Hades, ruler of the Underworld, played by Ralph Fiennes, to put them in their place. If the people of the city do not sacrifice the beautiful Andromeda, played by Alexa Davalos, a giant Kraken will come and destroy them. Perseus' mission is to figure out how to kill the Kraken and defeat the gods.
Essentially, it's a long winded journey to drably colored locales that all look exactly the same with the hopes of finding the information to take down the giant beast that ends in as boring a fashion as it possibly could. By the time Perseus finally gets to the much talked about Kraken, the creature merely waves his claws around, roars a few times and the movie ends. There's no battle, no showdown and, most importantly, no enjoyment to be had in any of it.
Perseus' journey is never fraught with peril or wonder. It gathers up the extensive history of Greek mythology, but has no fun with it. The PG rated Percy Jackson & the Olympians did more with its source material than this supposed grown-up tale of survival and sacrifice.
And that would be due to the script. This is a very badly written film, with unexplained plot occurrences and dialogue that would be better fit for a fun cornball picture. If you've seen the original film, you know it was a poorly conceived B-movie, yet irresistible in its campiness. This modern update doesn't even reach that status because it takes itself far too seriously.
Going hand in hand are the actors, who all seem half asleep in their performances. Liam Neeson, as established a star as he is, is boring as the god Zeus while Fiennes does little more than channel a less creepy version of Lord Voldemort from his roles in the Harry Potter films. Sam Worthington's banality may be the most egregious, however. He was great in Avatar and Terminator: Salvation despite their mediocrity where he proved himself as an up and coming action star. He was somebody to look out for, but he comes off as a second rate actor from a military commercial here. Sure, he looks strong and menacing, but his goofy way of talking in a loud whisper, not unlike Jack Bauer in 24, is laughable and makes his tough look moot.
Clash of the Titans is a disaster, joining the ranks of big budget travesties like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Land of the Lost. It's one of the worst movies of the year thus far and you should skip it, but if you must see it, take my heed and skip the 3D. Why pay extra when you'll walk out miserable either way?
Clash of the Titans receives 0.5/5
What separates this apart from those movies previously mentioned is simple. It was never meant to be in 3D. It was not filmed with that technology, like Avatar, or with the mindset for it to later be converted, as was the case with Alice in Wonderland. No, it was bumped up after the movie studio discovered just how profitable the format could be, considering the extra cost to see one in theaters. Thus, it looks horrid. Some scenes feel unfinished, certain visuals look blurry and at times, the characters seem misshapen with distorted heads and cut off body parts, as seen with the ear in multiple shots. Sometimes, I took my glasses off only to find much of it was barely converted, if at all. I watched whole scenes in crisp clear 2D without the glasses in a supposedly 3D movie. It's a nasty trick by the studio to force you into paying extra money with the notion that you're getting something more. Don't be fooled. You're not.
Regardless of how you're looking at it, you'll most likely wish you weren't at all. Clash of the Titans is an action bombshell, taking the genre and forcefully deflowering it with no regards to style or substance. It uses Greek mythology to prove itself as an epic, but it never does anything to warrant such a title.
Sam Worthington plays Perseus, son of Zeus, played by Liam Neeson. Zeus, a god, mated with a human in an act of revenge, who eventually gave birth to Perseus. Being half-human and half-god, a demi-god if you will, he is thrown into the thick of things when the battle between humans and the gods heats up. You see, the humans have betrayed the gods and Zeus is angry, so he joins with his brother Hades, ruler of the Underworld, played by Ralph Fiennes, to put them in their place. If the people of the city do not sacrifice the beautiful Andromeda, played by Alexa Davalos, a giant Kraken will come and destroy them. Perseus' mission is to figure out how to kill the Kraken and defeat the gods.
Essentially, it's a long winded journey to drably colored locales that all look exactly the same with the hopes of finding the information to take down the giant beast that ends in as boring a fashion as it possibly could. By the time Perseus finally gets to the much talked about Kraken, the creature merely waves his claws around, roars a few times and the movie ends. There's no battle, no showdown and, most importantly, no enjoyment to be had in any of it.
Perseus' journey is never fraught with peril or wonder. It gathers up the extensive history of Greek mythology, but has no fun with it. The PG rated Percy Jackson & the Olympians did more with its source material than this supposed grown-up tale of survival and sacrifice.
And that would be due to the script. This is a very badly written film, with unexplained plot occurrences and dialogue that would be better fit for a fun cornball picture. If you've seen the original film, you know it was a poorly conceived B-movie, yet irresistible in its campiness. This modern update doesn't even reach that status because it takes itself far too seriously.
Going hand in hand are the actors, who all seem half asleep in their performances. Liam Neeson, as established a star as he is, is boring as the god Zeus while Fiennes does little more than channel a less creepy version of Lord Voldemort from his roles in the Harry Potter films. Sam Worthington's banality may be the most egregious, however. He was great in Avatar and Terminator: Salvation despite their mediocrity where he proved himself as an up and coming action star. He was somebody to look out for, but he comes off as a second rate actor from a military commercial here. Sure, he looks strong and menacing, but his goofy way of talking in a loud whisper, not unlike Jack Bauer in 24, is laughable and makes his tough look moot.
Clash of the Titans is a disaster, joining the ranks of big budget travesties like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Land of the Lost. It's one of the worst movies of the year thus far and you should skip it, but if you must see it, take my heed and skip the 3D. Why pay extra when you'll walk out miserable either way?
Clash of the Titans receives 0.5/5
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Last Song Crippled By Hammy Ending
If you're like me, a lot of movies have lost their zest to you. After seeing and writing about hundreds of films on this website, I've gotten to the point where the majority of films are so predictable I could tell you what happens in them scene by scene based soley off the trailer. They all follow a formula set by the dozens and dozens of precedents before them. Nicholas Sparks book adaptations are perhaps the easiest to decipher. If you've seen The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, Nights in Rodanthe or the recent Dear John, you're familiar with the endings. As I watched his latest, Miley Cyrus helmed feature, The Last Song, I couldn't help but continually ask myself: who's going to die in this one?
Cyrus plays Ronnie Miller, a rebellious teen on her way down south to live with her father, Steve, played by Greg Kinnear, for the summer. She's a hardened person, already convicted of shoplifting, and she has a "down with authority" attitude. You can tell because she has a nose stud and wears leather boots. Watch out Lindsay Lohan! You may have some competition.
Ronnie has a little brother named Jonah, played by Bobby Coleman, who is accompanying her on her stay. While he is excited to see his father, a person he has spent little time with since the divorce, she can't wait to go home. She hates her dad because he left her, but while there she meets a strapping young lad named Will Blakelee, played by Liam Hemsworth, who starts to turn her world around. Through him, she becomes happier and starts to reconnect with her father, but with only the summer to spend there, will she be able to find true happiness?
If you take the time to really think about what happens at the end of these movies, you'll realize that all of them, with the exception of The Notebook, end without the relationship lasting. It almost seems like Sparks is a jaded lover, pessimistic from bad experiences brought on by past flings.
Without saying how, The Last Song ends in a decidedly different way, not closing the book on the story for good, but rather implying future events. While it may not reach the height of The Notebook (and is barely recommendable by any standard of quality filmmaking), it's a sweet story with an ending that really works, sans the cheese.
The biggest problem with Sparks' book-to-movie adaptations is that they never know when to quit. Instead of letting the emotion pour through naturally, they shove it in your face and try to force you to feel sadness. This is no deviation. I cared about all of these characters. Their performances were good and their chemistry was excellent. Cyrus and Hemsworth seem like naturals together (as they should since they are dating in actuality) and the father/son relationship between Greg Kinnear and little Bobby Coleman is as precious as can be. When tragedy struck (as was inevitable), I cared. I didn't want the events to play out this way. The movie had done its job. It had me in its grasp, so why so maudlin? Why take the emotion you've just spent the last hour and a half building and crush it under the weight of schlocky sentimentality?
What started as a somewhat uneven, but still solid little tearjerker went the way of Nights in Rodanthe and A Walk to Remember. At the end, when I was supposed to be sad, I was fighting back laughter solely so I wouldn't ruin the experience for any of my movie going patrons who may have been tricked by its overemotional gushing.
As the credits rolled and the lights came back up, however, I still found myself content with giving it my stamp of approval. It's funny, it's sweet, it's meaningful and it goes to show that you must learn to forgive those who have hurt you before the chance passes. It's nothing special, but there's something in The Last Song that keeps its heart beating despite its problems.
The Last Song receives 2.5/5
Cyrus plays Ronnie Miller, a rebellious teen on her way down south to live with her father, Steve, played by Greg Kinnear, for the summer. She's a hardened person, already convicted of shoplifting, and she has a "down with authority" attitude. You can tell because she has a nose stud and wears leather boots. Watch out Lindsay Lohan! You may have some competition.
Ronnie has a little brother named Jonah, played by Bobby Coleman, who is accompanying her on her stay. While he is excited to see his father, a person he has spent little time with since the divorce, she can't wait to go home. She hates her dad because he left her, but while there she meets a strapping young lad named Will Blakelee, played by Liam Hemsworth, who starts to turn her world around. Through him, she becomes happier and starts to reconnect with her father, but with only the summer to spend there, will she be able to find true happiness?
If you take the time to really think about what happens at the end of these movies, you'll realize that all of them, with the exception of The Notebook, end without the relationship lasting. It almost seems like Sparks is a jaded lover, pessimistic from bad experiences brought on by past flings.
Without saying how, The Last Song ends in a decidedly different way, not closing the book on the story for good, but rather implying future events. While it may not reach the height of The Notebook (and is barely recommendable by any standard of quality filmmaking), it's a sweet story with an ending that really works, sans the cheese.
The biggest problem with Sparks' book-to-movie adaptations is that they never know when to quit. Instead of letting the emotion pour through naturally, they shove it in your face and try to force you to feel sadness. This is no deviation. I cared about all of these characters. Their performances were good and their chemistry was excellent. Cyrus and Hemsworth seem like naturals together (as they should since they are dating in actuality) and the father/son relationship between Greg Kinnear and little Bobby Coleman is as precious as can be. When tragedy struck (as was inevitable), I cared. I didn't want the events to play out this way. The movie had done its job. It had me in its grasp, so why so maudlin? Why take the emotion you've just spent the last hour and a half building and crush it under the weight of schlocky sentimentality?
What started as a somewhat uneven, but still solid little tearjerker went the way of Nights in Rodanthe and A Walk to Remember. At the end, when I was supposed to be sad, I was fighting back laughter solely so I wouldn't ruin the experience for any of my movie going patrons who may have been tricked by its overemotional gushing.
As the credits rolled and the lights came back up, however, I still found myself content with giving it my stamp of approval. It's funny, it's sweet, it's meaningful and it goes to show that you must learn to forgive those who have hurt you before the chance passes. It's nothing special, but there's something in The Last Song that keeps its heart beating despite its problems.
The Last Song receives 2.5/5
Friday, March 26, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon is High Flying Excitement
There's no denying that the king of computer animation is Pixar. That juggernaut has released 10 movies and all have been good. Their track record truly is amazing. DreamWorks, on the other hand, hasn't fared so well. After two solid films in Antz and Shrek, they went downhill quickly, releasing junk like Shark Tale, Over the Hedge, Bee Movie and the two Madagascar pictures. They redeemed themselves a tad with Kung Fu Panda and Monsters Vs. Aliens, but their newest film, How to Train Your Dragon, may very well be their best. They still have a long way to go before they start nipping at the heels of the folks at Pixar, but this is a step in the right direction.
The film takes place in a village where Vikings rule. For hundreds of years, these Vikings have been at war with the local dragons who come to their land, burn down their houses and steal their livestock. To these people, dragon hunting is the most admirable thing you can do and those who do it earn the most respect. The leader of the warriors goes by the name of Stoick (voiced by Gerard Butler), a man who finds shame in his puny son Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) because he has never amounted to anything. Hiccup desperately wants to be accepted and wants to kill a dragon to prove himself, but his weak stature doesn't allow him to. One day, however, he lands a hit on the most dangerous dragon of them all, a Night Fury, but can't bring himself to kill it. Instead, he lets it loose, but its tail is severely damaged and it loses the ability of flight. Hiccup bonds with the dragon, whom he names Toothless, and creates an artificial tail to help aid him. He quickly learns that dragons aren't dangerous creatures at all and, with the help of Toothless, tries to convince his village the same.
Story-wise, How to Train Your Dragon is DreamWorks most complete film to date. It hits a range of emotions they previously could have only hoped for. Like a Pixar film, this movie creates a distinct relationship between its two characters, in this case Hiccup and the dragon, and you come to appreciate their bonding. Toothless is like a stray dog who wants to be loved, but is wary of anybody offering it because he simply isn't used to it. He looks at Hiccup as he approaches him, all tied up in the projectile net, desperate and afraid. After Hiccup releases him, he attacks him based on the assumption that Hiccup means harm. It isn't until he spends time with him that he starts to let his guard down. It's truly amazing how much emotion seeps through this creature just by the way he looks at Hiccup. His character development rivals everybody else in the movie and you see him grow throughout.
The bond they create is the crutch of the film. You'll love them as soon as they start to love each other. Despite its colorful nature and appeal to children, its the drama that comes through the best. You'll care about the characters, sympathize with them and fear for their plight. It's the humor that doesn't necessarily work.
Much like most animated features, How to Train Your Dragon tries real hard to produce laughs, but it feels more strained here than in others. I wouldn't say this is a dark film, but it's not exactly happy-go-lucky either and deals with rejection, loneliness and crippling injury, both to humans and animals. However, it doesn't go all the way. Nobody dies in this movie. When the dragons shoot their fire, the humans jump out of the way and it passes right by. Due to what I assume is fear of excluding children, the film is toned down in every area, which includes its forced humor to lighten the tension. None of it works. Had it gone a more adult route and had the chutzpah to show the violence and drama unfold more naturally, this would be a modern day adult animated masterpiece.
It doesn't quite reach that height, but it's a solid tale nevertheless. The animation is beautiful, the close-to-being-overdone 3D works magic and the voice acting is wonderful. Despite a few too many recognizable voices from the likes of Jonah Hill, Butler and Baruchel, who just recently starred in She's Out of My League, they fit their characters well and by the time you reach the high flying, pulse pounding climax, you will have forgotten that there were actual people voicing these characters, though it does take a bit of time to get to that point.
I've always been a person fascinated with flight. Ask me who my favorite superhero is, I'll tell you Superman and I'm astonished when someone in a window seat on an airplane puts the cover down so they can't see out the window. Being up that high and being able to soar through the clouds holds a sense of wonder for me. It's a sight so beautiful it brings tears to my eyes. Perhaps this is why I loved How to Train Your Dragon, because it tells a story not always through dialogue, but through flight showing how their friendship develops while they are in mid-air swooping up and down and around. The beauty of these scenes is reason enough to buy a ticket. It may not be the next Wall-E or Finding Nemo, but it's a pleasurable diversion that promises a more promising future from DreamWorks.
How to Train Your Dragon receives 4/5
The film takes place in a village where Vikings rule. For hundreds of years, these Vikings have been at war with the local dragons who come to their land, burn down their houses and steal their livestock. To these people, dragon hunting is the most admirable thing you can do and those who do it earn the most respect. The leader of the warriors goes by the name of Stoick (voiced by Gerard Butler), a man who finds shame in his puny son Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) because he has never amounted to anything. Hiccup desperately wants to be accepted and wants to kill a dragon to prove himself, but his weak stature doesn't allow him to. One day, however, he lands a hit on the most dangerous dragon of them all, a Night Fury, but can't bring himself to kill it. Instead, he lets it loose, but its tail is severely damaged and it loses the ability of flight. Hiccup bonds with the dragon, whom he names Toothless, and creates an artificial tail to help aid him. He quickly learns that dragons aren't dangerous creatures at all and, with the help of Toothless, tries to convince his village the same.
Story-wise, How to Train Your Dragon is DreamWorks most complete film to date. It hits a range of emotions they previously could have only hoped for. Like a Pixar film, this movie creates a distinct relationship between its two characters, in this case Hiccup and the dragon, and you come to appreciate their bonding. Toothless is like a stray dog who wants to be loved, but is wary of anybody offering it because he simply isn't used to it. He looks at Hiccup as he approaches him, all tied up in the projectile net, desperate and afraid. After Hiccup releases him, he attacks him based on the assumption that Hiccup means harm. It isn't until he spends time with him that he starts to let his guard down. It's truly amazing how much emotion seeps through this creature just by the way he looks at Hiccup. His character development rivals everybody else in the movie and you see him grow throughout.
The bond they create is the crutch of the film. You'll love them as soon as they start to love each other. Despite its colorful nature and appeal to children, its the drama that comes through the best. You'll care about the characters, sympathize with them and fear for their plight. It's the humor that doesn't necessarily work.
Much like most animated features, How to Train Your Dragon tries real hard to produce laughs, but it feels more strained here than in others. I wouldn't say this is a dark film, but it's not exactly happy-go-lucky either and deals with rejection, loneliness and crippling injury, both to humans and animals. However, it doesn't go all the way. Nobody dies in this movie. When the dragons shoot their fire, the humans jump out of the way and it passes right by. Due to what I assume is fear of excluding children, the film is toned down in every area, which includes its forced humor to lighten the tension. None of it works. Had it gone a more adult route and had the chutzpah to show the violence and drama unfold more naturally, this would be a modern day adult animated masterpiece.
It doesn't quite reach that height, but it's a solid tale nevertheless. The animation is beautiful, the close-to-being-overdone 3D works magic and the voice acting is wonderful. Despite a few too many recognizable voices from the likes of Jonah Hill, Butler and Baruchel, who just recently starred in She's Out of My League, they fit their characters well and by the time you reach the high flying, pulse pounding climax, you will have forgotten that there were actual people voicing these characters, though it does take a bit of time to get to that point.
I've always been a person fascinated with flight. Ask me who my favorite superhero is, I'll tell you Superman and I'm astonished when someone in a window seat on an airplane puts the cover down so they can't see out the window. Being up that high and being able to soar through the clouds holds a sense of wonder for me. It's a sight so beautiful it brings tears to my eyes. Perhaps this is why I loved How to Train Your Dragon, because it tells a story not always through dialogue, but through flight showing how their friendship develops while they are in mid-air swooping up and down and around. The beauty of these scenes is reason enough to buy a ticket. It may not be the next Wall-E or Finding Nemo, but it's a pleasurable diversion that promises a more promising future from DreamWorks.
How to Train Your Dragon receives 4/5
Interview with Ben Stiller, Noah Baumbach and James Murphy
Recently, I was lucky enough to participate in an interview with Ben Stiller, Noah Baumbach and James Murphy, the creative team behind the new film Greenberg. We discussed how the film came to be, what the process behind the music was and how different this role is for Stiller when compared to his wider known comedies. Greenberg opens today. This is the unedited transcript.
How was the dynamic behind the scenes for all of you and were there any moments you would like to discuss?
Stiller: Well, I feel that working with Noah is a very, very special experience because he just approaches movies in a very different way than I’ve experienced before. He wrote a very specific script and I think everybody working on the movie was really dedicated to it and wanted to do the best they could because they respected the script so much. There was a lot of camaraderie. There was a feeling that we were all connected and we were doing the best we could. It was a small production so we got to rehearse for a number of weeks and hang out a little bit. All the way down to the camera people and the crew, everybody was there because they wanted to be there so it had a much warmer, more intimate feeling that all came out of the atmosphere that was set for the movie.
James, how different was it writing, instead of from an emotion to a final product, from a final product to emphasize emotion? How was that transfer for you?
Murphy: Well, the way this kind of worked wasn’t quite so much like that, but I met with Noah before shooting started. We talked a lot about music and we talked about the characters and, what Ben said, there’s a lot of human camaraderie that made it very easy to kind of talk about what the movie needed. It wasn’t any less about my emotions than anything else. There was just something you were looking at and reacting to. But we also didn’t try to make a soundtrack that necessarily always accented the emotions. For me, after seeing the first footage, it was clear the actors were doing their job amazingly well and the stuff was there. We made songs that worked like a backdrop for what’s happening and let the emotions come through from the directing and the shooting and the acting.
Obviously, this is a very different role for Ben. Noah, what made you consider Ben for a role like this and Ben, what made you take a role like this as opposed to another comedy that you’re better known for?
Baumbach: Well, I’ve always wanted somebody with a sense of humor to play this part. There is a lot of humor in it, although it’s not played for laughs. It’s more authentically portrayed. Obviously, Ben is known for bigger comedies, but he’s done a lot of different stuff, so I never really saw it so much as a different role. It just seemed like Ben was the best person to play this.
Stiller: For me, I really have to say off the bat that I think there are four or five filmmakers that if you get a call from them as an actor, you basically would say yes no matter what it is and Noah is definitely one of those guys for me. What he was calling me with was something I felt very excited about too because it was so specifically written. We talked a little bit about it at the beginning, you know, about the age of the character and the issues he’s going through. Then it was just the chance to work on something that was really about the character and the chance to work on something that goes that deep in terms of the specificity of the writing was very exciting for me so I just felt very fortunate to have that opportunity.
Would you consider doing something like this again? Is this the way you want to take your career or do you want to leave it more open?
Stiller: First of all, I’d love to work with Noah again if he has anything.
Baumbach: Likewise.
Stiller: But yeah, sure, in terms of doing different roles and films, there are just very few filmmakers like Noah that have that sense of humor set in reality and are doing what he’s doing.
The letters that Greenberg writes in the movie are brilliant. Could you talk a little bit about that?
Baumbach: Well, in coming up with the character, Jennifer [co-writer] and I were exploring a lot of different professions and the story took different turns. I think, though, that very early on we came up with the letter writing. It seemed very apt for the character. It would be something that he pours a lot of energy into. There’s a lot of frustration and anger and in some ways it is his vocation. A lot of creative energy goes into it too, but it’s an energy that would be better used in other, more productive ways. I found it very funny, but also very moving that somebody would become so invested in letting these faceless corporations or people or journals or newspapers know how he felt about something after the fact. There’s something so self important about it because there’s the notion that nobody cares what you think and at the same time, there’s something totally futile about it because you’re spitting these things out to the ether. It was something structurally I wasn’t sure how the letters would play while we were shooting because I hadn’t written them as voiceover, but as we were doing it, I had Ben read them and it became a sort of score element in the movie.
James, what were the concepts going in creating the soundtrack and what goals did you have in mind?
Murphy: I think the goal for me was to make music that worked, that we liked, that seemed true to the character and true to the movie and that made Noah happy. It seemed pretty easy to do because we were able to talk about music pretty simply. I know I was very lucky to have that open line of communication. We were editing, I was making the soundtrack and Noah was editing the movie 100 feet from me, so it was very easy to have access and a lot of feedback, so I don’t know whether I ever really got self conscious about what the goals were other than deadlines and dates on the small level. I always just seemed to go with my instincts.
Baumbach: From my perspective, I wanted James to do something that worked for the movie, but to interpret it himself, to come at it from a personal standpoint. I think our relationship and friendship outside of work, or around the work, was very important because I think it helped support an environment where we both could talk freely and see what happened. Some of it is trial and error, in terms of some things you love, but when you put it against the picture it doesn’t work or it doesn’t feel right, but I think our track record was pretty good.
Murphy: I would give Noah music and he would just try it in different places if it didn’t work there, so he was very generous.
Noah: I loved everything James did, so I kept trying to find places for it which is good because I used music more in this movie than I have in previous movies and I was partly inspired by just trying to find places for his music that I really liked.
How did the story of an actively passive man finding his calling hood from his nothingness develop over time from pre-production to post-production?
Baumbach: Well, part of the experience is both interpreting the script when you shoot it and putting it together and rewriting it when you edit. That’s kind of a general way of looking at it, but because I’m so involved every step of the way, I think part of my job is being open to how it transforms and what other people bring that transform it. I really think that the character of Greenberg is in many ways a 50/50 collaboration between Ben and me. Ben didn’t improvise the dialogue, he did the dialogue I wrote, but he so inhabited the part and so transformed the character that I feel only part ownership of him now. I feel like Ben is just as responsible for it as I am and that’s true with many things. It’s true with the music too. I think the music is very specific and personal to James even though it was created to go with these pictures. Even in the post-production, the editing, I’m not precious about what I write. I tend to rewrite by cutting lines and moving things around and being open to what I have rather than what I anticipated having because it always becomes something different than what I started with.
How was the dynamic behind the scenes for all of you and were there any moments you would like to discuss?
Stiller: Well, I feel that working with Noah is a very, very special experience because he just approaches movies in a very different way than I’ve experienced before. He wrote a very specific script and I think everybody working on the movie was really dedicated to it and wanted to do the best they could because they respected the script so much. There was a lot of camaraderie. There was a feeling that we were all connected and we were doing the best we could. It was a small production so we got to rehearse for a number of weeks and hang out a little bit. All the way down to the camera people and the crew, everybody was there because they wanted to be there so it had a much warmer, more intimate feeling that all came out of the atmosphere that was set for the movie.
James, how different was it writing, instead of from an emotion to a final product, from a final product to emphasize emotion? How was that transfer for you?
Murphy: Well, the way this kind of worked wasn’t quite so much like that, but I met with Noah before shooting started. We talked a lot about music and we talked about the characters and, what Ben said, there’s a lot of human camaraderie that made it very easy to kind of talk about what the movie needed. It wasn’t any less about my emotions than anything else. There was just something you were looking at and reacting to. But we also didn’t try to make a soundtrack that necessarily always accented the emotions. For me, after seeing the first footage, it was clear the actors were doing their job amazingly well and the stuff was there. We made songs that worked like a backdrop for what’s happening and let the emotions come through from the directing and the shooting and the acting.
Obviously, this is a very different role for Ben. Noah, what made you consider Ben for a role like this and Ben, what made you take a role like this as opposed to another comedy that you’re better known for?
Baumbach: Well, I’ve always wanted somebody with a sense of humor to play this part. There is a lot of humor in it, although it’s not played for laughs. It’s more authentically portrayed. Obviously, Ben is known for bigger comedies, but he’s done a lot of different stuff, so I never really saw it so much as a different role. It just seemed like Ben was the best person to play this.
Stiller: For me, I really have to say off the bat that I think there are four or five filmmakers that if you get a call from them as an actor, you basically would say yes no matter what it is and Noah is definitely one of those guys for me. What he was calling me with was something I felt very excited about too because it was so specifically written. We talked a little bit about it at the beginning, you know, about the age of the character and the issues he’s going through. Then it was just the chance to work on something that was really about the character and the chance to work on something that goes that deep in terms of the specificity of the writing was very exciting for me so I just felt very fortunate to have that opportunity.
Would you consider doing something like this again? Is this the way you want to take your career or do you want to leave it more open?
Stiller: First of all, I’d love to work with Noah again if he has anything.
Baumbach: Likewise.
Stiller: But yeah, sure, in terms of doing different roles and films, there are just very few filmmakers like Noah that have that sense of humor set in reality and are doing what he’s doing.
The letters that Greenberg writes in the movie are brilliant. Could you talk a little bit about that?
Baumbach: Well, in coming up with the character, Jennifer [co-writer] and I were exploring a lot of different professions and the story took different turns. I think, though, that very early on we came up with the letter writing. It seemed very apt for the character. It would be something that he pours a lot of energy into. There’s a lot of frustration and anger and in some ways it is his vocation. A lot of creative energy goes into it too, but it’s an energy that would be better used in other, more productive ways. I found it very funny, but also very moving that somebody would become so invested in letting these faceless corporations or people or journals or newspapers know how he felt about something after the fact. There’s something so self important about it because there’s the notion that nobody cares what you think and at the same time, there’s something totally futile about it because you’re spitting these things out to the ether. It was something structurally I wasn’t sure how the letters would play while we were shooting because I hadn’t written them as voiceover, but as we were doing it, I had Ben read them and it became a sort of score element in the movie.
James, what were the concepts going in creating the soundtrack and what goals did you have in mind?
Murphy: I think the goal for me was to make music that worked, that we liked, that seemed true to the character and true to the movie and that made Noah happy. It seemed pretty easy to do because we were able to talk about music pretty simply. I know I was very lucky to have that open line of communication. We were editing, I was making the soundtrack and Noah was editing the movie 100 feet from me, so it was very easy to have access and a lot of feedback, so I don’t know whether I ever really got self conscious about what the goals were other than deadlines and dates on the small level. I always just seemed to go with my instincts.
Baumbach: From my perspective, I wanted James to do something that worked for the movie, but to interpret it himself, to come at it from a personal standpoint. I think our relationship and friendship outside of work, or around the work, was very important because I think it helped support an environment where we both could talk freely and see what happened. Some of it is trial and error, in terms of some things you love, but when you put it against the picture it doesn’t work or it doesn’t feel right, but I think our track record was pretty good.
Murphy: I would give Noah music and he would just try it in different places if it didn’t work there, so he was very generous.
Noah: I loved everything James did, so I kept trying to find places for it which is good because I used music more in this movie than I have in previous movies and I was partly inspired by just trying to find places for his music that I really liked.
How did the story of an actively passive man finding his calling hood from his nothingness develop over time from pre-production to post-production?
Baumbach: Well, part of the experience is both interpreting the script when you shoot it and putting it together and rewriting it when you edit. That’s kind of a general way of looking at it, but because I’m so involved every step of the way, I think part of my job is being open to how it transforms and what other people bring that transform it. I really think that the character of Greenberg is in many ways a 50/50 collaboration between Ben and me. Ben didn’t improvise the dialogue, he did the dialogue I wrote, but he so inhabited the part and so transformed the character that I feel only part ownership of him now. I feel like Ben is just as responsible for it as I am and that’s true with many things. It’s true with the music too. I think the music is very specific and personal to James even though it was created to go with these pictures. Even in the post-production, the editing, I’m not precious about what I write. I tend to rewrite by cutting lines and moving things around and being open to what I have rather than what I anticipated having because it always becomes something different than what I started with.
Labels:
Ben Stiller,
Greenberg,
Interview,
James Murphy,
Noah Baumbach
Hot Tub Time Machine a Fun, Dopey Comedy
Back in January, I was invited to attend an early screening of a little film called Hot Tub Time Machine. It was a rough cut and it was, well, a little rough. The editing needed to be tighter and a few side story issues needed to be resolved. Now it has been completed and the finished product is, well, still a little rough. It's a shoddily structured, messily interpreted hour and a half trip through an unoriginal screenplay reminiscent of dozens of other time traveling films that simply replaces whatever time traveling device they used with a hot tub. Still, its goofy nature and fun, unabashed ridiculousness are hard to deny.
The story, as irrelevant as it may be, can be summarized in one sentence. After Lou, played by Rob Corddry, tries to kill himself, his friends Adam, Nick and Jacob, played by John Cusack, Craig Robinson and Clark Duke, travel to their old vacation spot, a ski resort in the mountains, where they are transported back to the 80’s via hot tub and must travel in the same footsteps they did all those years ago, lest they disrupt the past and change the future for the worse.
Much like Snakes on a Plane or the more recent Ninja Assassin, Hot Tub Time Machine is a movie most will want to see based on the delightfully absurd title alone. Those people will not be disappointed. Like a good spoof movie, the film never stops with the jokes. It never bothers with heart or meaning or character development. It simply provides a constant string of gags that allow the four actors to play off each other.
Unfortunately, for every hilarious joke, there was one that fell flatter than an anorexic supermodel, including disgusting bodily fluid jokes that even the most juvenile of viewers will find degrading. Blood, urine, vomit, you name it, this movie has it. In the first 20 minutes alone, you get all of the above and then some, bringing to mind a scene where Nick digs out keys from the anus of an animal and throws them at someone. This type of lowbrow humor is to be expected, but that doesn't make it funny.
It's during the more perceptive scenes that Hot Tub Time Machine really shines. It knows what it is—over-the-top, tongue in cheek and very silly—and it takes its 80’s setting and capitalizes on it. Cusack, known for his seminal roles in 80’s films like Say Anything, is used to the fullest and the film puts him in situations that echo movies of that era, even going so far as to duplicate one of the most famous shots from Sixteen Candles, a film which he played a minor role in.
In a way, Hot Tub Time Machine is kind of smart in its stupidity. There is nothing going on behind the camera, but the comedic chemistry of the four actors is good and the witty script prove some thought went into it. It’s ironic, really. The film has brains, but you’ll have to turn yours off to enjoy it.
Hot Tub Time Machine receives 3/5
The story, as irrelevant as it may be, can be summarized in one sentence. After Lou, played by Rob Corddry, tries to kill himself, his friends Adam, Nick and Jacob, played by John Cusack, Craig Robinson and Clark Duke, travel to their old vacation spot, a ski resort in the mountains, where they are transported back to the 80’s via hot tub and must travel in the same footsteps they did all those years ago, lest they disrupt the past and change the future for the worse.
Much like Snakes on a Plane or the more recent Ninja Assassin, Hot Tub Time Machine is a movie most will want to see based on the delightfully absurd title alone. Those people will not be disappointed. Like a good spoof movie, the film never stops with the jokes. It never bothers with heart or meaning or character development. It simply provides a constant string of gags that allow the four actors to play off each other.
Unfortunately, for every hilarious joke, there was one that fell flatter than an anorexic supermodel, including disgusting bodily fluid jokes that even the most juvenile of viewers will find degrading. Blood, urine, vomit, you name it, this movie has it. In the first 20 minutes alone, you get all of the above and then some, bringing to mind a scene where Nick digs out keys from the anus of an animal and throws them at someone. This type of lowbrow humor is to be expected, but that doesn't make it funny.
It's during the more perceptive scenes that Hot Tub Time Machine really shines. It knows what it is—over-the-top, tongue in cheek and very silly—and it takes its 80’s setting and capitalizes on it. Cusack, known for his seminal roles in 80’s films like Say Anything, is used to the fullest and the film puts him in situations that echo movies of that era, even going so far as to duplicate one of the most famous shots from Sixteen Candles, a film which he played a minor role in.
In a way, Hot Tub Time Machine is kind of smart in its stupidity. There is nothing going on behind the camera, but the comedic chemistry of the four actors is good and the witty script prove some thought went into it. It’s ironic, really. The film has brains, but you’ll have to turn yours off to enjoy it.
Hot Tub Time Machine receives 3/5
Interview with Clark Duke, Star of Hot Tub Time Machine
Starring alongside best friend Michael Cera in the Internet series Clark and Michael is only the beginning of Clark Duke’s story. With the underappreciated Sex Drive and hit television show Greek under his belt, not to mention the highly anticipated film Kick Ass on the horizon, Duke is proving himself as one of the most promising up and coming actors in Hollywood. I recently had a chance to chat with Duke about his new movie Hot Tub Time Machine and the difference between television and film.
What attracted you to the Hot Tub Time Machine script?
It was funny. I got involved with it because the guys who wrote Sex Drive had written the draft of Hot Tub and wanted me to play this part and I just said yeah because I really love those guys. They ended up not directing it, but I still stayed on because there was Corddry, Craig and then Cusack. I think Cusack being in it makes it really weird and meta because he’s such an 80’s icon himself. And in the movie, these guys go back to the 80’s and the whole thing seems like it’s coming out of him a little bit which is cool.
Since you mentioned your co-stars, after seeing the movie it seems like John Cusack is being billed to sell the movie.
John is sort of the straight man to some extent. He’s still the lead in the film, but Corddry has the wild character like the one I had in Sex Drive, the really fun one to play. So Johnny’s stuff is a little more understated, but he’s great. It was just really cool working with him because High Fidelity and Grosse Pointe Blank are two of my favorite movies. And the guy who directed Hot Tub wrote those. Working with all of those guys was pretty amazing. Chevy Chase was my highlight because he’s my hero. All of our scenes were together pretty much and he was next to me at the hotel, so every night he would come knock on my door, call me and mumble things, so we’d go eat dinner and get drunk every night. It was the best week of my life. It was pretty surreal.
Would you like to continue doing comedy or break away and do more serious roles?
I don’t know. I like comedies. I guess if there was a really dramatic part that I thought I could do something interesting with or somebody asked me to do, but I don’t know, I like working on comedies for the most part because I mainly watch comedies.
Do you ever watch yourself? Is it weird seeing yourself onscreen?
The first time I saw Sex Drive in the theater, I had to leave. It was just unsettling. I couldn’t talk to anybody afterwards. I’m kind of used to it now, but at first it’s pretty jarring.
You’ve also done a lot of work on television, on the show Greek. I know this is a question you’ve heard a thousand times, but do you prefer the slower pace of film or the faster pace of television?
Film for sure. TV is brutal man. You’re going through eight pages a day and it’s rough. I mean it’s not rough, but compared to shooting a movie where you’re shooting one page a day, TV’s pace is just so much different.
So on average, how many takes does it take to get something done in movies and TV?
On TV you’re doing one or two takes because there’s just no time. On movies you can take all the time you want more or less because you’re shooting a page or two a day compared to six to eight pages, so it’s pretty bananas.
Besides Kick Ass, do you have any other films lined up right now?
I have this movie with Eddie Murphy called A Thousand Words that I think comes out at the end of this year.
Can you give us any details on that?
Eddie gets a curse put on him, so he only has a thousand words left to say before he dies and I play his assistant.
That’s a cool premise. It sounds better than Imagine That.
Let’s hope so. [Laughs] I didn’t see that one, but it didn’t do very well. He needs a hit.
What attracted you to the Hot Tub Time Machine script?
It was funny. I got involved with it because the guys who wrote Sex Drive had written the draft of Hot Tub and wanted me to play this part and I just said yeah because I really love those guys. They ended up not directing it, but I still stayed on because there was Corddry, Craig and then Cusack. I think Cusack being in it makes it really weird and meta because he’s such an 80’s icon himself. And in the movie, these guys go back to the 80’s and the whole thing seems like it’s coming out of him a little bit which is cool.
Since you mentioned your co-stars, after seeing the movie it seems like John Cusack is being billed to sell the movie.
John is sort of the straight man to some extent. He’s still the lead in the film, but Corddry has the wild character like the one I had in Sex Drive, the really fun one to play. So Johnny’s stuff is a little more understated, but he’s great. It was just really cool working with him because High Fidelity and Grosse Pointe Blank are two of my favorite movies. And the guy who directed Hot Tub wrote those. Working with all of those guys was pretty amazing. Chevy Chase was my highlight because he’s my hero. All of our scenes were together pretty much and he was next to me at the hotel, so every night he would come knock on my door, call me and mumble things, so we’d go eat dinner and get drunk every night. It was the best week of my life. It was pretty surreal.
Would you like to continue doing comedy or break away and do more serious roles?
I don’t know. I like comedies. I guess if there was a really dramatic part that I thought I could do something interesting with or somebody asked me to do, but I don’t know, I like working on comedies for the most part because I mainly watch comedies.
Do you ever watch yourself? Is it weird seeing yourself onscreen?
The first time I saw Sex Drive in the theater, I had to leave. It was just unsettling. I couldn’t talk to anybody afterwards. I’m kind of used to it now, but at first it’s pretty jarring.
You’ve also done a lot of work on television, on the show Greek. I know this is a question you’ve heard a thousand times, but do you prefer the slower pace of film or the faster pace of television?
Film for sure. TV is brutal man. You’re going through eight pages a day and it’s rough. I mean it’s not rough, but compared to shooting a movie where you’re shooting one page a day, TV’s pace is just so much different.
So on average, how many takes does it take to get something done in movies and TV?
On TV you’re doing one or two takes because there’s just no time. On movies you can take all the time you want more or less because you’re shooting a page or two a day compared to six to eight pages, so it’s pretty bananas.
Besides Kick Ass, do you have any other films lined up right now?
I have this movie with Eddie Murphy called A Thousand Words that I think comes out at the end of this year.
Can you give us any details on that?
Eddie gets a curse put on him, so he only has a thousand words left to say before he dies and I play his assistant.
That’s a cool premise. It sounds better than Imagine That.
Let’s hope so. [Laughs] I didn’t see that one, but it didn’t do very well. He needs a hit.
Labels:
Clark Duke,
Hot Tub Time Machine,
Interview,
Kick Ass,
Sex Drive
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Bounty Hunter Should Turn Itself in for Stupidity
Meet Nicole Hurley (Jennifer Aniston). She's a journalist who is on the beat attempting to uncover the mystery behind a recent man's alleged suicide. Oh, and she's also a felon. Not too long ago, she was arrested for assaulting a police officer and her court date is fast approaching, too fast it seems because she skips bail and finds herself on the lam from the cops. Now meet Milo (Gerard Butler), a bounty hunter who specializes in finding fugitives and taking them to jail. His newest assignment: capture Nicole. At first, he is ecstatic because Nicole is actually his ex-wife and really, who wouldn't want to drag their ex-wife to jail? However, somebody is out to take her life because she is getting too close to the truth behind the suicide and Milo finds himself way over his head. He must protect her and deal with her annoying eccentricities, but he can't help but begin to fall in love with her all over again.
And thus begins the abomination that is The Bounty Hunter. Like Cop Out before it, this film has a poor flow, an uninteresting story, bland enemies and annoying leads. It's funnier than Cop Out though, which is to say there's one good joke. The rest is a mind numbing rom-com that isn't worth the dried up gum underneath the seat you'll be watching it on.
When it comes to any type of movie like this, whether it be a buddy cop film or a romantic comedy, the lead characters must be likable. Spending your two hours with them should be fun. You should find yourself laughing at their jokes, enjoying their zany quirks and caring about them if they are in peril. I wanted, however, to kill these two characters myself. They are both loud, obnoxious and practically begging for us to like them. Their attempts to satisfy the audience come off as desperate and grating. Butler's character is merely throwaway, not in the way a less prominent character would be, but because I couldn't care less about what happened to him and the only interesting thing about Aniston's character is that you could occasionally see through her shirt when the lighting was right.
The saddest part of this debacle is that the premise is ripe for the picking, and I suspect is the sole reason it got greenlit to begin with. A bounty hunter male capturing his ex-wife and taking her to jail has so much potential, yet it would take a revamp of the entire movie--rewrites, reshoots, recasts--to make this thing tolerable.
Butler and Aniston produce no chemistry together because Aniston is only funny when supported by funny people and Butler is not one of them. He's an actor I have much respect for. I loved 300 and he even managed to convince me of his acting prowess in silly films like Law Abiding Citizen and Gamer, but for some reason he seems compelled to take roles in gag-inducing rom-com tripe, not the least of which includes last year's atrocious The Ugly Truth, and he simply isn't very good in any of them.
In a year that has thus far been unexceptional, The Bounty Hunter does little to turn the tide. It's shallow, predictable and it always takes the easy route, going for fast zingers, yet keeping it clean to keep its precious PG-13 rating (despite a trip to a topless strip club where the dancers are all, for some reason, fully covered). This thing has no gravitas, no guts, no redeeming factors and is unworthy of your time.
The Bounty Hunter receives 0.5/5
And thus begins the abomination that is The Bounty Hunter. Like Cop Out before it, this film has a poor flow, an uninteresting story, bland enemies and annoying leads. It's funnier than Cop Out though, which is to say there's one good joke. The rest is a mind numbing rom-com that isn't worth the dried up gum underneath the seat you'll be watching it on.
When it comes to any type of movie like this, whether it be a buddy cop film or a romantic comedy, the lead characters must be likable. Spending your two hours with them should be fun. You should find yourself laughing at their jokes, enjoying their zany quirks and caring about them if they are in peril. I wanted, however, to kill these two characters myself. They are both loud, obnoxious and practically begging for us to like them. Their attempts to satisfy the audience come off as desperate and grating. Butler's character is merely throwaway, not in the way a less prominent character would be, but because I couldn't care less about what happened to him and the only interesting thing about Aniston's character is that you could occasionally see through her shirt when the lighting was right.
The saddest part of this debacle is that the premise is ripe for the picking, and I suspect is the sole reason it got greenlit to begin with. A bounty hunter male capturing his ex-wife and taking her to jail has so much potential, yet it would take a revamp of the entire movie--rewrites, reshoots, recasts--to make this thing tolerable.
Butler and Aniston produce no chemistry together because Aniston is only funny when supported by funny people and Butler is not one of them. He's an actor I have much respect for. I loved 300 and he even managed to convince me of his acting prowess in silly films like Law Abiding Citizen and Gamer, but for some reason he seems compelled to take roles in gag-inducing rom-com tripe, not the least of which includes last year's atrocious The Ugly Truth, and he simply isn't very good in any of them.
In a year that has thus far been unexceptional, The Bounty Hunter does little to turn the tide. It's shallow, predictable and it always takes the easy route, going for fast zingers, yet keeping it clean to keep its precious PG-13 rating (despite a trip to a topless strip club where the dancers are all, for some reason, fully covered). This thing has no gravitas, no guts, no redeeming factors and is unworthy of your time.
The Bounty Hunter receives 0.5/5
Repo Men a Guilty Pleasure
There's something avant-garde about Repo Men. It's not experimental or even particularly unique (Repo! The Genetic Opera tackled the same subject matter back in 2008), but it pushes the boundaries in that it's one of the only movies to gross me out to the point where I wanted to look away from the screen. It's like a disgusting, bloody My Winnipeg.
Set sometime in the near future, when Fast and the Furious X is about to be released, a company called The Union has emerged offering artificial organs to those in need of them. They can easily be bought with credit, yet the payments are so high that most who buy them cannot afford them. After a period of non-payments, a repo man is sent to take the organ back, thus killing the person in the process. Remy (Jude Law) is the best repo man in the business, but after a faulty defibrillator backfires on him, he is forced to sign his own contract on an artificial heart. However, he begins to realize that what he is doing is wrong and refuses to harvest any more organs. Without a job and no money flowing in, he begins to fall behind on his payments and is forced to go on the run with fellow artificial organ owner Beth (Alice Braga) while his former partner Jake (Forest Whitaker) hunts him down.
Repo Men is a movie that, as bloody as it is, seems like it wants to make a point. Similar to how last year's Saw VI made a statement on health care, Repo Men attempts to say something about financial corporations, loans and the debt they're practically forcing upon people, but it doesn't quite come through.
Part of the reason is because the film is as silly as they come. Although it does have a few tonal problems, making strange transitions from comedy to seriousness, the laughs always overpower its otherwise morbid spirit. While the more dramatic scenes, like one where Remy finds himself standing in the middle of a wasteland of dead bodies, don't work, the rest do in a sort of B-movie way. Nobody will sit through this and claim it as quality work, but many will still walk out with a strange appreciation for it.
On the other hand, many will find it revolting and end up hating it. It's a justifiable reaction because Repo Men is beyond violent. With so many scenes featuring repo men cutting into flesh and removing their victim's innards, it can, at times, be hard to find pleasure in it. In fact, I found none in the first act of the movie. Before Remy has his accident, you follow him and Jake around as they mercilessly kill the poor and innocent, never taking into account that their victims could be fathers, sons or brothers. But as the film goes on, the characters take a redemptive path and begin to right their wrongs. Sure, it doesn't quite make up for the assumable thousands of murders before it, but hey, nobody's perfect.
There's nothing to gather from Repo Men. There's no clear message. There's barely a story. There isn't any real reason for it to exist. It's incredibly stupid and the ending is a giant cop out, but I must admit, I had a good deal of fun with it. It may not be for everybody, but for me, it's the biggest guilty pleasure of 2010.
Repo Men receives 3/5
Set sometime in the near future, when Fast and the Furious X is about to be released, a company called The Union has emerged offering artificial organs to those in need of them. They can easily be bought with credit, yet the payments are so high that most who buy them cannot afford them. After a period of non-payments, a repo man is sent to take the organ back, thus killing the person in the process. Remy (Jude Law) is the best repo man in the business, but after a faulty defibrillator backfires on him, he is forced to sign his own contract on an artificial heart. However, he begins to realize that what he is doing is wrong and refuses to harvest any more organs. Without a job and no money flowing in, he begins to fall behind on his payments and is forced to go on the run with fellow artificial organ owner Beth (Alice Braga) while his former partner Jake (Forest Whitaker) hunts him down.
Repo Men is a movie that, as bloody as it is, seems like it wants to make a point. Similar to how last year's Saw VI made a statement on health care, Repo Men attempts to say something about financial corporations, loans and the debt they're practically forcing upon people, but it doesn't quite come through.
Part of the reason is because the film is as silly as they come. Although it does have a few tonal problems, making strange transitions from comedy to seriousness, the laughs always overpower its otherwise morbid spirit. While the more dramatic scenes, like one where Remy finds himself standing in the middle of a wasteland of dead bodies, don't work, the rest do in a sort of B-movie way. Nobody will sit through this and claim it as quality work, but many will still walk out with a strange appreciation for it.
On the other hand, many will find it revolting and end up hating it. It's a justifiable reaction because Repo Men is beyond violent. With so many scenes featuring repo men cutting into flesh and removing their victim's innards, it can, at times, be hard to find pleasure in it. In fact, I found none in the first act of the movie. Before Remy has his accident, you follow him and Jake around as they mercilessly kill the poor and innocent, never taking into account that their victims could be fathers, sons or brothers. But as the film goes on, the characters take a redemptive path and begin to right their wrongs. Sure, it doesn't quite make up for the assumable thousands of murders before it, but hey, nobody's perfect.
There's nothing to gather from Repo Men. There's no clear message. There's barely a story. There isn't any real reason for it to exist. It's incredibly stupid and the ending is a giant cop out, but I must admit, I had a good deal of fun with it. It may not be for everybody, but for me, it's the biggest guilty pleasure of 2010.
Repo Men receives 3/5
Labels:
Forest Whitaker,
Jude Law,
Movie Review,
Repo Men
Friday, March 12, 2010
Alice Eve and Krysten Ritter Interview
It's not every day I get to sit down with two beautiful ladies and chit chat. Although my mother and sister would beg to differ, that hardly counts and is, frankly, a little weird. As part of the promotional tour for their new movie She's Out of My League, stars Alice Eve and Krysten Ritter stopped by Washington, DC to discuss what it was like working with a first time director, what they had playing on their iPods during shooting and what guys need to do to find their 10. They're two of the nicest girls I've ever met and yes, the interview began with Alice asking me if I wanted to do tequila shots. This is the unedited transcript.
Alice: You want to do tequila shots?
Let’s do it.
Krysten: I’d do it in a heartbeat.
Krysten: We’ve been touring incessantly and we haven’t been sleeping either. They give us about five hours off at night.
Alice: You can see how George Clooney ends up having those weird comebacks can’t you? Because he’s on it all the time.
Krysten: I can see now why people get hospitalized for exhaustion.
Alice: Totally.
[Both laugh]
Have either of you ever dated someone you’d consider out of your league or a guy that others would consider that you were out of his league?
Krysten: I’ve dated people who others have thought that maybe I was out of his league, but I didn’t think so and now I’m currently dating somebody who is out of my league. [Alice and her boyfriend] are on equal footing. They’re both really hot.
Alice: I think he’s out of my league. He’s cleverer than me.
So you’re both dating someone you’d both consider out of your league. That’s interesting. Is that something that drew you two to the movie, to live through the characters?
Alice: No because we both have to date down in the movie. [Laughs]
Krysten: Well, we both audition when things are around and they come to you and you audition for them. Hopefully you book them and they work with your schedule. That’s pretty much how the process was.
For this movie, you were working with a first time director and Jay Baruchel, who is usually relegated to supporting roles. Was there any hesitance going in knowing this or did you have faith in the material?
Alice: Oh, I love first time directors. I love first time directors because you never know what you’re going to get and if you were able to work with that director on his first outing and it turns out to be a star director, which I think Jim will be, then it’s great. New talent, that’s what I was until about 30 seconds ago, so you can’t be snooty about that, you know what I mean?
Krysten: It can go either way for first time directors.
Alice: But it can go either way for established directors too.
Krysten: Yeah, but I feel like with first time directors, sometimes they’re not confident and they’re worried about cast mutiny and they overcompensate.
Alice: Right, but any of those worries were left behind by the fact that we had a heavy hand with Dreamworks and Mosaic so we were protected if that ended up being a problem.
Krysten: And doing a big studio film with a first time director doesn’t matter as much as an indie film or TV because there are so many other voices. We were all in similar places in our careers and I think in the cast, you sort of recognize people, you’ve sort of seen them before, but it was pretty much like everybody was on equal footing which was cool.
You’ve both done dramatic roles, so what brought you to this romantic comedy?
Krysten: It seemed like a special script and it was funny. It’s nice to laugh at your job. [Turns to Alice] Are you going to make out with me? I feel like you’re uncomfortably close to my face. [Laughs]
You two are so giddy around each other.
Krysten: We have a good time. We’re real life friends.
And you could see that onscreen. Did you two connect right away or did it take some time?
Alice: She really pushed for it. [Laughs] Eventually it worked.
Krysten: Yeah, she’s really hard to get along with. She offends people all day long and you kind of want to walk away.
I’ve been offended this whole time. You two disgust me.
Alice: Oh God! [Laughs]
Krysten: No, we had a good time. She was already cast and I was brought in to chemistry read with her and that’s how it worked out.
Alice: You know, casting directors have a very specific and quite intricate job in casting whether it’s male/female leads or female/female, male/male leads now in these buddy comedies and their job is to imagine who would be friends and I think Allison Jones, who casted this movie, is excellent at her job. She cast all the Apatow movies.
Krysten: She cast Knocked Up and Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Alice: I think that you would believe that all the boys in our movie had hung out for a decade. It’s hard to get a friendship thing between guys and she did that. They didn’t know each other either.
In their scenes together, like you were saying, they do gel well together. They seemed like they were improvising a lot. Was there a lot of that going on?
Krysten: Yeah, in pretty much every scene there is some improvising.
Alice: And also, we had two weeks rehearsal so there was a lot of kind of, “finding it,” during that period and then that was written into the script and then we improvised it on the day as well.
Krysten: And you do a lot of alternate takes. If you see a joke in the movie, you can pretty much bet there were six or seven other versions. I mean, you have to do the script version, but once you’ve got that then you do other versions.
So what about in the trailer when you say “Shut the hell up” as opposed to “Shut the fuck up” in the movie?
Krysten: Well, what we did was we shot an R rated version and a TV version. When we were making the movie, we didn’t know if it was going to be R rated or PG-13, so we had two versions.
Alice: There were a lot of conversations about that going on while we were making it.
Krysten: So we had to say “crap” and “shut up,” you know, really safe versions that aren’t that fun.
I’m glad you went with the R rating.
Alice: Yeah, I know, it makes such a difference. We love it. We’re so proud of it and that’s why we’re doing this. I think the fact that it’s an R movie is what makes it a good movie.
Alice, your parents in the movie were played by your actual parents. Have you ever acted with them before?
Alice: No, I haven’t. It was an honor and a privilege to be able to work with them because my dad is a great actor in England and my mom does a lot of theater. Dreamworks said, “Would you like your parents to play your parents?” I called my mom and I was like, “Do you want to play my mom?” She said yes, so I asked “Do you think dad does?” She said, “I’m going to work on it.” He has a busy schedule, but eventually he came around, he came out and we had a great time.
I read online that you’re in a band Krysten.
Krysten: Yeah, I’m in a band called Ex Vivian. I’ve been doing that for a while. In fact, when we were shooting this movie, I recorded four or five new songs in my hotel bathroom.
Alice: [Singing] I just go where the pretty girls go.
Are you in a certain genre? Are you inspired by any other bands?
Krysten: Well, I have my favorites like Jesus and Mary Chain and Cat Power I think are on the top of that list, but I also like country music so I think it’s all influenced by that. Mostly, I’m always influenced by my environment and the people around me.
You seem like a punk rock girl to me.
Krysten: Yeah, I know but I’m not really. I’m not really hardcore in any way. I’m punk rock in spirit, but not in sound.
What did you two have playing on your iPod’s during shooting?
Alice: The XX, Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, Neil Young…
Krysten: You’re just listing everything we listened to yesterday! [Laughs]
Alice: Well, we agreed!
Krysten: Yeah, we picked the same ones yesterday. Creedence Clearwater Revival, Kings of Leon.
Alice: A little bit of Jay-Z, a little bit of T.I., a little bit of Drake.
Krysten: Like I said, Cat Power, Jesus and Mary Chain, the Stone Roses, the Strokes, Interpol. You know, the basics.
I was told I had to ask you about the premature ejaculation scene and what the semen was made of.
Alice: It was pâté. What we did was we had the dog, and as you saw, the dog had to lick it, so in order to get the dog to lick it--and it was a big dog that had a temper--we had to keep putting this pâté on the patch.
Krysten: Like dog pâté?
Alice: No, human pâté. You know that duck pâté has a strong odor, so the smell of this dribbling, dog licking duck pâté was awful.
Krysten: How did he have a temper? I want to hear about that.
Alice: He was just grumpy, you know and he had moods. After a few takes, he’d be like [imitates a growling dog]. [Laughs]
Alice, your chemistry with Jay in the movie is really good. Considering that you’re the hard 10 hot girl and he’s the mediocre, skinny…
Alice: He’s not though. He’s not an unattractive guy.
No, I think he’s beautiful.
Alice: [Laughs] He’s tall, he’s nice, he’s charming, he’s clean.
Did that chemistry just naturally come through?
Alice: I guess so. We heard very early on that we had good chemistry. It’s sort of an ethereal thing. It’s not something you can control. You either have it or you don’t and I’m glad we had it.
How awkward was that scene where you and he had to strip down? I imagine that would be pretty intimidating for him.
Alice: You both have a job to make each other feel comfortable. His job is to not make me feel insecure and my job is to not make him feel insecure and I think we both did our best in that. You know, it is nerve-wracking to drop your dress in that kind of situation and I think we worked hard to make each other feel comfortable. He’s a good actor.
Do you think that chemistry also came as a result of casting?
Alice: We didn’t chemistry read interestingly enough. They just cast us. He was already cast and then they cast me and I guess we had a kind of boundary relationship off screen, so there was already an established connection between us.
What’s on the horizon for you two?
Alice: I have Sex and the City 2 coming out in May.
Krysten: I’ve got a new show called Gravity on Starz about suicide. I also have a movie coming out later this year called Killing Bono about the rise of U2 and the music scene in the 80’s in England. It’s totally rad. And I’m starring in Amy Heckerling’s next movie called Vamps. She did Clueless.
Well, being the two beautiful ladies that you are, what advice would you give all of the fives of the world if they want to find their 10?
Krysten: Be confident and funny. Show girls a good time.
Alice: Fix things when they break.
Alice: You want to do tequila shots?
Let’s do it.
Krysten: I’d do it in a heartbeat.
Krysten: We’ve been touring incessantly and we haven’t been sleeping either. They give us about five hours off at night.
Alice: You can see how George Clooney ends up having those weird comebacks can’t you? Because he’s on it all the time.
Krysten: I can see now why people get hospitalized for exhaustion.
Alice: Totally.
[Both laugh]
Have either of you ever dated someone you’d consider out of your league or a guy that others would consider that you were out of his league?
Krysten: I’ve dated people who others have thought that maybe I was out of his league, but I didn’t think so and now I’m currently dating somebody who is out of my league. [Alice and her boyfriend] are on equal footing. They’re both really hot.
Alice: I think he’s out of my league. He’s cleverer than me.
So you’re both dating someone you’d both consider out of your league. That’s interesting. Is that something that drew you two to the movie, to live through the characters?
Alice: No because we both have to date down in the movie. [Laughs]
Krysten: Well, we both audition when things are around and they come to you and you audition for them. Hopefully you book them and they work with your schedule. That’s pretty much how the process was.
For this movie, you were working with a first time director and Jay Baruchel, who is usually relegated to supporting roles. Was there any hesitance going in knowing this or did you have faith in the material?
Alice: Oh, I love first time directors. I love first time directors because you never know what you’re going to get and if you were able to work with that director on his first outing and it turns out to be a star director, which I think Jim will be, then it’s great. New talent, that’s what I was until about 30 seconds ago, so you can’t be snooty about that, you know what I mean?
Krysten: It can go either way for first time directors.
Alice: But it can go either way for established directors too.
Krysten: Yeah, but I feel like with first time directors, sometimes they’re not confident and they’re worried about cast mutiny and they overcompensate.
Alice: Right, but any of those worries were left behind by the fact that we had a heavy hand with Dreamworks and Mosaic so we were protected if that ended up being a problem.
Krysten: And doing a big studio film with a first time director doesn’t matter as much as an indie film or TV because there are so many other voices. We were all in similar places in our careers and I think in the cast, you sort of recognize people, you’ve sort of seen them before, but it was pretty much like everybody was on equal footing which was cool.
You’ve both done dramatic roles, so what brought you to this romantic comedy?
Krysten: It seemed like a special script and it was funny. It’s nice to laugh at your job. [Turns to Alice] Are you going to make out with me? I feel like you’re uncomfortably close to my face. [Laughs]
You two are so giddy around each other.
Krysten: We have a good time. We’re real life friends.
And you could see that onscreen. Did you two connect right away or did it take some time?
Alice: She really pushed for it. [Laughs] Eventually it worked.
Krysten: Yeah, she’s really hard to get along with. She offends people all day long and you kind of want to walk away.
I’ve been offended this whole time. You two disgust me.
Alice: Oh God! [Laughs]
Krysten: No, we had a good time. She was already cast and I was brought in to chemistry read with her and that’s how it worked out.
Alice: You know, casting directors have a very specific and quite intricate job in casting whether it’s male/female leads or female/female, male/male leads now in these buddy comedies and their job is to imagine who would be friends and I think Allison Jones, who casted this movie, is excellent at her job. She cast all the Apatow movies.
Krysten: She cast Knocked Up and Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Alice: I think that you would believe that all the boys in our movie had hung out for a decade. It’s hard to get a friendship thing between guys and she did that. They didn’t know each other either.
In their scenes together, like you were saying, they do gel well together. They seemed like they were improvising a lot. Was there a lot of that going on?
Krysten: Yeah, in pretty much every scene there is some improvising.
Alice: And also, we had two weeks rehearsal so there was a lot of kind of, “finding it,” during that period and then that was written into the script and then we improvised it on the day as well.
Krysten: And you do a lot of alternate takes. If you see a joke in the movie, you can pretty much bet there were six or seven other versions. I mean, you have to do the script version, but once you’ve got that then you do other versions.
So what about in the trailer when you say “Shut the hell up” as opposed to “Shut the fuck up” in the movie?
Krysten: Well, what we did was we shot an R rated version and a TV version. When we were making the movie, we didn’t know if it was going to be R rated or PG-13, so we had two versions.
Alice: There were a lot of conversations about that going on while we were making it.
Krysten: So we had to say “crap” and “shut up,” you know, really safe versions that aren’t that fun.
I’m glad you went with the R rating.
Alice: Yeah, I know, it makes such a difference. We love it. We’re so proud of it and that’s why we’re doing this. I think the fact that it’s an R movie is what makes it a good movie.
Alice, your parents in the movie were played by your actual parents. Have you ever acted with them before?
Alice: No, I haven’t. It was an honor and a privilege to be able to work with them because my dad is a great actor in England and my mom does a lot of theater. Dreamworks said, “Would you like your parents to play your parents?” I called my mom and I was like, “Do you want to play my mom?” She said yes, so I asked “Do you think dad does?” She said, “I’m going to work on it.” He has a busy schedule, but eventually he came around, he came out and we had a great time.
I read online that you’re in a band Krysten.
Krysten: Yeah, I’m in a band called Ex Vivian. I’ve been doing that for a while. In fact, when we were shooting this movie, I recorded four or five new songs in my hotel bathroom.
Alice: [Singing] I just go where the pretty girls go.
Are you in a certain genre? Are you inspired by any other bands?
Krysten: Well, I have my favorites like Jesus and Mary Chain and Cat Power I think are on the top of that list, but I also like country music so I think it’s all influenced by that. Mostly, I’m always influenced by my environment and the people around me.
You seem like a punk rock girl to me.
Krysten: Yeah, I know but I’m not really. I’m not really hardcore in any way. I’m punk rock in spirit, but not in sound.
What did you two have playing on your iPod’s during shooting?
Alice: The XX, Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, Neil Young…
Krysten: You’re just listing everything we listened to yesterday! [Laughs]
Alice: Well, we agreed!
Krysten: Yeah, we picked the same ones yesterday. Creedence Clearwater Revival, Kings of Leon.
Alice: A little bit of Jay-Z, a little bit of T.I., a little bit of Drake.
Krysten: Like I said, Cat Power, Jesus and Mary Chain, the Stone Roses, the Strokes, Interpol. You know, the basics.
I was told I had to ask you about the premature ejaculation scene and what the semen was made of.
Alice: It was pâté. What we did was we had the dog, and as you saw, the dog had to lick it, so in order to get the dog to lick it--and it was a big dog that had a temper--we had to keep putting this pâté on the patch.
Krysten: Like dog pâté?
Alice: No, human pâté. You know that duck pâté has a strong odor, so the smell of this dribbling, dog licking duck pâté was awful.
Krysten: How did he have a temper? I want to hear about that.
Alice: He was just grumpy, you know and he had moods. After a few takes, he’d be like [imitates a growling dog]. [Laughs]
Alice, your chemistry with Jay in the movie is really good. Considering that you’re the hard 10 hot girl and he’s the mediocre, skinny…
Alice: He’s not though. He’s not an unattractive guy.
No, I think he’s beautiful.
Alice: [Laughs] He’s tall, he’s nice, he’s charming, he’s clean.
Did that chemistry just naturally come through?
Alice: I guess so. We heard very early on that we had good chemistry. It’s sort of an ethereal thing. It’s not something you can control. You either have it or you don’t and I’m glad we had it.
How awkward was that scene where you and he had to strip down? I imagine that would be pretty intimidating for him.
Alice: You both have a job to make each other feel comfortable. His job is to not make me feel insecure and my job is to not make him feel insecure and I think we both did our best in that. You know, it is nerve-wracking to drop your dress in that kind of situation and I think we worked hard to make each other feel comfortable. He’s a good actor.
Do you think that chemistry also came as a result of casting?
Alice: We didn’t chemistry read interestingly enough. They just cast us. He was already cast and then they cast me and I guess we had a kind of boundary relationship off screen, so there was already an established connection between us.
What’s on the horizon for you two?
Alice: I have Sex and the City 2 coming out in May.
Krysten: I’ve got a new show called Gravity on Starz about suicide. I also have a movie coming out later this year called Killing Bono about the rise of U2 and the music scene in the 80’s in England. It’s totally rad. And I’m starring in Amy Heckerling’s next movie called Vamps. She did Clueless.
Well, being the two beautiful ladies that you are, what advice would you give all of the fives of the world if they want to find their 10?
Krysten: Be confident and funny. Show girls a good time.
Alice: Fix things when they break.
Labels:
Alice Eve,
Krysten Ritter,
She's Out of My League
She's Out of My League Ignorant of Reality
My father once told me of a game he used to play with my uncle before I was born. Every year, my family would head to the beach and my dad would sit with beer in hand and rate passing women on their looks. He used a scale of 1-10 and would debate with my uncle over who was the best looking. My dad never was the classy type.
She’s Out of My League deconstructs this game, though perhaps “deconstruct” is not the right word, as that would imply the film has an air of intelligence around it. It does not.
You see, Kirk, played by Jay Baruchel, is a five. He is a lanky, skinny, nerdy type of guy that looks at a beautiful girl and immediately dismisses his chances with her. That is until Molly, played by the beautiful Alice Eve, accidentally stumbles into his life. She is, as his friends put it, “a hard 10,” and we all know a 10 like her could never find love with a five. Kirk is already pessimistic and self-conscious of himself and his friends only play into those fears, which could end up ruining his relationship with Alice.
There might not be much to recommend here, but I can say this. She’s Out of My League gives hope to all of the fives of the world. It tells them that they are tens in the eyes of the one that loves them, which is a nice change of pace regardless of how cheesy that message is. However, it also says that all men are womanizing meatheads that cannot function normally when a pretty girl is around.
When Molly walks in a room, every male in sight goes googly eyed and ogles her like a Thanksgiving turkey. While the actress certainly is a gorgeous woman, as a man, I found it kind of insulting that the movie insinuates our general lack of control when pretty women are around, suggesting that we have two heads and aren’t using the one with a brain in it.
Nevertheless, whatever analogous analyzation I may be finding here should be overshadowed by laughs. Unfortunately, this thing rarely elicits much from its tired premise. While Baruchel has been likable as a supporting role in movies such as Knocked Up and Tropic Thunder, he isn't much of a leading man. He's hardly compelling and his nasally voice eventually proves grating on the nerves. It’s tough not to feel sympathy for his pathetic character, seeing as how, let’s face it, the majority of us are fives like him, but he doesn’t have enough charisma to work this movie through to its conclusion.
With contrived attempts at creating drama and the only laughs coming from a character nicknamed Stainer, who adopted the moniker due to his weak bladder as a child, She’s Out of My League is little more than another run-of-the-mill teen comedy that lives in a world where beautiful women actually look on the inside before they see the stained teeth, puss filled pimples and giant gut on the outside. What a world that must be.
She's Out of My League receives 1.5/5
She’s Out of My League deconstructs this game, though perhaps “deconstruct” is not the right word, as that would imply the film has an air of intelligence around it. It does not.
You see, Kirk, played by Jay Baruchel, is a five. He is a lanky, skinny, nerdy type of guy that looks at a beautiful girl and immediately dismisses his chances with her. That is until Molly, played by the beautiful Alice Eve, accidentally stumbles into his life. She is, as his friends put it, “a hard 10,” and we all know a 10 like her could never find love with a five. Kirk is already pessimistic and self-conscious of himself and his friends only play into those fears, which could end up ruining his relationship with Alice.
There might not be much to recommend here, but I can say this. She’s Out of My League gives hope to all of the fives of the world. It tells them that they are tens in the eyes of the one that loves them, which is a nice change of pace regardless of how cheesy that message is. However, it also says that all men are womanizing meatheads that cannot function normally when a pretty girl is around.
When Molly walks in a room, every male in sight goes googly eyed and ogles her like a Thanksgiving turkey. While the actress certainly is a gorgeous woman, as a man, I found it kind of insulting that the movie insinuates our general lack of control when pretty women are around, suggesting that we have two heads and aren’t using the one with a brain in it.
Nevertheless, whatever analogous analyzation I may be finding here should be overshadowed by laughs. Unfortunately, this thing rarely elicits much from its tired premise. While Baruchel has been likable as a supporting role in movies such as Knocked Up and Tropic Thunder, he isn't much of a leading man. He's hardly compelling and his nasally voice eventually proves grating on the nerves. It’s tough not to feel sympathy for his pathetic character, seeing as how, let’s face it, the majority of us are fives like him, but he doesn’t have enough charisma to work this movie through to its conclusion.
With contrived attempts at creating drama and the only laughs coming from a character nicknamed Stainer, who adopted the moniker due to his weak bladder as a child, She’s Out of My League is little more than another run-of-the-mill teen comedy that lives in a world where beautiful women actually look on the inside before they see the stained teeth, puss filled pimples and giant gut on the outside. What a world that must be.
She's Out of My League receives 1.5/5
Green Zone Another Bush Bash
I have a philosophy of not judging movies based on what they're about. Whether I agree or disagree with the subject matter, I try to look at it on its own artistic merit. With that said, I'm only human and am naturally drawn to things that reinforce my beliefs. But sometimes, a movie arrives too late to the party to have any real significance and I find myself distanced from the message despite my agreeance with it. Such is the case with Green Zone.
The film takes place in the early days of the Iraq war, in March of 2003. Matt Damon plays Miller, a soldier in charge of finding weapons of mass destruction. Despite the intel that tells them where to go, he and his squad have come up empty handed multiple times. He begins to get frustrated going on these wild goose chases that are putting him and his men in danger only to find nothing, so he confronts Clark Poundstone, played by Greg Kinnear, head of Pentagon Special Intelligence, who assures him that the weapons are indeed out there and they will find them. Nevertheless, something seems fishy and he begins to suspect the war in Iraq was started unjustifiably. With the help of CIA chief Brown, played by Brendan Gleeson, he hopes to uncover the true reason he is there.
Iraq war movies are no strangers to the film community. Stop Loss, In the Valley of Elah, and the recent Best Picture Oscar winner The Hurt Locker all have explored the war in different ways, some delving into the manipulative ways our government can keep our soldiers active despite their military term ending while others have explored the affects war has on those fighting. They are focused, meaningful and bring up important issues that the public may not be aware about. Green Zone is the opposite. It's a two hour Bush bash with the oft-heard message, "America entered into Iraq on false pretenses," thanks to our inability to find WMD's. Anyone familiar with the goings-on of the world already knows we were unable to find the weapons, so this becomes little more than an exercise in the blame game that tries to remind us how we got involved to begin with. I feel much about this the way I did about the economic downturn. Some blamed President Clinton, some blamed President Bush, but whose fault it was seemed unnecessary to me. Let's just fix it.
The message, however important it may be, is too late to the game. Had this been released three or four years ago, its impact would be hard to ignore, but now it seems like a childish indictment of a man many conservatives have even come to dislike. It is necessary to know how we got to Iraq, what mistakes we made along the way and how we can avoid them in the future, but dwelling on how we got there isn't as important right now as focusing on how to get out.
Director Paul Greengrass, the man behind The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, directs this in a similar style, the nauseating 'can-you-not-hold-still-for-one-second?' shaky cam style. As solid as his film's are, he has a tendency to go a little overboard with it and by the end, I was queasy and my head was pounding. It felt like somebody had been chipping away at my skull with a chisel for two hours. There's a fine line between using the shaky cam technique for realism and overdoing it to the point where you remind your audience they're watching a movie. When you cut to a man typing at a computer and the camera is still shaking back and forth like its mounted on somebody's shoulder, it's doing the opposite of its intended purpose.
I have many a problem with Green Zone, but in the end I'm still going to give it my seal of approval. Regardless of its relentless shakes and the message arriving a few years too late, it's often exciting, always entertaining and Matt Damon, as usual, is rock solid as the lead, giving another award worthy performance. Unfortunately, it's too worried about further crippling Bush's reputation to be bothered with saying something relevant.
Green Zone receives 2.5/5
The film takes place in the early days of the Iraq war, in March of 2003. Matt Damon plays Miller, a soldier in charge of finding weapons of mass destruction. Despite the intel that tells them where to go, he and his squad have come up empty handed multiple times. He begins to get frustrated going on these wild goose chases that are putting him and his men in danger only to find nothing, so he confronts Clark Poundstone, played by Greg Kinnear, head of Pentagon Special Intelligence, who assures him that the weapons are indeed out there and they will find them. Nevertheless, something seems fishy and he begins to suspect the war in Iraq was started unjustifiably. With the help of CIA chief Brown, played by Brendan Gleeson, he hopes to uncover the true reason he is there.
Iraq war movies are no strangers to the film community. Stop Loss, In the Valley of Elah, and the recent Best Picture Oscar winner The Hurt Locker all have explored the war in different ways, some delving into the manipulative ways our government can keep our soldiers active despite their military term ending while others have explored the affects war has on those fighting. They are focused, meaningful and bring up important issues that the public may not be aware about. Green Zone is the opposite. It's a two hour Bush bash with the oft-heard message, "America entered into Iraq on false pretenses," thanks to our inability to find WMD's. Anyone familiar with the goings-on of the world already knows we were unable to find the weapons, so this becomes little more than an exercise in the blame game that tries to remind us how we got involved to begin with. I feel much about this the way I did about the economic downturn. Some blamed President Clinton, some blamed President Bush, but whose fault it was seemed unnecessary to me. Let's just fix it.
The message, however important it may be, is too late to the game. Had this been released three or four years ago, its impact would be hard to ignore, but now it seems like a childish indictment of a man many conservatives have even come to dislike. It is necessary to know how we got to Iraq, what mistakes we made along the way and how we can avoid them in the future, but dwelling on how we got there isn't as important right now as focusing on how to get out.
Director Paul Greengrass, the man behind The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, directs this in a similar style, the nauseating 'can-you-not-hold-still-for-one-second?' shaky cam style. As solid as his film's are, he has a tendency to go a little overboard with it and by the end, I was queasy and my head was pounding. It felt like somebody had been chipping away at my skull with a chisel for two hours. There's a fine line between using the shaky cam technique for realism and overdoing it to the point where you remind your audience they're watching a movie. When you cut to a man typing at a computer and the camera is still shaking back and forth like its mounted on somebody's shoulder, it's doing the opposite of its intended purpose.
I have many a problem with Green Zone, but in the end I'm still going to give it my seal of approval. Regardless of its relentless shakes and the message arriving a few years too late, it's often exciting, always entertaining and Matt Damon, as usual, is rock solid as the lead, giving another award worthy performance. Unfortunately, it's too worried about further crippling Bush's reputation to be bothered with saying something relevant.
Green Zone receives 2.5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)