REVIEW: The Other Guys

6 08 2010

Will Ferrell made a name for himself playing in the movie industry by playing some crazy larger-than-life characters, such as Buddy the Elf and Ron Burgundy. Recently, he has been tarnishing that name by playing Will Ferrell, or at least how we have come to perceive Will Ferrell: a lazy, pathetic, and fairly eccentric bum. After a series of unintentionally humorless flops, it’s hard to have confidence that “The Other Guys” could end the slump.

The movie isn’t great, certainly nowhere near the likes of “Elf” or “Anchorman,” but it’s a definite improvement from “Step Brothers” and “Land of the Lost.” The story and the characters still aren’t quite back in full force, yet there’s some comfort in seeing the return of a crucial ingredient – laughter.  Fairly often, a joke will fall flat or just not work quite right. But more often than not, they manage to work, and we laugh more than we wince.

This isn’t the movie to break Will Ferrell’s slump; however, it’s definitely a step in the right direction and hopefully the beginning of an upward trend. It definitely helps that he’s not playing some ridiculous moron but rather a regular Joe Schmoe moron, someone who might actually exist out there. While we’ve been there done that with Ferrell’s one-note comedy of bizarre characters, there’s something refreshing and, dare I say, exciting about watching him go off the beaten path for a while.

But there’s more to this movie than just reporting that Will Ferrell can be decent again. We can’t forget Mark Wahlberg, who plays a cop that is a complete polar opposite of his Staff Sgt. Dignam from “The Departed.”  While he got to play the ultimate hard Boston police officer in the 2006 Best Picture winner, he’s tackling a decidedly different role as Holtz, the paper-pushing officer stuck working with Ferrell’s pitiful Gamble.  Wahlberg has never been in a comedic movie before, yet it’s amazing how he blends right in as if we’ve been seeing him do these types of movies for years.  I won’t go as far as to call he and Farrell a new “odd couple” (a new favorite critical comparison), but they certainly do play off each other well throughout the movie.

It’s the two marquee names that carry the movie.  They don’t get any help from Eva Mendes, who plays Gamble’s smoking hot wife, or Steve Coogan, the Brit who plays the Wall Street scumbag who is meant to remind us of Bernie Madoff.  Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson, the Dignams so to speak of the movie, aren’t in the movie long enough to produce many laughs, and the ones that they do were ruined in the trailer.  There are some nice running jokes with Michael Keaton, the police chief who moonlights at Bed Bath and Beyond, that wind up being funny after a few tries.  But have no doubt about it – this is Mark Wahlberg’s movie and it is Will Ferrell’s movie, for better or for worse.  B- /


Comments : 8 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (August 6, 2010)

6 08 2010

I’ve thought of three great comparisons for “Hard Candy,” the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie, for those who need a refresher on the acronym), and I just had to include them in my post. I think they make a great lead. Imagine me clearing my throat, and then I say to you…

“Hard Candy” is “Misery” for the digital age. It’s Michael Haeneke’s “Funny Games,” pedophile edition!  And it’s “Paranormal Activity” without the ghosts!

I’m sure I probably have you more confused than anything right now, so allow me to explain.

The first scene, an internet chat, sets up our assumptions about the two characters.  Hayley (Ellen Page) is a 14-year-old girl who allows herself to be wooed by Jeff (Patrick Wilson), a much older photographer, presumably a pedophile from the way they speak to each other. When they arrange to meet for the first time at a coffee shop, we have roles assigned for them in our heads: Jeff the hunter and Hayley the victim.

But the movie quickly shows us that we have these roles mixed up once they return to his house.  As if in one of those crazy games where the deer shoot the rednecks, Hayley tortures Jeff in his own dwelling, punishing him for crimes that she isn’t certain he has committed.  But as the server of preemptive justice, she has little care for following the rules, and her innocence fades quickly as her games become more cruel and sadistic with each passing minute.

This isn’t a movie for the faint at heart and certainly not for those who want to think of Ellen Page as a good-hearted, spunky teenager.  Director David Slade makes a gripping movie by making all the events compellingly realistic, choosing to craft a very eerie natural tension by relying on the actors to really communicate the emotions.  In an era where the average movie changes shots every two seconds, Slade opts for several haunting long shots.  There’s a particular one of Patrick Wilson that last several minutes which will surely sear into your memory forever.


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

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 /


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Step Up 3

4 08 2010

While base ticket prices at my favorite theater have slowly become more and more expensive, the 3D premium price has stayed at a constant $3.  Yet in the past few weeks, they have raised that price to $4 per ticket.  For some movies, I’m willing to pay that premium on top of the exorbitant ticket.  For movies like “Step Up 3,” however, I’d be willing to pay just that $4 premium.

This is a movie that falls perfectly into a category I like to call “bearably bad.”  It is a complete joke, something that should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen a trailer or realized it to be an ugly stepchild threequel to its legitimate predecessor.  Everything about the movie oozes corniness.  But what makes it bad is what makes it so terribly good.

There’s a certain mindset that you have to enter when you see a movie like “Step Up 3” – or at least that you should enter if you want to get any sort of enjoyment out of it.  You have to forget that actors are supposed to act.  For the movie, they just need to look good and dance well.  How else could a former Abercrombie model get a lead?

You will also need to forget how people talk in the real world.  Every other line offers you a chance to laugh at the ridiculousness of the movie.  Finally, you will have to forget what a real movie is like, having to accept the string of dialogue that passes for a plot, incoherently leading to dance competition after dance competition.  And why should you care?  If you watch this movie to be blown away by its narrative power, you need serious help.

As for the dancing, which is the movie’s main attraction, it’s entertaining enough.  There’s nothing particularly mind-blowing or much more special than videos you can find on YouTube.  But you have to see it in 3D, right?  Don’t bite the Hollywood marketing bait; see dancing in real 3D and go find them exhibiting their skills in studios or on the streets.  C /


Comments : 7 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Kick-Ass

2 08 2010

I can’t think of many titles that describe their movies so aptly as this one. “Kick-Ass,” the R-rated superhero movie that indirectly spoofs “Watchmen,” hits us with a one-two punch of comedy and action. The punch is pretty much a knockout.

It’s devilish fun when the action is as outrageous as the comedy. The movie follows Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a teenaged New York geek who unleashes his inner fanboy in a way that would make everyone at the comic book store pee themselves with envy. He decides to rise above the common crowd and become a superhero, despite having no actual powers and few confrontational skills. Still, he holds onto the hope that a fancy scuba suit and a cool name, Kick-Ass, will scare off his opponents. But at first, as one of his rivals points out, he should be called “Ass-Kicked” because that’s the only thing that really happens to him.

As entertaining as the adventures of Kick-Ass can be, it’s the other heroes who steal the show. They should really call the movie “Hit Girl” because we’re always waiting for that precocious child vigilante with a foul mouth and impressive combat ability to return to the screen. It’s hard to tell where most of her allure comes from: actress Chloe Moretz or the script. Moretz has shown skill playing adult characters written for kids to play in “(500) Days of Summer,” and she really seems to get how to make them read. The sheer absurdity of hearing the words come out of her mouth is a comedic masterstroke.

“Kick-Ass” also marks a semi-comeback for Nicolas Cage, at least in my book, who has been getting a bad rep for all the abysmal action and horror movies he has been doing recently. When you have an Oscar, it’s OK to branch out and try other genres, but Cage has strayed far from the nest. One more flop and he could have been a laughing stock. “Kick-Ass,” however, was an excellent choice for the actor. It’s a crowd-pleaser, sure, but it requires him to act. He took a supporting role as Big Daddy, father and shaper of Hit Girl, and it shows off the crossover appeal Cage has. The part allows him to be funny as well as an action star, and there’s even room for him to deal with little bit of real human drama.

Matthew Vaughn does a great job directing the riot that is “Kick-Ass,” never taking himself or the material too seriously. One can only wonder how he will handle the “X-Men” franchise, which has an entirely different tone and involves people with real powers. Hopefully he can bring the same fun he brought to this movie, just leaving the farcical stuff on the side.  He directs a superb movie, but the fact that it devolves into “The Chloe Moretz Show” so easily might raise a tiny red flag in your mind.  A flag so tiny, in fact, that you might forget to realize it’s there while you’re laughing so hard.  B+ /


Comments : 9 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Cyrus

1 08 2010

Over the past few years, we’ve seen over-the-top comedy after over-the-top comedy, and it’s been a little exhausting. But you don’t need to go into outer space or back to prehistoric times to be funny; there’s humor in the average lives of ordinary people. The Duplass brothers understand that and bring us “Cyrus,” a modest comedy that finds laughter in the awkward and trite moments that make up the days of a new couple trying to coexist with an overbearing son. In a summer filled with giant explosions and comedies so corny you can all but hear the laugh-track, it’s a very welcome change of pace.

It’s like a feature-length sitcom where the writers provide the situation and the actors are left to bring the comedy out of it. There are no ridiculous lines or scenarios to pump easy laughs into the movie; it all comes from the way someone glances at another person or a few too many seconds of silence. John C. Reilly headlines the cast as John, the seven-years divorced loner just beginning to come out of his shell as his ex-wife, played by the always fantastic Catherine Keener, is getting married again.

At a party, he makes a drunken connection with Molly, Marisa Tomei’s spontaneous fireball. But little does John know what lies ahead down the road with her – a 22-year-old son played by Jonah Hill who still lives at home and is uncomfortably close with his mother. It’s a very different role for the young comedic star, who has starred in plenty of the ridiculous comedies I alluded to above (although I generally consider him to have good taste in choosing roles). He exhibits the subtlety necessary to make the passive-aggressive antagonist wholly convincing. Hill masters the death glare, just one of many great idiosyncrasies he brings to the character.

The production values are so simple that I can imagine just one of the movie’s four marquee names cost more than making the movie. The two brothers were extremely lucky to land them all because it does lend a sort of mainstream sensibility to the film that could be a little too indie for some people without them. But the crowning achievement of “Cyrus” is not how digestible the mumblecore movement (a phrase that doesn’t register with most Americans) can be made; it’s how the combination of a well-written script and actors capable enough to understand its nuances can create comedy out of anything. A- /


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Classics Corner: “12 Angry Men”

31 07 2010

Is it possible to watch a movie about 12 men whose names and backgrounds we don’t know and be completely riveted?  In 2010, we’d be inclined to say no.  But back in 1957, Sidney Lumet showed that it was possible with his film “12 Angry Men,” and because it is so unconventionally simple, it has become a classic.

Twelve white male jurors are left to decide the fate of a Puerto Rican teenager accused of killing his father with a switchblade.  In a hot, stuffy jury room in the heat of summer, the men are interested reaching a verdict quickly and getting out.  All but one, Juror #8, as we know him, thinks the boy his guilty.  The evidence isn’t totally incriminating, and this juror, played with integrity by Henry Fonda, objects to voting guilty simply because the suspect fits the bill.

And over the course of 90 minutes, which is practically real time, he begins to plant the seed of doubt in the minds of the other jurors.  They go step by step through the evidence, showing all the different ways that it could have been misconstrued.  One by one, they begin to see things in a different light, although it takes longer for some to challenge their assumptions of guilt and innocence.

I chose “12 Angry Men” to be the first entry into my monthly “Classics Corner” series because of how inspiring it really is.  We all like to believe that we are good people, and that when we are thrust into a murky moral situation, we would do the right thing.  In short, we all want to think that we can be juror #8.  But in reality, the odds of finding someone like him out there is more than one in twelve nowadays.  As movies like “Crash” have shown us in recent years, we aren’t as upright as we think we are, and prevailing racial and social assumptions still run rampant in our consciousness.  But like Superman without cape, Juror #8 is a true American hero, representing all the values that we hope we have.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (July 30, 2010)

30 07 2010

I had always been interested in seeing “Boogie Nights.”  And for those of you who happen to know the film’s subject matter, no, it’s not because I wanted to see certain things.  Released in 1997, the movie features plenty of today’s stars long before they had the luster and prestige their names bear now.  Five members of the ensemble have since been nominated for Oscars, and an actor who wasn’t even given top billing has even won an Oscar.

In an effort to see some of Julianne Moore’s finest roles, I decided it was time to watch Paul Thomas Anderson’s Academy Award-nominated second feature.  The movie was her breakout, earning her notices from everyone, including the first of her four Oscar nominations.  But it’s not just to feature her that “Boogie Nights” is my “F.I.L.M. of the Week;” the entire ensemble shines in a true work of artistry by Anderson.

I can’t dance around the topic any longer – this is a movie about the adult entertainment industry, in Los Angeles during the ’70s and ’80s.  Director Jack Horner is looking for an actor to build an empire around, someone who can do more than just look good.  He finds just that in Eddie Adams, a young nightclub employee with talents that Horner seeks.  Changing his name to Dirk Diggler, Horner’s discovery becomes the star he always dreamed of.

But the bigger Diggler’s star becomes, the closer he moves towards becoming a supernova.  His fame has made him violently angry and cocky.  He has also spiraled into severe drug abuse and addiction.  Soon enough, he finds that his greatest asset for his job doesn’t function the way he wants.  Diggler slowly drops towards rock bottom, and thanks to a strong performance by Mark Wahlberg, it’s a gripping journey to watch.  See, the stories of fame in the adult film industry are no different than any other entertainment industry.

As I said earlier, there is quite the ensemble at work here, including John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, and William H. Macy as members of Diggler’s posse.  It’s quite fun to see them in their younger years, just getting started in Hollywood.  He was leagues away from stardom at the time, but a definite standout is Philip Seymour Hoffman as a crew member infatuated with Diggler.  He plays an unsettling character, and it’s nailed with the precision we now regularly associate with Hoffman.

The women are great, too.  Heather Graham, who most people don’t take seriously, is seriously brilliant as Rollergirl, an actress who does all her movies wearing rollerskates.  Anderson wrote the character with great depth, exploring her insecurities and weaknesses.  Graham goes there with him, truly shocking us not only by how good she is but how far she is willing to take her character.  And then there’s Julianne Moore, who entered mainstream consciousness for her portrayal of Amber Waves.  She acts as a mother figure to Diggler, yet at the same time, she finds herself very attracted to him.  Moore can play both objectives well, but she’s at her best when they clash.

In only his second movie, Paul Thomas Anderson handles “Boogie Nights” with the precision of a Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino, sharing the former’s knack for great camerawork and the latter’s ability to select great music.  Now that I’ve seen this, I have to wonder why I like his later movies so much less.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Dinner for Schmucks

30 07 2010

Movies have always had a knack for turning pain into comedy; it’s one of the reasons why we go.  We can’t laugh at suffering in the real world, but we can go and sit in front of a screen and be thoroughly entertained by the trials of people we don’t even know.

However, in “Dinner for Schmucks,” pain is just pain.  As if the pain of the events themselves weren’t enough, we are forced to endure a seemingly interminable series of jokes falling flat on their face.  It’s OK to watch pain when it’s a fictional character enduring it – not the movie itself.

The plot is simple, adhering only to the old adage of Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.”  As a rising executive, Paul Rudd’s Tim is invited to a cruel tradition where members of the corporate crew each bring a bozo to dinner in order to lampoon them for their own entertainment.  He hits the jackpot with Barry (a red-headed Steve Carell), an IRS agent who dabbles in taxidermy in his spare time, creating some very intricate mice dioramas.  While he has a heart of gold, he has a knack for destroying everything in his sights.

There’s also a cast of supporting characters, including Tim’s girlfriend with an inconsistent French accent (gotcha!), as well as his psychotic New Year’s hook-up turned stalker, a foul-mouthed secretary, and a sex-crazed artist.  None of them manage to excite us, and it’s not just because we don’t recognize them.  There have been many a no-name comedy sensation, look no further than last summer’s “The Hangover” as proof.  Yet there’s just no comedic spark or energy from anyone, and characters that could make a mediocre comedy bearable just become part of the pratfall.

And then there are the schmucks, who only come out in the twilight moments of the movie.  It’s an interesting cast of characters, headlined by Zach Galifianakis, who thinks that he has the power to control minds.  The schtick is funny for a little while, but even last summer’s golden child of comedy can’t keep the ridiculous character from becoming a one-note role.  Your mouth may be wide open during the dinner, not necessarily laughing but just awe-struck by how absurd the buffoons at the table are.

At “Dinner for Schmucks,” the real schmuck is you, the unsuspecting moviegoer who is lured in by the wattage of comedic stars Steve Carell and Paul Rudd.  With your money, you’ve financed a dinner for sadists, the executives who will make a profit off of your pain.  Perhaps a more fitting title is “Movie for Morons” because that’s exactly what you’ll be if you see this movie.  D+ /


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Edge of Darkness

27 07 2010

Some movies are no one’s idea of a masterpiece. Martin Campbell, who directed the acclaimed “Casino Royale,” made the pretty average “The Legend of Zorro” as well. William Monahan, who won the Oscar for writing “The Departed,” was also responsible for bringing middle-of-the-road entertainment like “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Body of Lies” to the screen. Mel Gibson, who starred in the beloved “Braveheart,” has more than a few rotten movies littering his mostly impressive resume.

Then there are movies that are no one’s idea of good, and each of the three men above did their part to bring about the disaster that is “Edge of Darkness.” It’s a tragic misstep for all – deplorably written, poorly directed, and miserably acted.

The movie is that same kind of revenge thriller that he has been attracted to in the past (“Ransom” and “Payback,” just to name a few), only it has an unnecessary and convoluted backstory of political intrigue. We’d be plenty happy to watch Mel kick butt and take names, as I suspect that’s the main reason a lot of people have wanted to see this movie. But we only get a YouTube video-length glimpse of the untethered Gibson, which is apparently not too much different than the actor himself.

Instead, we are forced to watch him to try to act stricken with sadness and grief as he mourns his murdered daughter. It borders on painful to watch him try, especially whenever he talks to her as if she walks beside him. Eventually, he puts on the mask of vengeance and winds up caught in his daughter’s web of political intrigue. He starts messing with some massive power players. For him, it’s personal, but for them, it’s business. Eventually, the story becomes tiring and tedious, and all we want is to see Mel Gibson unleashed. That’s not too much to ask for, is it? But Monahan and Campbell insist on trying to craft a “smart thriller,” something they are incapable of doing at least on this movie.

“Edge of Darkness” is more of an epitaph than a movie. Gather here to mourn these fallen talents, it seems to cry. Perhaps Monahan needs Scorsese’s vision to succeed; perhaps Campbell needs the stakes of a hero like James Bond to make a movie work; perhaps Mel Gibson just needs some help. C- /


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: The Messenger

26 07 2010

“The Messenger” – it’s just like “Up in the Air,” only with graver situations and implications. And that’s a very good thing!

The movie captures with a haunting realism the journeys of two enlisted men (Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson) assigned to notify the families of killed soldiers.  It’s a tough job, and they deal with some furious people (the most memorable of which is a livid father played by Steve Buscemi).  They eventually grow used to the reactions and train themselves to be callous to the anguish of the families, largely by sticking to a set script.  Yet they never allow themselves to be a broken record, always performing their duties with the intent of honoring the fallen soldier.

It gives them quite a shock whenever one wife, Olivia (Samantha Morton), anticipates their bad tidings and shows little emotion at receiving the news.  Her unusual calmness rattles them both, particularly Foster’s Ben Montgomery, who winds up forging a deep connection with her.  But when his job entails conveying only the emotion of deep respect, it causes some friction between the two soldiers.

While the movie did receive an Oscar nomination for its screenplay, this is definitely a movie to see for the actors.  It’s not exactly a breakout role for Foster, but the up-and-comer sure shows promise of great things to come.  He’s great on the road, but the mushier scenes with Olivia.  Previous Oscar nominee Morton is powerful as ever as she keeps her grief repressed inside.  At the heart and soul of the movie is Harrelson, who delivers a truly compelling performance truly worthy of the Academy Award nomination it received.

As great as everything is, I left the movie not knowing how the filmmakers wanted me to feel. The movie begins to drag as it comes to a close, mainly because of the muddled emotions.  “The Messenger” loses a lot of its ability to rivet us in the last thirty minutes, but there’s plenty of powerful scenes and moments beforehand to still leave us very satisfied.  B+ /


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: The Boys Are Back

25 07 2010

I saw “The Boys Are Back” a few months ago, and I remember as much about it now as I did the day after I saw it.  If that doesn’t speak volumes about this ultimately forgettable movie, I don’t know what does.

The plot revolves around a widower played by Clive Owen who takes on an interesting parenting philosophy: no rules.  As a sports journalist, he traveled quite a bit and never really had much practical parenting experience.  So his strategy gets a serious test, particularly when he invites his son from a prior marriage to come live with him in Australia.  This proves to be just enough to keep us from counting down the minutes until the movie is over but not enough to fully engage.

Really, the movie’s only talking point is Clive Owen.  He’s a fantastic actor who has given some riveting performances, particularly in “Children of Men” and “Closer.”  Owen won a Golden Globe and received an Oscar nomination for the latter, and I think it’s just a matter of time before he nets the industry’s most coveted prize.  He gives a respectable performance here, showing a tender side he usually hides.  The previously mentioned roles were both hardened, gruff characters that Owen nailed with a stone-faced tenacity.

He’s not bad at the lighter fluff, but he needs to get back to his comfort zone to further elevate his status.  It’s pretty obvious that “The Boys Are Back” is a half-hearted attempt at awards bait.   You would think it’s the kind of role that might garner some serious attention and then laurels.  But the movie isn’t flashy in the slightest, and Owen has practically no opportunities to show what a talented actor he is.  So for now, we can dream about the day that Owen sinks his teeth into the career-defining role.  Until then, we’re stuck with this.  B- /


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Chloe

24 07 2010

Atom Egoyan’s “Chloe” is no fantasy, but it does ask us to suspend reality a little bit.  The movie forces us to believe that normally sweet, innocent Amanda Seyfried can be an obsessive nymphomaniac and normally steadfast, noble Liam Neeson can be a philandering husband.

Take a deep breath.  It’s hard to imagine these actors playing so against type, isn’t it?  The shock value from seeing them be so bad adds to the overall shock value of the movie, which is one of the few things it has going in its favor.  Overall, it’s a fairly predictable movie that still manages to unsettle you thanks to its graphic descriptions of sexual behavior and the psychotic Benjamin Braddock character that is Amanda Seyfried’s Chloe.

Chloe is a master of seduction, using the persuasive power of her good looks to take full control of everyone she comes into contact with.  This includes gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore), who has become convinced that her husband (Neeson) is cheating on her.  She hires Chloe to test his waters and see how far he will go, but she soon finds out that she is in for way more than she asked.  The assignment only proves to feed Chloe’s purely carnal desires, and she will stop at nothing to get what she wants.

The movie is most notable for Seyfried’s turn, which is such a departure from her lighter roles that it will leave you completely awe-struck.  She proves that she can do more than just fluff like Nicholas Sparks adaptations and campy ABBA musicals, and I’m sure excited to welcome her into the realm of real acting.  Julianne Moore goes through the movie in cruise control, but that’s still enough for one of the finest actresses of our time to be compelling.  And then there’s Liam Neeson, who’s hardly in the movie long enough to sully our views of him as such an honorable man.

Really, the movie’s biggest flaw is it’s obsession with shocking us.  There comes a certain point when it becomes overkill, and then the audience learns to anticipate it, rendering any power it might have completely useless.  So by the end of “Chloe,” when the final twists come into place and Chloe commits her most shocking deeds yet, it really doesn’t mean anything to us.  B /


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (July 23, 2010)

23 07 2010

You need to see “Children of Men” if you haven’t already.  You owe it to yourself.

I rewatched it a few days ago and fell in love with it all over again.  I chose it as this week’s “F.I.L.M.” because I found it as beautifully new as if I had just seen it – and also because it stars Julianne Moore, the subject of the LAMB’s Acting School.

We’ve seen the apocalyptic situations a million times, be it by zombies or bad weather.  But in Alfonso Cuaron’s world, based on the novel by author P.D. James, the end is near because of the sudden infertility of women.  The only surviving government is Britain, which has become a hotbed for illegal immigration.  So even there, society is collapsing.

The extraordinary chain of events in “Children of Men” are set in motion by the death of the world’s youngest person, Baby Diego.  Theo, played by the powerful Clive Owen, is a little more affected than he expected and winds up barely missing being killed by a bombing set up by the Fishes, a group of political activists led by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore).  They kidnap him and recruit his services to take a refugee to the Human Project, a group committed to curing human’s infertility.  This refugee is carrying the key to survival – the first child in 18 years.

It’s a really cool movie to watch thanks to the visionary Cuaron and all the life he breathes into it.   He co-wrote the screenplay, and it’s incredibly rich, both in terms of plot and dialogue.  The acting is all flawless, from Julianne Moore’s moving bit part to Michael Caine’s lovable aging stoner to Owen’s riveting leading performance.  The cinematography is astounding, and it easy to notice how innovative it is.  Thanks to utilizing some long shots (as opposed to Hollywood’s incessant changing shots), Emmanuel Lubezki’s eye for the story really stands out.

But what I found so astonishing on second viewing was the thematic depth the movie had.  Be sure to watch for the religious overtones – they really can floor you.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Salt

22 07 2010

“Salt” is all about Angelina Jolie.  Forget the character, the movie is about making her look like a goddess.  It’s about how she can pull off being blonde and brunette.  It’s about how she can look good with long or short hair.  It’s about how she can still manage to look gorgeous after scaling a building or taking a punch.  It’s about how she can walk away from explosions and jumping on cars without ever looking unattractive.  No matter how much blood coats her face, Angelina Jolie can still look hot.

The movie is one made of surprises and twists, and Angelina Jolie’s never failing good looks are not one of them.  The movie throws us into disarray as we try to figure out what side Jolie’s Evelyn Salt is really on: Russia or America.  What we think we know is never certain, and subject to change at the drop of a hat.  It takes everything we’ve hated about summer 2010, the predictability and the banality, and gives us an entire movie jam-packed with the exact opposite.  Between this and “Inception,” the season is covered for plot twists.

For all of you who got a giddy rush from the mention of “Inception,” no, “Salt” is not in the same ballpark as Nolan’s latest and greatest.  It has the adrenaline kick of “Wanted” with the espionage intrigue of a Bourne movie.  We are always kept engaged by this combination, no matter how far the boundaries of plausibility are pushed.  It’s most like “Wanted,” though, with some similar action sequences that stay more tightly bound to the laws of physics.  Although that’s not to say they aren’t entertaining; they just lack the extra sucker-punch energy.  Salt has to be resourceful and kick butt in more human ways, which makes our jaws drop in an entirely different fashion.  It’s complication without sophistication, and there’s no shortage of fun to be had.

As for Jolie’s acting, it’s a combination of her smugly cool assassin in “Wanted” with her compellingly hysterical family woman in “Changeling.”  She’s mastered both of these character types, and while Evelyn Salt is a far cry from her award-winning roles, it’s a further reminder that she can sell us anything.  I think I can only be entertained by “Salt” once because so much of the movie is in the reversals, but I can watch Angelina Jolie many, many times.  B+ /


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

« Previous Entries Next Entries »