F.I.L.M. of the Week (November 27, 2009)

27 11 2009

Before I went to see “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” I wanted to get a taste of Wes Anderson’s distinct style.  So I took a friend’s recommendation and watched “The Royal Tenenbaums,” which is this week’s “F.I.L.M.” (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie).  I am now officially smitten by the quirky, off-beat humor that people love about Anderson.  He has a very cultish, niche audience, but “The Royal Tenenbaums” managed to make a blip on the mainstream radar.  It made a respectable $52 million (attendance comparable to “The Final Destination”), won a Golden Globe for Gene Hackman’s performance, and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay.  But for a large group of moviegoers who haven’t experienced Wes Anderson, might I suggest renting this?  You’re really missing out if you haven’t.

The film follows a dysfunctional family that has fallen apart, mainly due to the large egos of the three extremely bright children.  Chas (Ben Stiller) is a successful enterpreneur by his early teens, Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a skilled playwright who is published by high school, and Ritchie (Luke Wilson) finds great success with the game of tennis.  But for different reasons, they all wind up miserable.  Surprisingly, it is their estranged father, Royal Tenebaum (Gene Hackman) who ends this unhappy spell.  With his eccentric and often manipulative ways, he often infuriates them.  But he has a certain charm that has the power to ease the pain of disappointment and fill the gap he has left in their lives with his absence.

One thing that I particularly enjoyed about “The Royal Tenenbaums” is that I could sense Wes Anderson had as much fun making this movie as I did watching it.  He ornately concocts these bizarre characters that seem so far-fetched, yet they hit home in unexpected and delightful ways.  Anderson makes his presence felt throughout the entire movie.  You can feel it in the cinematography, consisting of deliberately framed geometric shots.  You can feel it in the soundtrack, a mix of folk and rock that really sets the atmosphere for his quirky work.  You can even feel it in the font he uses for the titles.  If you were like me, questioning what could possibly make Wes Anderson so special, watch “The Royal Tenenbaums” to be silenced and completely won over.





REVIEW: A Serious Man

27 11 2009

The Coen Brothers have been entertaining audiences with their off-beat filmmaking techniques for many years now.  In “A Serious Man,” their artistry shines bright as they lead you through a miserable string of luck in the life of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg).  It is easy to get lost in their style while they present these events that are undeniably captivating.  Knowing that they are Oscar-winning directors and screenwriters lends a sense of confidence that they know what they are doing.  But when the dust settles and the film cuts to black, I couldn’t help but sigh, “Huh?” with a great deal of dissatisfaction.

As I walked out of the theater, the worst feeling was looming over me – not only did I not know what the filmmakers wanted me to take from the movie, I had absolutely no idea what I had just watched other than a life being ripped apart at the seams.  This is tough for anyone to feel, but I am a critic of sorts.  I couldn’t help trembling at what my readers would think if I couldn’t understand it.  “What a philistine, that Marshall, can’t even appreciate simple art,” I thought you might say.

But I’m going to imagine this as “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” because I used lifelines so I could report to you something other than my confusion.  With the help of Google and a friend’s mother, I was able to decode some of the movie.
Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: An Education

25 11 2009

In the age of the booming blockbuster, independent cinema is in dire need of a movie that can appeal to a blooming generation of teenage moviegoers if sophisticated cinema is to survive.  I couldn’t be more pleased to report that “An Education” is that movie.  Although it is the type of movie that typically plays best with adults, it has the power to resonate among younger viewers unlike any movie of its kind.  Director Lone Scherfig’s clear understanding of the mind of teenagers radiates from as early as the opening credits, where sine graphs and frog diagrams devolve into hearts.  Thankfully, her vision is complemented by phenomenal performances and a sensational script that easily makes for one of the best moviegoing experiences of the year.

Jenny, the film’s heroine played with a stunning mastery by Carey Mulligan, is a character with struggles that people at crossroads in life can still appreciate many decades after the movie is set.  Sadly, she faces the same problem of creating a “college identity” separate from her regular identity that still plagues teenagers today.  Her parents (Alfred Molina and Carey Seymour) make sure that she has all the interests and hobbies necessary for her to fit the Oxford bill, obliging her to partake in activities that she loathes.  Through the process, Jenny begins to feel somewhat uneasy about going to spend four years doing something “hard and boring” with her nose in a book at a university only to end up in a “hard and boring” career for the rest of her life.  She reasons, however, to go against the grain would mean throwing away years of her life dedicated to looking impressive on an application, but still the desire remains for something beyond the education that a textbook can provide.

Almost as if an answer to an unspoken prayer, a chance encounter with the charming, older David (Peter Sarsgaard) gives Jenny a taste of a captivating world where the formalities of her schooling rank substantially below the proclivities for enjoyment.  Gradually, David’s outlook rubs off on Jenny, and she becomes willing to throw out what she has worked so many years for to enter the materialistic world that he inhabits.  For all those who think Jenny’s judgement is being impaired by an infatuation for love, what is she doing other than indulging a yearning that all students have had?  Her curious exploration into a very adult world ultimately leads her to a course she had never expected to be enrolled in – a crash course in adulthood.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: The Men Who Stare At Goats

22 11 2009

Much of “The Men Who Stare At Goats” follows dumb-struck reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan MacGregor) and straight-faced former psychic spy Lyn Cassidy (George Clooney) meandering through the Iraqi desert.  Sadly, the movie follows suit, heading in several different directions at once, none of which with confidence.  It is satirical but never makes the target inherently clear.  It is farcical yet it continues to persist that what we are watching really happened.  Thankfully, the movie manages to give the audience some good belly laughs while they scratch their heads trying to figure out the direction it is heading.

The main plot arc follows Wilton and Cassidy as they traverse through Iraq on a mission to find the remnants of the New Earth Army, a battalion using New Age tactics to gain such powers as invisibility, remote viewing, and walking through walls.  Strangely, it is Wilton who tells us the history of the group informally known as the “Jedi Warriors.”  It is curious that the filmmakers chose him to narrate the story through fragments in the principal narrative, seeing as Wilton would have no idea of what happened.  These segments are the best and most uproarious parts of the movie, but they are thrown into the story so haphazardly that it becomes difficult to remember what is happening to Wilton and Cassidy.  Both were story lines crucial to a full movie, but with a little discretion and some more mapping, a more cogent and enjoyable experience could have been easily possible.

“The Men Who Stare At Goats” really shines in its moments of pure absurdity, which could be exactly what the filmmakers didn’t want since they want us to believe that much of what is portrayed actually occurred.  They aim for bizarrely plausible, but they wind up with laughably ridiculous.  It is certainly enjoyable to see George Clooney in a role where he isn’t quite so staid and upright, and one can get a hearty chuckle out of seeing him with longer locks and putting on his boogie shoes.  Ewan MacGregor, possibly cast just for added irony on all the Jedi jokes, performs almost a straight man-straight man routine with Clooney, yet somehow the combination yields a great deal of laughs.  Jeff Bridges channels a bit of “The Dude” and Kevin Spacey brings an antagonistic smugness to his role, but neither seem entirely committed.  In the end, “The Men Who Stare At Goats” provides you some of what you want but definitely not in the way that you want it.  B /





REVIEW: 2012

21 11 2009

Director Roland Emmerich gets a lot of grief for making so many disaster-oriented movies.  I must say I’m glad that he doesn’t listen to these critics because he is the best there is at making these kinds of films.  “2012,” his latest project, is incredibly stimulating to the part of you that loves watching your favorite landmarks get wiped off the face of the planet.  Many claim that it doesn’t offer much that you haven’t seen in Emmerich’s previous movies in the same vain, “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow.”  However, I thought “2012” was much more audacious, willing to destroy some venerated structures such as St. Peter’s Basilica, Christ the Redeemer, and the White House.  By doing this, Emmerich introduces some apprehension into the moviegoing experience and makes you wonder what the apocalypse would really look like.

The highlight of “2012” is its phenomenal special effects, but Emmerich had the good sense not to let them drive the movie.  He gets two angles on the catastrophe that the Mayans predicted, one from a normal citizens experiencing the disaster and the other from the politicians and scientists trying to save humanity.  The normal citizen is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a sci-fi writer thrown into the situation after consistently being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  With the aid of an eccentric who sees the writing on the walls (Woody Harrelson), he finds a path to save his family from the imminent destruction.  The scientist (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and politician (Oliver Platt) add a moral depth to the the plot as they agonize over who can and should be saved.

What distinguishes “2012” from a movie like “Transformers” is a clear understanding that its audience doesn’t take the movie too seriously.  Thankfully, Emmerich is aware of the regard that people hold his movies in, so he has no qualms with using a formulaic plot and being a tad silly.  He also knows from experience not to try to move the plot significantly while he indulges us with sweeping, gratuitous shots of the Earth getting annihilated by tsunamis and earthquakes.  Emmerich recognizes that it is undeniably fun to watch Pasadena split in two, and he lets us marvel at the work of some dedicated visual effects artists.  “2012” is no masterpiece, but Roland Emmerich gives us an enjoyable cataclysmic romp that excites the lover of destruction that lurks inside all of us.  B /





F.I.L.M. of the Week (November 20, 2009)

20 11 2009

If you wonder why Marion Cotillard has risen to fame so meteorically, going from a no-name to marquis name in two short years, look no further than the “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” “La Vie en Rose.”  Cotillard envelops herself in the persona of Edith Piaf, France’s greatest popular singer, and the Academy wisely took notice and bestowed the Best Actress statue on her in 2007.  Even if the movie isn’t your cup of tea, the performance will absolutely floor you.  She engrosses herself in Piaf from head to toe; every movement radiates her complete confidence and comfort in the role.

The film chronicles the life of Piaf from her deplorable days on the streets of France up to her last breaths and all the breathtaking highs and tragic lows that occur between.  It presents the events as a broken narrative, mainly presenting the events as memories from an older Piaf.  However, there are three distinct timelines running through “La Vie En Rose.”  The first follows Piaf from her days being fostered by a caring prostitute at a brothel near the end of the Great War to her final performance, the second from the beginnings of her morphine addiction to the collapse of her health, the third from her days feebly eking out the energy to live to her death.  The timelines often overlapped, resulting in some sequential confusion, but Cotillard wows with such finesse that the missteps can be easily overlooked.

A decision I found interesting in the film was the omission of subtitles during Piaf’s songs.  But if you don’t realize it before the thrilling climax, Cotillard’s acting tells you everything you need to know.  Her eyes, her face, her hands, and her body get the feeling across perfectly.  And in the film’s final scene, when she sings “Non, je ne regrette rien” in a decrepit state, you feel every emotion in those two minutes that you have felt throughout the whole movie.  All the happiness, fame, sadness, and tragedy of Piaf’s life pours out poignantly because Cotillard makes them palpable.  I later learned that the title literally means, “No, I Have No Regrets,” and the lyrics express overcoming the grief and sorrow and turning it into strength.  The song is a compelling and prodigiously moving way to cap off a ravishing performance by Cotillard.  This is easily the best female performance of this decade, and it will undeniably remembered for decades to come as a mammoth achievement of acting.





REVIEW: Precious

17 11 2009

Precious” joins a very selective group of movies that is able to sear its impact into your memory with a flaming hot brand, leaving a mark that will burn for a while and stay forever.  It will undoubtedly reign as this year’s most emotionally charged movie, packed with some of the most profoundly affecting scenes ever committed to celluloid.  The movie portrays the devastating heartbreak of Precious’ life with unflinching reality, but what I found equally remarkable in Lee Daniels’ movie is how glimmers of hope manage to shine through in even the darkest of situations.

Claireece “Precious” Jones (newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) leads the life that we imagine when we think, “Well, at least I don’t have it as bad as this person.”  She lives in poverty.  She is illiterate.  She is obese.  She is pregnant for the second time by way of her biological father.  She has an careless, lazy, and abusive mother (Mo’Nique in a performance that will make your jaw drop).  Worst of all, she thinks no one cares for her.  But despite her situation, she still dreams of a life where she can dance on BET and have a light-skinned boyfriend.  In these moments of reverie, Precious’ face lights up like a Christmas tree, and it is so heartbreaking for the audience to watch because we know that she will soon have to wake up and face the world which she can greet only with a sullen frown. Despite all the bleakness of her situation, she manages to stay somewhat optimistic, seeing the person who she wants to see when she looks in the mirror.  With some help from a compassionate teacher (Paula Patton) at her new alternative school and a social worker willing to go the extra mile (a very de-glammed Mariah Carey), Precious soon gains the courage not only to face her fears but to find a way to triumph over them.

Read the rest of this entry »





F.I.L.M. of the Week (November 13, 2009)

13 11 2009

The “F.I.L.M. of the Week” is Gus Van Sant’s “Paranoid Park,” a multi-layered movie that serves as both a crime drama and a portrait of a scared teenager.  The film serves as a testament to the prowess of Van Sant (Academy Award nominated director of “Milk” and “Good Will Hunting”), who not only helmed the movie, but wrote and edited it.  He excels at doing what I love to see filmmakers do: taking a simple premise and using the power of moviemaking to turn it into something extravagant.

Alex (Gabe Nevins) is a teenage skateboarder who makes a split-second decision that turns out to be a big mistake with life-changing ramifications.  The film follows the effect of the event on his life as he, apprehensive, attempts to hide the truth and escape the consequences.  The movie begins with an aura of mystery surrounding what is happening, but in just 80 minutes, Van Sant strips it all away and gets to the core of an insecure and distraught teenager.

The triumph of “Paranoid Park” is not the story, but the storytelling.  Van Sant brings a distinctively different style to this than he did to a movie like “Milk.”  He employs a non-linear story line to replicate the events running together in Alex’s mind.  Alex is a very passive figure in the movie, and we witness the tearing apart of his mind not in his dialogue, but mostly from drawn-out shots of him.  These shots provide such a clear insight into the character thanks to Van Sant allowing the cinematography to shine.  Throw in a soundtrack eclectic enough to rival a Tarantino movie, and you get one great movie to watch.





F.I.L.M. of the Week (November 6, 2009)

6 11 2009

This week’s “F.I.L.M.” (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie) is one that I fully believe has the power to change the world.  “The Constant Gardener” is so emotionally compelling that it can force you to question every opinion you have about helping those in poverty.  I have seen firsthand the poorest people in our hemisphere during a mission trip to Nicaragua this summer, but this movie hit me at nearly the same level.  Director Fernando Mierelles (“City of God“) doesn’t treat their indigence as some sort of spectacle.  He treats them with humanity, willing to feature them as real people with hearts and feelings just like the diplomat played by Ralph Fiennes.  Mierelles almost does for the poor in movies what Dickens did for the poor with literature.

“The Constant Gardener” gained some prestige from Rachel Weisz’s Oscar win for Best Supporting Actress, an award that she unquestionably deserved.  But don’t be fooled by the word “supporting.”  She may not have a great deal of screen time, but the character Tessa, who she plays with brilliance and compassion, is the dominant focus of the movie.  Tessa is a crusader for justice investigating a pharmaceutical company using the destitute in Africa as guinea pigs but possibly treating them like flies, unafraid to alter results of their tests for the betterment of their company.  Her inquiry into the potentially corrupt dealings of the corporations leads her into dangerous territory, unwittingly drawing her husband, Justin (Fiennes), into the fray.  What ensues is a startling portrayal of the consequences of one man trying to do the right thing for the people who don’t have aren’t given a voice.

While “The Constant Gardener” may not exhibit Mierelles’ directorial prowess quite like “City of God,” it is still a breathtaking achievement.  It is unlike most political thrillers, which are usually entangled in plot twists, and conveys a simple story with huge moral implications.  The movie will make you cry for its content, but on a grander level, it will make you weep for the people that Justin and Tessa try to defend.  How much is one life worth?  How far would you go to save a life?  Should help be given to the individual or the group?  “The Constant Gardener” grapples with those questions, but ultimately leaves you to ponder how you feel about the issues.





REVIEW: Bright Star

5 11 2009

If you want to watch a big, sweeping, 1800’s English romance, perhaps you should curl up with that pint of ice cream and watch “Sense & Sensibility” in bed again because “Bright Star” doesn’t fit the bill.  Sure, you have gorgeous countryside and fabulous cinematography, but the romance between poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) is much more muted than what one would expect.  In fact, writer/director Jane Campion has made a film that portrays more of their heartache than their amorous time together.  But the beauty of the movie comes from just that, the budding passion of their love that cannot bloom fully because of societal constraints and unfortunate illness.  And according to Keats, “A thing of beauty is a joy forever.”

For Keats, Brawne is literally the girl next door, but Campion makes sure that we do not mistake her for the stereotype that the term now bears.  We usually associate the girl next door with being innocent and straightforward, just the kind of girl to marry.  However, Keats thinks her a “stylish minx” (for those who don’t spreak pre-Victorian English, this he thinks she is quite the flirt).  And Brawne’s mother couldn’t be more happy with his disinterest in her daughter because he doesn’t make enough money writing poems.  Brawne also fears falling in love with Keats, but for a different reason; she doesn’t want him to have to give up what he loves to support her desire to design clothes.  Unlike most movie romances, their relationship doesn’t grow out of loathing, but rather out of amiability and friendship.  It is the disease of Keats’ brother and the sympathy that Brawne shows that brings them closer.  He then begins to see her almost as a muse, inspiring his best work yet.  Despite this, his friend and roommate Brown (Paul Schneider of “Parks & Recreation” in a performance that deserves to be remembered) resents her presence, perhaps as Campion suggest for his own selfish reasons.  The evidence is in the text that all the obstacles they faced only drew them closer to each other; Keats even wrote “I have the feeling as if I were dissolving.”  In an ironic twist, that which brought them together is the only thing that could tear them apart.

Campion wisely focuses her movie on Brawne, the character she seems to understand the most.  Keats proves to be quite an enigma, but Brawne proves to be quite a conundrum herself.  Sometimes her emotional swings, however, were quite nebulous.  Cornish plays them quite well, but I think the flaw comes from Campion’s script.  It wasn’t the dialogue that made them unclear; in fact, I caught witty, nuanced lines that no one in my theater noticed.  I don’t think it was the naivete of being a man that made her motives hazy because even my mother had to deliberate carefully on them.

Surprisingly, “Bright Star” is at its best when it steps away from the doomed romance and delves into the world of poetry.  Brawne asks Keats for poetry lessons, and rather than teach her to write it, he teaches her to appreciate it.  The sequences where he elaborates on why he writes are nothing short of sublime.  Keats tells her (and I quote roughly), “You don’t jump into an ocean to swim right back to shore.  You want to absorb the feeling of the water, feel the waves lapping.”  In a sense, the same could be said for Campion’s movie.  You dive into “Bright Star” not to see a movie but to immerse yourself in its beauty.  If this is your aim in watching the movie, the unhurried pace won’t be a bother, and it might even add to the experience as you find yourself encompassed by its grandeur.  B / 2halfstars





REVIEW: Drag Me to Hell

31 10 2009

I have made it inherently clear that I’m not a big fan of horror movies.  However, “Drag Me to Hell” is surprisingly rip-roaring entertainment, simultaneously fun and spine-chilling.  Co-writer/director Sam Raimi has removed a veil of self-importance that the horror genre has given itself and presents a movie that never takes itself too seriously.  He knows that his movie is packed full of the stereotypical harbingers of doom: flies, shadows, old ladies, worms – you name it, he included it.  He knows that his movie does not offer a plot you haven’t seen or can’t predict.  Yet he infuses “Drag Me to Hell” with a refreshing dark humor, most evident during the action sequences, that makes it a pill you don’t mind swallowing.

Christine (Alison Lohman) is a loan officer who turns down the wrong woman (a gypsy played to eerie perfection by Lorna Raver) while seeking a promotion.  She is haunted by spirits who would make the “Paranormal Activity” demon cower.  They don’t care for a slow build, but rather come soon, quickly, and often.  “Drag Me to Hell” is particularly sharp in capturing the psychological toll the haunting takes on Christine, especially when she is required to make tough moral judgement calls.  Thus, the movie is surprisingly thought-provoking, raising questions such as, “Who deserves to go to hell?”

“Drag Me to Hell” is only PG-13, so there is no excessive gore or nasty torture.  But there is plenty to freak you out and gross you out, the latter being mostly for laughs.  The movie’s brilliant sequences of terror make you uncomfortable in a completely original way by making you unsure of what emotion to feel.  As Christine fends herself from the haggardly gypsy by using a stapler, you can’t help but wonder how to react.  Do I scream?  Do I cringe?  Do I laugh?  I did the latter of the three, but Raimi brilliantly concocts these moments so that the audience can make of it what they want.  “Drag Me to Hell” is what you make it: an action movie, a horror movie, a comedy, or any combination of the three.  The choice is yours.  A- /





F.I.L.M. of the Week (October 30, 2009)

30 10 2009

Squid and WhaleThe honor of being “F.I.L.M. of the Week” is now officially bestowed upon “The Squid and the Whale.”  It is perhaps one of the most brazen movies I have ever seen, and I loved every minute of it.  I should have known by reading the movie’s tagline, “Joint Custody Blows.”  The movie is based on events from the life of writer/director Noah Baumbach (a frequent collaborator with director Wes Anderson), a fact that only enhances the experience.  Chronicling the events following the separation his parents in the 1980s and the chaos that ensues, “The Squid and the Whale” joins “Revolutionary Road” as one of the few domestic dramas that I buy completely.  The believability is a result of Baumbach’s clever dialogue, which got him an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay, and two powerful performances from Laura Linney and Jeff Daniels that deserved to be lauded much more than they were.

The film is a masterful piece overall, but it is particularly deft at showing the psychological effects of the divorce on all involved.  16-year-old Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) becomes a prime example of how we all become our parents whether we like it or not as he uncertainly navigates a relationship while pondering other options.  On a similar note, 12-year-old Frank (Owen Kline) begins to probe into the sordid secrets of the world of drugs and sexuality with potentially harmful consequences.  And the harm doesn’t stop at the kids.  Both Bernard and Joan, played respectively by Daniels and Linney, have to deal with the breaking of the fragile joint custody agreement.  Their personalities lead to split alliances between the kids; Walt sides with his father while Frank sides with his mother.  And Bernard and Joan only deepen the divisions as poor decisions are made and new romantic relationships are formed.

Even though a comparison was drawn earlier to the heavy “Revolutionary Road,” “The Squid and the Whale” is much different.  It provides plenty of laughs, many from the profuse profanity from Daniels and the young Kline, but equally from some biting, witty dialogue from Baumbach.  His knack for finding the lighter side of the bitter dissolution of a marriage that makes “The Squid and the Whale” such a marvelous film.  And did I mention that it runs only 80 minutes long?





REVIEW: Where the Wild Things Are

29 10 2009

Wild ThingsLet me start off by addressing the chief complaint with “Where the Wild Things Are“: I am sick and tired of hearing people talk about how it is not a kids movie.  It is.  But director Spike Jonze is an auteur, not willing to follow the conventions of typical light, kiddie fare.  He has made a movie that portrays childhood with blunt and sometimes brutal honesty.  He dares to show the bleaker side of being 9 years old, desiring to be grown up but unequipped and somewhat oblivious to handle the realities of the adult world.  The reason there is such an outcry is because movies for children have been so dumbed down that childhood itself is just reduced to the fun and games.  But when a movie like “Where the Wild Things” comes along and shows the full spectrum, American families mistake it for pompous art-house fare in disguise.

Writers Jonze and Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”) had all of 350 words from which to create a plot that could sustain a feature length film.  What the two spawn is nothing short of miraculous, paying the correct amount of respect to Sendak’s book while conceiving a new story that deserves to be remembered for years to come.  Rather than bore you with a plot summary that you could just as easily find on Wikipedia or Fandango, I will liken it to something that most cinephiles will recognize.  “Where the Wild Things Are” is like “The Graduate” of kids movies.  You might scoff at this comparison at first glance, but stick with me.  A boy on the cusp of two worlds is forced to confront the actualities of coming of age.  Yet this responsibility frightens him, and he reverts to the devices of immaturity associated with youth and naiveté.  Although each deals with in their own way – Benjamin Braddock with sexual affairs and Max by escaping into a place he could only imagine – both have to accept this juvenility is not a viable way to live, a revelation that occurs mainly because of the people around them.  Ultimately, he takes the steps towards entering the world which he once feared.  But the last shots of both movies suggest that with one foot in the door, they approach further only with great trepidation.
Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties

24 10 2009

PREFACE: I mentioned back in Random Factoid #42 that I had gone through a stint of reviewing movies when I was 13. After rummaging through my old home computer, I managed to find some of these reviews. In a special five day mini-series, I will reveal these reviews in their unadulterated form. I leave it up to you to comment, see how my style has changed (or maybe hasn’t). The final movie reviewed in the series is “Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties,” a kids movie with the guts to invoke Dickens in its title.

You can tell when movie companies are just trying to prime people for their money by making a crappy sequel to a semi-popular series, most often in kid’s movies because people go in flocks and not alone.  Jim Davis ought to be ashamed of Tim Hill and 20th Century Fox for ruining his loveably, lazy cartoon.  Garfield is a cat who cares about two things…food and himself.  In the first installment, it took him practically the whole movie to come around and care about Odie.  Meanwhile, in Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties, the tile is about the most creative thing the movie has to offer.  The plot is incredibly predictable (but then again, what kids movie isn’t), and not to mention carelessly written.  Garfield’s owner Jon leaves he and Odie in an animal kennel while he hunts down his girlfriend to pop the question.  Of course, Garfield and Odie escape and stowaway in the luggage.  This left me to think that how could security not see or hear them.  If they wanted an exciting plot twist, they should have had them detained and somehow run to catch the plane.  Meanwhile, a pampered cat that looks remarkably like Garfield inherits an enormous castle while the human heir is left furious.  Well, do you think that he’s going to go after the cat?  The estate provides no protection and just assumes that a power-hungry man will just leave the cat alone.  The rest of the movie is just a mess as the two cats swap worlds, and there are more pathetic attempts to get rid of the cat inheriting the castle.  The animals’ talking doesn’t match their mouths, and the whole thing comes of the same way…sloppy.  Any adult taking their child will yearn for the time back when Bill Murray was young and creating comic masterpieces on SNL.  There was no comic spark for Murray that could have saved this movie.  You may end up begging the kids to leave this to walk into Cars, because this is pure kitty litter.  1halfstars





F.I.L.M. of the Week (October 23, 2009)

23 10 2009

The “F.I.L.M.” (First-Rate, Independent Little-Known Movie) of the Week was unknown to me just a few short months ago.  I was looking at one of my moviegoing companion’s favorite flicks on Facebook and saw there was a movie that I did not recognize.  I, of course, had to ask her what this movie was.  The next day, she lent me her copy, telling me that she couldn’t believe I hadn’t seen it, much less never heard of it.  The movie was “Heathers,” and I quickly realized how criminal it was that I hadn’t seen it.  An absolutely brilliant satire of teenage angst, the movie has a more vintage ’80s high school feel than a John Hughes movie, yet it still retains its significance 20 years later.

Veronica Sawyer (Winona Ryder) has managed to infiltrate the clique of girls who rule the school, all of whom are named Heather.  But Veronica is not like the Heathers; she has qualms about participating in the degradation of other students and about the licentious behavior of the Heathers.  The divide only grows with the arrival of J.D. (Christian Slater), a mysterious, edgy boy that instantly attracts Veronica’s attention.  He shows her what life could be without the practically despotic rule of the Heathers, and she likes his vision.  Together, they begin picking off those who ruin the lives of others.  To clear the air, they do exactly what that last sentence sounds like: killing the tyrannical and making it look like suicide.  But they fail to realize that what they find poetic justice is seen by society as the latest fad among teenagers.  Suicide becomes viewed as an attitude, no different than the “Valley Girl” craze.

“Heathers” is a better version of “Mean Girls” with the guts to make a statement about the true nature of teenagers.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Tina Fey’s writing, but the characters here are fully realized and very real.  It is designed to really make you think, especially teens like me.  The movie calls upon you to wonder how seriously we should be taken.