REVIEW: Cold Souls

20 07 2010

Paul Giamatti is usually a pretty funny guy; his facial movements alone can illicit a few good laughs.  But not even he has the power to fill the emptiness of “Cold Souls.” Giamatti hasn’t exactly shied away from some pathetic characters in the past, and he has infused them with plenty of neuroses.  Yet for some reason, the whole act just falls flat here.

I get that the movie is a criticism of the capitalist society that we live in, and it’s one of those “intelligent satires” that aren’t exactly meant to entertain us so much as make us think.  It wouldn’t bother me so much had I not seen an excellent movie called “Being John Malkovich” that does everything that this movie so desperately wanted to do, and it does it flawlessly.

Apparently, writer/director Sophie Barthes wants us to think that soul extraction is the new therapist’s couch.  Giamatti, that is, a fictionalized version, undergoes this operation to make his work on a play easier.  He becomes disappointed at how small his soul looks in its glass container and throws a nice little fit.

And from there on out, it’s pure agony to watch Giamatti soullessly sulk around the screen, barely saying a word.  The plot collapses as there is some sort of “soul trafficking” issue going on in Russia that we are supposed to care about, but by that point, it’s so easy to just tune out everything that’s going on and be thankful you have a soul.

Strangely enough, I really enjoyed the movie whenever David Strathairn was on screen.  Too bad that was only for a few minutes.  C- /





REVIEW: Grown Ups

19 07 2010

In “Grown Ups,” Adam Sandler and friends have three stages: childish, adolescently juvenile, and grown up.

When they are childish, the movie is old and trite.  We’ve seen all the bathroom humor, boob humor, fat humor, hot girl humor, and racial humor Sandler can throw at us.  It was funny in the ’90s whenever movies like “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore” were rocking the comedy scene.  But Sandler hasn’t changed his game much since then, and it’s time to move on from the silly and stupid just to get a quick laugh.  In fact, I usually just groan now.

When they are adolescently juvenile, the movie takes flight.  I assume that a lot of this is outside the lines, improvisational stuff.  I felt like I was watching them brainstorming one-liners for SNL in the writer’s room.  It’s like they are reaching out and including us in these creative sessions as they just rattle off joke after joke.  They have some clever wordplay and witty situations when they are at this level, and it’s where they should dwell more often.

When they are grown up, the movie is corny and laughable.  There’s that obligatory “oh, we’ve been joking the whole time, let’s grow up quickly and have a lesson” scene towards the end that derails all the comedic momentum the movie built up.  And this one is so bad and so out of place I can only hope Sandler and pals meant it to play off as a giant joke.

All comics are not created equal, as the movie shows us.  Sandler writes the best for himself, making he and his wife, played by the gorgeous and incredibly out of place Salma Hayek, the only normal ones.  Compared to him, the successful Hollywood agent, we are supposed to assume that everyone else is a loser in comparison to him.  There’s the Mr. Mom played by Chris Rock, the obese therefore butt of jokes played by Kevin James, the creepy bachelor played by David Spade, and the just plain creeper played by Rob Schneider.  Spade’s bits are stale, Rock is fair, Chris Farley’s doppleganger James is good enough not to make us yearn for the late star, and Schneider is as good as he’s ever been – which is to say that he wasn’t funny then and he’s not funny now.

So in the end, it’s that creative spark that comes from just reeling off one-liners and playing off each other that saves the movie from being a total disaster.  It’s that more refined immaturity that we don’t get nearly enough of that keeps us coming back to Sandler’s movies.  Because we don’t want Adam Sandler to grow up so much as just move on.  C /





REVIEW: The Kids Are All Right

18 07 2010

Lisa Choldenko’s “The Kids Are All Right” may not have everything right, but it’s most certainly better than just alright. Her witty and insightful script is enormously entertaining, finding that perfect median between comedy and drama that so many filmmakers struggle to achieve.

Perhaps the most impressive facet of the film is how effortlessly it nails family dynamics. Nic and Jules (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore) are a married lesbian couple with two children, Joni and Laser (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson), whom they have raised to success in academics and athletics, respectively. No matter what your take is on Proposition 8, you have to admire how much this family can be any family. They hug, they kiss, they laugh, they banter, they bicker, they argue, and they love just like any other family. And it’s also incredible how Cholodenko manages to tranquilize any sort of awkwardness that might ensue from the whole “two moms” situation.

For reasons that are never quite fully explained, Laser and Joni decided to make contact with their biological father, the ungrounded Paul (Mark Ruffalo). He’s more put together than the trainwreck Ruffalo played in “You Can Count On Me” but not by much. A college drop-out who gave his seed to the sperm bank mainly for the money, he’s coasted by on casual relationships to get by. When the kids enter his life, he feels a sort of connection that taps into a longing for something more significant in life. At first, Paul meets the kids in secret, just coming to the reality that his own seed could produce something living. But looking to forge something deeper, he finds that there’s just no way around meeting Nic and Jules. He becomes a presence in the life of the family, not always welcome, and definitely causing dramatic changes for everyone.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Inception

16 07 2010

Filmmaking is about creation.

The creation of a character, a couple; a feeling, a frame; a narrative, a novelty; a relationship, a romance; a moment, a mystery.  Have no doubt about it, filmmaking is creation, no matter the size of the budget or scope.

But there are very few filmmakers with the knowledge, the willpower, and the vision to create a world.  We all remember the first time we stepped into the galaxy far, far away that George Lucas took us to in “Star Wars.”  Recent examples include The Wachowski Brothers leading us into the world of “The Matrix,” Peter Jackson lifting Middle Earth off the page and displaying it before our very own eyes in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, and, very recently, James Cameron giving us a crystal-clear, in-our-face look at Pandora in “Avatar.”

And now, with the release of “Inception,” we can officially add Christopher Nolan to that impressive list of filmmakers.  He unravels before our very own eyes what he envisions to be the world of the dream.  It’s an incredibly complex world, governed by a set of rules that have graver implications that we could ever imagine.  Only he holds the keys to unlocking the secrets of his creation, and he tantalizingly dangles them before our eyes.

Yet he also challenges us to use just the sight of them to figure it out for ourselves.  I have no doubt he left us clues throughout the movie, but it’s not possible to catch them your first time.  You are simply too awe-struck by what’s on the screen, too busy puzzling out the intricacies of the plot, and too preoccupied trying to stay ahead of Nolan to go a layer deeper.  And to go that extra mile, to find what’s really bubbling under the surface of “Inception,” you will have already dug to a great depth.  Some people won’t even be willing to go that far, and they will feel left in the dust by the movie, like a kindergartener sitting in a calculus class.  But Nolan doesn’t design it for those people, making it an even sweeter treat for those willing to take their mind on a journey it won’t always understand.

Read the rest of this entry »





F.I.L.M. of the Week (July 16, 2010)

16 07 2010

I’ve been hearing about “Run Lola Run,” this week’s “F.I.L.M.,” for at least a decade.  So a few weeks ago, I decided to experience it for myself.  I found out that I had been missing quite a lot.  The movie is a joyous rush of blood to the head with a style that will knock you of your feet.

Lola (Franka Potente, recognizable from “The Bourne Identity”) has twenty minutes to save her boyfriend, Moritz, from the punishment of losing a large sum of money he owed his boss.  In desperation, he wants to rob a supermarket to get the money.  She urges him to wait, but she has no idea if he will.  So she runs.

Lola runs through the streets of Berlin at an all-out sprint, affecting the lives of others in strange and unexpected ways.  We see her run from three different perspectives, which is really the only way to describe the movie without spoiling it for people that have never seen it.  But we see a whole lot of Lola running.  Franka Potente must have lost a whole lot of weight doing this movie.

While the story is refreshingly compelling and the actors who tell it are fully convincing, it’s the way the story is told by the people behind the camera that makes “Run Lola Run” a movie we can never forget.  All the eccentric editing, crazy cinematography, animated asides, and pulsating beats from the techno score make it feel less like a movie and more like some collection of images that defies cinematic boundaries.  And in a time when filmmakers are tied ball-and-chain to convention, this movie has never felt so good.





NOLAN REVIEW: The Dark Knight

14 07 2010

After the modest critical and financial success with “The Prestige,” Nolan returned to the Batman franchise and released a movie that riskily omitted the name of the Caped Crusader – “The Dark Knight.”

Two years later, how do you review Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight?”  What hasn’t been said?  There’s no one left to convince to see the movie; if anyone hasn’t seen it, they aren’t worth the effort.

After watching and rewatching Nolan’s films prior to this, it only made me realize more that “The Dark Knight” is a perfect realization of all the themes he loves to explore.  It’s about the extent of rules and limits, something he touched on in both “Following” and “The Prestige.”  It’s about the blurriness of morality, a theme he examined in “Memento” and “Insomnia.”  It’s about fear and what it can drive us to do and become, something that we saw a lot of in “Batman Begins.”

But there’s plenty unique to “The Dark Knight.”  It’s a rumination on terrorism as the anarchistic Joker seeks to cause madness in the streets of Gotham.  Batman, the only person with any hope of stopping him, has to consider how far he is willing to go to eliminate the Joker before he himself becomes the villain.  As their fight escalates, Bruce Wayne becomes more and more uncertain that he is the hero in his own story.  Some have read into this undertones of George W. Bush waging war on terrorism against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.  That’s a rather extreme way to look at it, but it’s not too much of a stretch to say that this storyline did tap into the zeitgeist.  We ourselves have wondered where to draw the line in our fight on terrorism as to aggression.  How much counter-aggression does it take before we ourselves become the aggressors?

Of course, you can’t discuss the movie without heaping superlative after superlative on Heath Ledger’s The Joker.  It’s a role that deserves to take its place among the most iconic characters in cinematic history, something Ledger’s unfortunate passing sealed.  His complete immersion and stunning transformation overshadowed pretty much every other performance in the movie, which says a lot because there were some other fantastic turns.  Forget the deep, raspy Batman voice and Christian Bale is flawless, delivering a subtle portrait of Bruce Wayne’s affliction and inner torment.  Aaron Eckhart is compelling as Harvey Dent and Two-Face, as good at being the hero with a face as he is at being the villain with half a face.  There’s solid foundational performances from veterans Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, but the movie’s true unsung hero is Gary Oldman.  As the only truly noble man in the movie, he’s a figure to be admired and respected, and there’s a good chance you won’t even notice it.  But that doesn’t stop Oldman from putting any less sensitivity or emotion into it, nor does he try to overdo anything to make himself stand out more.

Still, it wasn’t Heath Ledger alone that drove the movie to extreme critical acclaim and some of the most enormous box office receipts in history.  Nor was it the look of the film – which, by the way, was spectacular, particularly Wally Pfister’s breathtaking cinematography.  It was Nolan’s script, full of intelligence and insight, that won audiences over.  Such intellect was so unconventional for a movie of the genre, and we had generally allowed ourselves to think that action movies don’t require us to engage our brains.  Yet Nolan challenged our assumption and delivered a movie that successfully blended smarts with action, and we loved the exciting and refreshing change of pace.  Now, we want every action movie to be more like “The Dark Knight.”

So call it a masterpiece.  Call it the most thematically rich and relevant movie in recent memory.  Call it the first shot in a revolution for the comic book, superhero, and action genres.  Call it the movie to define a decade not just of moviegoing but also of American life.





NOLAN REVIEW: The Prestige

13 07 2010

After great critical and commercial success with “Batman Begins,” Nolan went back to the familiar territory of complex storylines and plot twists with “The Prestige.”

Whoever said cinema was magic was clearly foreseeing “The Prestige.”  Christopher Nolan uses his sorcery to conjure up a truly enchanting moviegoing experience, one that draws you in close at the beginning and keeps you gripped for the entire ride.  And it just so happens that the movie is about magic, so the comparison is perfect.

It’s all about the competition as Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman play rival magicians in early 1900s England, both of whom vie for the greatest success.  But they soon realize that the only way to come out on top is to eliminate the other, so their rivalry becomes dangerous as they work to destroy each other.  Stealing tricks as the only the beginning; they make decisions that affects life away from the stage as well, throwing friends and loved ones into the middle.

The beauty of the Nolans’ script (Christopher and brother Jonathan collaborated on the movie) is that it picks no favorite magician.  There is no set hero or villain, and Bale’s Borden does as many despicable deeds as Jackman’s Angier.  Thanks to their impartiality, we really just get to watch the events without worrying about the protagonist pulling through.

The movie’s slogan of “Are you watching closely?” is perfectly fitting as Nolan lures us in as if performing his own magic trick.  And indeed he is, following the traditional setup of a magic trick as Michael Caine’s John Cutter says at the beginning of the film.  The pledge, which in magic consists of showing us a normal object, is very much the film’s first act as we see the developing competition between the two magicians.  And just like the turn in magic, which makes the normal abnormal, the tension escalates.  We are looking for the reason, not wanting to be fooled by Nolan’s wizardry.

Sure enough, in the prestige, we get it.  In typical Nolan fashion, there’s a twist, and what we’ve been watching turns out to be something entirely different.  Yet we are willing to be fooled by a magician, and being fooled by Nolan’s “The Prestige” turns out to be quite thrilling in retrospect.





NOLAN REVIEW: Batman Begins

12 07 2010

Nolan rose to a whole new level of notoriety by taking on the rebooting of the “Batman” franchise, taking the series in a new, exciting, and grittier direction.

Although I was alive in the 1990s, I wasn’t consciously aware of the rapid descent of the “Batman” franchise at the time.  Trying to brush up on my knowledge of the series before the release of “Batman Begins” in 2005, I watched these movies that had audiences cringing.  The Tim Burton/Michael Keaton collaborations had some sense of artistic vision, albeit in a fairly corny kind of way.  The Joel Schumacher/Val Kilmer teaming was pretty dreadful, but it doesn’t get much worse than 1997’s “Batman and Robin.”  George Clooney is a fantastic actor, but with his smug, pissy attitude, he was totally the wrong person to play the Caped Crusader.  Plus, the Batsuit had nipples, just a horrific manifestation of how far the series had sunk.

Then along came Christopher Nolan, who was still all the rage from “Memento,” with a darker vision for Bruce Wayne and Batman.  He based his approach to the movie on “humanity and realism” to make the rise of a hero all the more extraordinary.  Rather than delve into exorbitant villains like Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze, whose credibility rests on fantasy, he chose to have Batman fight the kind of men who might actually be on the streets striking terror into the hearts of citizens.

What Nolan delivered was nothing less than astounding.  He built not only a hero but a man, the oft-neglected part of superhero movies.  The priority with the movie was to develop the character of Bruce Wayne, to show what made him tick and why he would become a masked vigilante patrolling the streets of Gotham at night.  Nolan, who also wrote the movie, develops a highly effective psychological profile of Wayne (Christian Bale), who decides to done the guise of Batman to overcome the fear that has come to define his life since the murder of his parents at a young age.  He takes on the symbol of the bat, a fear of his since childhood, to share this fear with his enemies.

And it’s not just Wayne that Nolan goes to painstaking lengths to rebirth.  He also gives Gotham a facelift or rather, makes it a whole lot less glamorous.  I think that the city is one of the few things “Batman Begins” does better than its sequel.  It’s a dirty, graffiti-filled environment that looks like the breeding ground for criminals that it is.  The streets provide a great place for Batman to begin, taking down the mob and other organized crime.  They don’t really spawn much of a villain so much as someone with a threatening voice, Tom Wilkinson as boss Carmine Falcone.

We all know how great “The Dark Knight” is, and it’s easy just to bask in the glory of that.  But for Batman to start fighting a higher class of criminal, he had to learn to take care of the guys below.  In “Batman Begins,” we see just that.  Yet upon watching the movie post-“Dark Knight,” we realize that it has so much more to offer than just setting up a sequel and providing background.  It’s a fantastic movie for both character development and action that’s smarter than your average blockbuster.





NOLAN REVIEW: Insomnia

11 07 2010

After the smashing success that was “Memento,” Nolan went mainstream and made a movie for Warner Bros. – a remake of the Danish film “Insomnia.”

“Insomnia” is definitely the most conventional and least Nolanesque movie that Christopher Nolan has made in his career, but even that doesn’t stop it from being one great movie.  It’s a great psychological thriller and murder mystery that is well plotted and paced, plus it features three great performances from Oscar champs Pacino, Williams, and Swank.

Tough-as-nails cop Dormer, played by Pacino of course, is sent along with his partner to investigate a murder in summertime Alaska – where the sun doesn’t set.  And the disturbing beating and death of the teenager doesn’t get to Dormer so much as that sun does, which causes him to grow restless.  As if that isn’t enough, his partner is willing to throw him under the bus for personal gain, and he has to put up with a zealous hometown cop (Swank) who learned how to do her job from the lessons he preached.

It’s got that same kind of eerie, psychological vibe as “Shutter Island” gave off this year.  But what makes the pendulum swing in favor of Scorsese’s latest over Nolan’s film is the directorial control.  Scorsese slowly leads us into the mental anguish of Leonardo DiCaprio’s Teddy Daniels, making us grow more and more anxious until we almost can’t take it anymore.  Nolan in “Insomnia” only hints at Dormer’s torment by giving the occasional visual clue.  At the end, he goes all in and uses the cinematography and quick editing to make us feel nauseous and overwhelmed like the character.  It’s very effective, but the power might have been even greater had it been more present throughout the movie.

In fact, I’d like to see Nolan remake his own movie here in a decade or so.  Not necessarily “Insomnia” itself, but with more filmmaking expertise, he could revisit this genre and give it a masterpiece.





REVIEW: Despicable Me

11 07 2010

A lot of comedies aren’t made by the main attraction.  We don’t love “Caddyshack” because of Danny Noonan.  “Knocked Up” might have been any old stoner comedy without Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd’s married couple breathing humor and humanity into it.  Even in animation, would you really say that your favorite character in “Toy Story” is Woody or Buzz?  Or Shrek and Fiona in the “Shrek” series?

So it’s unfortunate that Gru (Steve Carell), the despicable one that the title of “Despicable Me” alludes to, doesn’t really have much to offer us.  While most animated movies require us to suspend reality a little bit, here we have to go so far as to believe that a treacherous villain can go to Starbucks and have a house in the suburbs like normal people while still making headlines.  He becomes deadlocked in a fight for the top spot with Vector (Jason Segel), who we can never really buy as villainous because he looks like Edna Mode from “The Incredibles” in a track suit.  Their storyline is corny and, quite frankly, pretty stupid, but it sets up the “Grinch”-like tale of Gru’s adoption of three young orphans.

Thankfully, the movie doesn’t rely on Gru solely for laughs.  The minions are absolutely hilarious, easily the best part of “Despicable Me” and the real reason to see the movie.  Gru’s partners in crime resemble kernels of corn, and they pop off the screen with more energy than anyone else.  Every time they scamper on, a chuckle is guaranteed, but usually a giant laugh ensues.  We only get them in small doses as comic relief from Gru, yet I think I’d be more willing to sit through uninterrupted minion antics than the despicable villainy of their boss.

The movie has a big heart, something all kids movies should have but few really do nowadays.  This is most evident every time the three adorable kids waltz on screen, particularly the youngest, Agnes, who totally wins us over.  I probably would have cried had it been told with Pixar sensitivity.

So, despicable you, Gru, for hogging all the screen time.  You may be the #1 supervillain, but you aren’t the #1 attraction in your own movie.  B /





NOLAN REVIEW: Memento

10 07 2010

After “Following,” Nolan adapted his brother’s short story to create one of the most gripping psychological thrillers of our time, “Memento.”

I can’t tell you enough to see “Memento.”  And then see it again.

I’ve only seen it once, but I can easily foresee multiple re-viewings in the near future.  It’s a movie so brilliantly crafted by the fearless Christopher Nolan that it surely can’t be fully comprehended at once.  Plus, I get the feeling that I’ll appreciate how intricate it really is more and more with each time I see it.

I won’t claim to be any sort of expert on the movie, but there’s plenty that I can tell you from one viewing.  The trick is how to describe it without giving too much away.  Nolan adapted “Memento” from one of his brother’s short stories, and he uses ingenious plot devices to tell the story of amnesiac Leonard Shelby, played by Guy Pearce, who lost his memory after witnessing his wife’s murder.  He’s left with almost no ability to store new memories, something that greatly impairs his ability to hunt down his wife’s killer.  Leonard has to leave himself little clues and notes to remember key facts in his hunt, which he does mainly by tattooing them all over his skin.

We get to see his hunt through two different storylines that run perpendicular.  Nolan keeps us guessing until the very end as we feel there’s a twist coming but still manage to wind up completely dumbfounded and stupefied by the conclusion.  I don’t think I’m spoiling the fun for you first-time watchers because I was aware of the presence of a twist ending and was still caught completely off-guard.  It’s too genius to see coming, and if you do, kudos because you are clearly smarter than me.

Just like any movie Nolan directs, the tension in the air can be cut with a knife.  It’s masterfully made, told with a visually arresting style that will have you completely engrossed from the first Polaroid flash.  “Memento” is like a giant puzzle, and it’s one you almost certainly can’t have entirely pieced together once the movie is over.  It may take many, many viewings before all the pieces come together … and that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.





F.I.L.M. of the Week (July 9, 2010)

9 07 2010

As the countdown to “Inception” hits seven days and the nail-biting stage begins, I think it’s a perfect time to look back on the career of Christopher Nolan.  Today is the kick-off for a week long celebration of the director.  I’ll review all of Nolan’s movies leading up to Friday, where I will offer my take on “Inception.”  In addition, I hope to take a look at some of Nolan’s influences, reviewing those movies with particular attention to how they shaped one of the most influential directors of our time.

And it all starts here with the “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” Nolan’s first film, “Following.”  It’s a very modest debut in terms of scale; it stars no one you know and is nowhere near as flashy as “The Dark Knight.”  To put Nolan’s success in perspective, “Following” was budgeted at $6,000.  “Inception” cost $175 million to make.  Yet it’s interesting to watch this movie now, twelve years after its release, and see how it set the stage for some of the themes Nolan would choose to explore as a filmmaker.

The film follows a young writer in London, so desperate to find a story that he begins following random people for inspiration – yet another Nolan character living outside the lines.  He begins to set rules to avoid being pulled into darkness and obsession, but eventually these rules begin to fade away as he follows a fascinating and wealthy man.

The man, Cobb, confronts him and introduces him to a world of burglary for a more psychological than material effect.  Before long, the young writer is completely drawn in, consistently accompanying Cobb for robberies.  In typical Nolan fashion, nothing is really as it seems.  Much like “Memento” and “The Prestige,” the movie leads you in one direction and then yanks the rug out from under you in the climactic moments.

It’s amazing how Nolan’s artistic vision and commitment to keeping suspense so taut can still shine in such a small movie.  I hadn’t even heard of “Following” before today, but it packs as much power in its 70 minutes as any of Nolan’s other movies.  Because it is incredibly obscure, the only way I was able to watch it was online.  I want you all to experience Nolan as well, so I took the liberty of embedding the Google Video below.  You can enjoy “Following” without even leaving this blog.





REVIEW: The Last Airbender

8 07 2010

You’ve almost assuredly heard all the bad buzz surrounding “The Last Airbender.” And yes, it’s pretty bad.  But don’t let the 9% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes convince you that this some sort of cataclysmic flop.  It’s no worse than any of the other mindless, soulless blockbusters that studios engineer to turn our suffering into their profit.

The root of the movie’s problems is producer, writer, and director M. Night Shyamalan and his decade-old hubris from creating one of the greatest thrillers ever made, “The Sixth Sense.”  The allure wore off in 2004 with the release of “The Village,” and it’s been all downhill since.  No longer can he coast on the glory of that one movie; you can’t feed America crap and then fall back on dusty laurels.  One can only hope that this wakes Shyamalan from his stupor, and he will go back to making good movies.  That would make one good thing that could come from “The Last Airbender.”

Everything suffers from Shyamalan’s ignorance.  His script is unimaginative and dull.  Simply put, he just cannot handle themes or dialogue.  The plot does move, although at the pace of molasses sliding down a mountain.  It’s no simple task to dumb down genocide, but Shyamalan does it with ease (and that’s not a compliment).

The acting is all pretty laughable, even Dev Patel (for whom I yelled “JAMAL!” upon seeing).  I normally don’t think ethnic casting too big of an issue, but it did bug me that the three leads were white and everyone else was Indian.  Unfortunately, the worst among the ranks is Noah Ringer, who plays top dog Aang thanks to his discovery at an open casting call.  Apparently, they weren’t looking for anyone with any talent or acting skills.  You could have stuck one of the E-Trade babies in the movie and gotten a more emotionally compelling and appropriate performance.  Never did I think I would see the day when I would pine for models turned actors, but watching “The Last Airbender” made me do just that.

The visuals aren’t terrible, and the bending of the elements looked pretty cool.  I could even get over the fact that the art of bending looks like a step-by-step instructional for urban dancing.  But once again, Shyamalan undoes what the visuals could have done for the movie by sculpting horrible action sequences.  His use of slow-motion is more than excessive, it’s outrageous.  And when the adrenaline-fueled action moves as slowly as the rest of the movie, you know you’re in for a painful ride.  C- /





REVIEW: Valentine’s Day

6 07 2010

As much as I wanted to say that all these stars couldn’t save a movie, I can’t. Much to my surprise, “Valentine’s Day” was a relatively charming and very entertaining look at just about every kind of love that might exist. And given the day it is set on, all the love stories are as pumped up on steroids as the size of the cast.

The line-up is like a romantic comedy all-star team, and to top it off, they’ve even peppered in some serious actors. Oscar winners Kathy Bates, Jamie Foxx, Julia Roberts (who falls into the rom-com category as well), and Shirley MacLaine all make appearances. “Grey’s Anatomy” fans can rejoice at getting McDreamy AND McSteamy together outside of Seattle Grace hospital. Teen idols for both boys and girls are represented through Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner. In case you had any doubt, you can find at least one star to make your valentine in the cast.

And there’s every kind of love story you can imagine. The movie rounds all the bases and covers all the definitions of the L word that keeps the world spinning. There’s young love and old love, pure love and cheating love, parental love and physical love.  And of course, because you can’t have love without it, there’s heartbreak.

Now, just because it tells all these stories doesn’t mean that they are all told well.  There are plenty that are just plain boring to watch or so horrifyingly predictable that the movie would have done well to shuck it and lose a few minutes off a pretty bloated running time.  At over two hours, it’s a marathon romantic comedy.  You can feel the fatigue starting to set in as it crosses the hour mark, dragging along under the weight of too many characters and storylines.  Most are wrapped up with class, albeit in a fairly typical and predictable fashion.  Be sure to stay tuned until the very end because there are some nice and touching twists up its sleeve.  Turning it off would be a big mistake.  Huge.  B /





REVIEW: Knight And Day

5 07 2010

What’s silly, somewhat corny and contrived, and stuffed to the gills with action?

That would be “Knight And Day.” But my real question is this – so what? It provides that shot of summer adrenaline that we all crave without the eye-rolling and moaning on the side. As a sort of hybrid action-romantic comedy, the movie favors the former (which is probably for the better), but the blend really does allow it to be entertaining for more than just the guys who light up inside watching something blow up.

We’re never really meant to take the movie seriously – well, at least Tom Cruise doesn’t, so I sure as heck didn’t. His rogue CIA agent Roy Miller is part insane, part parody of all the outrageous characters Cruise has played in nearly three decades on screen. And he’s as willing to make fun of himself and his career choices as he is to don a fat suit and bloated makeup. There’s plenty of Cruise being mysterious in the corner, playing with the sunglasses, delivering ridiculous lines, making corny romantic gestures, and running to the point where it looks painful. It’s his boundless playful energy that lifts “Knight And Day” off the ground.

Read the rest of this entry »