REVIEW: Looper

30 12 2012

It’s about time for a changing of the guard in science-fiction, and “Looper” heralds perhaps the sign that the genre is in young, fresh, and good hands.  Rian Johnson’s time-traveling tale is an intelligent film that hopefully points to revitalization by the people who grew up on the classics of the 1980s.  Its delicate construction and serious contemplation moves Johnson into the league of J.J. Abrams and Duncan Jones in terms of directors moving what was formerly considered kitsch into respectable art.

“Looper,” upon a little bit of pondering, feels very much inspired by James Cameron’s “The Terminator.”  Though we still watch that movie nearly three decades later, it’s mainly to be amused by the ex-Governator, not to be wowed by the script or the direction (and most definitely not by the performances).  And yes, it’s in the Library of Congress and is unilaterally praised, but “The Terminator” is able to get away with its unabashed Roger Corman, B-movie background now largely because of our fondness for nostalgia.

Johnson takes what worked about “The Terminator,” the time traveling plot device and the thematic weight, and sets it in a frame evoking “A Clockwork Orange” or “Blade Runner.”  His “Looper” takes place in a future not blatantly dystopian, but rather cleverly thought out with depth that doesn’t draw attention to itself.  Viewers willing to take the plunge into Johnson’s world multiple times will undoubtedly be rewarded by the subtle details he hides throughout the film.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

11 12 2012

Salmon FishingI could pound out reviews for movies I love or movies I hate like rapid fire.  I know what works and what doesn’t in those films – the only challenge is figuring out the frame.

For movies like “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen,” a pleasant but unremarkable little rom-com, writing a review is quite a bit tougher.  I just feel nothing but ambivalent towards the film, and I don’t feel the need to take a hard positive or negative approach.  In fact, it’s easiest to inch towards 400 words or so just dawdling and musing about the craft of reviewing film.

“Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” exists – I can’t say that I would recommend it, but then again, I don’t hate it by any means.  None of it is bad, unless you consider not being very good to be a bad thing.  Lasse Hallstrom is content to make a movie totally by the books, not reaching for anything more or anything less.  There’s no disappointment that way, but there’s also no potential for greatness.

I suppose the romance between Ewan McGregor’s brilliant savant Fred Jones and Emily Blunt’s Harriet, a finance expert for a Sheikh in Yemen, is nice and pleasant.  No sparks fly, but it’s not as painful as Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams in “The Vow” or anything like that.

As they work together to achieve a bizarre fantasy, making it possible to fish for salmon in the scorching country of Yemen, I suppose there is a slight feeling of uplift and happiness.  But it doesn’t have the buoyancy of Hallstrom’s “The Cider House Rules,” and it doesn’t even come close to the transcendency of screenwriter Simon Beaufoy’s “Slumdog Millionaire.”

In other words, if you had to watch “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen,” there could be far worse things.  But you will forget it almost immediately.  In 10 years, if we still look at IMDb, I can imagine people will go, “OH! I remember that movie now,” when they look at the filmography of almost anyone involved with the film.  B-2stars





REVIEW: The Five-Year Engagement

3 12 2012

Almost every comedy features a supporting cast of hilarious actors who can always be wheeled in front a camera to produce laughs.  Unlike the romantic leads, who have to undergo a journey and serve plot functions, these characters can literally be poorly developed and have little motivations of their own – and no one minds as long as they make us chortle in delight.

The Five-Year Engagement” does a very peculiar thing with its characters.  Tom and Violet, the betrothed played by Jason Segel and Emily Blunt doomed to suffer the titular delay, are the ones who suffer from the pratfalls of the supporting characters.  Sure, the two have chemistry and are fun to watch.  But it’s Jason Segel and Emily Blunt, both of whom could charm a dishwasher into marrying them!

I definitely enjoyed the two of them in their playful engagement bliss and when they got into tough arguments; however, they got upstaged, outdrawn, and outshown in a major way by the couple that was supposed to be a comic relief and foil.  Guess that means directors need to think twice before they cast the uproarious Chris Pratt (who steals every “Parks and Recreation” episode these days) and dynamic Alison Brie (who I’ve heard is just as good on “Community”).

Pratt plays Tom’s best friend Alex, who is of course the usual Pratt goofball (unless we are talking “Moneyball“).  At the engagement party, he meets Brie’s sharp-tongued Suzie … who also happens to be Violet’s sister.  The two have quite a night, and very quickly, a very different kind of wedding is on the horizon.  A shotgun wedding.

Alex and Suzie provide most of the humor for Nicholas Stoller’s “The Five-Year Engagement” because of Pratt and Brie’s immense comedic capabilities.  Yet they also carry most of the heart of the film, too.  As Stoller’s running commentary on how hard marriage really is no matter how long and hard you’ve worked on it, I started rooting for them and becoming more emotionally invested in the two of them.  Perhaps it’s because the marathon length of the film left me craving Alex or Suzie to get back on screen, but I think it was really just me wishing someone would make one of these movies with Chris Pratt as the leading man.  B





REVIEW: Your Sister’s Sister

7 10 2012

All too often, small-scale indie comedies fall into the “coulda been a contenduh” category.  They have great potential to succeed, but like Greek tragic heroes, all have some kind of flaw that prevents them from achievement of their goals.

I’d feel bad beginning my first sentence of a generally positive review with unfortunately because that could give an impression that I thought unfavorably of the movie … but unfortunately, Lynn Shelton’s “Your Sister’s Sister” makes one of the most common indie comedy mistakes: resorting to mainstream conventions.  For the first two acts, the movie feels fresh and incisive like a Woody Allen movie from the 1970s.

The humor flows so naturally from Mark Duplass and Rosemarie DeWitt, who play Jack and Hannah, two dilapidated souls seeking comfort in solitude in a quiet lakeside retreat.  Neither realize the other will be there, though, resulting in some initial awkwardness (as is the territory these types of movies generally tend to dwell in).  Then, they start peeling back the layers of each other’s facades, revealing all sorts of startling truths about each other.  And as they start to connect emotionally (as well as become more and more intoxicated), a physical connection just seems to occur naturally.

Then Iris, played by the gorgeous Emily Blunt, arrives … and introduces utter chaos into the house.  She is Hannah’s sister and Mark’s best friend, thus rendering their romantic evening a subject unable to be broached.  The two new friends, having seen each other laid bare, now have to sort out their true feelings while masquerading as something they aren’t.  Shelton lays out some fascinating conditions for which the drama can unfold, but then she rapidly shifts gears.

In the third act, as the characters begin to really grapple with what has gone on, “Your Sister’s Sister” takes the easy way out.  It relies on dumb montages and hokey, hyperbolic monologues to get Hannah, Mark, and Iris out of their conundrum.  I can’t tell if the ending is just lazy or if it was directed by someone entirely different.

It satisfies, sure, but it doesn’t soar like the rest of the film.  Shelton concludes it far too cleanly to be consistent with the tone of the rest of “Your Sister’s Sister.”  Let messy people dwell in their messiness.  It’s more authentic that way.  B





REVIEW: Gnomeo & Juliet

16 08 2011

As far as kid’s movies go, “Gnomeo & Juliet” is about as stomachable of a non-Pixar flick as they come.  It takes perhaps the most famous love story, Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” and makes all the characters lawn ornaments.  It’s an interesting idea, not necessarily an inspired one, but a fun one nonetheless.

The movie doesn’t fully deliver in humor or enjoyment, but it does its best to liven up 80 minutes of your day by presenting an interesting variation on a classic tale.  If you’ve ever gone through some form of high school English, you will no doubt appreciate the subtle (or not so subtle) Shakespearean puns that pop up throughout.  Or maybe you’ll just enjoy figuring out the voice cast, which is quite the line-up.  The titular star-crossed lovers are voiced by Emily Blunt and James McAvoy, both of whom seem to be enjoying themselves rather than just phoning it in.

I could do a cheap cop-out here for search engine optimization and space filling and list the impressive cast, but I’ll just let you have the fun figuring it out for yourself.  (Or you can just go look on IMDb, I’ll make it easy by linking here.)  I will say, though, that I just loved Michael Caine and Maggie Smith as the parents.  Alfred and McGonagall never get old.

For me, the highlight was the slightly random – but still awesome – Elton John music.  I don’t know that it was necessary, but it just makes you smile.  And any kiddie caper that can give you that expression instead of an enraged frown is pretty much a winner by me.  C+ / 





REVIEW: The Adjustment Bureau

21 06 2011

I’m at a bit of a loss as to what I can write about “The Adjustment Bureau.”  I saw the movie nearly five months ago, and the fact that I can recall so little about it probably speaks the most about its quality.  It’s more than a halfway decent thriller featuring two very attractive leads in Matt Damon and Emily Blunt, but it’s not exactly remarkable or memorable.

Based on a Philip K. Dick short story – and to be honest, what high concept thriller isn’t nowadays – the movie revolves around Senatorial candidate and future Presidential hopeful David Norris (Damon) who goes off the set “plan” for his life as written by the Adjustment Bureau, a group of caseworkers who ensure the execution of their mysterious Chairman’s will.  This is largely due to his interactions with the avant-garde ballerina Elise (Blunt), which begin with flirtations but progress towards romance and a relationship.  As David struggles to sort out his feelings for her, he must also weigh the input of the Bureau, who insists that they never be together.  David decides that he must write his own life rather than submit to some pre-written script for his fate.

The movie has some religious implications through its plot and some undertones courtesy of new director George Nolfi, but they feel slightly exploitative and immature.  If you are going to draw comparisons to God or throw religion clearly and obviously on the table, you need to have the ideas fully fleshed out and clearly communicated, two things I don’t think Nolfi did.  Predestination and fate are big questions that have baffled theologists for years, so don’t think that “The Adjustment Bureau” will give you a definitive answer or break any new ground in the field.  At the end of the day, it’s still just an entertaining thriller.  B





REVIEW: The Wolfman

5 08 2010

Joe Johnston’s “The Wolfman” is a remake of the 1940s original, yet it winds up making you nostalgic for a completely different decade.  Strangely enough, it most resembles the 1980s.  Benicio Del Toro in his werewolf makeup looks like he walked straight off the set of Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” video and somehow wound up in 1890s England.  Weird…

The movie tells the same story we have seen countless times with all sorts of predatory creatures, although it’s typically werewolves and vampires.  Some sort of flesh contact is made with the creatures, a normal person is transformed into one of them, and they subsequently find themselves living on the outskirts of society.  In fact, we just recently saw Neil Blompkamp use this formula and apply it to aliens in “District 9,” and he created something that felt refreshingly original.  Here, it’s just same old, same old.

In fact, the only thing that Joe Johnston does to add some flavor to the tired story is to amp up the violence and gore.  ”The Wolfman” bears an R rating and uses that level of freedom to go hog wild on the blood.  There’s all sorts of decapitations and ripping of limbs in the movie, almost to the point where it becomes overkill.  One has to wonder if Johnston turned over the reins to some violent video-game loving teenager for these sequences.

I can’t think of the last time where I actually thought that a movie’s special effects were bad, but they certainly are here.  Blame poor planning and poor execution on the filmmakers’ part.  And there’s absolutely no relief from the hackneyed story, not even from a pair of Oscar winners, Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins.  Never has the latter been so far away from his “The Silence of the Lambs” glory days.  If he doesn’t start picking better movies, I’m going to have to hold a moment of silence for his career.

And still, I just can’t get over that wolf makeup because it’s just absolutely horrific.  I find it so hard to believe that it’s the work of renowned Oscar winner Rick Baker, not some mom for a high school play.  Watching Del Toro’s wolfman fight civilians just made me chuckle; watching him fight another werewolf was as funny as any comedy this year.  The suspenseful, climactic battle scene just feels like a dreadful”Scary Movie” parody of the wretched “Twilight” series.  D /








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 85 other followers