Josh Hylton

The Joneses a Thought Provoking Satire

2010-04-16T00:01:00.012-04:00

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

Death at a Funeral Remake a Poor Imitator of the Original

2010-04-16T00:01:00.009-04:00

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

2010-04-16T00:01:00.007-04:00

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

Carell and Fey Find Excitement in Date Night

2010-04-09T13:58:00.008-04:00

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

The Runaways a Familiar Biopic

2010-04-09T00:01:00.011-04:00

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

Interview with Jeffrey Johnson, Star of Letters to God

2010-04-09T00:01:00.010-04:00

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.

Clash of the Titans an Unbridled 3D Mess

2010-04-02T00:01:00.003-04:00

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

The Last Song Crippled By Hammy Ending

2010-04-01T01:55:00.007-04:00

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

How to Train Your Dragon is High Flying Excitement

2010-03-26T15:07:00.006-04:00

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

Interview with Ben Stiller, Noah Baumbach and James Murphy

2010-03-26T00:02:00.000-04:00

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.

Hot Tub Time Machine a Fun, Dopey Comedy

2010-03-26T00:01:00.007-04:00

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

Interview with Clark Duke, Star of Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-03-26T00:01:00.001-04:00

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.

The Bounty Hunter Should Turn Itself in for Stupidity

2010-03-19T03:26:00.007-04:00

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

Repo Men a Guilty Pleasure

2010-03-19T00:01:00.000-04:00

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

Alice Eve and Krysten Ritter Interview

2010-03-12T00:04:00.000-05:00

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.

She's Out of My League Ignorant of Reality

2010-03-12T00:03:00.000-05:00

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

Green Zone Another Bush Bash

2010-03-12T00:01:00.005-05:00

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

Brooklyn's Finest an Evil Justifier

2010-03-05T16:00:00.007-05:00

It's been eight years since director Antoine Fuqua brought us Training Day, the gritty crime drama that netted Denzel Washington his second Oscar. In between that terrific film, he has helmed a few pictures that have been hit and miss among fans and critics, Tears of the Sun and Shooter among them. Now it seems as if he's trying to strike gold twice with Brooklyn's Finest, which can only be described as Training Day-lite. While this movie deals with some similar issues (and even goes so far as to cast Denzel's counterpart in that film, Ethan Hawke), it's unfocused, meandering and it tries to justify evil if the end result is good, which I would hope any moral, upstanding citizen could see the hypocrisy in.

The film follows a number of cops as they deal with crime in Brooklyn. Hawke plays Sal, a dirty cop trying to pay for a new home for his family, Richard Gere plays Eddie, a suicidal police officer only a week away from retirement, and Don Cheadle plays Tango, an undercover cop who finds himself struggling with his allegiance because he has a duty to bring down the bad guys, but one of those bad men by the name of Caz, played by Wesley Snipes, previously saved his life and he refuses to bust him. A dirty cop, an undercover cop and a cop one week away from retirement. It's three cliches rolled into one.

The three stories do intersect at times, however rarely that may be, but I suspect the physical intersections are not the crutch of the movie, but rather the way each character's emotions get in the way of their true goals. In that regard, they all find themselves in the same boat, yet their stories play out so differently that that argument would be hard to make.

The most irksome part of Brooklyn's Finest, however, is its portrayal of these men as good men despite the evil things they have done or, in some cases, are doing. As previously mentioned, Sal can't afford a new home for his family. He has a wife and a couple of children and twins are on the way. The house they live in is encompassed with rotting wood and his wife's lungs are working three times the amount they should be due to her asthma and her breathing in mold. He needs to get them out of there. I understood this hardship and I felt for him, but the way he gets things done is inexcusable. He murders drug runners and steals their money. The film tries to make the case that there's nothing else this man can do and besides, he's killing bad guys so it's ok, right?

Eddie, on the other hand, is a cop who turns the other way when bad things go down. Early in the movie, he's on patrol with a rookie cop and the young man tries to break up a dispute between a feuding couple after the man slaps the woman. This is the right thing to do, but Eddie pulls him away and they drive off. He tells him to think nothing of it and just go home. Of course, Eddie has a change of heart by the end of the movie, but one good action does not forgive his years of neglection.

This happens with damn near every character. The film puts them on a pedestal and tries to rationalize their way of being. It doesn't work and instead of feeling for the hardships these characters are going through, I ended up loathing them all. None deserved my sympathy.

I suppose Brooklyn's Finest is technically a well made film. Fuqua directs it competently and the performances, though hit and miss at times, are far from bad, but its the twisted vindication the picture gives each character that really derails it. It tries to ask questions about what is considered right and wrong, but what's right and wrong doesn't change simply because the situation you're in calls for it to. Wrong is wrong no matter the predicament.

Brooklyn's Finest receives 2/5

Alice in Wonderland an Enchanting Treat

2010-03-05T00:01:00.008-05:00

When director Tim Burton and Golden Globe award winner Johnny Depp team up for a film, the result is always magical. From 1990's Edward Scissorhands to the 2007 masterpiece Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, the two have been more or less successful in every picture they've made together. Now uniting again for the seventh time, Depp and Burton have created an enchanting tale in Alice in Wonderland. Working more as a sequel to the title story (following the 1951 Disney animated feature closer than any other) rather than another iteration in itself, the film creates a fantastical world that feels alive and is brimming with imagination. It is a must see.

The film begins in the real world with Alice as a young girl (played by Mairi Ella Challen at this age). She tells her father that she thinks she's going mad because of a recurring dream she is having, but he tells her that some of the best people are mad. Flash forward thirteen years later and Alice is a young adult (played by Mia Wasikowska) and on her way to a party where she is asked for her hand in marriage by a gentleman she does not love. As he asks her, in front of seemingly hundreds of people no less, she spots a white rabbit (voiced by Michael Sheen) and she chases after it, only to fall down a hole into Wonderland. She quickly meets a colorful cast of characters including Tweedledee and Tweedledum (both played by Matt Lucas), Cheshire Cat (voiced by Stephen Fry), and of course, the Mad Hatter (played by Johnny Depp). She swears she's never been there before despite their insistence that she has. They believe she has come back to stop the evil Red Queen (played by Helena Bonham Carter) and take down her jabberwocky, a giant mythical beast, thus giving power of the land back to her sister, the kind White Queen (played by Anne Hathaway).

Alice in Wonderland is a timeless story and no matter whether you've read its source material, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," or seen one of the dozens of adaptations of it (including a 1976 porn version that, unfortunately, I've yet to get my hands on), you should be familiar with the gist of it, but you've never seen it like this. Alice's trip down the rabbit hole begins much like it usually does, with Alice growing taller and shrinking smaller before finally making it through the tiny door too little for her to crawl through, but Burton takes the rest of the film down a completely different path, one met with an unabashed amount of wonderment and a strong sense of peril, two things its previous Disney counterpart was missing.

That 1951 animated movie looked good, but was bogged down by poor musical numbers and a story that went nowhere. Alice's adventure never took a deeper meaning other than her desire to live in a more illusory world where she wouldn't succumb to boredom. This modern update--or more accurately labeled sequel--thankfully does more and you do feel like Alice has a purpose in this world. (Not to mention it does away with the singing.)

Still, I will admit that much like previous iterations, the story isn't as interesting as simply looking at the lush visuals on display. You may brush the story off as nonsense, but you'll still sit there in bewilderment at the film's artistry. It's bedazzling in a way that makes you feel like a kid again because the world you're looking at could only be realized by someone with a childlike sensibility, of which Burton, however dark it may be, has in spades. Every frame fills each corner of the screen with something remarkable to look at and the 3D makes it pop. The extra dimension gives added depth to an already stunning landscape, rarely resorting to the annoying things-flying-at-your-face gimmick too many 3D films employ.

Each character in the movie is wonderfully well rounded with distinct personalities and Burton juggles them perfectly, giving you enough time to meet and like (or hate) them. Depp, as great as an actor as he is, does not overpower the film because he's working with solid material (unlike Public Enemies where he was forced to work with mediocrity) and the actors around him do more than a capable job of playing against him. Wasikowska, who plays the titular character, does a particularly excellent job in her first starring role. I see big things on her horizon and much how Edward Scissorhands catapulted Depp into the spotlight, I expect Wasikowska to start gaining exposure after her star turn in this.

As better as this is when compared to the 1951 Disney animated version, it could have followed its footsteps in one regard. In that film, Alice quickly lands in Wonderland and when she finds her way out, the movie ends almost immediately. It never bothers with real world back story. This does a bit too much. I could have done without the real world affairs and found the whole engagement story to be a distraction. Although I like how she relates the people she knows in the real world to the zany creatures in Wonderland, it adds nothing in the way of depth.

That quibble aside, Alice in Wonderland is a real treat and will best be enjoyed by those still with the ability to dream and believe in the impossible.

Alice in Wonderland receives 4.5/5

Cop Out a Painful Comedy

2010-02-26T13:03:00.009-05:00

Never before have I walked out of a movie and felt so bad for the people involved in its production. Cop Out is one of those films where you look at the talent and find it hard to believe that they actually think it's good. Kevin Smith, director of such films as Clerks, Mallrats, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Zack and Miri Make a Porno, helms this travesty, marking his debut directing a movie not written by him. If Cop Out is any indication, he needs to stick to his own stuff. It's only February, but I'm confident this train wreck will be on my worst of the year list.

The film is a humorous (a word I use very loosely here) take on the buddy cop action picture, akin to movies like 48 Hours and Lethal Weapon. But where those oozed with style and provided laughs despite not necessarily being comedies, Cop Out fails miserably. In what is the worst onscreen pairing since Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez in Gigli, Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan play Jimmy and Paul, partners who have been together for nine years. Jimmy's daughter, played by Michelle Trachtenberg, is about to get married and wants a huge wedding, $50,000 huge. Jimmy is expected to pay for it, but he and Paul get suspended for a month without pay after a stakeout goes awry and a clerk at a local store gets murdered. Now, the only way to cough up that cash is to sell a rare baseball card he's had since his childhood. Unfortunately, he is assaulted and robbed of the card, which he quickly finds out is now in the hands of the gang suspected of murdering the store clerk, so he and Paul break the rules, as they always do in these types of movies, and set off to crack the case.

I struggled writing that synopsis. The actual movie isn't quite as clear cut. What I just detailed to you above makes more sense and has a better flow to it than the actual film itself. I left out the unnecessary side story about Paul's wife, played by Rashida Jones, and his suspicion that she's cheating on him. I also left out how inconsequential that opening murder is to the story. I even skipped over Jason Lee's part as Jimmy's daughter's new stepfather who is loaded with money and insists on paying for her wedding, which Jimmy's pride won't allow. Besides, he needs some type of motivation to track down the gang. The ruthless murder of an innocent man plays second fiddle to the recovery of that precious baseball card.

But the story's problems lie with more than just the lunacy of it all. It's told haphazardly, like a first time film student editing random scenes together, interrupting action scenes to interject a scene of exposition in the mix. I edited my college video project tighter than this mess.

Kevin Smith, who is solely responsible for the edit hack job, deserves berating for his poor direction as well. Somebody once said that Smith was the Quentin Tarantino of comedies because he can write amazing dialogue and create endearing characters that we want to spend time with. That is true and is the main reason his movies succeed. His directing skills, on the contrary, have never been anything to note, but you were able to ignore that based on his talent as a writer. This is the first film he has ever directed that he didn't write, which makes the lack of competent direction that much more noticeable. Watching him try to stage an action scene is like watching a cat play with a ball of yarn. Just as the cat swats at the ball, never grabbing hold, Smith reaches out and tries to latch onto something exciting, but never gets there. It doesn't take long for that cat's ball to unravel. Smith's action scenes fall apart even faster.

What really kills Cop Out, however, is its utter lack of laughs. The dialogue is missing that Kevin Smith touch and each and every joke crashes down faster than a fat kid's face into pie. The leads have zero chemistry together and Morgan in particular is insufferable. I'll admit I've never liked the guy, but never has a dislike turned into hatred faster than it did here.

Cop Out is one of the most pointless movies I've seen in a long time and is easily the worst film of the year thus far. It pains me to say this because I adore Smith's previous work, but I've only scratched the surface of its problems. It's shocking how inept this production is and I can only hope that Smith looks back on this with a good heart and realizes what a mistake it turned out to be. If he has gotten to the point where he actually thinks this tripe is funny, then God help the future of comedy. We've lost a real talent.

Cop Out receives 0/5

The Crazies Another Lame Horror Movie

2010-02-26T00:02:00.000-05:00

When one thinks of horror master George Romero, it's only natural to recall films like Night of the Living Dead and its sequels Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead. He practically invented the zombie sub-genre by mixing gore with brilliant political and societal commentary. You may not, however, be aware of his lesser known directorial endeavors, including his 1973 turd bomb The Crazies. Now, nearly 30 years later, a remake has emerged and rightfully so. This is the type of movie that should be remade, one that had potential and an intriguing set-up, but failed to capitalize on it in any way. This 2010 version of The Crazies does indeed improve on its predecessor, yet it's still not good. You can polish crap all you want. In the end, it's still crap.

The film is set in a small Iowa town, a relatively quiet place that has never really had to deal with criminals, so much so that the sheriff, David (Timothy Olyphant), spends his days at local baseball games. One day at one of those games, a strange man walks in from the outfield with a shotgun and David shoots him dead. He assumes this was a one time thing, but odd actions begin to plague the citizens of the town and before he knows it, him and his wife, Judy (Radha Mitchell) are being quarantined off by the government. It turns out a plane carrying a biological weapon has crashed into their reservoir polluting their drinking water and turning everybody who drinks it stark raving mad. David and Judy are eventually separated because Judy is suspected of being infected, but instead of leaving quietly, David goes back to find her as the crazies break out of their camps and begin to wreak havoc on the town.

The Crazies is one of those movies that you walk out of in a state of bewilderment, impressed by its expertly crafted look, but baffled at the unstructured mess it became. What I mean to say is that this thing is shot with panache. In its own dark, macabre sort of way, the film is quite beautiful. The cinematography is second to none in the horror genre and each shot is bursting with creativity.

But all of that is wasted on a bare bones script and poorly executed jump tactics. Much like the majority of so called "horror" movies these days, The Crazies implements these jump scares like they're going out of style, each one more predictable than the last. I barely flinched, let alone jumped out of my seat. If I were wearing a heart monitor during my screening, I feel confident that it would have maintained a steady beat.

But what this thing really needed above all else was a decent script. It does nothing but move from horror set piece to horror set piece with little narrative arc. It moves so quickly from the morgue to the big empty house to the diner down the street and to the creepy, darkened shed with plenty of pointy objects just waiting to be impaled into somebody that it didn't feel so much like a movie as it did a haunted carnival ride.

This might not have been a bad thing had the film known how to carry itself. Look at Zombieland, for instance. That movie, much like this one, went from horror set piece to horror set piece with minimal narrative flow, but it knew what it was. It didn't care about story or scares, but rather on simply providing a damn fun time to its audience and it succeeded. The Crazies takes itself far too seriously and in its attempt to be scary, it falls face first to the ground, denying itself a chance to get back up again.

Like the original film, director Breck Eisner includes a commentary on biological warfare and the use of the military, but it's surrounded by so much useless bloodshed and idiocy that none of it seeps through. The only redeeming factor in all of The Crazies is the excellent visual style. With that style, which provides the appropriate tone for the movie, it's shocking to see how utterly void of scares this thing is. It may be more entertaining than the exposition filled snooze fest that was Romero's original, but that's kind of like saying a punch in the gut is better than one to the face. I'd rather not have either.

The Crazies receives 2/5

The Ghost Writer a Tonally Uneven Political Thriller

2010-02-26T00:01:00.009-05:00

It would be easy to start this review off with a summary of the troubles director Roman Polanski has faced over the years, condemning him for his actions, yet praising his cinematic work, but forget about all of that. The real question is: can this man still make a movie? Polanski, of Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist fame, returns with The Ghost Writer, a political thriller bursting with intrigue and political themes that eventually gets sidetracked by its muddled tone, bad humor and been-there-done-that final twist.

In case you're unaware, a ghost writer is a professional journalist who interviews somebody and writes their books for them. For instance, Bill Clinton's memoirs weren't necessarily written by him, but rather by another person who took what he said and turned it into prose. In the movie, Ewan McGregor plays one of these men, known only as the Ghost, and he is invited to write the memoirs of former British Prime Minister, Adam Lang, played by Pierce Brosnan, after his previous ghost writer was found washed up on shore. For a hefty fee of $250,000, the Ghost agrees to take the job and is quickly invited to live in Lang's house along with his wife, Ruth, played by Olivia Williams. While he is there, allegations of war crimes pop up on the news and the Ghost quickly realizes that there is more to this man's life than meets the eye.

Hot off the heels of Scorsese's umpteenth masterpiece Shutter Island, The Ghost Writer feels like a number of movies mishmashed into one. What should have been an airtight political thriller becomes too oversaturated with goofy humor and chase scenes in the latter half that sometimes make the proceedings feel more like National Treasure than All the President's Men. This journalist all of a sudden becomes an action bound, conspiracy unraveler who figures things out in a split second that the FBI wouldn't for months.

That's not to say I dislike humor and think all serious movies should be completely so, but the jokes in the film seem too self-knowing to really work in this context. At one point in the movie, the former Prime Minister's wife makes a joke about texting. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was a teen comedy. Later, the Ghost hops on a bike and his rear wheel sinks into the wet terrain he's traveling on, impeding his movement. This comes at a moment in the movie where he is finally starting to piece together what is happening and is heading off to the beach where the last ghost writer's body was found. I need not explain why that joke is out of place.

My main beef with the movie, however, comes not from its poor use of humor or its sagging back half brought on by a spike in the action, but rather from its piling on of foreboding. The tension doesn't always flow naturally as it should in a political thriller. More than a few lines of dialogue eerily forewarn of the Ghost's impending danger, like one where a character tells him not to turn left in his car or he "might never be heard from again." While this could be fine alone, this is not an isolated incident and moments like this occur throughout the movie. I never felt like I should care based on what I was seeing onscreen, but rather from the constant reminder that something bad was going to happen being shoved down my throat.

Nevertheless, The Ghost Writer raises some interesting themes of power, struggle and war crimes and relates them back to America, exploring our motives and questioning who really pulls the strings, but the provocative conversation that should have occurred on my car ride home became too focused on the glaring flaws to spark any real interest. Despite a solid recommendation, I find myself disappointed with The Ghost Writer, a film that seemed destined for greatness, but ends up a throwaway thriller with minor thrills and little else.

The Ghost Writer receives 3/5

Shutter Island Another Scorsese Masterpiece

2010-02-19T00:01:00.008-05:00

At the movies, actors are considered the most important to the viewing public because, hey, that's who they're seeing onscreen. Although they do offer considerable depth, films are made by dozens, sometimes hundreds of people. Most do their job off camera and receive little respect for it, even directors in most cases, but not Martin Scorsese. Perhaps the most notable of all living directors, Scorsese has crafted a body work unparalleled in the film world. From Taxi Driver to Goodfellas to The Departed, the man has routinely delivered solid work with films that are largely considered to be some of the greatest of all time. His genius still holds true with his latest effort, Shutter Island, based on the book by Dennis Lehane, a brilliant, haunting tale of morality and mentality that explores the difficulty of living through painful memories and what it means to accept them.

Leonardo DiCaprio is captivating as Teddy Daniels, a federal marshal on his way to Shutter Island, a land mass in Massachusetts where a mental institution rests. Along with his partner Chuck, played by Mark Ruffalo, he has been hired to find a missing patient who escaped the previous night. The head psychiatrist of the penitentiary is Dr. Cawley, played by Ben Kingsley, who explains to them that there's no logical explanation for her escape. Her cell door was locked from the outside and the only window is covered with bars. As he puts it, "It's as if she evaporated straight through the walls." After Teddy searches her room, he finds a note that simply says, "The law of 4" and "Who is 67?" As he finds clues, he discovers that not all is as it seems on the island.

However, things don't seem right within Teddy either. He is haunted by his troubled past and the atrocities he experienced in WWII a mere 10 years ago, he is having more and more vivid hallucinations of his dead wife, played by Michelle Williams, who burned up in a fire by a man supposedly held at this very institution and he is becoming increasingly weaker as time goes on. He has even been taking pills provided by the institution workers. Is he being drugged? Are they trying to keep Teddy there? If so, for what purpose? He sets out to find the answers, but must act quickly if he ever hopes to get off the island.

Appropriately, Shutter Island is like a book that you want to flip to the last page so you can see how it ends. The questions it raises linger and never go away, begging you to find the answers and I wanted nothing more than to skip to the end if only so I could finally find out what was happening. However, if I'm being honest, the ending isn't something that we've never seen. In fact, it's pretty common of any film that takes place in an insane asylum to naturally go this route, so yes, you'll probably figure out as you watch that only one of two endings are even possible and you'll be able to narrow it down to one with your knowledge of how movies generally work, but you'll nevertheless be shocked by its intricacies. It's not a simple case of that's that. It's more like a brain teaser, working in a way that even after you know the answer you have to think back and place the pieces in the correct slot.

Much of the astonishment from the ending comes from the terrific acting leading to it, though it would be impossible to delve into why some performances worked so well without giving away vital points of the story. While Ruffalo and Kingsley were great, as was Jackie Earle Haley in a particularly inspired cameo, DiCaprio steals the show. He plays a multi-layered individual dealing with heartache, fear, confusion and a sickness begun from the opening scene where he and his partner drift up to the island on a ferry that increases as time goes on. He mesmerizes in another award worthy performance, especially during the more emotional scenes. Nobody can cry like DiCaprio.

Of course, it's impossible to talk about a Scorsese picture without talking about the man's direction. As should be an obvious remark by now, Scorsese directs this picture with a style unseen in Hollywood. If you ask me, he actually tones it down a bit with Shutter Island, never forcing camera movements when it isn't prudent, but rather keeping a steady eye on what's going on, allowing his actors to do their jobs. His stylistic touch was fantastic from the simplest of shots to the recurring motif of flickering lights that can be analyzed in so many different ways you could write a term paper on it.

This is a tall claim to be throwing out when you're discussing a body of work as impressive as Scorsese's, but I believe Shutter Island may be one of his best. It's meaningful, enlightening, beautiful and intense all at the same time. It's one of those films that you walk out of and feel like watching again immediately. It's a testament to the skill of the talent involved and it shows that ingenuity still exists in an increasing Hollywood world of sequels and remakes.

There's one line of dialogue, the last one in the entire movie in fact, that set my brain racing. It's a line that has stuck with me ever since I've seen it and sparked discussion with those around me. It's a summation of the whole film and really gets to the core of life and the disparity between what can really be considered sane and insane, so I'll leave you with it to ponder over.

"Is it better to live as a monster or die as a good man?"

Shutter Island receives 5/5

Percy Jackson an Epic Family Fantasy

2010-02-14T01:30:00.009-05:00

I suppose we can thank good 'ol Harry for this. Due to the success of the Harry Potter franchise, we now have a countless number of books being adapted to the big screen in an effort to start a lucrative series. Harry Potter, Twilight, The Chronicles of Narnia, Cirque du Freak, all hope to grab that cash from you. While not all were successful, namely the latter one, all shared that same trait. Now we have a newcomer hoping to wedge its way into the fold in the form of Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief. Despite a few problems, it largely succeeds and proves itself as a fun, entertaining fantasy adventure that will tide fans over until the next Potter film.

Logan Lerman plays the title character, a teenager who is about to find out that his entire life is a lot more complicated than he thinks. His father is actually Poseidon, god of the sea, played by Kevin McKidd. Years ago, he came onto land, fell in love with his mother, played by Catherine Keener, and they had him as their child. Now, Poseidon's brother Zeus, god of thunder, played by Sean Bean, has accused Percy of stealing his thunderbolt. He has 14 days to return it or the gods go to war, destroying the heavens and the earth. As a result, Percy is taken to a camp exclusively for demi-gods, kids who are half human and half god, to train. Once he arrives, however, he watches his mother get abducted by Hades, god of the underworld (or more precisely, the Devil). He is played wonderfully by Steve Coogan. So Percy decides that he must get his mother back and treks across America with Annabeth, played by Alexandra Daddario, and his protector Grover, played by Brandon T. Jackson, in search of three pearls that will grant them entry and exit to the underworld.

Phew. You wouldn't think so given the PG rating and marketing towards kids, but this film has a lot going on. On their journey, the kids meet Medusa, battle a 10 headed dragon, and travel down into Hell to confront Hades. I felt like I was watching an epic for the ages, an exciting, scary, violent romp through the best parts of Greek mythology. The funny thing is that despite the kid-centric commercials, this thing is more for adults and teenagers. It features decapitations, a drug induced happiness that is played as cool and the aforementioned descent into Hell. Top onto that the intense battles with all sorts of mythical creatures and you have a film that is actually quite creepy. This thing's scarier than The Wolfman.

Although comparisons are unavoidable, especially given that this director helmed The Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets, Percy Jackson differs from Harry Potter in these respects. The Harry Potter films are more polished, but Percy Jackson is more fun. This doesn't waste its time in endless set-up with zero payoff (much like the fifth Potter). It's more of a droll, white knuckle action fantasy that moves at a brisk pace towards its conclusion. If you're looking for a better film, go with Potter, but if you're looking for something you can put on and enjoy at any time, Percy Jackson is your best bet.

Still, the film is nowhere near perfect and actually stumbles the most when it tries to mix that drollery with a serious story. The humor rarely works and feels out of place when one-liners are thrown out in the heat of battle. Its tone gets mixed so frequently that I'm not sure one is ever established. For instance, when they first arrive in Hell, they see thousands of tortured souls below them. The visual is haunting. Then they meet the Devil and his, shall we say, mistress, played by Rosario Dawson, and it turns lighthearted with an eerie sexual tension bubbling beneath the surface. The movie would have been helping itself had it gone the full scary route rather than attempting to juggle the two.

Then you have the ineffective side stories about Percy growing up without his father and the kindling romance between him and Annabeth. You see, Percy has been bitter his whole life about his father running out on him and his mother. He was only 7 months old when it happened, so he never even got to meet him and now he's stuck with his nasty stepfather who treats his mom like a piece of meat. The ending tries to resolve these daddy issues and the cheese is stacked up high. The romantic chemistry between him and Annabeth was missing, rendering that moot as well.

If you're looking at the film from an analytical point of view, this is a great story told haphazardly, but if you're looking at it through a normal citizen's eyes, this is great fun. It won't ever reach the success of Harry Potter, but here's hoping it makes enough money to warrant a sequel. Percy Jackson deserves at least that.

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief receives 3.5/5

The Wolfman a Tepid Remake

2010-02-12T17:02:00.007-05:00

The Wolfman has been plagued with production problems since its inception. Originally scheduled to be released in late 2008, it was pushed back numerous times, it underwent reshoots, a usual normalcy in filmmaking, that were rumored to be because the powers that be weren't happy with the look of the werewolf, directors were leaving the project due to the ever reliable term "creative differences," and even now, a week before the film came out, early word wasn't good. Well, it's not. The Wolfman is a dull, lifeless, meandering failure saved only by the sinful glee of watching England's citizens get their limbs get ripped off in splatters of blood.

The Wolfman stars Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, a British man who moved to New York some time ago to pursue his acting career. His brother, still living back in Blackmoor, England, has just been found dead and Lawrence has been summoned back for the funeral. The events surrounding his death are mysterious because his ravaged corpse shows evidence that he was not murdered by man, but by some kind of beast. One night at a gypsy camp, Lawrence finds that beast and is bitten, giving him the curse of the werewolf. Meanwhile, something doesn't seem to be right with his father, John, played by Anthony Hopkins and now he is being pursued by the local police, headed by Abberline, played by Hugo Weaving.

There are more than a few problems in this dreadful adaptation of The Wolfman, but none surpass the questionable decision to cast Benicio Del Toro in the title role. I haven't seen such an egregious case of miscasting since Ben Affleck in Daredevil. The film takes place back in old England, in the late 19th century and Del Toro plays a British lad who grew up there, yet he doesn't even attempt an accent. The problem is that his dialogue is still written in that time period's prose, so he ends up sounding silly. Every line he uttered was a distraction and his presence in this movie is unforgivable.

Still, with such great material to develop from, I find it baffling how bad this thing turned out. It should have been an homage to the olden days of horror, hearkening back to the roots of what made the genre so popular in the first place. Instead, it's little more than a new age horror flick hiding under the guise of a classic. It's incredibly violent and it uses dozens of jump scares, some that are placed within mere seconds of each other, none of which work.

The disappointment is that the film looks good. The production design is impressive, with a haunting, bleak atmosphere accompanied by gothic architecture and a dark tone that would have generously supported the story had there been one to care about. This thing goes from scene to scene without so much of a story arc, basically repeating itself over and over until the anti-climactic final battle. Scene transitions were sometimes abrupt and rarely seemed to gel together, even going so far as to overuse the fade-to-black scene ender multiple times.

What The Wolfman all boils down to is a slapdash, clumsy remake with zero scares, an uninteresting story and one ridiculously bad miscast. Sure, the intense violence will hold your attention for a few moments, but when you realize that's one of the only aspects of it worth noting, you begin to realize how truly shallow it is.

The Wolfman receives 1.5/5

Valentine's Day a Weaker Love Actually

2010-02-12T16:57:00.009-05:00

There are few days of the year that make me feel as miserable as I do on Valentine's Day. It's one of those days where the single become non-existent, where swooning couples become the center of attention. As far as this day is concerned, if you aren't in a relationship, you mean nothing. My cynicism for the day goes far beyond what I've typed here, so imagine my dismay at the thought of sitting through a movie that bears its title. But my job is not to judge based on my preconceived thoughts on the actual day, but rather on the film itself and in doing so I found that Valentine's Day actually isn't half bad.

Much like Love Actually, Valentine's Day features an ensemble cast with dozens of notable actors including Julia Roberts, Bradley Coooper, Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, Jennifer Garner, Jamie Foxx, Patrick Dempsey, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Ashton Kutcher, Taylor Lautner and even Taylor Swift. However, this is more like a second rate Love Actually rather than a direct comparison. While that film is an absolute delight and explores love in more authentic ways, Valentine's Day is hit and miss with more than its fair share of poorly drawn out romances that feel forced from the page. There isn't a single normal relationship in the entire movie. Even the 51 year old relationship between veteran actors Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine that is meant to show the everlasting endurance of true love proves to be less perfect than expected, with an unnecessary affair popping up in conversation halfway through the movie.

Now, I've purposely skipped over the plot description of the film because there are a large number of storylines, with each character sporting their own, and they are juggled relatively well. Most of them get equal screen time, though a few are left at the wayside and never fully come to a conclusion.

Keeping in mind the actors above, it's easy to see how inconsistent this movie can be. With great talent from Julia Roberts, Jamie Foxx and Anne Hathaway comes the less so Taylor Lautner, Jessica Alba and Ashton Kutcher. Actually, the first two characters introduced in the entire movie were Kutcher and Alba with a scene that ends in their engagement. Kutcher and Alba? That's a recipe for disaster.

Surprisingly, Kutcher's storyline ended up being the best part of the movie. He's the guy that I suspect most men in the audience will relate to the most. He's euphoric with the thought of love after his engagement, but even when he later realizes love isn't as joyous as he originally imagined, he thinks of others. He finds his friends and tries to prevent them from making the same mistakes and feeling the pain that he does. He's a wholly likable guy, most notably when a young boy walks in his flower shop and orders a dozen roses for his elementary school crush. He hands over 11 dollars, far short of what a dozen roses costs and Kutcher simply smiles and asks what the lucky girl's name is. His character is written well and he downplays his usual insufferable comedic antics to fit the role. It still feels weird saying it, but Ashton Kutcher was the shining light in an otherwise mediocre film.

Of course, his storyline was still fairly predictable, as were nearly all of the others. I knew exactly what was going to happen to Garner, Biel, and even Roberts, whose storyline was nonetheless very sweet. The only one that caught me by surprise was Bradley Cooper's. The movie smartly set his storyline up in a manner that makes you believe you know where it is heading, but then turns it 180 degrees and goes somewhere else. It was this surprise that ultimately pushed me to the side of a recommendation.

Lucky for it because most of this thing simply lacked the charm or wit of its far superior spiritual brethren Love Actually. Not to mention that Taylor Swift is simply atrocious and needs to stay as far away from movie cameras as she possibly can. Of course, expecting it to match Love Actually is lofty, so as long as you don't focus on how much worse it is, you might be surprised at how much better your perception will be.

Valentine's Day receives 2.5/5

Dear John a Manipulative Tearjerker

2010-02-05T00:02:00.001-05:00

When you walk into a theater to see a film based on a book by Nicholas Sparks, you know exactly what you're getting. Much like his previous adaptations, Nights in Rodanthe, A Walk to Remember and The Notebook, Dear John attempts to tug at the heartstrings. Unfortunately, it's so derivative of other romances, not to mention his previous big screen counterparts, that it comes off as hokey, a cloyingly sentimental exercise in derivativeness. You know that old cliché in these types of movies where somebody receives a letter and the writer of the letter is heard reading it through voice-over? Dear John is an hour and 40 minutes of that.

Channing Tatum plays John Tyree, a soldier in the US Army who is on leave for a couple of weeks and back visiting his hometown of Charleston, South Carolina. After pretty girl Savannah, played by Amanda Seyfried, stupidly places her purse on the railing of a pier overtop the beach water causing it to fall off, she meets John who jumps in and grabs it for her. She invites him to a party she's throwing that night and sparks fly. Although John has another 12 months to serve, Savannah promises to wait for him. However, during this time, the attacks on September 11th occur which causes him to re-enlist. This means he will be gone for another two years while back home Savannah and his autistic father, played by Richard Jenkins, wait for him. To keep in touch, John and Savannah promise to write each other as often as they can and detail everything they do. This way, they will be with each other all the time even when they aren't at all.

Here's the thing about Dear John. The title obviously reflects back on what occurs in the movie, but a more accurate one would have simply been Montage. Dear John features the largest number of montages in any film in the last 20 years, perhaps ever. If it wasn't a montage that occurred over the aforementioned letter readings, it was while Savannah and John were together kissing and laughing like one of those couples you hate seeing in public. You know the ones; those gooey, mushy pairs who waltz around downtown like they're the only people there, unaware that you don't want to see them shove their tongues down each other's throats.

The thing about this film that irritated me the most though wasn't the annoying excess of montages, or even the manipulative attempt to make me cry. It was that I simply didn't care. It never gave me a reason to. Truth be told, nothing too tragic really occurs. That's not to say what does isn't sad, but considering the alternate possibilities, things could have been a whole lot worse. It went a different route than expected, which I appreciated, but in doing so it took away that emotional punch to the gut that this romance story so desperately needed.

If I'm being honest, Dear John isn't all that bad. It has problems, but it also has some high points. The way the film dealt with the tragedy of 9/11 was smart and focused. It didn't show the panic on a national scale. It showed how it affected a certain number of people in a seemingly small community and how it affected the soldiers, especially the ones already enlisted before the attacks, who found a renewed patriotism within themselves to stay and fight despite a waiting family back home.

The chemistry between Tatum and Seyfried was also surprisingly authentic. I bought their relationship, at least when they were together, though for much of the movie they were not. Their emotions ran the gamut during different situations and it was nice to see some flexibility in their acting, though Tatum is still not convincing during the more intense scenes.

All of that is handled with poise, but it's another one of those movies you watch and ask yourself when it's over: what's the point? There's nothing new about Dear John and its incessant use of cheesy montages will dissuade many from taking a liking to it. It's better than A Walk to Remember and Nights in Rodanthe, but doesn't come close to the effectiveness of The Notebook. Dear John rests squarely in the middle of those two extremes.

Dear John receives 2/5

From My Computer with Hatred

2010-02-05T00:01:00.001-05:00

In the first quarter of every year, there seems to be at least one action packed thriller in theaters. Last year we were treated to the excellent Taken, an entertaining action film that became even more so once the unrated, and far better, DVD was released. A year later, almost to the day, the filmmakers behind Taken are releasing another action picture, From Paris with Love, a movie with a similar style, but none of the polish.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays James Reece, a man who works for the American Embassy in Paris and is working on getting promoted to a secret agent. His next assignment, the one that will finally give him that much desired promotion, is to haul Charlie Wax, played gratingly by John Travolta, around town as he does his dirty work busting bad guys and stopping a terrorist organization from unleashing their next fiendish scheme.

How original. How unique. How, shall I say, avant garde of From Paris with Love to come up with such an unconventional plot. This movie is nothing more than other, better movies rolled into one. Travolta plays a character similar to his role in the recent Taking of Pelham 123, it uses the style of Taken, steals the title from James Bond's second film, From Russia with Love, and plays like a buddy cop movie, kind of like Lethal Weapon without the laughs, excitement, character depth or fun. There wasn't a frame of this thing where I saw even a hint of originality.

You'd think with the director of Taken and the penman behind it concocting this story, there would be something to desire here, but there simply isn't. It's written so poorly, from the dialogue to the reoccurring motif, that a credible threat is never even established. From Paris with Love goes from scene to scene without so much as an explanation as to what is going on and why. All we know is that a terrorist organization is planning an attack, and we only learn that after dealing with an array of drug smugglers whose relevance to the plot is questionable. The problem lies in its broadness. Who is the leader of the terrorist organization? Is there any real reason they want to carry out this attack? The film never makes it clear who the characters are fighting against, so the whole routine becomes nothing more than shooting galleries where Charlie picks off dozens of indistinguishable men for unclear reasons.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily a problem for all films. Some movies can have little to no story and still be a blast if the action scenes are carried out well (like Taken for instance), but the ones here are so bland that they may as well have been shooting water guns at each other. Nothing particularly exciting happens in any of them because most merely consist of Charlie popping in and out of cover while an endless parade of baddies rush through the door seemingly oblivious of their fallen comrades. I felt like I was watching a video game and had the controller taken away from me.

If anything, From Paris with Love gives me a newfound appreciation for The Book of Eli and Edge of Darkness, two recent action flicks that, while certainly flawed, at least had some brains behind them. This one is more like a comatose victim that you look at and simply feel bad for.

From Paris with Love receives 1/5

Movie Show Podcasts - 1/29/10

2010-01-30T23:35:00.004-05:00

Boy, was our show awesome this past week. If you didn't have a chance to catch it, consider yourself lucky that I'm nice enough to post them here weekly. We did our usual reviews (this week, it was Edge of Darkness and When in Rome) as well as our weekly breakdown of the hottest movie news stories with Brendon Connelly of slashfilm.com, but the excitement this week came in the form of celebrity interviews with Clark Duke and Craig Robinson from the upcoming Hot Tub Time Machine. They called in live and it was a blast.

Of course, we also spoke with our friends and respected critics, Nell Minow and Tim Gordon, though we were on such a role this week we couldn't squeeze in Brandon Fibbs. However, since we love the guy so much, we stayed late and did a separate off-the-air podcast about the Oscars and what our predictions will be. We even made a bet, so listen to find out what it is. Enjoy!

1/29/10
Segment 1: Kevin and Josh breakdown "Edge of Darkness" and "When In Rome" with Nell Minow and Tim Gordon (Fellow DC critics)
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-29%20-%20Kevin%20and%20Josh%20movie%20Show%20-%20Reviews%20with%20Nell%20and%20Tim.mp3

Segment 2: Kevin and Josh interview "Paranormal Activity" star Micah Sloat about the film and it's upcoming sequel
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-27%20-%20BDK%20Movie%20Show%20-%20MICAH%20SLOAT.mp3

Segment 3: Kevin and Josh talk about "Avatar" and inflation of Box office prices - Also Chad Dukes chimes in!
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-29%20-%20Kevin%20and%20Josh%20movie%20show%20-%20Discussing%20Box%20office%20inflation%20and%20Avatar.mp3

Segment 4: Brendon Connelly from Slashfilm.com joins the show to give us the latest movie news
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-29%20-%20Kevin%20and%20Josh%20movie%20show%20-%20Slashfilm.com%20news%20with%20Brendon%20connelly.mp3

Segment 5: Josh and Kevin interview "Hot Tub Time Machine" star Craig Robinson (Also from "The Office")
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-29%20-%20Kevin%20and%20Josh%20movie%20show%20-%20Craig%20Robinson.mp3

Segment 6: Kevin and Josh interview "Kick-Ass" and "Hot Tub Time Machine" star Clark Duke (Also from "Sex Drive")
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-29%20-%20Kevin%20and%20Josh%20Movie%20Show%20-%20Clark%20Duke%20interview.mp3

Segment 7: Kevin and Josh talk to Brandon Fibbs from BrandonFibbs.com about Oscar predictions
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-29%20-%20Kevin%20and%20Josh%20Movie%20Show%20-%20Brandon%20Fibbs%20talks%20Oscars.mp3

When in Rome Another Painful Rom-Com

2010-01-29T13:39:00.007-05:00

When in Rome. It's one of those phrases that you hear fairly often. It's said by people who are going along with a group, conforming to their behaviors to fit in. Now, I hate to join the critics who are giving Kristen Bell's latest film scathing reviews, but hey, when in Rome.

When in Rome is yet another in a long line of predictable romantic comedies. The thing is, this one is more predictable than the rest. Not in a long time have I sat down and picked apart a film scene by scene, line by line, guessing ahead of time exactly what was going to happen and what was going to be said. I was right about 85 percent of the time.

The film stars the adorable Kristen Bell as Beth, a woman who obsesses over her job and can't find love. When her sister, played by Alexis Dziena, announces she is getting married in Rome, Beth packs up and flies out. There she meets a handsome man named Nick, played by Josh Duhamel and she is instantly smitten by him. However, after she sees a drunk woman kiss him, she wrongfully analyzes the situation and claims there is nobody in the world out there for her, so she makes her way over to a famed fountain of love where people go to throw in coins with the hopes of finding someone. Well, she decides to pick some of them out of the water for some reason. Perhaps it was on impulse or perhaps it was a larger metaphor for how difficult it can be to pick the right person in a sea of people. Or perhaps it's just a contrivance. We'll go with the latter.

Little does Beth know that when you take wished upon coins out of the fountain of love, the ones who threw them in fall in love with you. Now back in New York, she is being stalked by Antonio, an Italian painter played by Will Arnett, Lance, a street magician played by Jon Heder, Gale, a model played by Dax Shepard, and a character played by Danny DeVito whose name eludes me because it isn't on IMDb.

Of course, the main bulk of the story is the love connection between Beth and Nick, the latter falling in love with the former while the former thinks the latter is only doing so because she picked his coin, or in this case a poker chip, out of the fountain. I'll give the film this. The premise is mildly clever. It's not just your typical rom-com where a good looking man and woman meet one day and fall in love over the course of two hours. Ok, it is, but it had room to grow.

The sad part is that it didn't. The possibilites of five men fighting for the heart of one woman, all under a spell they have no control over, are endless. So many wonderful jokes could have been made here, but each character embodies only one, coming off as cookie cutter and one-dimensional. For instance, all of Gale's lines revolve around how well sculpted and good looking he is. Antonio's jokes obsess over Beth's feet because as a painter, he needs to see them to put them on paper. DeVito's character is a meat man and his jokes all revolve around sausage. None of them fall into something other than a running one note joke.

The only person that squeezes a laugh or two out of their banality is Jon Heder. His quirkiness comes across well and he delivers his lines with an exaggerated seriousness that fits his character. There was also a Napoleon Dynamite reference, although out of place and forced into the movie, that was funny enough to break up the monotony.

But that monotony is only furthered along by the weak story that putters along like a broken down car. The only main force trying to pull this through is the chemistry between Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel which rings true even in an outlandish film such as this. Bell is beautiful and sweet and forces you to like her. The same goes for the jealousy inducing good looks of Duhamel.

Too bad they're trapped in a horrific screenplay. This is a movie that thinks its funny when Nick stops before he runs into a pole, only to walk past it and fall into a hole. It's a movie that uses the record scratching sound bite that signifies a drastic change in tone multiple times in only a few minutes. It's a movie where jokes consist of "Gale takes shirt off." That's how out of ideas When in Rome is.

When in Rome receives 1.5/5

Mel Gibson Shines in Mediocre Edge of Darkness

2010-01-29T00:01:00.002-05:00

Edge of Darkness has an impressive resume. It's directed by Martin Campbell, the man who helmed the excellent James Bond reboot Casino Royale, written by William Monahan, writer of the Oscar winning picture The Departed and stars Mel Gibson, an excellent actor in his first role in seven years, since 2003's The Singing Detective. It has all the parts needed to come together and create an amazing, visceral action picture. So where did things go wrong? Or more precisely, how in the world did these talents come together to create such a mediocre product?

The film follows Craven (Mel Gibson), a Boston detective who has just picked up his daughter (Bojana Novakovic) from the airport. Once she arrives, however, she starts to puke and her nose bleeds uncontrollably. In a panic, she tells her father she needs to go to the hospital, but before they do she insists on telling him something. Before she can get it out, a man in a ski mask appears at the front door and kills her with a shotgun blast to the chest. Craven, now a man with nothing to live for, goes on the hunt to find her killer and unravel the conspiracy that led to her demise.

So basically what I'm saying is that it's your typical revenge flick. Although this does differentiate itself a bit from the others, namely because his kid dies for a reason rather than just plain bad luck (like in 2007's Death Sentence), which gives the protagonist something to track other than the murderer, it's still a routine revenge movie where a vigilante father goes berserk on the baddies with a wide assortment of firearms.

Which is fine. I'm all for a good revenge movie, but Edge of Darkness fails to keep consistent with the whole novelty of the sub-genre. More often than not, nobody really cares about the fallen family member so much as the bullets that fly afterwards. This is no different. Craven's daughter is onscreen for such a small amount of time that it's impossible to truly care about her, even after she's filled with holes, but the movie nevertheless tries to wrangle some teardrops out of nothing. After she is killed, Craven takes her ashes to the beach and dumps them in the ocean, reflecting back on the film's opening 30 seconds that shows an old family video where she is playing in the water as a kid, which is hardly a set-up for an emotional payoff. My complaint isn't the fact that the film lacked emotion. Rather, it's that it tried too hard to force that emotion through when none was really needed.

Now, there are only a couple of things I hated in Edge of Darkness and for every bad thing, there's a great one to balance it out. For instance, the acting is terrific. It's a return to form for Mel Gibson. His gritty determination as the hellbent father vowing justice for his fallen daughter is played pitch perfectly, even if he is forced to act out a few ridiculous scenes where he sees the ghost of her or hears her voice speaking to him. Couple him with another great actor, Ray Winstone, who plays a government operative sent to clean up their messes, and you have a sublime pair whose scenes play out like a fluid dance. Their dialogue together is wonderful and neither outshine the other. They simply do their part in telling the story. Their scenes together are easily the best part of this movie.

Unfortunately, the skillful panache of those scenes does little more than draw attention to how haphazard the rest of the production is. Some scenes don't fit into the flow of the story, working as an unnecessary way to break up the talking with some action, the material doesn't stay completely afloat during its two hour run time and the final shot of the movie is, I'm pretty sure, the dumbest possible way this thing could have ended.

That's not to say this is a bad movie. It's not. It's just a painfully mediocre one. I'm tempted to recommend Edge of Darkness anyway given the poor quality of movies this month, but it is in its failure to realize its own potential that prevents me from doing so.

Edge of Darkness receives 2.5/5

Movie Show Podcasts #3

2010-01-27T01:11:00.000-05:00

Yes, it's early Wednesday morning and yes, I'm just getting around to posting the latest podcasts from the best radio show ever produced, the Kevin McCarthy Movie Show featuring Josh Hylton. What's the reason? I'm busy. Because of that, I'm just going to cut to the chase this week.

As usual, Kevin interviewed a host of people beforehand, which kept me from participating in the interviews, but listen to them anyway because there are some pretty big stars in there (including a pair of recent Golden Globe winners). We also reviewed the weeks new movies and had an excellent discussion on religion in cinema with Brandon Fibbs, among other things. So listen, enjoy and come back next week for more goodness.

1) Kevin interviews Book of Eli directors THE HUGHES BROTHERS
http://bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-22%20BDK%20Movie%20Show%20-%20The%20Hughes%20Brothers.mp3

2) Kevin interviews Crazy Heart songwriters and producer T BONE BURNETT/RYAN BINGHAM
http://bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-22%20BDK%20Movie%20Show%20-%20T%20Bone%20Burnette.mp3

3) Kevin interviews Creation director Jon Amiel
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-22%20BDK%20movie%20Show%20-%20Jon%20Amiel.mp3

4) Kevin interviews Pandorum/MMA star Cung Le
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-22%20BDK%20movie%20Show%20-%20Cung%20Le.mp3

5) Kevin and Josh review Tooth Fairy, Legion and Extraordinary Measures
http://bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-22%20BDK%20movie%20show%20-%20Opening%20reviews.mp3

6) Kevin and Josh talk to Brandon Fibbs about religion in cinema
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-22%20BDK%20Movie%20Show%20-%20Creation.mp3

7) Josh and Kevin end the show on a funny note
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-22%20BDK%20movie%20show%20-%20End%20of%20show.mp3

8) Kevin and Josh talk to Brendon Connelly from SLASHFILM.COM about the latest movie news
http://www.bdkreviews.com/podcasts/2010-01-22%20BDK%20movie%20Show%20-%20Brendon%20Conelly.mp3

Legion Angelic Stupidity

2010-01-24T00:05:00.005-05:00

Ok, now it's getting a bit ridiculous. Being an avid film lover, I watch a lot of movies and let's face it, very little separates each one from the next. Leap Year is no different than the countless other romantic comedies I've seen just as The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day mimics innumerable other action flicks. Still, the apocalypse sub-genre is fairly new, or at least has seen an explosion in recent years. Each film tries to differentiate itself from the last, with modest success. We've seen a hard hitting drama in The Road, a tongue-in-cheek B-movie in 2012, the zombie apocalypse in Zombieland and the vampire apocalypse in Daybreakers. But we're pushing it a bit far now with Legion, a ridiculous movie where God sends his angels to demonically possess humans and kill everyone alive.

Huh?

That's the sentiment I had rolling around in my head as this film wrapped up. The story, as foolish as it may be, revolves around an angel who has fallen down to Earth, cut off his wings and made himself human. His name is Michael (Paul Bettany) and he has rebelled against God's wishes to wipe out the human race. You see, God is pissed off. Just as we have lost faith in Him, He has lost faith in humanity. We kill each other over race and greed and we start wars unjustly and He's sick of it. As the movie points out, the first time he lost faith in us, he sent a flood, now he is sending angels. Yep.

Well, for some reason, there's a baby that is the last hope for humanity. It's in the stomach of Charlie (Adrianne Palicki), who works at a small diner in the middle of no man's land where the next service station doesn't come around for 50 miles. She works there with a group of disposable fodder played by Lucas Black, Charles Dutton, Jon Tenney, Willa Holland, Kate Walsh, Tyrese Gibson, and Dennis Quaid. Michael's job is to protect Charlie and the baby, the main target of the angels.

This is getting out of control. While not all of the recent apocalypse movies have been particularly good (2012, The Book of Eli), at least they made sense. Legion makes as much sense as using a sterilized needle at a lethal injection. There's so much in this movie that needed to be answered, yet so little is. For example, why the baby is so important is never explained. Who is it? Is it the second coming of Christ? If it is, why would God send his angels to kill it? What the hell was going on in this thing?

The weird thing is that there's plenty of downtime for explanation. For a movie about an angel takeover and the human extermination, this thing moves slow and the copious amount of dialogue does little more than waste time in between action scenes. There were a handful of moments where two characters would have a dialogue, but it was usually about trivial matters, like why Gibson's character carried around a handgun. Well, because he grew up in the streets yo. Great, but who cares? It's irrelevant to the story, existing as nothing more than a sad sack attempt at putting a personality to the character.

Complaining about scenes that flesh out the personalities of the characters feels weird because if we want to care about them, we need to know about them, but Legion takes itself far too seriously and would have worked better as a humorous, balls to the wall action film. Surely the filmmakers knew their movie was absurd. Why not play it for laughs?

Taking the serious route did little to help them anyway. The action scenes, which are meant to be epic battles between heaven and earth, are shot so darkly that not much can be seen. The little bit that can is unimpressive and, more often than not, anti-climactic. In the trailer, a man rides up in an ice cream truck. His mouth opens wide, his arms stretch out and he runs toward the camera. In the movie, he is shot immediately after he starts to run. What could have been a tense battle ended up being a major disappointment.

I've seen lots of apocalypse movies recently, but this could be among the worst. Paul Bettany does a good job and a few moments of what looked to be a good movie were hidden in it, but everything else is a misfire. Even the wanton stupidity of 2012 was more entertaining than Legion.

Legion receives 1.5/5

The Tooth Hurts Indeed

2010-01-22T16:30:00.006-05:00

Dwayne Johnson is a bucket full of unrealized potential. The man made a name for himself with his WWE persona, "The Rock," marking himself as a bad ass and paving the way for a huge action movie career. So what, pray tell, is he doing in these fluffy family friendly kids movies? Did he learn nothing from The Game Plan, Race to Witch Mountain or his recent voice work in the atrocious computer animated picture Planet 51? Evidently not, because he seemed more than willing to make a fool of himself in his latest monstrosity, Tooth Fairy. Outside of the inherent comedic value of seeing The Rock flutter around in a pink tutu, this movie has little to offer.

Johnson plays Derek, a minor league hockey player who was sent there from the NHL after hurting his shoulder. He's known on the ice as "The Tooth Fairy" because he has a knack for knocking out his opponent's teeth. He's nothing more than a sideshow on his team, having not taken a shot on goal for nearly ten years. He is dating a pretty woman named Carly, played by Ashley Judd, who has two children, Tess, played by Destiny Whitlock, and Randy, played by Chase Ellison. One night, Tess loses a tooth and places it under her pillow hoping the Tooth Fairy will come and give her money. Derek is babysitting and agrees to humor her, but instead uses the money he has to gamble with his buddies. When she wakes up, freaking out from the lack of cash, Derek decides to tell her the Tooth Fairy isn't real, though he is quickly interrupted by Carly who gets angry with him. That night back at home, he wakes up to find a summon under his pillow. He has been accused of killing dreams and is forced to live as a real live Tooth Fairy for two weeks.

I like Dwayne Johnson. He's charming. He's good looking. He's even pretty funny when he is provided quality material, as evidenced by his role in the hilarious Get Smart. And I must stress, there is nothing funnier than seeing him wear a tutu and looking like an idiot. Laughter is the desired intention in Tooth Fairy, but the problem here is that we're not laughing with it. We're laughing at it. This is merely another in a recent string of awful kids movies with no imagination, intelligence, or bite. Much like the notion of an actual Tooth Fairy, this movie is complete nonsense and as soon as it's out of your head, the better.

However, I can see a good children's movie in here somewhere, but it's saddled down too much by writing that meanders all over the place until it has nowhere to go. Like the posters that promote it, the film is loaded with plays on words like "You can't handle the tooth" and "The tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth," all of which are as grating as you'd expect them to be.

The film also lacks a decent sense of direction, probably due to the fact that director Michael Lembeck's most prized titles on his resume are the last two Santa Clause movies, which God knows is nothing to write home about. The only shining light in this otherwise abysmal experience are a handful of decent jokes, mostly coming from the talented Billy Crystal, who plays a role similar to his fantasy turn in The Princess Bride. He is delightful and manages to drag a few guffaws out of the inanity.

Everybody knows that January is dump month, but this year seems to be extra dumpy. Limited releases aside, the only film I would recommend from it is Daybreakers. Since that film, I've sat through dreck like Leap Year, The Lovely Bones, The Spy Next Door, and now this one (with the inevitable stinker When in Rome rounding it out next week).

Still, kids may enjoy this, specifically the ones that still believe in the Tooth Fairy, and it was nice to hear the word "fairy" get thrown around without some derogatory connotation attached to it, but for those above the age of belief, Tooth Fairy is not worth your time.

Tooth Fairy receives 1/5

Extraordinary Measures TV on the Big Screen

2010-01-22T00:01:00.000-05:00

Before the first shot of a bouquet of balloons proclaiming "It's a girl!" shows up in the new Brendan Fraser/Harrison Ford drama Extraordinary Measures, a logo pops up, one I had never seen before: CBS Films. I questioned, when did CBS start their own film production company? Pretty recently one assumes because this is their first big screen attempt and, appropriately, looks and feels like a TV movie. From scene to scene, each passing shot, every line of dialogue, all of it screamed television. Had it appeared on the small screen, it would have been a damn fine adaptation, but theatrical films are held to a higher standard and this amateurish production does little to convince that it belongs where it is.

The story of Extraordinary Measures follows John Crowley (Brendan Fraser), a father of three kids. The youngest two, at ages six and eight, suffer from Pompe, a disease similar to muscular dystrophy where the muscles weaken due to excessive build-up of glycogen. Their life expectancies range around age 9, a number fast approaching his two children. After a scare where his daughter almost dies, he decides he must do all he can to try to find a cure. He had been studying up on the disease and reading theories proposed by Dr. Robert Stonehill (Harrison Ford), a Nebraska scientist who had been working on a solution to saving the lives of Pompe sufferers. Crowley convinces Stonehill to join him, partly through his determination and partly through the huge check he bestows to him. So will they find a cure before it's too late? Well, it's based on a book by Geeta Anand called "The Cure," which flashes onscreen right at the beginning of the movie, so I'd say it's a safe bet.

When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I honestly thought it was a commercial for a TV movie, and as I mentioned earlier, it follows the exact formula a film appearing on, say, Lifetime would, all the way down to the low angle "person-slides-their-back-down-against-a-wall-in-sadness" shot. The look of the film is simplistic, the dialogue is perfectly suitable for the medium (sans a few FCC deemed dirty words), and it tugs at the heartstrings, as most of these things do.

Besides, who doesn't feel sadness when children are deathly ill and happiness when that one in a million shot to save their lives pulls through? But that's the problem. I've seen this movie played out on television countless times, each one more manipulative than the last. Sick kids are an easy target because even the most hardened of souls wouldn't wish harm on a helpless child. Yes, I cared about the children and I hoped they would pull through, but that was more due to the fact that I'm not a soulless bastard more than it was because the film was of good quality.

Granted, it's not as bad as I expected it to be. The first hour is painful to watch, with transitions from scene to scene where commercials could have easily been placed, but it picks up and the performances are good enough. Harrison Ford, though not quite as youthful and spirited as he used to be, does a fine job in his role as the contemptuous doctor who sometimes lets his anger get the best of him, and Brendan Fraser finally gets to flex his dramatic muscles after three nonsense loony films (Journey to the Center of the Earth, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, and Inkheart). I like him that side of him and it's the most sincere I've seen him since 2004's excellent Crash.

But that pesky television look and heavy-handed narrative just keep getting in the way. It's funny really because it's a great made for TV movie, but it's not even a good theatrical one. I felt the attempt and I appreciated the uplifting story, but you've got to do better than this to justify your big screen existence. Extraordinary Measures is admirable and has nothing to object to, but nevertheless, you can wait for it to reach cable, where it should have been all along.

Extraordinary Measures receives 2/5

Jackie Chan Embarrasses Himself in The Spy Next Door

2010-01-18T00:36:00.006-05:00

Remember when Jackie Chan was still cool? I do. I remember watching him as I grew up. I loved how agile he seemed to be, effortlessly flying through the air performing some of the most amazing acrobatic martial arts I had ever seen. I loved his charm and his sense of humor about things. He was a guy I wanted to hang out with. Sure, his most recent American films have suffered from poor scripts and unfunny one-liners, most notably Shanghai Knights, The Tuxedo and the third Rush Hour, but I still find myself rooting for the guy. His 2008 outing, The Forbidden Kingdom, proved that he was still more than capable of delivering the trademark action and humor he is known for. But then he follows it up with this year's wretched The Spy Next Door, a kid's comedy with one genuine laugh and about 50 irritated groans.

The Spy Next Door follows a fairly routine plot used in a number of other movies about a secret spy who is forced to babysit a handful of little brats that hate him. You'll forgive me if I haven't seen any of them. When I sit down for a Vin Diesel movie, my first inkling isn't to reach for The Pacifier. Anyway, this film plays off that formula, this time starring Jackie Chan as Bob Ho, a Chinese operative on loan to the CIA. He is dating his next door neighbor, Gillian, played by Amber Valletta, but her kids loathe him. He's too "uncool." They think he is a pen importer, but they aren't aware of his secret. After capturing his arch-nemesis early in the movie, he retires so he can spend more time with Gillian and warm up to her kids. Well, Gillian's father is in the hospital and she has to leave town for a few days. Bob thinks this is the perfect opportunity and volunteers to watch over the children, to which she reluctantly agrees. Unfortunately, his nemesis has escaped and is on his way to find Bob.

As you can imagine, the following scenes consist of tired slapstick, constant back talk from the snotty children, and Jackie Chan trying to act hip, doing things that would be embarrassing for even the lowliest of actors, much less a martial artist of his stature. If the mostly silent child audience I watched this with is any indication, this film is a complete failure.

This is due to many reasons, but one is the utter lack of laughs thanks to a piss poor script and Chan's inability to break the language barrier, stumbling over his English like a first time speaker teaching phonetics. You could readily tell a few of his lines were re-recorded in post-production, probably due to this problem.

In romance movies, one tends to talk about chemistry between the two lead actors, but it seems a bit frivolous here as that really isn't the main draw of the movie. Still, each scene between Chan and Valletta was awkward to the point where I felt bad for the actors onscreen. Watching them try to act together and seeing Chan plant his mid-fifty year old lips on a pretty woman 20 years younger than him gave me an unsettling chill down my spine that cannot easily be explained.

The one thing I took a mild liking to was the cheeky James Bond-ish vibe, complete with an enemy with a scar under his eye and his seductive Russian sidekick. The only problem is that they merely exist. There isn't much of a parody here other than that, so the only minor enjoyment this film has going for it becomes moot by the 30 minute mark.

I haven't spent too much time focusing on putting my thoughts together in an articulate way because I don't feel it's necessary to grant this film more effort than it took to put the thing together. No care was put into any of this, aiming only to cheaply exploit the emotions of easily amused children. It's only fair that I care as little. This isn't as bad as the horrific Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, but "bad" takes on many levels. The Spy Next Door is still unwatchable.

The Spy Next Door receives 1/5

More Movie Show Podcasts

2010-01-17T01:11:00.004-05:00

Time for more podcasts! This time only one show's worth. I'm trying not to be lazy. This last Friday was an interesting experience. Kevin and I were hustling back and forth during the show contacting engineers, trying to get ourselves on the air because, whoops! They forgot to switch the signal to HD. Good thing engineers get paid so much money or else they might have to work for a living. For the first 45 minutes or so, we were talking to ourselves, after which we finally got our voices out. Thankfully, that's what podcasts are for! All that interesting stuff you may have wanted to hear but didn't is finally at your disposal.

This week, we reviewed The Lovely Bones and The Book of Eli, as well as talked to Brendon Connelly of slashfilm.com and Washington DC film critic Brandon Fibbs of brandonfibbs.com. There are also a handful of interviews, none of which I personally participated in. Unfortunately, most interviews are not scheduled during show time which makes it very difficult for me to partake in them. Oh well, they are interesting nonetheless and I implore you to listen to each and every one.

I'll be back next week for the next installment of the Kevin McCarthy Movie Show featuring Josh Hylton podcasts from WJFK HD2. But for now, enjoy the terrible one-liners and awkward on-air chemistry.

January 15, 2010
1) Josh and Kevin review The Lovely Bones/The Book of Eli - Globe Predictions with Fibbs
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NHD4F2LX
2) Kevin talks to Oscar winning film score composer Hans Zimmer about The Dark Knight and Sherlock Holmes (Unedited version)
http://tinyurl.com/yl5pr6h
3) Brendon Connelly from slashfilm.com calls in with the latest movie news and scoop
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ELUKTKNC
4) Comedian Brian Posehn calls in (Unedited Version)
http://tinyurl.com/yjupho2
5) The Lovely Bones star Saoirse Ronan calls in
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QJTEGMFL
6) Daybreakers directors call in (Unedited 30 Minute interview)
http://tinyurl.com/yama33l
7) Josh and Kevin discuss worst remakes and reboots (Spider-Man 4 cancelled)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7LF4NKS7

The Book of Eli Full of Missed Opportunities

2010-01-15T01:30:00.002-05:00

The end of the world seems to be all the rage these days. Everywhere you turn, some nonsense theory pops up. If it's not the Mayan calendar proclaiming Armageddon, it's cries of the Antichrist finally coming in the form of Barack Obama. Both have zero validity, but that doesn't stop Hollywood from capitalizing on them (though we're still yet to see that Obama movie). In recent years, post-apocalyptic movies have flooded our screens. Just in the last few months we've seen director Roland Emmerich blow stuff up real good in 2012, the Oscar worthy picture The Road, and the vampire and zombie apocalypses in Daybreakers and Zombieland. Chalk another one onto the ever growing list with The Book of Eli, a moderately entertaining film that will appeal to the following interests. If you want to see three decapitations in about that same amount of time, you'll like The Book of Eli. If you want to see a guy get an arrow through his crotch, you'll like The Book of Eli. However, if you want to see a post-apocalyptic tale with heart and meaning, you may want to look elsewhere. It's basically The Road meets Mad Max, but it's only about half as good as either of those films.

The movie opens with Eli (Denzel Washington) as he embarks on a trip to the west (as opposed to the trip down south the characters take in The Road—totally different). The world has been destroyed by a war and something they call "the flash," assumably referring to a nuclear war, which blinded many of the remaining survivors. It's been thirty years and a new generation has now grown up not knowing about the times before where, as Eli puts it, "people threw away what they kill each other for now." On his trip, Eli stumbles into a broken down town where he is violently confronted. He asks for no trouble, but is forced to kill a whole bar full of people. Carnegie (Gary Oldman) takes notice. He's the leader of the town and has a slew of henchmen he uses to track down an old book, one he claims will be able to control the lives of those he reads it to, thus giving him power. Little does he know Eli has that book.

What transpires is nothing more than a battle between the two factions for possession of the book. But what is the book? Well, if you have half a brain, you should be able to figure it out fairly quickly, though some still deem a reveal a spoiler, so I suppose I should offer up a warning. I will discuss what the book is and how this affects the overall picture, so if you want to go into the movie in the dark, stop reading.

Now, with that out of the way, the book is the Bible. Again, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out. A quick glance at the poster should be enough to give it away. "Deliver us" isn't exactly the most subtle of taglines (nor is the more succinct Gary Oldman one-sheet, "Religion is Power"). Then again, there's also a giant freaking cross on the cover of the book, which you see very early on in the movie. But why did I feel the need to bring this up? Because it is necessary to discuss the message, one that is admittedly fresh in a business that seems to continuously be at odds with it.

The recent comedy, The Invention of Lying, made it a point to deem religion a falsity. In fact, that was the whole basis of the film. The documentary, Religulous, does exactly the same (given the snarky title). But The Book of Eli is decidedly different. Its message here, without giving away the ending, is that there most certainly is a God and he (excuse me, He) uses people for a greater purpose. There's no doubt about it. He exists and works in all of our lives in ways we cannot possibly imagine. It's refreshing regardless of your religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, I've always been one to lean on the side of thought and interpretation rather than the straight forwardness of The Book of Eli. The Invention of Lying may have been anti-religion, but it posed questions. Would the world be better without it? Would there be war? Would it even exist in a world where nobody could lie? The argument it makes is that religion is merely a temporary solution to life's problems and that speculation about the afterlife is time wasted when we could be doing so many other positive things right now. Religulous, in it's own sarcastic way, does the same. These films make us question our beliefs and the beliefs of those around us, which is fascinating. The Book of Eli doesn't.

Sadder still is that it sets itself up to do just that, but never does. As noted before, Carnegie is searching for the book, knowing full well that it is the only Bible left in existence. He wants to use it to control people, insinuating its power and how it can be, and most certainly is, used for evil. At one point, Eli mentions that some people even think that it was the cause of the war that destroyed their planet. Well, religion is used to justify wars. Why not explore those themes?

Regardless of its missed opportunities, it was nice to see a pro-religion film. It just would have been nicer for it to pose questions rather than state facts, something too many religious people do already. But there's more to this thing than just its religious message and, unfortunately, not much of it is particularly impressive. It may be supporting Christianity, but boy does it get bloody. This is an action movie after all. Though the action is stylish and fun, it usually comes about arbitrarily. One scene that ends with multiple bodies strewn across the floor is initiated by Eli shoo-ing a cat away from his things. The cat's owner is none too happy and attacks Eli. Too many action scenes felt randomly placed in the movie rather than working out of necessity of the story.

The Book of Eli is a moderately successful, sporadically entertaining post-apocalyptic film that borrows from other, better movies ranging from a shot taken directly from The Road to a scene that mimicked The Devil's Rejects. Outside of the admittedly clever twist, which nevertheless is never completely satisfactory, The Book of Eli doesn't offer much other than an unexplored message stated matter-of-factly. This might work for some, but for those who like to think about religion and discuss it rather than have it shoved down their throats, The Book of Eli is a bust.

The Book of Eli receives 2.5/5

One Last Ledger Performance, One Mediocre Movie

2010-01-15T00:32:00.007-05:00

If you're a film lover, you were immediately saddened about the untimely passing of Heath Ledger. If you didn't care at first, you almost certainly did after watching The Dark Knight, if for no other reason than for the future of that franchise. He created one of the most terrifying villains to ever grace the screen with the Joker and it really is a shame to know that the next Batman movie will lack his presence. Worse still is that he would have undoubtedly dazzled us with many more movies for years to come. Hollywood is hurting without him. Although most will always think of him as the Joker, he was in the process of filming one more movie when he died, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, a quirky little fantasy tale about love and immortality that, unfortunately, never fully comes together.

Christopher Plummer plays Dr. Parnassus, an old man who travels the country performing a stage show with his vertically challenged friend Percy, played by Verne Troyer, his daughter Valentina, played by Lily Cole, and a boy in love with her named Anton, played by Andrew Garfield. The 16th birthday of Valentina is fast approaching and Dr. Parnassus finds himself troubled because in a deal he made a thousand years ago with the Devil, he agreed to give up any newborn once they turned 16. In exchange, he earned immortality and the ability to guide the imaginations of others as they walk through the centerpiece of his show, a mystical mirror. Eventually, the Devil makes another offer to Dr. Parnassus. If he can capture five souls in two days, before Valentina's birthday, he can keep her. To do this, he must attract people into the mirror and he finds help in Tony, played mostly by Heath Ledger, a mysterious man with amnesia, who uses his allure to whisk people into the imagination world.

You may be wondering what I meant when I wrote that Tony was played mostly by Heath Ledger. You see, when Ledger passed away, he had already filmed all of the scenes that took place outside of the mirror in the real world. Filming in the fantasy world was yet to begin, so according to many interviews, including this one from Comic-Con, Terry Gilliam, the writer and director, rewrote an early scene to explain that when somebody ventures into the mirror, that person's face can change figure. Stepping in to complete the movie are notable actors Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell, who nobly donated all the money they made on the film to Ledger's daughter. Although it is saddening to see the switch in persons, knowing full well Ledger is not with us anymore, one can't help but admire the imagination it must have taken to overcome this difficulty, being able to finish the movie while still allowing it to make sense narratively.

However, as much as I hate to say it, that's about as imaginative as the film gets. I was more impressed by the way they solved this problem than with the actual product itself. For a movie about a fantasy world where imaginations come to life, Dr. Parnassus is strangely unimaginative. I found myself bored by the visuals which did little to represent the imaginations of the people in the mirror.

Being a fantasy film, that's a big deal. It's not so much about what happens outside of the mirror, but rather what happens inside of it. Even if it were flipped around, however, you could still color me unimpressed. The story was simply uninteresting. I never sensed a genuine threat from the Devil, I felt that the third act personality twist of a certain character was pulled out of thin air, and the whole thing seems muddled, rarely explaining certain aspects of the film that needed explanation.

Now, the performances are good and the actors do what they can to sustain the movie, but when your run time is over two hours long, you need a better script and better visuals. As it stands, Dr. Parnassus has neither. I can feel my stomach turning as I write this because Ledger's life should be honored and his final performance demands to be seen. It's a close call, one that sickens me to no end, but I'm going to have to recommend you skip The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus receives 2.5/5

The Lovely Bones Disappointingly Bad

2010-01-15T00:01:00.003-05:00

Before 2001, few people knew of the now famous Peter Jackson. Before landing the gig of a lifetime with The Lord of the Rings movies, he had dabbled mainly in comedy/horror films with Bad Taste, the Michael J. Fox starring The Frighteners, and one of my personal favorites Dead Alive (known as Braindead in other areas of the world). Since then, what with The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the highly lauded 2005 King Kong remake, Jackson has proven himself to be a real talent in Hollywood. So imagine my disappointment after watching The Lovely Bones, a mediocre, pretentious effort from one of cinema's most prized directors. It's been quite a while since I've seen a movie with such an impressive resume that has failed to create any type of emotional resonance or meaning.

The film begins in 1973 and is about Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a 14 year old girl who gets murdered by George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) one day on her walk back home from school. Susie ends up in a purgatory type of world, which her brother dubs "the in between" after seeing her in his room one night. You see, her family, particularly her father, can still sometimes see her or at least get a message that she is still around, like through a flickering candle for instance. In the in between world, she meets up with another girl named Holly (Nikki SooHoo) who explains that she can pass over whenever she likes, but she must leave her old world behind her. She decides she isn't yet ready and watches her parents, as well as her killer, as they try to unravel the mystery back in the world of the living.

There's a lot going on in The Lovely Bones. There are themes of love, death, tragedy, murder, the afterlife, divine intervention, the break-up of a family, and more, but none of them ever seem to fully come together into a cohesive whole. They are explored, but only by themselves, never together. None of the themes ever run their courses into one giant metaphor on life or death. They're just there.

This is a movie that assumes there is an afterlife. It never truly questions what happens after you die, which comes as a disappointment. Quite simply, one minute you're here, the next you're not and you're on your final journey on your way to the afterlife. Susie talks of "my heaven," but as far as I could tell, this heaven had no god or supreme being to rule over it. The film never questions the implications of what would happen if you died and there was an afterlife, but nobody was there to rule it. I felt like it had plenty of opportunities to really get into why death is such a mystery, but it spends the majority of its time on Earth going through the motions of a routine murder mystery.

The Lovely Bones is an unstructured movie where years go by with little to no indication, which comes off as confusing because Susie does not age in the afterlife, but everything goes on as it would normally on Earth. Its plot turns come off as insignificant, as evidenced by a scene midway through where the Salmon mother, played by Rachel Weisz, leaves the family out of grief and doesn't return until late in the movie. There's even a montage that occurs after Susie's death that is played for laughs that feels like it should be placed in the next Austin Powers movie, not in the serious nature of this film.

Then you have the acting, which is uniformly unimpressive. Mark Wahlberg is poor, Rachel Weisz, a usually reliable actress, seems to be phoning it in and little Susie Salmon as played by Saoirse Ronan is adequate, but hardly compelling. The poor acting correlates with the sometimes laughable story because none of it feels authentic. There's a ridiculous love connection that sparks up between Susie and Ray, played by Reece Ritchie, that plays like a deleted scene from Twilight due to the long awkward stares and a piano tune that sounds ripped from NBC's "The More You Know" PSA's.

After my screening of The Lovely Bones, I inadvertently heard another critic comment that the film had the "style over substance" school of thought. That person couldn't be more right. This is all style and no substance. Jackson is a great director, but his approach to this film seems extravagant simply for the sake of it. It worked in King Kong and Lord of the Rings, but the difference is that this material doesn't always necessarily call for it, yet it's bumped up to 11. It becomes a major distraction.

Though not devoid of all positive qualities (Stanley Tucci is terrific and there's a truly heart pounding chase scene in the back half of the movie), The Lovely Bones nevertheless feels manufactured not out of love, but labor and its ending is anti-climactic and unfulfilling. Don't expect this one to win best picture kiddos.

The Lovely Bones receives 1.5/5

Movie Show Podcasts

2010-01-13T01:10:00.004-05:00

I'm like the Jeffersons. I'm moving on up. Only a year ago I was beginning my internship on BDK's Movie Show, answering phones and doing the usual intern work, only sporadically getting my voice out there on the radio airwaves, and now I've been promoted to co-host. While I am grateful for the opportunity, it really just goes to show how awesome I am. Despite the station flip from talk radio to sports talk radio (real dramatic, I know), we still find ourselves broadcasting every week on the newly launched WJFK HD2 channel. We hope lots of people listen, but we're realistic. Not many folks have purchased an HD radio and therefore are unable to listen to our show, so we put them up online. I've neglected the show recently due to being busy and plain old forgetfulness, so the last few shows are lumped into this single post, though I hope to do one weekly for each show from here on out.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Without further ado, I present to you the newly titled "Kevin McCarthy Movie Show featuring Josh Hylton," or something like that. Kevin changes it around every week.

Just to clarify: I'm not featured in every segment because Kevin records a few interviews ahead of time (I like him to take the lead on interviews anyway). Enjoy!

(Word of caution: When you click the link, you actually have to enter the four letters on the top right of the screen and download the file. It's cumbersome, but hey, be grateful you're getting anything.)

12/11/2009
1) Kevin interviews "The Green Mile"/"Sin City" star Michael Clarke Duncan
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2KJ5K682
2) Kevin interviews "Beerfest"/"Super Troopers" star Jay Chandrasekhar
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2FQTYIJJ
3) Kevin/Josh review INVICTUS/PRINCESS AND THE FROG
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SD6M1NI2
4) Kevin and Josh talk to Brandon Fibbs about the WAFCA awards
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EOHU2T5W
5) Kevin and Josh talk to Brendon Connelly
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=10OYGFCN
6) Michael Clarke Duncan live in show
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=I3O0YWP0
7) Kevin and Josh TOP 10 of 2009
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Q2HBO4PG
8) Kevin and Josh end the show
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Z8N1WCCJ

12/18/2009
1) Josh and Kevin Review AVATAR
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2S5GP6ZF
2) Nell Minow talks about AVATAR and Golden Globe Nominations
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ORCN97TP
3) Brendon Connelly from Slashfilm.com discusses AVATAR
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JCX6BY0J
4) Brandon Fibbs on talk about AVATAR
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YT4NC279
5) Josh, Kevin, Brandon and Brendon talk about the latest movie news
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Z0AVZ1CQ
6) Golden Globe predictions
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=S1T21NJJ

1/8/2010
1) Josh and Kevin review DAYBREAKERS and LEAP YEAR
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=L5C134JG
2) Josh and Kevin talk to UP IN THE AIR/500 DAYS OF SUMMER Cinematographer ERIC STEELBERG
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7510WD5H
3) Josh and Kevin talk to Moviemom about week's releases
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TQAS8ARK
4) Kevin talks to "The Lovely Bones" star Rose McIvey
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=H6CYFO06
5) Kevin and Josh talk to Brandon Fibbs with 10 Oscar Predictions
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JGJEWE5S
6) Kevin talks to SOUTHLAND/BAND OF BROTHERS star Michael Studlitz
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JR28VTJ3
7) Josh awkwardly ends the show with our theme music
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RSK5QTHM

On an unrelated note, this is my 200th post. Wow.

Skip This Leap Year

2010-01-11T01:06:00.007-05:00

It's been two days since I staggered my way into the horrendous new romantic comedy, Leap Year, kindly allowing it to sit and ferment in my brain with the hopes of coming up with something to say. I've had two days of reflection, wishing for the right words to say. Unfortunately, two days is all it took for me to forget it. It's an early contender for a "worst of the year" list, but it probably won't make the cut because come December, I'll have rightfully secreted every last thought of this thing from my mind. It's mere existence will be unbeknownst to me.

Amy Adams plays Anna, a prissy, irritating material girl who is too blinded by the thought of getting engaged to realize she's with a scummy boyfriend whom she doesn't really love. After an evening dinner where the big "surprise" her boyfriend promised was a pair of earrings, she gets antsy for an engagement and hears from her father, played by John Lithgow, that there's an old Irish tradition where a woman can go to the country and propose to her boyfriend on February 29th, a leap year. Well, whaddya know, her boyfriend is in Dublin on a business trip. How convenient! Being the young, hopeful woman she is, she makes her way out to see him and pop the question, but alas! The weather is bad and her plane is forced to land in Wales. Oh, whatever shall she do? Why, hitch a ride with a strapping young Irish lad of course! His name is Declan, played by Matthew Goode, and...well, you know what happens from here.

I adore Amy Adams. I've been in love with her ever since I saw the wonderful Enchanted. From that moment on, I've been ready to fall to my knees and confess my undying devotion to her, even when I've sat through films that I didn't particularly like. For example, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian was a brain killing movie, yet I found myself attracted to Ms. Adams, which pulled me through the grueling experience. She's proven herself to be quite the actress as well, pulling off Oscar nominated roles in Junebug and Doubt. But she is beyond annoying in Leap Year. Perhaps her character was simply written that way and her performance was actually spot on, but I, for the first time since discovering the beautiful young woman, found myself disgusted at her presence. It just goes to show that even the most gorgeous, charismatic girl in Hollywood can't rectify a miserable script and shoddy production.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the pre-screening for this film and was forced to pay for it, where I sat and watched with a packed crowd of women (and three other men who begrudgingly wandered in with their lady friends). They laughed the entire time and when walking out, I heard nothing but praise, so I can only imagine that if you are a woman aged 18-65, you may enjoy this. You are its demographic. I am not, so take my words with a grain of salt, but I can't help but feel like Leap Year lazily catered solely to that audience instead of creating a product that could be enjoyed by anybody. For instance, the jokes in the movie usually centered around Anna's clothes, handbags and shoes. At one point, she finds herself washed up on the beach in heels. Cue the female laughter. Walking in heels on the beach? How ruthlessly absurd!

Perhaps I'm being too hard on it. Just like I don't understand the humor in jokes about clothes, most women I know don't understand my love of Rambo, so I'm willing to call it even. What I cannot forgive, however, is the predictable script, eye rolling dialogue and inauthentic love story. What transpires is nothing more than a fairy tale happy ending that would never, ever in a million years, happen in real life. If it did, we would all be living with the one true love of our lives cuddling up in front of a fire that emanates a warmth unneeded due to the own warmth we'd be creating, if you know what I mean.

But movies are an escape and I suppose if things ended realistically, everybody would be miserable and movie going patrons would cry foul. That doesn't make up for its ineptitude, but I'm sure it will be a hit with its target audience. More power to them, I say. Of course, that doesn't mean I have to like it. And I don't. In fact, I've already booked an appointment with Lacuna, Inc. to come and wipe it from my memory tonight when I go to sleep. Will I fight the process, realizing my love for it and discovering that my hatred was only pain disguised as anger? I doubt it. That story has already been told.

Leap Year receives 0.5/5

Daybreakers a Gory Good Time

2010-01-11T00:01:00.009-05:00

There was a time when vampires used to be the epitome of cool. There was a time when Blade ruled the box office with its hard R rating, providing plenty of action and blood for fans. There was a time when vampires weren't reduced to frilly angst ridden teenagers entwined in a romantic love triangle with a self-pitying high school girl and shirtless werewolf. I remember those times. Oh, how I miss them. Vampires used to be scary, stalkers of the night out for the blood of unsuspecting humans. Now they sparkle when they walk in the sun. Thankfully, nay, blessedly, Daybreakers is here to set things straight. While it may be coming at an unfortunate time, in the wake of those silly Twilight movies, it's nevertheless a riotous good time.

The year is 2019. Due to a single bat with a strange virus, a plague of vampirism has spread across the world like a wildfire. Now, less than five percent of the population is human. Everybody else has turned into a demon of the night, but things still run as usual. They still go to work, drink coffee (with blood instead of cream) and drive and the television politics still rage on. The only difference is that they do it all at night and the political arguments are about the extermination of the human race. During the day, the world is one giant ghost town, which proves to be a perfect opportunity for the last remaining humans to venture outside in search of other humans. Edward (not to be confused with that pale skinned, love sick ninny), played by Ethan Hawke, a vampire himself, runs into a group of them one day on his way home from work. Although they threaten to kill him, he has no desire to feed on them and helps them instead. He's one of those human-hugging types. Hippie.

He does this despite a global shortage of blood. In fact, in another few weeks, the last remaining human harvests will dry up and the vampires will all go mad feeding on each other, which will increase the rate of their deterioration until they all finally die. However, those humans have found a cure for vampirism thanks to a former vampire called Elvis, played by Willem Dafoe, and they enlist Edward in their attempt to save not only themselves, but the whole world.

Not since 2000's Shadow of the Vampire, which also starred Willem Dafoe, have I seen such a unique vampire movie. Finally a film comes along that dares to switch up the tried and true formula. It takes the basic concept of vampires feeding on humans and flips it around. What if there were no humans left to feed on? The premise is intriguing and an interesting commentary on our dwindling resources with our growing population. Who knew a bloody horror flick could be so smart?

But then again, it's not like I had my brain tuned to "think" when I sat down to watch Daybreakers. All I really wanted was a slickly done vampire movie with humor and gore and that's what I got. After watching Twilight and New Moon, where the only pain inflicted on anyone was purely on an emotional level, it was nice to see some pain transcend to the physical realm. This thing gets red with some excellent moments I didn't see coming, including a hilarious vampire combustion that had me cackling with glee.

What I came out of Daybreakers surprised about, however, was that the film was actually made well. A horror movie not screened for critics being released in the theatrical dump month of January? There's no way it could be good, right? Wrong. The Spierig brothers, the directors, whose only other feature length film was the 2003 straight-to-DVD horror/comedy Undead (which was pretty damn awesome if you ask me), showcase some skill here. Whereas Undead was fun, but amateur, Daybreakers promises better things to come in the duo's future. It's slyly directed and the little attention to details makes for a pleasurable experience.

Even more impressive is that they wrote the picture as well, toning down their jocular tone from Undead to make a more mature horror/drama. With the sole exception of Willem Dafoe's character, who spouts some really dumb one-liners that feel out of place in an otherwise rock solid picture, the writing is spectacular. It doesn't explain everything, but it doesn't need to. It's not about how it happens. It's merely about what happens and why. Though I fear putting these two films side by side may confuse the levels of their quality, this film is like The Road in that it's more of a warning than anything else. It intends not to show the causes of certain situations, but rather create an allegory revolving around them that can be related to real life.

Now, Daybreakers is no Oscar contender like The Road, but not every movie has to be some amazing display of filmmaking to be entertaining. Despite combining quality acting with a clever script and skillful direction, this is really nothing more than a fun romp at the movies. Given the quality of films usually released in this month, what more could you ask for?

Daybreakers receives 4/5

Crazy Heart a Moving Drama

2010-01-08T00:01:00.009-05:00

There are few actors working today who can captivate an audience like Jeff Briges can. No matter whether he's playing a quirky Army soldier (The Men Who Stare at Goats), an evil weapons manufacturer (Iron Man), a carefree bowling enthusiast (The Big Lebowski), or voicing a long thought dead surfer penguin (Surf's Up), he can come across in a big way, hitting a multitude of emotions and endearing himself to the viewers. He is a top notch talent and always hits a home run in his roles, even in movies that are fairly terrible (How to Lose Friends & Alienate People). This time, he tackles a film that is already worthy of consideration for an end of the year "best of" list and finds himself in a role guaranteed to include a few "Best Actor" nominations, including the already announced Golden Globes nod. Yes my friends, Crazy Heart is a special movie.

Though I love all genres of film, I'm a person who finds himself stubbornly staving off any type of music other than good old rock n' roll. Put some country music on around me and my ears start to bleed, so imagine my skepticism when it came to this film about a washed up country music performer. What Crazy Heart proves, even to this jaded head banger, is that music can be beautiful regardless of what genre it's in. I was tapping my toes to the music and reveling in the discovery of how each song came to be, all of which came from the singer's own life experiences. Jeff Bridges plays the singer in question who for years has gone by the moniker of Bad Blake and as he tells a seductive journalist named Jean, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, nobody will know his true name until the day he dies, where it will be written on his tombstone. She remarks, "That's a long time to wait," and he replies with what can essentially be paraphrased as, "Maybe not."

His response comes with a few caveats. Despite the humorous nature of it, we later find out that Bad is in trouble. He is in danger of having a stroke due to an unhealthy lifestyle, which includes excessive smoking and drinking. He used to be the biggest star around, but now he is a nobody and his former band mate, Tommy, played by Colin Farrell, has gone off on his own and wrangled his own fans. Naturally, Bad is depressed and bitter, finding himself playing small shows in worn down bars and bowling alleys just to make a buck.

After the aforementioned interview, Bad begins to fall in love with Jean and this is where the story really starts to take off. Bad has been miserable since his falling out an unspecified number of years ago and we assume it's all for legitimate reasons. Who wouldn't be miserable playing in small bars after your former band mate left you? Well, later we find out that Tommy didn't leave in hate and still respects Bad tremendously. He remarks to him how he'll never forget that it was him who gave him his start. Throughout the movie, Bad is heard spewing verbal hatred at Tommy and we simply take it as his way to deal with Tommy's crippling betrayal, but it simply isn't the case. He has no real reason to be mad at Tommy. He is merely confusing his jealousy for anger. After he reluctantly opens for him at a big gig, we finally discover this and realize there's something more brewing underneath Bad's seemingly hardened veneer.

The reason he takes the gig in the first place is because of Jean, not because she urges him to, but because he starts to find happiness in her and starts to dismiss those feelings of hate. However, when everything finally seems to be turning around for the better and he finds himself getting his love for Jean returned to him, he ruins it with bad decision making. His alcoholism controls him and although he is asked by Jean to not drink in front of her young son, he stops inside of a bar one day while out with the little tyke and loses him due to his drunkenness.

To continue on discussing this terrific story would be taking the pleasure of seeing it unfolding yourself away. However, it's the underlying message that really hits home and makes this movie something more than the sum of its parts. It shows a man emotionally and physically crippled from a number of problems, some external and some self inflicted, but finds hope in his cloud of depression. It says that it's never too late to turn your life around. No matter your age, your nasty habits or the turmoil you're going through, you can change yourself and become someone better, somebody who looks at life through a fresh perspective.

Much more is revealed about Bad in this nearly two hour movie, but my adulation for Crazy Heart has already kept me rambling for far too long. Bad is a multi-layered person, simple on the surface, but hiding secrets within him and he summarizes his entire character arc with one lyrical line from one of his country songs where he sings, "I used to be somebody, but now I'm somebody else."

Although there isn't much going on behind the camera, largely due to first-time director Scott Cooper, and the story is overly familiar—it's basically The Wrestler with more heart (as my friend Kevin "BDK" McCarthy put it)—it's done with such splendor and dedication that one can't help but be impressed with the finished product. It's a shame Crazy Heart wasn't released in DC a couple of weeks back so I could rightfully place it on my 2009 best of the year list. Oh well. I guess 2010 will have to do.

Crazy Heart receives 5/5

Youth in Revolt the First Stinker of 2010

2010-01-08T00:01:00.003-05:00

I should have known better. Everybody knows that January is dump month, the month of the year where movie studios release the films they have no faith in. After the holidays, where they release the films they think could be big money grabbers or Oscar contenders, theatrical attendance generally goes down a bit. So instead of releasing something of quality, they take whatever they have lying around and plop it here just so they will have something on screens nationwide while they await their next big blockbuster. Despite this, Youth in Revolt looked promising. The trailers were amusing and seemed like only a glimpse at an overall better, raunchier, funnier movie, but naturally, that isn't the case. Youth in Revolt is quite bad and Michael Cera's relatively impressive filmography is now on a running streak of two bad movies in a row with the inclusion of the wretched Year One released earlier this year. Perhaps his usual brand of awkward humor is beginning to wear thin.

The film follows Nick Twisp (Cera), the typical nerdy, virgin teen that usually crops up in these types of pictures. He lives with his mother (Jean Smart) and her boy toy whom he hates named Jerry (Zach Galifianakis). After three Navy men come around to lay the beat down on Jerry, they pack up and take a road trip to a camper site where Nick meets the love of his life, Sheeni (Portia Doubleday). His overwhelming emotions get the best of him and in his desire to win her over, he creates a supplementary persona whom he dubs Francois (also played by Michael Cera), the suave, uncaring, foul mouthed side of him who says what's on his mind and does what he wants. Unfortunately, Nick has to leave the camper site and Sheeni behind, so he comes up with a master plan. He will do terrible things and make his mother's life miserable. This way, she will kick him out and he will have to live with his father (Steve Buscemi) who lives near Sheeni. After blowing up a store with the help of his alternate personality, he gets his wish, but the cops are now looking for him as well.

Youth in Revolt is one mess of an unfunny movie, in large part due to the creepy nature of Francois and the questionable mental state of Nick. The crutch of the film is his split personality, but Francois comes off more as a child predator than he does the cool bad ass side of Nick. Essentially, Nick is talking to himself in the scenes with Francois and forces himself to do things he doesn't want to do. He's mentally unstable, sick of his repressed, secluded self and growing weary of his mother's sluttiness that his kind, gentle demeanor is overtaken by the power of Francois. His brain is so diluted with the foolish thought that he simply can't go on being a virgin (because no 16 year old anywhere is still a virgin) that he basically snaps. This is a guy we're supposed to root for, but I found myself more inclined to root for the police so he could get the proper psychiatric treatments he so desperately needed.

Though it does offer up a few laughs here and there, roughly half are in the trailer (equaling out to about seven or eight total) and they're better edited in it than the actual picture. Similar to the overrated Fantastic Mr. Fox, Youth in Revolt takes a funny joke that was edited with terrific comedic timing in the trailer and adds in an extra shot or two that throws the whole punchline off track. It just goes to show how important editing is. You can have the funniest joke ever on paper, but if it doesn't come across pitch perfect in the movie, it loses its impact.

Michael Cera, though undeniably likable and charming, has more or less played the same character in every movie, including this one. His awkward, nerdy physique and sarcastic humor are intact in Youth in Revolt, but it's old at this point. While Francois is a departure from his usual performance, he is underutilized, only showing up in a handful of scenes, only one of which is funny in the slightest.

I'm not quick to point the finger at anybody in particular when it comes to the failings of Youth in Revolt. The actors do a capable job, the direction is fine and the writing was decent enough, but "capable," "fine," and "decent" aren't exactly impassioned adjectives. The whole affair just seems lazy, with nobody doing anything too awful, but nobody on the opposite end picking up the slack either. The new year is off to a poor start indeed.

Youth in Revolt receives 1.5/5

The Best Films of 2009

2009-12-27T01:26:00.000-05:00

It's hard for me to classify 2009. I've only been alive for 23 years and am still yet to see many of the great classic films. Throughout this whole year, as I watched and wrote about all of the movies on this blog, I could only take away from them the knowledge I brought into them. I can't always compare this movie to that or that movie to this, so it's hard for me to say how well 2009 stacks up compared to other movie years. That's where I turn to Roger Ebert. Recently, on his Twitter account, he said that 2009 ranks right up there with 1939 and 1976 as particularly memorable. That's saying a lot and I'm inclined to agree. Putting this top ten list together was brutal because so many excellent movies were released that I simply couldn't fit on here. I've compiled it, rearranged movies and switched some in and out and I am just now comfortable with my choices. This isn't the end all, be all "best of" list on the Internet (and I implore you to seek out others as well), but for better or worse, these are the best films of 2009.

10. Up (read my review here)—I thought long and hard about this number 10 spot. There were so many films deserving of it that I couldn't choose just one. For a while, my list began with Precious, then I switched it to Inglourious Basterds, then District 9, and most recently I even considered Sherlock Holmes, but none of those made me feel the unadulterated joy and sadness that Up did. While Precious was certainly a hard hitting drama and put me through a whirlwind of emotions, I came out depressed, but Up made me simultaneously cry like a little baby and smile like I had just seen an angel. It tapped into every emotion it possibly could and delivered one of the most breathtaking experiences at the cinema I've had all year. Hell, just the opening montage alone that goes through Carl's entire life from childhood to marriage to the death of his wife is reason enough to place it on this list. I've seen plenty of beautiful things at the movies throughout the course of my life, but I've never seen anything more beautiful than that. Up is more than just an opening montage, however. It's full of life and feeling and love and passion. It's imaginative and vividly detailed with computer animation unrivaled in the animation world. This is the tenth film from the geniuses over at Pixar and it's their tenth success. While this isn't their best film (Wall-E and Finding Nemo are far better), Up fits comfortably in their filmography and rightfully deserves a spot on this list.

9. The Hangover (read my review here)—Every good "best of the year" list needs a good comedy. If I'm being honest with myself, there were better movies to come out this year (like the ones mentioned alongside Up), but there's nothing more fulfilling than going to the movies and laughing your face off, so I like to give credit where credit is due. This year saw some great comedies—I Love You, Man, Adventureland, The Invention of Lying, Bruno, Zombieland and of course, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li—but none were as funny as The Hangover. The film featured an excellent cast of Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper and the hilarious Zach Galifianakis and their chemistry together was what made this movie. I usually feel like most sequels to comedies are unnecessary, but this was one of the first times I absolutely demanded one because the trio are simply superb together. Although The Hangover isn't as unique as The Invention of Lying and isn't as shocking as Bruno, the care put into its creation is far better. Todd Phillips, director of frat boy favorites Road Trip and Old School puts his own style on the proceedings and crafts an authentic feeling out of an outlandish situation. It's over the top and it may not have the heart that Adventureland did, but you'll be gasping for breath from laughing so hard. The Hangover is that funny.

8. Up in the Air (read my review here)—I originally intended to put Michael Moore's wonderful new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story in this spot because much like how I feel every good "best of" list needs a comedy, I also feel like it needs a good documentary, but despite my affection for what Moore was saying in his movie, Up in the Air needs recognition and I refuse to take any of the other films off my list. Sorry Mike! Seemingly coming out of nowhere, I saw Up in the Air about a month before its release, having never seen a trailer and no idea what it was about. All I knew was that it starred the always reliable George Clooney and was being directed by Jason Reitman, who also helmed Thank You for Smoking and the wonderful Juno. Just like those two films, Up in the Air is a subtle picture with jokes that aren't always laugh out loud funny, but remain amusing nonetheless. Also like those two films, this one holds deeper meaning and finds the extraordinary in the mundane. It's simply amazing to see how deep human emotion can go and Clooney's character pushes his to the fullest. He's a loner, an individual who by the end of the movie realizes that he's flown all over the world, but has never truly been anywhere because he's been traveling alone. There's also a social commentary in Up in the Air about corporate downsizing that cements its relevancy in today's society. Some are claiming this to be the best movie of the year, including the National Board of Review and WAFCA (Washington Area Film Critics Association). It's not, hence the eight spot, but it's a delight nonetheless and a wonderful cinematic achievement.

7. The Brothers Bloom (read my review here)—Perhaps the most underappreciated movie on this list, The Brothers Bloom received mediocre reviews, resting at only 64% on Rotten Tomatoes, and made very little money at the box office (not even $5 million worldwide). For the life of me I cannot figure out why. It has everything you could want; laughs, emotion, great performances, wonderful direction, a witty script and a story that twists and turns every which way without cheating you or becoming too confusing. The Brothers Bloom takes every facet of good filmmaking and combines them nearly flawlessly. Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo play the two brothers, conmen who have gained riches through the years due to their elaborate cons. Their latest scheme is to con Penelope, played by the effervescent Rachel Weisz, but Brody starts to fall in love with her, putting a kink in their plans. This seemingly simple story is carried out with aplomb and goes in directions you won't ever see coming. At one point, it seems like the film is wrapping up, which would have been fine because everything up to that point was wonderful, but it goes the extra mile and lengthens the story, including even more twists and cons, to the point where the film starts to con you. As I said in my review, when most movies do this, they get off track and lose themselves, but this one keeps you with it and now that I think about it, I can't see it ending any other way. Too many people passed by this one. Don't make the same mistake.

6. Star Trek (read my review here)—What a disappointing summer it was for big budget action blockbusters. X-Men Origins: Wolverine failed to live up to the standards the previous X-Men trilogy had set (yes, I liked the third one too), as was the case with Terminator Salvation. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was similarly a waste of time, offering nothing in the way of competent filmmaking, though none of those matched the putrid stench of the horrid Michael Bay travesty, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a film that very easily made my worst of the year list (click here to read it). The only one that had any merit at all was Star Trek and it wasn't just a good action flick; it was a great one. It's not on this list because it was the only one done competently. It's on this list because it truly deserves it. From the look of the film to the acting to the brilliant use of Leonard Nimoy, who played Spock in the original series and whom the filmmakers fit perfectly into the story instead of placing him in as a distracting cameo, this is an amazing production. What Star Trek does so flawlessly is bridge that gap between fans and non-fans. I brought my father to the screening for this movie and we couldn't be more opposite. He loves the franchise and I hate it, but we both sat there like little children in awe of what we were seeing. If you want pulse pounding excitement along with character development and an excellent storyline, you want to see Star Trek.

5. The Road (read my review here)—Here's another criminally underappreciate d film on the list, making very little money due to its extremely limited release. While this isn't as underrated as The Brothers Bloom, it still didn't get the recognition it deserved. The Road is haunting and bleak, yet beautiful. It's depressing, but surprisingly optimistic. It's a film that will make you realize how fragile our lives really are. The Earth has been around for billions of years (sorry Mike Huckabee, you're wrong) and most of us live for less than a hundred. Our time on this planet is very short and if nothing else, The Road teaches us to value that time and acts as a warning that if we don't shape up, things are going to take a turn for the worse. It's a movie that looks incredibly simple on the surface. The story revolves around a father and son in a post-apocalyptic landscape venturing south in hopes of finding a better place to live, but that simplification would be missing the point. There are many themes present in this movie and it explores the dichotomy of life and death, explaining that in certain situations, the line between the two can blur. Some people don't like these types of movies due to their depressing nature, but I love them because they are usually the ones that have the most to say. Bad things do happen. Our existence isn't all butterflies and sunshine and The Road knows it.

4. Ponyo (read my review here)—I'm a self proclaimed animation junkie. I've always been one to adore the magic that shines through in the art form. Animation has no limitations. You can allow your imagination to run wild when crafting an animated movie and animation master Hayao Miyazaki seems to be the only person outside of the folks at Pixar and Dreamworks who knows it. Miyazaki is widely regarded as the best person working in animation and his talent shines through in his latest effort, Ponyo, a magical visual wonder that rivals anything Pixar has ever done. Although this isn't quite as good as Miyazaki's Spirited Away, which is hands down the best animated movie I've ever seen, it's so close to perfect I'd be shocked to hear anybody say they have any real major qualms with it. Much like this year's The Princess and the Frog (which you can read my review of right here), Ponyo is a throwback to old school 2D animation and it is exquisite. We've all become so watered down by computer animated movies that this forgotten art form almost seems like a delicacy, but this movie uses it to its fullest effect. On top of all of this, there's a strong sense of humanity in the film because the story is centered around young love between the two children with their connection being the only thing that can save the world from a collision with the moon. It sounds odd, and it is, but it's carried out with such efficiency that I guarantee you'll fall in love with it.

3. Where the Wild Things Are (read my review here)—As part of my duties on BDK's Movie Show over at 106.7 WJFK HD2, I put together my five favorite movies of the decade, films that I think define this generation. It's a difficult task and it took some thought, but one I knew I wanted to put on there was Where the Wild Things Are. Now, you may be asking, "If it's in your top five of the decade, why is it only at number three for the year?" It's a valid question, so allow me to explain. Although I believe the two upcoming movies are better, I don't think that 10 years from now we will look back on them and remember them for how special they were. Their relevancy will fade and their meaning will lose impact, but Where the Wild Things Are will not. In 10 years, I'll still be watching this, appreciating its beauty, feeling sadness from its heartfelt story and discovering new themes and meanings, of which there are many. This is a movie that shows childhood realistically. Too many people think of children as young, naïve, innocent creatures that have no real emotion, which is entirely untrue. Where the Wild Things Are taps into their true nature, showing their happiness as well as their feelings of rage, pain and loneliness. It's an intellectually challenging movie and is now one of my favorites. Director Spike Jonze created his masterpiece in Where the Wild Things Are.

2. The Hurt Locker (read my review here)—Movies set around the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't done too well at the box office. Although I can only speculate, I think it is because most audiences, regardless of their political affiliation, don't want to be preached to. They don't want to hear that war is bad and that we shouldn't be fighting. They go to the movies to escape, not to be reminded of the violence that erupts daily and the dead that result from it. However, The Hurt Locker isn't one of those movies. It doesn't preach an anti-war message. In fact, it's completely non-partisan. What it does is examine the effect war has on the soldiers who fight it, a cause anybody can get behind regardless of whether you lean to the left or the right. Although you could easily classify it as an action film, The Hurt Locker is not fun to watch. This action film is visceral, violent and realistic, placing you in the battlefield with the soldiers and showing you the atrocities of war close-up. As I noted in my review, the opening to this movie was, and still is, the most intense and riveting scene I've seen since the coin flip scene in No Country for Old Men. The film is a tad too long and could have been trimmed a bit, but if that's my only complaint, you can get a good idea of the film's overall quality. The Hurt Locker is the best Iraq war themed movie to ever be released and no matter whether you're for the war or against it, you need to see this film.

1. 500 Days of Summer (read my review here)—When I walked out of The Hurt Locker, I thought to myself, "This is the best movie of the year. It's going to be tough for any movie to knock this one down from the number one spot." Then one week later I saw 500 Days of Summer and displaced those thoughts immediately. The film stars the charismatic Joseph Gordon-Levitt and absolutely adorable Zooey Deschanel as Tom and Summer, respectively, and it chronicles the 500 days that Summer is in Tom's life. It's a roller coaster of emotion and we go through the good times with Tom as well as the bad, but the reason this works so well is because we aren't watching it from an outsider's perspective as we do in other romance movies. We are seeing it through the eyes of Tom and come to feel as he does. The world looks so much brighter when their relationship is going well and bleak when things go bad. There are few romantic comedies that can stand the test of time (or even be considered good in the moment), but 500 Days of Summer is one of them and should go down alongside When Harry Met Sally as one of the best ever. Who would have thought that in a year with so many terrific films that a romantic comedy would be in the number one spot? I certainly didn't, but 500 Days of Summer truly deserves it.

The Worst Films of 2009

2009-12-27T00:58:00.001-05:00

Last year, I compiled lists of what I considered to be the best and worst of the year. However, I had not seen every movie. I had only seen a select few, so it was hard to produce accurate lists. This year, thanks to my duties over on BDK's Movie Show, I've seen and written about nearly every one. I was slow on the uptake, writing a combined 12 reviews for January and February due to a hectic schedule, but I had seen each movie and since then, I've dedicated myself to writing about each and every film I see regardless of how busy I am. Why do I say this? I say this because this is the best, most comprehensive list I could come up with after having seen a good 175 movies this year (give or take a few). A lot of crap was released in 2009 and it wasn't easy compiling this, but in the end these films stand head and shoulders above the rest. These are the 10 worst films of 2009.

10. Fighting (read my review here)—Full disclosure: I am not a fighting fan. I can't stand UFC and I've never understood the fascination with watching two shirtless, sweaty men beat each other senseless. I'd rather watch a romance (shut up). But if that sounds like a good time to you and you don't care about good acting, a meaningful story, or competent direction, then you might like Fighting, but I found it to be one of the most excruciating experiences I had in a theater this year. The film follows Shawn MacArthur, played by bad actor Channing Tatum, a young man forced to live on the streets and sell fake versions of the new Harry Potter book. One day, a man named Harvey, played horrifically by Terrence Howard, takes notice and enters him into an underground fighting organization where he rises through the ranks and earns money by kicking as much ass as he possibly can. If the banality of the film's simple one word title didn't tip you off, Fighting is about as unimaginative as they come and nothing happens the entire film. In my review, I related this movie to a NASCAR race because much like one of those races, you watch it move for two hours only to realize it's gone nowhere. Perhaps the filmmakers weren't aware that most movies have a little something called story arc. To once again quote my review, "The only fight you'll have in Fighting is the fight to stay awake." That about sums it up.

9. Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (read my review here)—Ok, I'll be honest with you. Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li should be much higher on this list, probably at number two ranked only behind the foulest most brain deadening movie to be released this year (more on that later), but you know what? It's absolutely hilarious. Unlike the movies up higher on this list, Street Fighter is so bad, it's actually pretty damn good. I haven't laughed so hard in a theater all year. The Hangover and Bruno have nothing on Street Fighter. You want to laugh? Invite some friends over, pop this bad boy in, have a couple of beers and provide your own commentary, which is precisely what I did once it hit DVD. Though it wasn't quite as funny the second time around due to my knowledge of what was coming next, I'll never forget the stomach cramps I received from my incessant laughter. In theory, it should probably be on my best of the year list, but I refuse to count unintentional hilarity as a positive trait and thus, here it is. Featuring an epically bad performance from Chris Klein, of which will go down in history as one of the worst ever, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is devoid of a single positive trait. I actually wrote this review for my school paper, Broadside, but it was cut for unspecified reasons, though I later found out why. As I discussed the characters and how poorly written they were, I wrote this line which was deemed too offensive: "To call them thin would be an insult to anorexia." I stand by that.

8. All About Steve (read my review here)—It was a good year for Sandra Bullock. She first starred in the commercially successful (critically, not so much) The Proposal, which offered a few laughs and decent chemistry between her and her co-star, Ryan Reynolds. She also recently starred in the surprise hit, The Blind Side, which is still playing as of the time of this writing and has banked a running domestic gross of over $130 million on a $29 million budget. It actually dethroned the teenage schlock-fest New Moon in its third week of release and it was even pretty good to boot (read my review of it here). But in between those two lies the release of All About Steve, a vapid alleged "comedy" that I'm positive was summoned from the depths of Hell to torment me. The largest problem with the film is that Mary, played by Bullock, is a psychotic leech who latches herself onto Steve, played by Bradley Cooper coming off of his mega-hit The Hangover. She's a crossword constructor for her local paper and upon meeting Steve, she instantly falls in love and writes her next crossword all about Steve, with each clue pertaining to a different aspect of the man. If that isn't obsessively creepy, I don't know what is. When the central character of your movie is as mentally unstable as Mary, nothing can redeem it. Case in point with All About Steve.

7. Next Day Air (read my review here)—As I began to compile this list, I had a good idea of what movies I wanted to include. My top five were already locked and there were a handful of contenders for the bottom half, so as I scoured my archives looking for films that could could potentially fit on the list, I ran across Next Day Air and realized I had completely forgotten about it. I couldn't remember much about the film, but then I saw my title for the post: "Next Day Air - One of the Worst Movies of the Year," so I thought, "Well, I guess I have to include it now." I'm glad I did. As I read over my review and dug deep to recollect my thoughts on it, I realized how putrid it had been. This is a film that makes light of drug smuggling and violence and the story goes absolutely nowhere. The end climax of this disaster is a bloody shootout over a box of cocaine which results in the death of every character except for two, one of whom escapes with the coke and the other whom escapes with the money. One particular grisly death ends with a knife to the throat. Oh and this is a comedy. Sounds funny, huh? No? Well, you're right. It's not. There isn't a laugh to be had in the entire film because drug smuggling and gratuitous violence are not funny. Not to mention the lack of respect for human individuality that was present in the film, which consisted of numerous stereotypes of various ethnicities, including one Latino woman whose dialogue was laden with words like "ese" and "muchacho" in between her English. How fresh. Believe it or not, it's not the worst show of racism to occur in a movie this year, but it's damn close. You can expect to see this one in the $2.99 bargain bin any day now.

6. The Collector (read my review here)—The Collector is another movie, much like Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li that is so bad, it's actually kind of entertaining. I saw this in a similar situation as Street Fighter, with a couple of buddies, and when the movie was over we ripped it a new one, making a list of flaws and inconsistencies that would be pages long had we taken the time to write them all down. The Collector was written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the writers behind Saw IV, V, VI and the upcoming Saw VII 3D (no joke) and was meant to be a prequel to that successful franchise, but the movie studio didn't want a prequel and instead the film was greenlit as its own beast, and what a beast it is. The Collector is a violent, mean spirited train wreck of a film with zero logic and a "mystery" killer that's as obvious as any whodunit I've ever seen. Within the first five minutes, I could have told everybody in the theater who the killer was because it's telegraphed with such clarity that not a doubt was left in my mind. To describe the many plot holes in the film would require detailing the entire plot, which is not prudent for this small space. All you need to know is that the film takes place all in one day and the killer sets up dozens of elaborate traps all throughout an empty house by nightfall, including a staircase to nowhere with nails literally embedded in it; not just placed there, but built into the wood. He does all of this in a matter of hours. What a stupid movie.

5. Land of the Lost (read my review here)—An open letter to Will Ferrell:

Dear Mr. Ferrell,

My name is Joshua Hylton and I used to be a big fan of yours. You were hilarious on "Saturday Night Live" and your first major big screen endeavors were enjoyable enough to sit through. However, it has become abundantly clear in the last few years that you work better as a side character than the star. Look at some of the best movies you've been in—Old School, the first two Austin Powers movies, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Wedding Crashers—you were great in those and you promised great things to come, but then you did Elf...and Blades of Glory...and Bewitched...and Semi-Pro...and Step Brothers, all of which were dreadful. However, your most egregious offense has come with this year's truly atrocious Land of the Lost, a vacuous movie succubus that took a good three years worth of my school education and flushed it down the toilet due to its mind numbing idiocy. At this point, your career has become nothing more than a joke, a stain on the soiled underwear of Hollywood, and we have all grown tired of your never changing shtick. Your humor is juvenile and your over the top antics have made us all weary. You're not interesting, you're not that good of an actor, and God knows you sure aren't funny. Please, for the love of all things holy, move on with your life and stop flooding our screens with your annoying puerile babble bullcrap.

Sincerely,

Joshua Hylton

4. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (read my review here)—I'm a guy and just like any other testosterone fueled male, I love action movies. I love to see people get shot and stuff get blown up real good. It's practically my existence. Give me an awesome scene that ends with dozens of bodies lying in their own pool of blood and feces and you're on your way to winning me over, but no matter how much action you cram in your movie, you still need a well written script, a coherent story, good acting and a tone that doesn't come off as obnoxious. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has none of those things and is one of the most harebrained movies to come out this year. Like the original, it had a giant budget that could have been used intelligently to make a movie that could be described as something other than loud, but it didn't. Now, the first film wasn't terrible. It was bad and didn't deserve nearly as much credit as its rabid fanbase gave it, but it wasn't a disaster. Its sequel is, however. Its story is incoherent, the acting is just awful (if you think Megan Fox can't act with other people, wait until you see her try to act with something that isn't actually there), the action is insufferably noisy, and it boasts the most racist and offensive stereotyped characters to be placed in a movie this year in the form of Skids and Mudflap, two robots who embody the "black" role, complete with jive talking, gold teeth and large, protruding ears. If you still aren't convinced that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a terrible waste of your time, wait until you see Sam, played by Shia LaBeouf, reach what can only be described as robot heaven. Then come try to argue with me. Spoiler warning! You will lose.

3. Halloween II (read my review here)—The original 1978 John Carpenter classic, Halloween, is widely considered to be one of the scariest movies of all time and rightfully so. I've seen tons of so called "scary movies," but none have affected me the way that film did because the events depicted in it could indeed happen. There's nothing scarier than the thought of a psycho busting through your door to mercilessly murder you with no guilt, rhyme or reason. Not to be confused with the 1981 follow-up, Halloween II, this 2009 sequel to Rob Zombie's appalling Halloween remake sunk as low as it could possibly go. After that cinematic abortion, you'd think there'd be nowhere to go but up, but you'd be wrong. The largest problem with this wretched film is that Zombie doesn't seem to understand what made Michael Myers so scary in the first place. Michael was scary because he tapped into that childhood fear of the boogeyman. He was an enigma, someone who stalked the night looking for flesh to cut into. In this movie, Zombie humanizes him, thus lessening the fear. You see him with his mask off, you see him eat and you hear him grunt and scream. Throw in the laughable notion that Michael's psychosis is related to apparitions of his dead mother next to a white horse and you have one of the worst horror movies of the decade. Considering how low horror movie standards are, that's really saying something.

2. Imagine That (read my review here)—Eddie Murphy used to be someone I looked to for laughs. I loved his Beverly Hills Cop movies, I thought he was brilliant in the first Nutty Professor, and then of course there are the classics Coming to America and Trading Places, both of which were very funny. But then he started making stuff like Daddy Day Care, The Haunted Mansion, Meet Dave and The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which is one of the biggest flops in cinematic history, making just over $4 million on a $100 million budget. When did he decide to start making family friendly movies? He's at his best when he's spouting curse words and reveling in the general vulgarity of his material, so his transition came as a big surprise. Then this year he released Imagine That, a Nickelodeon movie that was about as unbearable an experience as that time I sat through a whole day of elementary school with a steaming loafer in my underwear because I was too embarrassed to ask the teacher if I could go call my mother. It may have even been a tad worse. At least I wasn't bored trying to avoid any possible human interaction and find well ventilated areas to hide the stench. I know it's easy to spew hatred at a supposed kids movie like Imagine That, but it's too idiotic for adults and too boring for kids because I'm pretty sure most young children aren't interested in watching a financial executive participate in business meetings. For that matter, neither am I.

1. Transylmania (read my review here)—Funny story. Last week, I began to put my lists together. I figured it was so late in the game, that the chances of a December film cracking my top ten was slim to none. Besides, one would have to be truly absymal to even be considered in the running along with the rest of these films. Well, consideration not needed with Transylmania. As soon as the closing credits (who am I kidding, the opening scene) began to roll, I knew right away it would be at the top of this list. I actually had to bump New Moon off from the number 10 spot so I could move each film down a notch, which saddens me because now I can't continue my onslaught of how stupid the notion of sparkly vampires are, but it had to be done. The many problems in Transylmania are almost incomprehensible. I'm not even positive I could count that high. This is a film that somehow, for reasons unknown to me, made it into theaters instead of heading straight to DVD. Its filmmakers tout it as a humorous spoof on the country's recent obsession with vampires, but the fact that I had to bump off the already insipid New Moon to make room for this even more insipid "spoof" of that film is telling enough. Words cannot describe my hatred for Transylmania. I would watch the other nine movies on this list dozens of times over if it meant I never had to be subjected to this again because it is hands down the worst film of 2009.

Sherlock Holmes is Pulse Pounding Excitement

2009-12-26T23:59:00.005-05:00

God bless Robert Downey Jr. The man is someone everybody should look up to. He's a real talent, capable of giving performances that bring his character to life, but he's fallible. He found himself down on his luck, arrested for drug charges and forced to undergo court ordered drug treatment programs throughout the late 90's and into the 2000's. Instead of giving up, he bounced back, dropped his nasty habits and finally resurrected his career with excellent roles in Zodiac, Tropic Thunder and the exciting Iron Man franchise. Well, he's done it again with Sherlock Holmes, a delightfully fun movie that takes its 2+ hour length and uses it to its fullest with never a dull moment.

The film begins with Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) as he sneaks his way into a murderer's tomb where Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) is about to perform a ritualistic sacrifice on what would be his sixth victim. Just before the big finale, Holmes stops him with the help of his partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law). At his trial, Blackwood is sentenced to death for committing the murders as well as the practice of black magic. Pronounced dead by Watson himself, everything seems to be over, but the graveyard caretaker who works where Blackwood was laid to rest claims to have seen him rise and walk away, presumably with the help of the devil himself. Meanwhile, a beautiful woman named Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), who already has a history with the famous sleuth, employs Holmes to crack a case of her own, but everything is intertwined and it is up to Holmes and Watson to get to the bottom of these strange occurrences.

I'll be honest. I don't believe I've ever read a Sherlock Holmes story. I can't be sure because I do feel I'm fairly familiar with the character, but ask me to detail one of his adventures and I couldn't do it. Nevertheless, this movie adaptation is phenomenal, a truly audacious attempt at bringing the old timer into the 21st century and giving him new fervor. It succeeds on nearly every level.

One worry I've heard from fans of the character over the last few months is that they fear this new film will be all action and little investigative deduction, neglecting what made the character so popular to begin with. Well my friends, there's no need to fear. Sherlock Holmes is just as you remember him, albeit updated a bit. He is still a brilliant mind, capable of analyzing his environment and surmising meaning from it. With the slightest stain on your lapel, Holmes can tell everything about you and it's fascinating to hear him talk through his reasoning.

Still, there is action in Sherlock Holmes and the detective lays the beat down on a number of goons, but even this doesn't sacrifice the nature of his character. On a number of occasions, the film slows down during these fight scenes and shows each hit as they land on his opponent while he explains how and why he decided to hit where he does. For instance, one of his opponents is hard of hearing, so smacking him in the side of the head to cause a loud ringing will daze him and allow him to continue his assault. He isn't a great fighter because he has arbitrarily gained the skills required to move the story along. He's a great fighter because he can read his opponent and the environment around him to neutralize him quickly and efficiently. It's actually quite brilliant.

Speaking of brilliant, the whole of the production rounds out in a way unheard of in films nowadays. The superb talent that comes together in this thing is simply astounding. Downey is mesmerizing as the titular character and Law is the perfect partner for him. The two have a chemistry together more resounding than most romance films. Their comedic timing is spot on, their cooperation during fisticuffs is great to watch and they look comfortable together. Put Guy Ritchie, an outstanding director who is yet to make an outstanding movie until now, in there with them and you have a great looking, terrifically acted little picture that you can't help but fall in love with.

The more I think about Sherlock Holmes, the more I love it. Its tone properly sets the mood and it struck a perfect balance between the heart pounding action and deductive reasoning. Furthermore, it crafted a riveting story that comes to a full conclusion while still setting up the next film, of which I hope comes soon. I can't wait to revisit the world of Sherlock Holmes. If it's half as good as this, it will still be worth seeing.

Sherlock Holmes receives 4.5/5

It's Complicated an Amusing Holiday Diversion

2009-12-25T00:01:00.002-05:00

There's nothing worse than having to write a review for a movie you're indifferent on, one you neither liked nor disliked. It's Complicated is one of those movies. Though I tend to lean towards the side of a recommendation, there's nothing in this movie that will bowl you over, but it's fun enough while it lasts.

The great Meryl Streep plays Jane, a woman who has been divorced from her ex-husband, Jake, played by Alec Baldwin, for ten years. Although she has found herself to be lonely and rejected at times, she has always had the presence of her children to keep her company, but now they have all moved out and her youngest is about to graduate college in New York City, so she heads there to watch the proceedings. Jake is also present and has left his new wife (whom he cheated on Jane with) back home. That night, they meet at a bar and start to catch up on old times and in their increasingly drunken stupor, they end up having sex with each other, sparking an affair back home. Meanwhile, Jane's architect, Adam, played by Steve Martin, starts to fall for her and she gets involved with him too.

So the film goes back and forth between the emotions in the three characters, Jane confused and angry at herself for not committing to one man, Jake desperately wanting to win Jane back and Adam who finds himself smitten with Jane but is unaware of the affair she is having with Jake. This infidelity love triangle is written very well and takes some interesting turns, but it gets drawn out for far too long, nearly two hours. There are only so many sexual encounters between Jake and Jane that you need to show to get the point across. After that, it becomes monotonous.

The reason it is stretched to its breaking point is because each encounter features some zany comedic angle that works as a way to differentiate, and justify, each scene, so it's a good thing most are very funny. Baldwin is absolutely wonderful as the eccentric, lustful adulterer and provides more laughs in this film than everybody else combined. At first, it seemed like nobody else was even trying to help him out in his endeavor to make this movie something other than mediocre.

But then it flips and the weak elements of the movie start to pick up the slack. It's Complicated is a good example of why you should always finish a movie once you start it. You never know if an initially uninteresting flick is going to turn into a thoroughly fun one, which this does. I was miserable for the first 20 to 30 minutes. Very little of the jokes landed for me and I found myself annoyed by the constant pop culture references to Match.com and MTV's horrible show, "The Hills." It felt forced in a way that hoped to appeal to a younger audience and it didn't work, but halfway through the movie I could feel my interest growing. I started to laugh, I cared about the characters and the increased screen time of the up-to-that-point underused John Krasinski eventually won me over.

Still, there are flaws and the film's competition on Christmas day is nothing to scoff at. Going up against Sherlock Holmes and the wide release of the excellent George Clooney film, Up in the Air may prevent this one from finding an audience, but it's a perfect fit for the season. It's a light, fluffy, fun little movie that will work as a cheerful diversion for those who want to rest after the excitement from the holidays wears down.

It's Complicated receives 3/5

A Single Man Beautiful, But Empty

2009-12-25T00:01:00.001-05:00

I'm a liberal. I like Barack Obama. I disliked George W. Bush. I'm against the war. And I'm an advocate for gay marriage. Why do I feel the need to point all this out so matter-of-factly? Well, as you can tell by now, I'm a film lover and Hollywood tends to be liberal and I've seen many films about homosexuals that I absolutely love. I think discrimination against them is one of the biggest travesties of our nation because it shows how immature and selfish we are when it comes to people unlike ourselves. When a movie comes along about a gay person facing these problems, I feel touched and embrace it with love. However, the new gay-centric film, A Single Man, doesn't make me feel this way. Though it is an aesthetically sound film and features good performances, certain aspects don't hold up to scrutiny.

The film is set in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and centers around college professor George (Colin Firth), a grieving man who lost his lover, Jim (Matthew Goode), in a devastating car accident eight months prior. Now he is sad and alone, wandering through life in a constant state of depression. He wakes up every morning out of breath from the nightmares haunting his dreams, his heart literally aches from his sadness and he finds it increasingly difficult to get through each day. He is contemplating suicide and the movie follows him through one day of his life where he hits highs and lows and in the end must make a decision to live or die.

A Single Man is directed by newcomer Tom Ford, a gay man himself and a fashion expert. Being knowledgeable in fashion has allowed him to create a distinctive look to the film that is all his own. He has an eye for the colorful and bright as well as the dark and plain and he uses this talent to the fullest, wonderfully transitioning it to the big screen. Throughout the film, he changes the color palette to reflect on George's mood. Most of the time, George is down and Ford utilizes a grey-ish tint to symbolize the depression he is facing. However, when his outlook on life changes and he begins to see the joys that can still come, like when he makes a romantic connection with a new, young man, everything brightens up to reflect that. It's a beautiful and meaningful aesthetic that never keeps you in the dark on George's feelings, but rather puts you in his shoes and allows you to see the world as he sees it, bright when happy and stripped of color when sad.

To accompany that, the editing creates a similar correlation. The way it is put together—slow motion, absence of sound, jump cuts, etc.—feels almost surreal, which is appropriate considering some of these scenes are dreams. Some scenes feel incomplete without sound and with jump cuts, but it perfectly complements George's life because he feels incomplete without Jim.

All of this is fine. In fact, it's the main reason to see this movie. It's look and feel are spectacular and kept me staring at the screen in awe. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie isn't nearly as impressive. Though vastly different movies, I never felt the connection between Jim and George that I did with Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain or Sean Penn and James Franco in Milk. I acknowledge that, due to the structure of the story, Jim and George don't share much screen time, but without an authentic chemistry, I found it hard to care about George and the pain he was feeling.

Nevertheless, I did find A Single Man to be a timely picture, despite the 60's setting. One early scene where George finds out Jim is dead echoes present situations. He makes a remark about how he should get ready for the funeral, but is told that the funeral is "for family only." Jim and George had been together for 16 years and if that isn't family, I don't know what is, but he is still not allowed to attend. This is similar to the ongoing debate over what constitutes a "family" and whether or not homosexuals are allowed visitation rights when their lover is sick in the hospital.

In another scene, George explains to his class that minorities are everywhere, but aren't classified as such until they pose a threat, which is usually imaginary. Look at redheads for instance, or people with freckles. They are minorities, but we don't consider them in a class of their own, but we take homosexuals and Middle Easterners and African Americans and lump them into their own little group. Why? As George says, it is because we are afraid. Fear motivates us to not only acknowledge, but create minorities in the hope of keeping them subdued.

All of this is incredibly smart. Being set during the Cuban missile crisis also brings up talks of a nuclear war, another threat we are facing today. But these ideologies are merely sidenotes on the path to the fim's conclusion. They are brought up and they are presented with the obvious desire to spark discussion, but are dropped just as quickly and never achieve their desired purposes.

The problem with analyzing A Single Man is this. If you are a film lover like me and can appreciate the indelible look of the picture, it's worth seeing, but are casual movie-goers going to enjoy it? I don't think so. The story is lacking, the chemistry is almost non-existent and most will find it hard to care about what is going on in George's life. Still, I have to go with my gut reaction and although I'm torn on most accounts, I do feel like this is a good enough movie for people to check out, but it wouldn't be a crime to wait for the DVD.

A Single Man receives 3/5

Nine a Lacking Musical

2009-12-25T00:01:00.000-05:00

I'm a guy who considers himself in touch with his feminine side. Just ask my sister. She commented the other day that our genders should have been switched because she would rather watch an action/comedy/horror movie any day while I'm a sucker for romance movies and don't mind a good musical. Therefore, the newest musical, Nine (not to be confused with this year's computer animated movie 9), is right up my alley, but even I have my limits. It comes from the director of Chicago, a musical I enjoyed quite a bit, but this isn't nearly as good and it isn't worth seeing.

The film takes place in Rome in 1965 and follows struggling screenwriter and director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) as he attempts to write a script for his upcoming movie, Italia, which is going to star Claudia (Nicole Kidman), a famous actress. As the days go by and the commencement shooting day approaches, Guido gets more and more stressed due to his inability to pump out something. Meanwhile, he is being hounded by the media, one of whom is a beautiful reporter named Stephanie (Kate Hudson), and he is dealing with a declining marriage to his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard) while attempting to juggle an affair he is having with Carla (Penelope Cruz).

Really, there's not much to this story. We meet Guido, he struggles to find a voice for his next movie and then the film ends, but Nine isn't really about the story, at least for me it wasn't. It was about the musical numbers that were intercut between the story at hand. This isn't necessarily your typical musical because people don't spontaneously burst into song, like we've seen recently with films like Mamma Mia!, High School Musical 3 and Sweeney Todd. What happens is that the feelings of the characters take over and they are placed on a theatrical stage where those emotions are played out through song. Sometimes it's a happy, upbeat song, sometimes it's sad and sometimes it's Guido's own sexual fantasies that get the best of him.

So are they impressive? Kind of. The physical performances were spectacular, tackling an epic grandeur of theater that I loved watching, but the songs lack something of which I can't quite put my finger on. I'm no connoisseur of musical theater, so perhaps I'm not the most qualified to judge the music in the film, but I found most of the songs to be bland and forgettable. If you asked me to sing the songs right now, I could do maybe one (the "Be Italian" song was terrific) because the rest have already escaped from my mind.

However, as I said before, the actors don't just break out into song randomly, which successfully avoids the cringes a lot of musicals inadvertently produce, but I was not a fan of what they did instead. None of the musical numbers take place in the movie's setting, which led to random departures from what was going on and I prefer to see the actor's interact with the environment given to them, like Johnny Depp did in the excellent Sweeney Todd. I liked how each song reflected what was going on in the scene, but when you displace the actors from the actual scene you're reflecting, you are being counterintuitive.

Thankfully, the actors make up for the film's faults, not completely, but enough to make it tolerable. Daniel Day-Lewis is brilliant as always and the rest of this terrific ensemble cast are excellent as well, including Kate Hudson, who hasn't done anything worthwhile since 2000's Almost Famous. But after the first hour, you've gained everything you possibly can, yet it goes on for another hour and wears out its welcome quickly.

Nine is not a bad film and it has plenty of beautiful women, but if you're really itching for a musical, go check out the director's previous effort, Chicago or the Tim Burton masterpiece, Sweeney Todd. Don't waste your time with this one.

Nine receives 2/5

The Chipmunks As Annoying As Ever

2009-12-24T00:39:00.012-05:00

"We're baaack," the irritating, high pitched, helium-esque voice of Alvin proclaims early in the follow-up installment to the commercially successful 2007 flick, Alvin and the Chipmunks. Featuring one of the dumbest subtitles to ever grace a film, The Squeakquel, and characters that would be indistinguishable if not for the glasses on Simon and the giant "A" on Alvin's t-shirt, I quickly found myself wishing that those opening words would have followed with "to being socially irrelevant."

The film begins at a concert the now world renowned Chipmunks are performing at. Alvin (voiced by Justin Long) is showboating and while offstage, Dave (Jason Lee) tells him that he needs to include the other two. The show isn't only about him. Alvin scoffs at him and continues to do his thing, only to accidentally knock a giant picture of himself down from the ceiling that smashes into Dave and hospitalizes him. They are put in the care of Toby (Zachary Levi) in the meantime and are forced to go to school where they encounter a mixture of immense popularity and incessant bullying. Meanwhile, Ian (David Cross reprising his role from the first film) is living in the slums, bitter at the Chipmunks for foiling his plans and he is searching for the next big thing. One day, a female group of Chipmunks show up, whom he dubs the Chipettes, and the rivalry, as well as romances, begin to heat up.

I grew up with the Chipmunks and, believe it or not, I didn't hate the first film. It was bad, but it wasn't that bad. It was an adequate time waster for the whole family that offered up a few moments of cuteness and joy, but the sequel lacks what that film had, which wasn't much to begin with.

Jason Lee, who plays Dave, was the main human character in the first movie. Though he certainly didn't wow me with his lackadaisical attitude and minimal effort, he was a decent fit for the role, but I get the feeling the filmmakers wanted to try someone different because he fades into obscurity here. He's in the opening scene and then again in the closing, but nearly nowhere in between. Instead, the caregiver of the Chipmunks is Ian who is a poor replacement for Dave. Zachary Levi does a terrible job. He may have a decent following for his role in the hit television show, "Chuck," but perhaps that is an indication that he is more suitable for the small screen. I know it's difficult to act with characters that aren't actually there with you, but his performance was so awful that it became a distraction.

Or at least it would have been had there been something interesting to distract from. The story follows the same ho-hum arc of the original film, only it tries to pass itself off as original by throwing in some female chipmunks, whom do little to spice up the affair.

The jokes don't fare much better, consisting of the tried and true formulas that children adore, like excretory humor and idiotic slapstick. How many times must we be forced to watch this inanity before Hollywood realizes it's simply not funny? When they tried to appeal to the adult audience in the theater, who no doubt begrudgingly wandered in for the sake of their child's enjoyment, it was usually in the form of old film references. These references not only defiled the sanctity of the original works. They chewed them, spit them out, stomped on them and pretty much tainted any type of legacy they may have had up to that point. Once you've heard those annoying little critters quote famous lines from Taxi Driver and Silence of the Lambs, there's no going back.

One thing I must question before I get into the positives (what little there are at least) is why the filmmakers got numerous people, a few huge stars even, to voice the characters. They all sound exactly the same. Case in point. When the Chipettes are first introduced, they are not shown and are only heard because they are sealed inside a package. I got confused. I thought, "How did the Chipmunks end up in there?" You see, their voices, despite being the opposite sex, were identical to Alvin, Theodore and Simon. Amy Poehler, Christina Applegate and Anna Faris voice the three Chipettes, but their voices are manipulated so much that you can't tell them apart from Justin Long, Jesse McCartney and Matthew Gubler, who voice the guys. Why not just get one person to do every voice?

Now, this is a kids movie and kids movies are easy targets, so I would like to point out a few things I did like. The animation is good. I thought the Chipmunks were capably rendered and the blend of cartoons and realism worked well for the tone of the film. Theodore, despite his aggravating voice, was also adorable, though that still didn't stop me from wishing that he would be devoured after he accidentally stumbles into the Birds of Prey cage at the local zoo late in the movie. What can I say? Cuteness can only get you so far.

What I really mean to say here is that two minor positive characteristics do little in the overall scheme of things to shadow the glaring problems persistent in the rest of Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. I could go into so much more—poorly drawn out romances, side plots that go nowhere and numerous visual inconsistencies to name a few—but that would be similar to providing razorblades to the suicidal. It's already miserable. Why kick it when it's down?

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel receives 0.5/5

The Morgans a Vacuous Waste of Time

2009-12-18T00:01:00.002-05:00

Did you hear about Did You Hear About the Morgans? No? You have no idea how lucky you are. It's the newest romantic comedy starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Grant that is being released this week as counterprogramming to Avatar. Think about that. Avatar is the most anticipated action spectacle of the year, so you have to have some pretty big balls to put any movie opposite it, but if you are, you might as well make it the dumbest, cheesiest chick flick you can to appeal to the ladies who aren't interested in James Cameron's visual feast. I hope you're single this week fellas because you're going to look like tools walking into this mind numbing rom-com.

The film follows New York real estate broker Meryl, played by Parker, and Paul, played by Grant, as they are going through a separation. Paul has evidently cheated on Meryl, but he's desperately sorry and wants to get back with her, so he asks her on a date so they can talk things out. On their walk after the date, they see a man get killed from his balcony and fall onto the city streets below. They try to hide, but his killer spots Paul and Meryl. After an attempt is made on Meryl's life, she and Paul are placed into the Witness Relocation Program. Where are they sent? Why, to the most hum dinging, gun slinging, rodeo watching, hoe down dancing place on the planet, Ray, Wyoming! And they're New Yorkers! What a humorous turn of events! Hmm, I wonder if Paul and Meryl will rekindle their relationship and come to love the small town?

Did You Hear About the Morgans? is a trite, unnecessary time waster that spends most of its time joking about the stark contrast between the two New Yorkers and the country folk. Meryl is a member of PETA, so naturally she is sent to a family who has dozens of animal heads adorning their walls. When her hostess asks her, "Are you a hunter?" she replies with, "Just for bargains." Ho ho, look out now!

The biggest problem with most of the jokes is that they are telegraphed seconds beforehand. Comedy is effective for many reasons, but one important reason is the element of surprise. If you know which jokes are coming, the comedic punch is all but taken out, yet I could have quoted around half of the jokes in this movie as they were being said.

Partially due to contrivance and partially due to Meryl's own stupidity, the killer finds out where they are and travels to Wyoming to take them out, which culminates into one of the dumbest, most anti-climactic endings of the year, where (spoilers!) the killer is taken out by a horseshoe perfectly thrown to land on his head. This is followed by a hackneyed dialogue from Meryl about how much she loves Paul, a small sample of the film's overall terrible writing.

What I really hated in Did You Hear About the Morgans? was how unaffecting the conflict was between Meryl and Paul. What they did was create this arbitrary struggle between the two so they are at odds at the beginning of the movie, but they want us to like Paul. He cheated on his wife! What's to like? I was supposed to feel bad for Paul's desperation. I didn't. Of course, later in the movie, you find out (spoilers...again!) that Meryl slept with somebody else as well, which creates even more tension between the two. Why? Paul has no right to be angry at her after what he did. I hate these types of movies because there are no rational characters.

Boy, is this a bad movie. While the actors do their best, especially Grant who still manages to squeeze some of his natural charm into this unfunny wasteland, nothing can save it from its low ambition and sloppy writing. Did You Hear About the Morgans? I wish I hadn't.

Did You Hear About the Morgans? receives 1/5

Avatar a Beautiful Bore

2009-12-14T22:37:00.005-05:00

It's been 12 years since James Cameron brought us his last big screen adventure in the form of Titanic, the highest grossing movie ever made, and with his latest film, Avatar, being nearly 15 years in the making (he wrote the script in 1995), expectations couldn't be higher. It's the film that's supposed to revolutionize filmmaking and dawn a new era of digital technology, pushing its limits as far as it can go. If you look at it from that viewpoint, it succeeds. It creates an alive, distinctive world that looks as realistic as the world we live on today, but that is only one aspect of the film. The look is great, but the feeling is absent. Unfortunately, Avatar is a huge disappointment.

The film follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a young lad paralyzed from the waist down, as he is recruited by the military to take up the job his now dead twin brother previously had as an avatar controller. The avatar's are comprised of the DNA of the controller and the DNA of the natives and because Jake's genetic make-up is identical, he is able to use the same machine and carry out the work his brother left behind. He and the crew have all traveled away from the dying Earth to the planet of Pandora where an indigenous group of blue cat-like creatures called the Na'vi live. They are there to harvest a rare unobtainable substance called Unobtainium (how cute), but can't because the Na'vi's village rests on the largest deposit known in the world. Jake's job is to earn the Na'vi's trust and convince them to relocate because if they don't, the military will use force to drive them out.

There's a terrific article about Avatar that was written about a month ago over at Wired.com that explores every facet of Pandora and explains how Cameron desired to out Star Wars Star Wars, meaning he wanted to create a mythology just as intricate and deep as the Star Wars universe. Though most of it never appeared in the film and will only have meaning to those who take the time to seek the information out, Cameron went through every aspect of the planet and made it unique, which included crafting an entire new language, naming every animal and plant, all of which received a Na'vi, Latin and common name and have detailed descriptions of how they function on the planet, and he even hired an astrophysicist to calculate Pandora's atmospheric density. According to the article, when all was said and done, they had compiled a 350 page manual named "Pandorapedia" that detailed every possible aspect of the planet that you could imagine. If only Cameron would have spent less time on these menial tasks and more time constructing a meaningful story.

One can't help but be impressed by Cameron's dedication to crafting a true, authentic world with a complete science and history to explain how things work, but almost none of it matters in the scheme of the overall picture. Most are never seen or heard onscreen (sans the Na'vi language, which you'll hear plenty of) and are all but irrelevant. Those who love the film will find even more to love with this information, but too much time was spent on this useless dossier than on the story and that's a problem.

Though different in theory, the story of Avatar is routinely told and goes nowhere unexpected. While I won't spoil it here, you can tell from the trailer exactly where it is going and what Jake will end up doing by the end of the movie. Being a two hour and 45 minute film, it takes plenty of time to develop its characters, which is usually a good thing, but they are developed so poorly that no emotion seeps through. Before it is over, people die and bad things happen, yet I didn't care about any of it.

One reason is that the visuals overpower the story itself. The CGI in Avatar is, without exaggeration, the best CGI ever put to screen. I've never seen such a realistic digital world in my life. Each leaf, each blade of grass, everything in the environment is beautifully rendered and the interaction between real and fake objects is unparalleled. This is truly a wondrous sight to behold, but it looks so good that I actually found myself distracted by it. This is an odd criticism, but it looked too good. Eventually you become so aware of the visuals that all of the human emotion gets sucked dry. I found myself more interested in the texture and details and how each individual leaf blew in the wind than I was the story. Had it been better, these problems may have been non-existent. Unfortunately, it's not.

Then there's the rest of the writing. The story was unaffecting, but I can't say I'm surprised with dialogue like this. There are some tremendously corny, downright stupid lines of dialogue in Avatar, most coming from Michelle Rodriguez who plays Trudy, a pilot. In fact, her whole character was grating on the nerves. Combine her with Joel David Moore, who plays another avatar controller, and you have two actors who felt out of place, as if so much money had already been spent that they couldn't afford to acquire actors of higher stature.

One thing I can applaud Avatar for is that it effectively implemented some of the best 3D I've ever seen, which perfectly complemented its already lush visuals. It was used the way it should be, not as a gimmick with objects incessantly popping out at you, but as a way to heighten the experience. However, that doesn't mask the film's many problems.

It's tough to give a final call on Avatar because if it didn't have such amazing CGI, I would easily say to skip it, but I almost feel obligated to recommend it because its look truly is groundbreaking and could revolutionize the way we implement digital effects. All I can really do is leave it up to you. If you're interested in seeing this new technology, give it a shot because you're guaranteed to be impressed, but if you care about more than just a fancy coat of paint and want to see something interesting underneath it all, you'd be better off looking somewhere else.

Avatar receives 2.5/5

The Princess and the Frog Joyful and Exuberant

2009-12-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

As a kid, I enjoyed a lot of things, but if you asked me to name one thing that I was always attracted to, I would have to say animation. To this day I find myself gravitating towards any and all animation ranging from the most grandiose of films (Wall-E, Spirited Away) to the smallest of television shows (The Fairly Oddparents). Although I could only describe the basics of how animation works, I love the art form. Imagine how pleased I am, after five years of neglect, to finally see Disney hearken back to their old days of 2D animation with the terrific The Princess and the Frog. There's something to be said for this traditional style of animation and I hope this new film sparks its comeback.

The movie begins with Tiana (voiced by Anika Rose) as a little girl being told the story of "The Frog Prince," a tale where a princess kisses a frog who then becomes a prince whom marries her and they live happily ever after. She is told the story over at Charlotte's (voiced by Jennifer Cody) place, a giant mansion where her mother works binding together dresses for the spoiled young girl. They both believe in the story and wish upon stars in the hopes that their prince charmings will one day come to rescue them. Tiana's father, who dreams of one day opening a restaurant with his daughter, tells her to keep believing, but to always work hard because if she does, she can do anything. Flash forward years later and Tiana's father is dead, never having realized his dream. Tiana is now working two jobs, still trying to save up enough to start that restaurant, and has since given up on wishing.

Meanwhile, a handsome prince (voiced by Bruno Campos) is announced to be coming to town, but he goes missing and ends up being turned into a frog by an evil voodoo witch doctor named Facilier (voiced by Keith David). He shows up at a party one night and surprises Tiana by talking to her. Once again believing in the story, she kisses the frog hoping he'll turn back into a prince, but since she is not a princess like Charlotte, the spell reverses and instead turns her into a frog. Mama Odie (voiced by Jenifer Lewis) is the only person that can turn them back, so they journey all over New Orleans in search of her and meet a host of characters along the way.

Boy, that's a long synopsis, but truth be told, all of this is only in the very beginning of the film. So much more goes on throughout the course of its brief runtime that it would be too taxing to detail it all here. This is a very story oriented movie, and what a story it is. The Princess and the Frog is pure magic, a delightful film that had me tapping my toes and smiling at the unadulterated joy placed in front of me. Who thought a love story between two frogs would be so endearing?

Along their journey, Tiana and her prince befriend a host of colorful characters, most notably Louis (voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley), a jazz trumpet player who desires to be human, and Ray (voiced by Jim Cummings), a firefly who falls in love with a star in the sky, whom he names Evangeline. Both are fabulous characters and offer up plenty of laughs, which allows them to stand on their own alongside the already wonderful frog couple, which is to say, this movie is very funny. Outside of a few puerile fart and snot jokes, the witty writing, excellent vocal delivery and spot on visual timing combine for a wondrous time at the movies.

Of vast importance as well, to me anyway, were the messages because they were meaningful and they teach the children in the audience without shoving the lessons down their throats. This isn't a preachy movie, but rather one that knows what's important in life and it shares its philosophies. It acknowledges how magical it can be to wish upon a star and teaches children to keep their dreams alive, but it also shows how wishing can only get you so far. Dedicated hard work is what really gets you through in life. At the same time, it values happiness and rightfully devalues money, taking the old Beatles train of thought that money can't buy you love. You can have all the money in the world, but it's companionship that really counts.

As was to be expected, the songs are amazing and the animation is exquisite, perfectly echoing past hand drawn Disney efforts and the final product is just as imaginative and enchanting. Not a stroke of color goes to waste in this marvelous tale.

While The Princess and the Frog may not be as good as such Disney classics as Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King, it's right up there and I wouldn't be surprised to hear today's children talk about the fond memories they have from it 20 years from now. It's simply that good. This one is not to be missed.

The Princess and the Frog receives 4.5/5

Invictus is Uplifting Mediocrity

2009-12-11T00:01:00.003-05:00

I feel bad when I have to criticize a movie that has its heart in the right place, a film that tells such a grand story that one can't help but be touched by it, but alas, that is the nature of what I do. Though the marvelous true story presented in Clint Eastwood's newest directorial effort, Invictus, is truly memorable and deserving of the big screen treatment, it has enough problems that prevent me from giving it a glowing recommendation.

The film follows Nelson Mandela through the initial stages of his presidency in South Africa in 1994. Having been an activist against apartheid, he had been accused of sabotage and was thrown in prison for 27 years, but when he gets out he does not seek revenge, but rather togetherness. Through his presidency, he made great strides in the racial community and this is the beginning of his story. Morgan Freeman plays Mandela and in his effort to bring his country together, he enlists the help of Francois Pienaar, played by Matt Damon, the captain of the South Africa rugby team, the Springboks. He explains to Pienaar that he wants the team to represent the country and inspire the people to come together. It is through this that he hopes he can end the racial tension present through their land. The movie chronicles Pienaar's team as they work their way through the World Cup, eventually winning the entire thing and uniting their country as one.

Now, if that isn't an inspirational story, I don't know what is, but the art of filmmaking requires more than good source material to adapt. Clint Eastwood is a multi-talented man, proving himself capable of directing, acting and even scoring his own films, and if anybody was going to do this story justice, it was him and I feel like this is the best he could have done with it.

It remains disappointing, however, that so many vital parts of filmmaking came together to create such a lackluster product. Eastwood directs lavishly as usual, the performances from Damon and Freeman are award worthy and the script is finely tuned to echo the real life story of what happened, but it simply calls for cheese and believe me, the last 30 minutes alone are as cheesy as any film I've seen this year.

Nevertheless, Freeman's portrayal of Mandela transcends the cheese. He's a humble, soft spoken man who takes the jeers as easily as he takes the cheers. When the newspaper comes out after the election questioning his ability to run the country, he legitimizes the question by asking it himself. He wants to do what is best, but knows that it will be a difficult task. Later, when he receives his first paycheck, he is shocked by how high it is and decides to give a third of it to charity. Mandela is a truly inspiring man and Freeman plays him with aplomb.

But no matter how he plays him, he can't make up for a lack of depth. Although what I said previously about the script holds true (it does tell the story of what happened very well), it never looks towards anything but what is happening in the rugby games. It brings up Mandela's own personal struggles that try to show how optimistic he can be even when his own life is breaking apart, but they are left shamefully unexplored, only briefly mentioned within the context of the overall picture. You also don't get to see much else of what he does. As far as I could tell, based on the story presented to me, all he did was watch rugby and chat with the players. Even during meetings about other key issues, he gets easily sidetracked by any news about the Springboks team. I find it hard to criticize these aspects too much because the story is focused and that's fine, but its desire to tell that story unfortunately left too many other issues untouched.

Of course, I acknowledged its focused story, did my best to judge only that and I was thoroughly enjoying it until the end. The final rugby game against New Zealand goes on for far too long and the excessive use of slow motion became laughable. The impact of the story was nearly stripped away by this poor ending which included the aforementioned corniness and dropped the film from a strong 4 score to my present score that I feel is indicative of the final product.

Invictus may be a biopic as well as another uplifting sports story, both of which we've seen far too many times, but it's done well enough to justify a look.

Invictus receives 3/5

Columbus Short Interview

2009-12-09T17:30:00.000-05:00

After hitting it big in Stomp the Yard, Columbus Short has in only a few short years become one of the most prolific young actors in Hollywood, starring in everything from dramas like Cadillac Records to horror/thrillers like Quarantine and Whiteout. He is now tackling the action genre with his new movie, Armored, released this past Friday. I recently had the pleasure to talk with Short on his new film as well as his future roles. This is the unedited interview.

What first attracted you to the script for Armored?

The rockin’ script. It was a fantastic script. I know this might sound weird, but most scripts, when it’s written for an African American, they say “African American” on the script. But when there’s no race dictated on the page, you know that it’s probably written for a white actor. It was a fascinating script and I wanted to really dive in and do something outside of urban films, so it was something that I really wanted to be a part of. I had to fight the studio pretty hard to get involved and it paid off.

Could you explain the process of how you prepare for a role? In Cadillac Records, you played Little Walter, who is a real person and has an extensive history to research and learn about. How different was your preparation for Little Walter as opposed to your character in Armored?

A lot different. You know, the preparation for each movie is different. Sometimes it takes a lot of preparation and sometimes it takes very little and you just kind of, you know, live on the day of what’s happening in the moment. It depends on the script, of course. With Armored, it was just about the background of this guy. He’s an ex-Marine, he’s blue collar, just struggling to make ends meet and you want to have, you just kind of want to carry that weight, the weight of that person because it’s usually heavy in real life. I just wanted his weight to be kind of heavy and once from there the character grew each day working with Laurence Fishburne and Matt Dillon and I keep dropping names, but I’m going to pick them up. And um, every day the character just kind of grew from there.

And Jean Reno is another.

Jean Reno, yes, he is a bad ass. Bleep that out.

Agreed. The Professional is a great movie.

Yep.

What was it like working with that group of guys?

Amazing. They are the coolest guys you’d ever meet and you know, I was a little nervous before we started production because you know veterans, man, I was going to set and I was like, “What is Laurence going to be like? What is Jean going to be like? What is Matt going to be like?” And they were the coolest, most laid back guys I’ve worked with and I don’t think I’ve worked with anybody as cool as them since, as laid back, in that sense. But they’re just super good guys and they really took me in and supported me and made me feel comfortable to do my job.

I’ve read that you performed all of your own stunts for Armored. Is that true?

Yes, it is. I did.

What’s more difficult: stunt work or busting a move like you did in Stomp the Yard?

Dancing comes natural. Doing stunts, I mean, it’s funny man. Stunts aren’t really called stunts. It’s kind of just do it, get hurt. I asked a stunt guy, “How do you guys train for this?” But no, you just have to kind of jump into it. It was a lot of that, you know, just thrusting myself in there and throwing my body on the line. Dancing kind of comes natural.

So I guess a stunt is a little harder and takes a little longer to plan out than a dance number.

Absolutely, because there’s safety. Without giving it away, there’s a stunt where I’m getting chased by this armored truck and it just kind of flies over my head, which I wasn’t too thrilled about, but you know, the timing is very precise. Stuntmen do get killed and actors do get hurt. The studio fought me on even letting me do half of the things I did in the movie, but I really liked it. It’s exciting. It’s exhilarating. You learn a new craft on each movie. That’s what’s amazing about being an actor.

How do you feel your career has evolved since Stomp the Yard?

I think that I’m getting meatier roles and more challenging projects and each movie the bar just kind of gets raised which is what you want to do in anything, harder, more challenging roles and it’s evolving day by day, movie by movie, year by year.

Since you started acting, you have been in dramas, dance movies, comedies and even a horror remake with Quarantine. And now you’re tackling an action thriller. Out of all of those genres, which is your favorite to do and why?

The most exciting is action, of course. The most fun is comedy, but drama is the most challenging and that is what is kind of exhilarating to me, you know, being able to really go in and tap into emotions that you might not necessarily tap into on a daily basis. I would have to say I have a proclivity to drama, but all those other ones are great too.

Are you an actor who goes back and watches himself with an audience to gauge their reaction or do you find it weird to see yourself on the big screen?

That’s a really good question. Some actors hate to watch themselves on screen, and in no way to be narcissistic, I don’t like to watch myself onscreen with an audience, but I do watch my movies at some point by myself because, you know like an NFL quarterback, you watch the tapes on Monday, you know what I mean? You watch the tapes because you want to know what doesn’t work and what works. There are little things on camera and you want to make your performances as quality as possible and as much as you have to, when you’re acting, you have to have no care about the camera, but you do have to care about the camera. That’s an awkward juxtaposition about both, but I do watch myself on film sometimes to see what I can do better in the next movie and how to get better as an actor.

So you don’t do it with an audience? Because Armored, that one would be a fun one to watch with a big audience.

Well, you watch it with an audience at the premiere, but you kind of don’t want to watch it with other audiences because if they start booing you, it’s probably going to be pretty awkward to be there.

Good point. You act, sing, dance, you’ve even done choreography for musical talents. Do you see yourself taking a hiatus from acting anytime in the future to tackle an endeavor in one of those other fields?

I have a lot of goals I want to accomplish before I take a hiatus, so I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon unless they just don’t hire me. [Laughs]

I’ve heard talks that you’re going to be starring in a graphic novel movie. Is that what’s next for you after Armored?

Oh, I just wrapped it about three weeks ago in Puerto Rico. It’s called The Losers. I’m really excited about that one. It’s a fantastic graphic novel, a DC novel and it’s super action, like the epitome of an action movie. Kind of an ode to Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Bad Boys, very much in that vein. It’s smart, witty comedy, but also a hardcore action/drama.

Ninja Assassin Cool, But Mindless

2009-12-09T16:06:00.005-05:00

There’s something inherently cool about ninjas, they way they quietly stalk through the night and stick to the shadows before they launch their lethal surprise attack on their unsuspecting victims. They are calm, collected and unemotional, seeing their victims as just another bloody notch on their belt. This inherent coolness is ever present in the new Wachowski brothers produced gore-fest, Ninja Assassin and although it can be fun at times, it’s stylish action scenes can’t make up for its utter lack of anything resembling a story.

Like Snakes on a Plane and the straight to DVD guilty pleasure Zombie Strippers before it, Ninja Assassin is a movie that you watch based on the title alone. It is so succinct that you walk in knowing exactly what you’re getting. With Snakes on a Plane, you got a plane full of snakes. With Zombie Strippers, you got strippers who were zombies. With Ninja Assassin, you get a double entendre. It is a movie about a ninja who is an assassin, but also an assassinator of ninjas. Unfortunately, that double entendre is about as clever as this movie gets.

Granted, if you saw the title and were immediately intrigued, you will most likely love it, but for those who enjoy more to their movies than excessive blood and guts, I’m sorry to report that it delivers nothing more than that. The acting is bad and the dialogue is laughable. None of that really matters in the end because nobody goes to see a movie called Ninja Assassin expecting Oscar caliber writing and performances, but the problem is that too much time is spent in the all too irrelevant story, which exists as little more than filler between the violent action scenes. Had less time been spent on exposition and more on the outlandish, but admittedly fun action, this would be an easily recommendable movie, but as it stands, it’s not.

Because of that aforementioned irrelevance, I’ve purposely spent little time discussing the story because, really, who cares? Evidently, the filmmakers thought we would because the film spends far too much time in flashback scenes where we learn that our protagonist Raizo, played in the present timeline by South Korean pop sensation Rain, is part of a ninja clan and learning the “way of the ninja,” which evidently means teleporting through midair and having Wolverine-like healing abilities.

To the average viewer, this won’t make any sense, but as a ninja connoisseur buddy of mine explained, the movie apparently follows ninja mythology fairly close. He, being an aficionado of all things ninja (even going so far as to use the word as a verb—“Dude, he ninja-ed the crap outta that guy!”), loved the movie and I suspect others like him will as well. I’m not up to speed with ninja lore, so I could only look at the movie the way it was presented to me and I’m afraid its presentation is lacking.

Ninja Assassin delivers exactly what you expect: decapitations, severed limbs, excessive gore, cool martial arts and ample amounts of ninja battles, but it does so little else that it cannot sustain itself through its already brief runtime.

Ninja Assassin receives 2/5