F.I.L.M. of the Week (July 2, 2010)

2 07 2010

This week’s “F.I.L.M.” is Nicole Holofcener’s probing social comedy “Friends with Money.” If you look at the poster and see Jennifer Aniston and instantly think, “This movie is going to be stupid,” be prepared to think twice. It’s an incredibly, perhaps surprisingly, deep look at the effects of money and social class on four friends in Los Angeles. It rounds all the bases, touching on all the big issues that an obsession with money can bring.

Jane (Frances McDormand) is a successful fashion designer who is perhaps the most money-driven of the bunch. She unabashedly and unashamedly asks people about how much money they make, how much they are donating, and how much they spend. Whether it’s because of her crumbling marriage or potentially entering menopause, she has become increasingly frank and short-tempered.

Franny (Joan Cusack) is a trust fund baby living comfortably with her husband and child. She’s a little shy talking about how much money she has, largely because of its source.

Christine (Catherine Keener) is a television writer, teamed with her husband (Jason Isaacs). Giddy from the rush of money, she decides to expand their house upwards to see the ocean without considering its effect on her neighbors. But marital frustrations begin to take its toll on her work; however, they also open her eyes to how her actions have unexpectedly affected the world around her.

Olivia (Jennifer Aniston) is their idea of a charity case friend. She’s quit her job as a teacher to become a maid. She’s single and hasn’t had a steady boyfriend in years. She still smokes pot and wanders through life with no direction or sense of purpose.

Each of the women undergoes a metamorphosis over the course of the movie’s 88 minutes. Holofcener creates four wonderfully elaborate women whose stories unfold before our very eyes. The character study is incredibly effective and entertaining, largely due in part to the wittiness of the script.

But the movie is carried by the actresses, all of whom give wonderful performances. Joan Cusack plays nothing new – the mildly insecure but ultimately warmhearted woman – but it’s a comfortable territory for her and thus comfortable for us to watch. Catherine Keener undergoes one of the movie’s biggest transformations, and she nails it with her typical pitch-perfect grace. Frances MacDormand is absolutely hysterical as she speaks her mind with no filter.

And bring on the puzzled looks – the star of “Friends With Money” is Jennifer Aniston. Her Olivia is by far and away the film’s most complicated character, and in the hands of Aniston, she is completely realized. We can buy every move she makes and feel the emotion behind each line. All you Jennifer Aniston haters out there, watch this movie. You may not be silenced, but it should shut you up for a little while.


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

REVIEW: Green Zone

30 06 2010

Let’s just clear up the misconceptions from the get-go: I won’t be reviewing “Green Zone” as if it were the fourth installment of the Bourne series. Just because it’s a reunion of Matt Damon with director Paul Greengrass does not mean that they are going to keep making shades of the same movie. Assuming so would mean that you see no difference between “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas” – both were directed by Martin Scorsese and starred Robert DeNiro.

The only similarity you might see between Damon and Greengrass’ latest collaboration and the Bourne trilogy is the shaky camera action. Directors usually shoot their movies in a similar style save that it fits, so there’s really no grounds for a comparison. Unless, of course, you like to relate potentially nauseating experiences.

Call it “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” for the Iraq Era, if you must find some movie to compare it to. Instead of having its heart rooted in the wholesome simplicity of small-town values, though, “Green Zone” is rooted in CNN cynicism. Damon’s Roy Miller is a captain leading the unit searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) who sees his duties as very black and white. Either the WMDs are at the site or they aren’t. But he is operating in a decidedly gray moral atmosphere, where war wages between the CIA and the Pentagon once the Iraqis are defeated.

The debate rages on how to incorporate the native people into the new regime in post-“Mission Accomplished” Iraq, yet Miller can’t stop thinking about the past. Questioning American motives at a time when the country is still trying to justify their invasion doesn’t make Miller very popular, and he is forced to wander slightly outside his boundaries to get the answers he wants. He doesn’t so much as go Sarah Palin-style rogue as he tracks down the truth, but he’s hunted as such.

Or maybe you should call it the anti-“The Kingdom,” Peter Berg’s 2007 film that presented a fictionalized version of the Riyadh compound bombing in Saudi Arabia. As Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, and Jason Bateman work to hunt down the terrorists who took innocent lives, you can’t help but feel a surge of confidence that our country is doing whatever is necessary to prevent the monstrosities of 9/11 from ever happening again. Unlike “The Kingdom,” we are meant to feel ashamed of our country in “Green Zone” for doing what it thought was the right thing, even if it might not have been for all the right reasons. All politics aside, it never feels good to be ashamed of your country. B- /


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: In the Loop

28 06 2010

I feel like I should be littering F-bombs throughout this review to keep with the tone of “In the Loop,” a movie where every other word literally was a profane one. But the language isn’t just thrown around indiscriminately. This movie is probably the best thing to happen to the F-word since its invention. Peter Capaldi and the screenwriters use it in such inventive and hilarious ways, none of which are all that irreverent.

But beyond all the profanity, there’s so much more that the Academy Award-nominated script of “In the Loop” has to offer. It’s a brilliant satire of an organization everyone loves to roast – the government. The movie shows politicians struggling over doing what is best for the country or doing what is best for their own interests. Everyone is struggling with this inner conflict, and it ultimately pushes the Britain and the United States towards a military conflict that no one really wants.

We see all sorts of government officials, from elected officials to their advisors to the interns toiling away below them. After Britain’s Minister for Internal Development Simon Foster calls war “unforeseeable,” the fiasco begins.  And once that one word flies, everyone from the Pentagon to the state department in America to Britain’s Foreign Office and Internal Devlopment is involved in a war of words.

Of the countless generals and government officials, my favorite tiny storyline was the rivalry between two twenty-something American aides, played by Anna Chlumsky and Zach Woods, both intent on destroying the other.  The Academy Award-nominated script has all the key aspects of a great screenplay: engaging dialogue to keep a well-organized plot moving. The plot shapers tie together all these plot lines in a very interesting way, although it gets a little exhausting to watch by the time the movie is over.

But the movie’s star is Peter Capaldi’s foul-mouthed enforcer Malcolm Tucker, who has a new obscenity for every time he opens his mouth. No matter what you think of the movie as a whole, it’s pretty hard not to enjoy Tucker. His unabashed speaking of his mind always makes for a good laugh, and his shameless dialogue enables his fellow actors to have their own hilarious moments by calling him out on his excessive profanity. Really, it’s Capaldi’s foul-mouthed antics that make “In the Loop” fun to watch; the satire takes a thought-provoking backseat.  B+ /


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: The Karate Kid

26 06 2010

Oh, the lessons a jacket can teach us.

“The Karate Kid” is a remake of questionable necessity – after all, the original is barely a quarter of a century old. Don’t worry, Pat Morita won’t be rolling over in his grave when he gets wind of the update. It’s not awful, and no harm or foul is done; except maybe to kung fu, which is the actual martial art taught in the movie but doesn’t get the honor of being mentioned in the title.

The movie is Jaden Smith’s vehicle, who really needs it because he didn’t get enough exposure in “The Pursuit of Happyness.” I’m not expecting some fantastic performance from someone who obviously only got the job because his dad is Will Smith. And it’s wrong to expect him to give us all the charisma and swagger that his old man has spent decades developing. As Dre, Jaden Smith brings to the table two assets that will serve him well if he chooses to keep acting: confidence and presence, which is pretty good for 11.

Dre is making the strange and unexplained move from Detroit to China with little sympathy from his mother (Taraji P. Henson). After catching the eye of a dedicated young violinist, he is unexpectedly launched into a mismatched rivalry with a savage band of ruffians. It doesn’t help matters that these kids have been taught a brand of “no mercy” kung fu (not karate!) by a brutal master. The first half of the movie plays out like an anti-bullying PSA as Dre attempts to avoid his tormentors. All the while, we can’t help but think, “Hey! If only you knew his dad was Will Smith, then I’d like to see you try to beat up this kid!”

And then, as if by some misplaced stage direction, enter Mr. Han, the hermit-like maintenance man of Dre’s building who helps turn the tide in his fight against the bullies by pulling out some unexpected moves. While offering that assistance, he also manages to get a then untrained Dre into a kung-fu tournament against the same people that would love nothing more than to give him a black eye and a bruised rib.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (June 25, 2010)

25 06 2010

Find me a more disarming movie than “Amelie,” this week’s “F.I.L.M.”  Try to name a movie that can match it in charm.  Try to name a movie that is capable of delivering such a warm feeling.  Well, I’m waiting.

While those of you who have seen the movie ponder, allow me to sell “Amelie” to all those who have not seen it.  The movie features the star-making turn of Audrey Tautou as the titular character, an incurable optimist and do-gooder in France.  She has the kind of circumstances that breed the neurotic protagonists of Woody Allen films – misdiagnosed with a heart condition by her father, Amelie is homeschooled.  Unable to have friendships with other kids, her only friend is her pet fish, which unfortunately turns suicidal.  Her mother dies after someone committing suicide falls on top of her.

Yet despite all the unfortunate circumstances, Amelie emerges smiling.  She finds pleasure in the little things in life, such as breaking creme brulee with a teaspoon.  And after a surprising find in her apartment allows her to bring a giddy rush of joy to an old man, she commits herself to spreading the feeling to everyone she knows.  This includes her morose father, her solitary neighbor, a sullen co-worker, and a young man with a few quirks of his own.  Through her adventures, Amelie becomes the benevolent guardian angel we all want looking over our shoulder.

And it’s not just Amelie’s personality that lights up this movie like a Christmas tree.  The movie’s visual style feels like a warm hug, beginning with the film’s colors.  Every frame seems dipped in sepia, which surprisingly turns out to be like sugar-coating an already sweet treat.  The cinematography is magical, always a little odd and unexpected.  Every minute is like unwrapping a mystery-flavored lollipop – you know that you’ll devour whatever lies in store no matter what you get.  To top it off, there’s a whimsical score beneath it all to really make the movie float like a balloon.

So, do you have that movie that can be – dare I say it – as cute as “Amelie?”  I can’t stand using that word, mainly because I’m a guy, but the word just seems so appropriate to describe the movie.  Once you see it, I guarantee it will quickly shoot to the top of your “instant feel-good” movies list.  In fact, it’s more than a feel-good movie.  “Amelie” is a feel-great movie.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: I Am Love

21 06 2010

Back in in November 2009, I partook in several events at the inaugural Houston Cinematic Arts Festival.  As part of the festivities, they brought in Academy Award winner Tilda Swinton to screen her latest movie.  It was so secretive that they only told us the movie’s name in the minutes before they rolled film.  I sat in the front row, even making eye contact once with Swinton and a few times (rather uncomfortably) with the movie’s director, Luca Guadagnino, who also came along for the ride.

Unfortunately, what was to follow this rush of euphoria from being inches away from an illustrious Oscar winner and all of her glory had a completely different feel – the feel of intense disappointment.  Since they didn’t give us any inkling of a clue what the movie would be like, I didn’t know what to expect.  I guess I was anticipating something similar to “Michael Clayton,” the movie that won her Hollywood’s biggest prize.  Usually actors tend to stray towards the roles that win them the most recogntion, but “I Am Love,” the movie that I saw, was about as far away from Hollywood values as humanly possible.  Gone are her days as a “Hollywood spy,” she claims; it’s back to her European roots.

In the discussion session that followed the movie, Swinton took a quote from Hitchcock to describe the style and feel of the movie: “Let the dialogue set the mood and let the pictures tell the story.”  This philosophy of filmmaking is the polar opposite of those that drive “Iron Man 2” and “Sex and the City 2” into the 30-screen theaters.  It’s what brings that niche, art-house crowd to the small theaters that show independent films.  In essence, Swinton’s philosophy is against the basic principles that most Americans hold dear when they go to the movies.  They want to be engaged by the story, not by watching bees pollinate flowers (an image Guadagnino seems to particularly love).

I’m not claiming “I Am Love” to be bringing about some sort of cinematic apocalypse, nor am I claiming it to be as anti-American as hating apple pie and Uncle Sam.  It’s not threatening our country like terrorism or the swine flu.  It’s not going to have any lasting impact because it’s simply not good enough to do anything meaningful, so fear not all of you who were preparing for some sort of an assault on American values.

I went with a friend of mine who is very well-versed in all things film (if you don’t believe me, I’ll flash his acceptance to NYU’s film school as credentials), and by the first hour, he grabbed a piece of paper and began scribbling.  A minute later, he thrust it in my face and I read: “QUESTIONS FOR TILDA: Wait, remind me why I give a s**t about these characters again?”  He summed up “I Am Love” better than I ever could with that one sentence.  It’s a prolonged exercise of boring futility, akin to watching a dying animal slowly breathe its last … for two hours.

Read the rest of this entry »


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

F.I.L.M. of the Week (June 18, 2010)

18 06 2010

Love.  Sex.  Desire.  Lust.  Need.

These are words we all associate together, right?  Usually one affects the other or one leads to the other.  But if you are willing to challenge your views on the connectivity of these emotions, then you will love my pick for “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” Mike Nichols’ “Closer.”  If the director alone isn’t enough to make you see this movie, just look at the poster and see all the stars.  Each and every one of them gives a fantastic performance, but one in particular really deserved an Academy Award.

The movie follows four people in London over the course of several years, particularly noting their struggles and their romances.  Alice (Natalie Portman) is an American trying to get away from stripping for a living who falls for Dan (Jude Law) after he helps her recover from getting hit by a taxi.  But Dan also has feelings for Anna (Julia Roberts), a photographer taking his picture for the book he has written many years after meeting Alice.  When she kindly refuses to be with him, Dan plays a mean-spirited practical joke on her and brings Larry (Clive Owen), a dermatologist, into the mix.  As the story unfolds, the four mix and clash in unexpected ways, all seeking some sort of truth through love.

Part of what makes “Closer” so fascinating is the plot and the dialogue.  Patrick Marber adapts his own Tony Award-nominated play for the movie, and he stays relatively close to the spirit of the stage.  The movie has a very stripped-down, bare essentials minimalism that makes us feel like we are watching actual lives unfold.  Marber has thematic depth in his screenplay and probes issues that usually only playwrights dare to do.  His dialogue is raw and unsparing, a perfect complement to the story.

However, what really makes “Closer” such an intensely satisfying watch are the actors.  Julia Roberts is scary good at being quiet and unassuming, but when that layer fades away, she is just plain scary.  Jude Law probably has the most screen time, and he makes the most of it with his compelling work.  Clive Owen is the most brutal of the bunch, rough and willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants.  Owen plays the role with such a ferocious intensity that we never doubt his character for a second.

But the best performance of all is delivered by Natalie Portman.  It’s so much more mature than her 23 years (at the time of the release).  Alice is completely realized thanks to Portman, who really gets inside her enigmatic character to shocking success.  Whether it is anguished, upset, wanting, or hurting, Portman nails the emotion.  The role is a dramatic change of pace from her usual “good girl,” and it certainly is strange as she becomes completely absorbed in being mysterious and seductive.  She never lets us doubt it, though, as she keeps us astonished and spellbound by Alice and her quest for love.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Toy Story 3

17 06 2010

Pixar and “Toy Story” have really come to define the cinematic landscape for animation in my lifetime.  When I was 3 years old in 1995, they rolled out the first full-length animated film made entirely with computers.  At the time, it was an anomaly.  Now, I can hardly imagine a world where every movie isn’t made with computers.

In some ways, you could even say I’ve grown up with “Toy Story.”  It’s a movie whose characters I have grown very attached to, and not just on the screen.  I had countless “Toy Story” action figures and toys in my childhood, from the hand puppet Rex and Hammy to the stuffed Woody to the Buzz Lightyear transformer.  Like any good toy does, they provided countless hours of entertainment and stimulation for my imagination.

So needless to say, I had the highest of expectations for Pixar to once again create not just a movie but another authentic piece of childhood bliss enjoyable for kids and kids at heart.  The “Toy Story” crew has been up in the attic for 11 years, and they could have easily gathered some dust over time.  But as soon as they appear on screen, they win you over with a charm that feels fresh out of the box.  Pixar preserved them all in near mint condition, and “Toy Story 3” quickly reminds you how easy it is to fall in love all over again with these plastic pals.

Pixar once again demonstrates their incredible capacity for creativity by keeping the story king and fully fleshing out characters that we can really care about.  Their simple formula has worked flawlessly for 15 years and has never gotten rusty.  But the Pixar magic isn’t limited to the screen.  The spirit of the movie spreads through the theater, inspiring a new generation of “Toy Story” fans and reminding all of the untold power imagination can have.

Read the rest of this entry »


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

REVIEW: The A-Team

14 06 2010

I think part of the reasons that few people listen to film critics anymore is because they seem to review every movie expecting it to be “Citizen Kane.”  Such ridiculously lofty expectations have put the trade on the verge of extinction as a profession.  It’s important to have high expectations of a movie as a reviewer and moviegoer, yet at the same time, it’s important to keep things in perspective.

For a movie like “The A-Team,” the most we can expect is some well thought-out action sequences, a decent plot that has the ability to engage, and potentially some character development.  For pure entertainment, it’s fairly successful.  For much else, you’re might be out of luck.

“The A-Team” is no “Citizen Kane” of action movies, but it’s a very different kind of action movie that is a nice change of pace in the nearly homogenous summer market.  The action focuses on the plan, not just indiscriminate shooting and killing.  Many of the sequences weave in the team of elite operations carrying out the plan with them formulating it.  It’s a very cool way to execute the action, and the filmmakers nailed the only thing that was essential for them to get right.

Read the rest of this entry »


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

REVIEW: Marmaduke

13 06 2010

You don’t have to read my whole review as long as you take this away from it: “Marmaduke” is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and you are truly stupid if you choose to waste a perfectly good 90 minutes of your life watching it.

Now that I have that very strong statement out of the way, you can either spend your time listening to me malign every big name involved in this movie or simply take my word for it.  I will be brutal and unsparing; this is the movie that will really bring out the critic in me.  I’ve been waiting to unleash my wrath on something terrible enough to deserve it.  So here it goes.

I have to admire the boldness of Lee Pace, Judy Greer, and William H. Macy who had the guts to show their faces in this movie.  They didn’t hide in the recording studio or inside the potentially lovable body of an animal.  They actually dared to be the human face of the movie, risking association with the movie for the rest of their careers.  These three ought to be sending the marketing people at Fox some very large gift baskets for not advertising “Marmaduke” very much, because the fact that it was such a low-key campaign may save their reputations from being forever tarnished.

You would think that Owen Wilson has enough sense to choose a movie that has some kind of substance.  But even if you don’t have much respect for Owen Wilson, you might think Keifer Sutherland does.  Or Emma Stone (Jules from “Superbad”).  Or George Lopez.  Or Christopher Mintz-Plasse (McLovin).  Or Steve Coogan.  Or Fergie.  Or Marlon Wayans.  Or Sam Elliott.

Like this cavalcade of stars?  Guess what, each and every one of them chose a movie that doesn’t deserve to take a poop in their yards.  Honestly, if any of these big names had shown their faces in “Marmaduke,” they would be firing their agents and calling their real estate agent to find the coziest cave in Beverly Hills.  It’s always a shame to see actors take on material that doesn’t deserve them, and “Marmaduke” is like a tragedy for each of these stars.  None of them put any effort into making this giant heap of poop any better, as if the subtext of every line is, “We feel you; we know this movie sucks.”

And don’t even get me started on the non-existent plot.  My theory is that the director scrounged a bargain bin of kids movies and came to shooting with the idea to rip off any one of them that might have worked.  So for every groan and eye roll you get in “Marmaduke,” you get to say to yourself, “Oh, I liked that better when I saw it in (INSERT ANY KIDS MOVIE TITLE HERE).”  So, by all means, if you want to feel immeasurable frustration with the endless banality Hollywood feeds to children, go right ahead and waste your life watching “Marmaduke.”  As the late Gene Siskel used to say, “It’s your life, and you can’t get that time back.”  D- /


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (June 11, 2010)

11 06 2010

They don’t make movies this powerful and impacting very often.  That’s why “Requiem for a Dream,” an stylistic masterpiece by Darren Aronofsky, is the “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”  I thought I couldn’t be scared by movies after having made it through several horror movies barely flinching.  Yet along came “Requiem for a Dream,” and unexpectedly, I was screaming, shouting, and cowering in fear.

The movie follows four people over nine months as drug abuse affects their lives in profound ways.  It’s a somewhat typical addiction story for Harry Goldfarb (Jared Leto) and Tyrone Love (Marlon Wayans) who are trying to earn enough money dealing drugs to open up a fashion shop for Harry’s girlfriend, Marion Silver (Jennifer Connelly).  But due to various unfortunate incidents, they end up having to go deeper into the drug trade to dig themselves out of a hole.  Meanwhile, Marion has also fallen into a state of desperation to keep up their lifestyle of recreational drug use.

But easily the most powerful and heartbreaking storyline of “Requiem for a Dream” is that of Sara Goldfarb (Ellen Burstyn), Harry’s mother.  A New Jersey widow who has confined herself to her tiny apartment, Sara becomes convinced that she has been selected to appear on her favorite infomercial after a fake phone call.  Trying to make herself look attractive for a television audience, she visits an underground doctor to obtain pills that will help her take off some weight quickly.  She gets what she wants out of the pills but winds up addicted.  It’s tragic to watch the doctor turn a blind eye to her issues when she comes in, clearly unable to address her own problems.  Because she didn’t intend for this to happen, it’s her unconventional addiction story that really captures our sympathy.  We leave all four of them in a state of misery that no human being should ever have to endure.  It is chillingly devastating to watch their lives spiral out of control, and even more so once we reach the unsparing conclusion.

There’s no way to talk about the movie without talking about the incredible acting, particularly Ellen Burstyn.  A role like Sara is risky for someone of her age and stature, and she went all-in.  The result is one of the most powerful performances of the decade, one that should have won her an Oscar.  Jared Leto is scary good as her son, Jennifer Connelly takes her character to the edge just one year removed from winning her own Oscar, and Marlon Wayans isn’t bad!

The tension in the movie is amplified by Clint Mansell’s absolutely terrifying score.  Usually, a film’s score is gravy in a best-case scenario or a distraction in a worst-case scenario.  But “Requiem for a Dream” incorporates Mansell’s music into the very fabric of the movie, making it that much more effective.  The main theme from the movie has become a cult hit, but it’s “Meltdown,” the song that plays during the climactic moments of the movie, that deserves to be worshipped.

But “Requiem for a Dream” really works because of the incredible vision Darren Aronofsky has for it.  He makes addiction real for us and gets us into the minds of the addicts themselves.  It’s the split-screen, the close-ups, and the time lapse sequences.  It’s the quick cuts, the repetitive sequences when drugs are used, and the increased speed whenever the addiction accelerates.  Most of all, though, it’s his willingness to give us the truth about addiction and his unflinching drive to take us where few movies can.  The whole movie exudes his confidence in his vision, and his style leads us exactly where he wants to take us.

Really, if you ever want to scare someone out of doing drugs, you should show them this movie.  There’s no one on this planet who could watch this movie and then want to go do hard drugs.  Heck, it could scare the average person out of taking a pill.  So by all means, if you think you can handle it, I strongly recommend “Requiem for a Dream.”


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

REVIEW: Get Him to the Greek

10 06 2010

Some movies really do need to come with a health warning.  “Get Him to the Greek,” for instance, should inform all moviegoers that that it packs enough laughs in under two hours to make you hurt all over.  Along with the usual beautiful gut-wrenching pain, the comedy is so potent that it can hit you as high as the throat.

For a year now, we have been waiting for a movie as hilarious as the runaway smash hit “The Hangover,” and that movie has finally arrived.  I’ll even be as bold to say that upon repeat viewings, “Get Him to the Greek” could prove to be better.  And I’m not being sensational to grab attention or to wind up on the DVD case; I think I laughed harder, louder, and more consistently.

“Get Him to the Greek” is a spin-off of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” and it manages to make the movie that introduced us Aldous Snow look like the ugly step-cousin in every way.  It’s infinitely funnier; the characters are more interesting; the plot is more absorbing.  I didn’t think Brand was all that funny in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” but now it’s clear that the emotional aspect of the movie weighed him down.  Here, he is unleashed and immature as ever.  And it’s an absolute riot.

Brand and Jonah Hill, who plays young record label employee Aaron Green, are the “Odd Couple” for a new generation.  A pairing such as theirs might be labeled a “comic man-straight man routine,” but the movie neither fits those labels nor feels like a routine.  Both get the chance to side-splittingly hilarious, and it absolutely works.  As much as I expected Brand to run away with the movie, Hill gets some of the best laughs of the movie as he tries to adjust to the crazy antics of the rockstar he’s attempting to control.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Tooth Fairy

7 06 2010

Dwayne Johnson (aka “The Rock”) has become quite good at using his physical strength as an asset in kid’s movies. He managed to turn Disney’s “The Game Plan” into something actually quite disarming and fairly entertaining. But now, after doing “Tooth Fairy” for Fox, we can clearly see that charm doesn’t follow the star. Perhaps it’s strictly Disney’s property, this movie seems to suggest.

The movie deals in the mythical, offering a different and ultimately disconcerting take on the Tooth Fairy. There isn’t one tooth fairy but multiple, many of whom are swapping money for teeth not out of their benevolent spirits but as an act of penance. That’s the case for aging hockey star Derek Thompson (Johnson) who is apparently incredible yet still in the minor leagues. He kills dreams not just by ruining the myth of the Tooth Fairy but by pessimistically offering his take on the future to crush idealism.

So he receives a summons from the “Department of Dissemination of Disbelief,” led by a fairy played by the always graceful Julie Andrews.  This is just a wannabe of the Council of Legendary Figures in “The Santa Clause 2,” which included Mother Nature, Father Time, Cupid, the Easter Bunny, the Sandman, Santa Claus, and a self-conscious Tooth Fairy seeking a less emasculating title.  But there’s more to the movie’s demise than just the fact that the premise has been used before.  “Tooth Fairy” is critically deficient in creativity and energy, both of which are needed to power a movie of such mythical magnitude.  Johnson here merely dials it in, absent of all the fun and compassion he showed in “The Game Plan.”  It’s almost as if he’s as tired of acting the same tired message as we are of receiving it.

The real question the movie raises is where on earth has Billy Crystal been the past decade. And why on earth did he choose “Tooth Fairy” to come back with? That’s not exactly a triumphant return with a blaze of glory. He makes two small appearances and manages to get a few small chuckles out of us, although one has to wonder if they are pity laughs for a man that once could consistently leave us in stitches.

I will give “Tooth Fairy” that it does have one great strength: puns.  Clever wordplay involving teeth and fairies pops up all throughout the film and in great quantities.  Depending on your sense of humor, you’ll let out either a mild chuckle or you’ll roll your eyes.  But puns are no replacement for good comedy and imagination.  C /


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

The Comedy Flops of 2009

4 06 2010

I don’t often put much thought into what is written on DVD cases.  However, I saw a particularly interesting one on the cover of “Year One.”  Rene Rodriguez of the Miami Herald wrote:

“I double dare anyone not to laugh.”

So, I decided to take Mr. Rodriguez’s dare.  Easier done than said.  I think I laughed more in “Revolutionary Road” than I did in “Year One.”

A few weeks later, I found myself watching “Land of the Lost.”  On the DVD case for that instant classic, Colin Covert of the Minneapolis Star Tribune said:

“Laugh-out-loud funny!”

I never LOLed, although I did chuckle a few times.  These weren’t mild laughs; they were a response to very uncomfortable situations that I wasn’t quite sure how to respond to.

We laugh off these two movies now like an age-old joke; they somehow have quickly come to be the quintessence of comedic failure.  But back in June 2009, “Year One” and “Land of the Lost” had massive expectations.  They were supposed to rake in the money while making audiences howl with laughter.  But as we all know, they both fell flat on their faces in both respects.

Fast forward to today, 2010, and the studios are praying they haven’t got another comedic dud on their hands.  Universal, who was responsible “Land of the Lost,” brings us “Get Him to the Greek” on June 4; Sony, guilty for “Year One,” gives us “Grown Ups” on June 25.  These studios would nothing more than to have their latest releases become the new “The Hangover,” a modest comedy which far exceeded anyones expectations.

There are reasons why “Year One” and “Land of the Lost” flopped, and both share a lot of the same missteps.  Allow me to elaborate…

Read the rest of this entry »


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

F.I.L.M. of the Week (June 4, 2010)

4 06 2010

The “F.I.L.M.” (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie – for those who needed a refresher) of the Week will return to some dark and hard-hitting material next week, but I will ease the transition from comedy to tragedy with something a little bit in between.  “You Can Count on Me,” one of the movies on my bucket list of Oscar nominees from the past decade, really grabbed my interest a few weeks ago.  It’s a smart, witty dramedy that treads on the familiar grounds of family issues but never feels contrived or recycled in the slightest.

There’s two reasons for that.  The first is Kenneth Lonergan, the film’s director and writer.  His script is insightful and sensitive, and it gives an authentic look at the ripple effect of a self-destructive brother’s return home to his distraught sister.  It lets the events play out in a way that is both touching and devastating.  We really come to know and care for these characters through their triumphs and their mistakes – and there are plenty of both.

But the second reason is the main reason for the movie’s success: leading lady Laura Linney (alliteration fully intended).  She plays emotional and tense women often, but she plays them with such conviction and strength that I can’t find it in me to be bothered by it.  Here, she uses her incredible energy to bring Sammy, the single mother and bank employee, to vibrant life.  Already collapsing under the weight of single parenthood, Sammy is forced to take on responsibility for her troubled brother Terry (Mark Ruffalo) who seems to be incapable of controlling himself.  With a new boss (Matthew Broderick) at the bank, she is forced to devote herself more fully to her job.  This leaves her child (Rory Culkin) under the care and influence of Terry, who exposes him to new ideas and heightens his curiosity about his father.  Linney perfectly animates Sammy’s inner conflict: doing what is best for the two people who need her or doing what makes her happy.

But there’s more good things about “You Can Count on Me” other than its two Academy Award-nominated facets.  Mark Ruffalo delivers a fascinating and astonishing performance.  He’s always trying to do what is right, but his moral compass often leads him in the wrong direction to do it.  Matthew Broderick is comic gold as the demanding and borderline obsessive-compulsive bank manager; he is equal parts charm and repulsion, and it’s always fun to watch him.  On the surface, this may be a movie about ordinary people living ordinary lives.  But thanks to a powerful narrative and compelling characters, it really is extraordinary.


Comments : 9 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

« Previous Entries Next Entries »