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

Random Factoid #311

4 06 2010

Another factoid on censorship, this time a little different.

Yesterday, I went to the theater to see “Kick-Ass” (yes, I realize that it’s two months old and I’m just now getting to see it).  Or should I say “Kick-A**.”  Both my ticket and the sign on the theater used an asterisk instead of an s.

It just kind of struck me as odd.  The theater owners put up plenty of posters with the full and uncensored title displayed, yet they can’t put it on the marquee?  Or the ticket, which a child would only see if they were going to see the movie?

Their logic clearly escapes me.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

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

Random Factoid #310

3 06 2010

I’m pretty easily amused.  I’ve probably used that line to start a factoid several times, but it’s the truth.  I am.

And it’s funny how I’ll see one thing and get a train of thought going that leads me to a factoid.  Today’s came from reading a post from 24 Frames, the movie blog for the Los Angeles Times.  Yesterday, the MPAA reversed its rating on “Eat Pray Love” from an R to PG-13.  Sony wanted this for obvious reasons: making sure they could keep the younger teen demographic.  It was R for “brief strong language;” now, it is PG-13 for “brief strong language, some sexual references and male rear nudity.”  I like how those last two things weren’t mentioned at all in the R-rated descriptor.

But some of the descriptors that the MPAA uses are kind of … odd.  Take for instance, the ones for the 2010 remake of “The Karate Kid.”

I’m sorry, but “bullying?”  I understand that parents may not want their kids to see that, but there are sites now for parents to get more in-depth looks at a movie’s content.  I don’t see why they couldn’t just leave it at “violence” and call it a day.

Or what’s even worse: “a brief instance of smoking.”  I honestly wonder if the MPAA use that for some movies just to make me laugh.  Although smoking kills and I’m glad that the smoking crack-down is occurring as long as it doesn’t disrupt the art.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: Splice

3 06 2010

You should be warned: “Splice” goes there.  It pushes your moviegoing boundaries in unwanted and unsettling ways, which wouldn’t have bothered me had they not been so unrewarding.  Telling you the exact nature of how it will disturb you would undoubtedly spoil the movie, so I’ll just leave it at a very strong warning against seeing this movie if you are easily offended.  It had my packed preview screening groaning in disgust and shock.

I don’t mind being feeling these emotions while watching a movie, it just has to be done right.  The filmmakers need to present the edgy material and build the rest of the movie knowing the implications of it.  “Splice” simply disturbs you and then tries to act like it didn’t happen.  A heated argument between two scientists whose latest experiment has made them tense and frenzied (Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley) completely evades discussing unethical and immoral behavior.  There’s no point in destroying boundaries if you don’t explore what’s on the other side of them, and the movie abandons you with the empty feeling of shock value.

Really, this unspeakable scene turns “Splice” from bizarrely plausible to just plain bizarre.  I didn’t think the first two acts were all that bad.  There’s all sorts of parallels to “Frankenstein” as the two scientists create their monster out of anger.  But it’s actually a story about the perils of parenthood.  Elsa (Polley) was raised by an abusive mother, and it forever distorts her perception of the necessity of children.  When Clive (Brody) even brings up the subject, she seems to relate having a baby to having a parasite.  In some ways, she uses Dren, their creation bred from a hybrid of human and animal DNA, to give her the kind of parenting experience she wants.  The movie does a great job of showing us how twisted she really is, mainly through her undying love for the gross thing.  Props also the visual effects department for creating a monster in their own right.

But still … that one part.  It’s unfortunate when one part of a movie stands out so much that it overshadows the rest of the movie.  The scene has unintended consequences, particularly a dramatic shift in tone of “Splice.”  The movie becomes outrageously farcical as it comes to a close.  Because it enters such strange realms, it’s hard to take anything that follows seriously.  And for a movie that tried to sell itself as horror but is in reality all science-fiction, the whole thing just comes off as a jumbled mess.  D+ /


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

Random Factoid #309

2 06 2010

I’m fascinated by alternative casts of movies.  I like to think about how different it would be to watch a movie with different stars.  For instance, I can’t imagine how much different “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” would have been with John Travolta as the titular character!  The thought actually bothers me…

Thanks to Moviefone, you can visualize more of these potential casts that might shock you – I also found myself shocked by the sight of Johnny Depp as Ferris Bueller!  But here are some that Moviefone didn’t feel like sharing.

  • Matt Damon as Captain Kirk in “Star Trek” (role went to Chris Pine)
  • Jake Gyllenhaal as Jake Sully in “Avatar” (role went to Sam Worthington)
  • Leonardo DiCaprio as Neo in “The Matrix” (role went to Keanu Reeves)
  • Jim Carrey as Jack Sparrow in “Pirates of the Caribbean” (role went to Johnny Depp)
  • Mel Gibson as Maximus in “Gladiator” (role went to Russell Crowe)
  • John Travolta as Forrest Gump (role went to Tom Hanks)
  • Tom Hanks as Jerry Maguire (role went to Tom Cruise)
  • Tom Hanks as Andy Dufresne in “The Shawshank Redemption” (role went to Tim Robbins)
  • Chevy Chase as Lester Burnham in “American Beauty” (role went to Kevin Spacey)

Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Random Factoid #308

1 06 2010

A few days ago, I had to run an errand at Best Buy.  I thought I would take a “shortcut” through the DVD section and peruse for a good bargain.  However, that longer walk took me by the TV section, where the Samsung 3D-TV was featured prominently up front.  There were some comfortable recliners to sit in while watching, but perhaps more importantly, they had “Avatar” in 3D on the TV.  I mean, how could I not sit down and watch some of it?

I turned on the glasses – yes, you literally have to turn them on – and allowed myself to reenter the world of Pandora.  It was good to be back, but I do think it’s a very different and superior experience to watch it on the big screen.  But the colors and the picture quality and the amazing cinematography still shine, even on a TV screen.  I fast-forwarded (because I couldn’t work the remote and couldn’t change by scene) to the scene where Jake learns to fly for the first time because I didn’t have the energy to fast-forward all the way to the climactic battle.  But in between, I got to see plenty of other visual marvels of the movie: fighting the giant creature in the forest, flying through the Hallelujah Mountains, and swimming through the neon nighttime forest.

So, if I had the kind of money to spend on a 3D-TV, would I buy one today?  Probably not.  I don’t think the technology or the movie selection is quite all there yet.  “Avatar” revolutionized 3D, and Hollywood needs to decide how to incorporate 3D into the future of cinema before I commit to it.  Plus, the glasses were giving me a headache (although I think headaches go away once you’ve used a certain type of glasses enough).

In addition, Samsung gave these health warnings in Australia:

3-D TV viewers [should] stay away from the TV if “you are in bad physical condition, need sleep or have been drinking alcohol.”

The Los Angeles Times further muses on the implications of these warnings.

Yikes! Wouldn’t that pretty much wipe out the possibility of most male sports fans ever having a chance to watch any 3-D programming? The Variety story adds that “aside from warning that strobe lights can trigger epileptic seizures — a known risk for pretty much everything from TV screens to traffic lights — it urges viewers to stop watching and consult a doctor if they experience any of a slew of possible symptoms, including dizziness, cramps or loss of awareness.”

…Opinion from 3-D experts was split. According to Lenny Lipton, whose StereoGraphics firm has sold 150,000 pairs of active-shutter 3-D glasses, “We never had a single complaint of the kind noted in the Samsung warning.” Variety also talked to Martin Banks, a University of California professor of optometry and an expert in depth perception, who said “there’s essentially no evidence to back up some of these concerns,” though he acknowledged that the idea that 3-D viewing can contribute to motion sickness is “not ridiculous.”

…There was a celebrated incident in Japan where the slow strobing in an early version of active-shutter glasses induced seizures in some children. Even Banks’ own studies have found that eye strain can result from the way 3-D forces viewers to converge their eyes on points at different distances. “As the viewing distance gets shorter, the likelihood that this conflict is going to cause problems increases,” Banks concedes, which means that TV viewing could prompt more dizziness or eye strain than watching movies on a distant screen.

So I’ll keep my distance from the 3D-TV.  It has a place – at Best Buy, not my own home.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Shameless Advertisement #13 – June

1 06 2010

Hollywood got some of its big guns out in May, and much of it was just noise.  “Iron Man 2” didn’t meet lofty expectations, “Robin Hood” will barely (if at all) cross the $100 million mark, “Shrek Forever After” is just now picking up steam after a low opening, and the future doesn’t look so rosy for either “Sex and the City 2” or “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.”

But June looks to change things.  It boasts only two big sequels and three major studio tentpoles.  This is the make or break month for the summer: if things don’t turn around in June, writers will be throwing phrases like “financial disaster in Hollywood” or “the death of movie theater” around.

Thankfully, we have good movies coming out in June!  There’s plenty to offer both the mainstream and the art house crowd.  The wider range of interests was shown in the poll results.  One person voted for Sundance hit “Winter’s Bone” while another voted for the Tom Cruise-Cameron Diaz vehicle “Knight and Day.”

But with three votes, the resounding (and hardly surprising) winner and the most anticipated movie of June is…

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Shameless Advertisements

REVIEW: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

31 05 2010

We’ve all come up with our laundry list of complaints about summer blockbusters.  They all seem to fall into the same predictable pattern of making the same mistakes.  Every once in a while, a big summer popcorn flick surprises us by redressing these grievances and win us over by avoiding the normal pratfalls.  They really don’t have to be great in their own right.

However, Jerry Bruckheimer has found success in making ones that are.  He first struck gold with “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” a smart swashbuckling action movie with the most unlikely of sources – a theme park ride.  His latest summer tentpole release, the video game adaptation “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” seemed more likely to tread the path of summer disasters.  But by addressing every problem on our laundry list, it becomes undeniable moviegoing fun and could wind up being one of the highlights of the summer movie season.

We hate having nothing but action.  Director Mike Newell seems to find the perfect balance between sprawling battle sequences and downtime for character and plot development.  And he also finds impeccable timing for the shifts; as soon as we begin to grow bored of one or thirst for the other, we get it.

We hate being insulted by terrible plots.  Much to my surprise, “Prince of Persia” actually sports an incredibly engaging storyline that grabs you from the get-go.  Unlike most video game movies, it does not concede and let the action tell the story.  To say it is intelligent may be a stretch, but it’s only a few rungs below it and certainly much smarter than your average summer popcorn flick.  It skillfully weaves fantasy into an otherwise very real world, and it ties the beginning and end together in a very gratifying way.  But perhaps most impressive, it actually seems to understand the concepts of destiny and fate.

Read the rest of this entry »


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

Random Factoid #307

31 05 2010

Concession prices too expensive?  This article from the Los Angeles Times, which I had bookmarked back in March, may make you want to steer away from the stand for an entirely different reason.

…Health experts can’t blame every asthma attack on the mountainous portions of gooey popcorn, candy and licorice sticks that populate theater concession stands, but ask any parent — wouldn’t it be nice if it was just as easy to buy your kid a fruit cup, veggies with dip, yogurt, granola bars or air-popped popcorn? Those are just some of the alternatives Lynton was suggesting to exhibitors that could at least have the same prominent shelf space as the Hershey’s bars that often appear as big as a surfboard.

“Sometimes you just have to state the obvious,” [Sony Pictures Entertainment chairman Michael Lynton] told me. “When you go to a mall, you can go pretty much everywhere and get healthy food — except at a movie theater. I’m not trying to dictate anyone’s behavior. I’m simply saying that exhibitors should offer people a choice.”

Lynton cites the results of a poll Sony commissioned as backup. The results were striking: 42% of parents interviewed at theater locations around the country said they would buy concessions more often if healthier choices were available, and 60% of parents said that healthier snacks would enhance their overall moviegoing experience. I know, I know….

I dom’t even want to think about how bad theater popcorn is for you.  All that salt and butter they pile on top … not to mention all the candy they have out (which I often fall prey to, mainly Buncha Crunch).

For a while, my mom used to pack some good munchies in her purse.  Now, she really doesn’t.  And as an independent/social moviegoer, I find that the best way to beat the calories and prices at the concession stand is to bring gum.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

LAMB Alert: Robert Downey Jr. “Acting School”

31 05 2010

On the first morning of summer, I got up and watched “Sherlock Holmes” just because I could.

Speaking of “Sherlock Holmes,” there’s going to be another cool event going on at the LAMB involving the movie’s star, Robert Downey, Jr.  He’s the reason I decided to give it a second view after my less than glowing first opinion.  The movie works largely because of him, and it was commercially viable also because of him.  He has perfected the smug and slightly standoffish character, and Americans can’t seem to get enough of it.  $275 million and counting for “Iron Man 2” speaks as a testament to it.

But Robert Downey, Jr. has made plenty of other contributions to acting other than this character, and his two Oscar nominations have come from playing something entirely different.  In 1993, he received his first nomination for “Chaplin,” a biopic where RDJ played the famed silent movie star.  Just two years ago, he received his second nomination for a very risky comedic role in “Tropic Thunder,” playing (as the movie puts it) “a dude playing the dude disguised as another dude.”  It’s risks like these that have made Robert Downey, Jr. a unique and lauded actor.

The LAMB is celebrating the man, the actor, and the roles.  It’s really worth checking out because there are reviews of all of his movies as well as spotlight pieces on Robert Downey, Jr. and his work.  I contributed the two reviews I have written of RDJ’s latest movies, “Sherlock Holmes” and “Iron Man 2.”  I wasn’t particularly complimentary of the actor in those two movies, but I really do admire him.  In “Iron Man,” he had a dry wit and strange charm while constantly projecting an image of authority.  He showed a very tender side in “The Soloist,” a very good movie that few people saw.  And while I loathed “Tropic Thunder,” I found his turn to be strangely satisfying.

So come join in the celebration; click the image below and you’ll be directed to the event.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Blogosphere, Marshall and the Movies

REVIEW: Broken Embraces

30 05 2010

The cinematic embrace provided by Pedro Almodóvar’s “Broken Embraces” eludes description.  It has its moments of tragedy, so it can’t really be called a warm embrace.  Yet it has such beautiful, soaring moments that it can’t exactly be called a bittersweet embrace.

The only thing certain about “Broken Embraces” is that its embrace will absolutely envelop you.  From the moment we encounter the blind filmmaker Mateo Blanco, now under the Americanized pseudonym Harry Caine, working through his disability, it’s impossible not to get hooked into the drama.  It dabbles in the occasional melodrama, but Almodóvar handles it with such skill that it can really only be noticed when looking back at the movie in retrospect.

I’m not sure that I would say that the writing floored me quite like a “Volver” or “Talk to Her;” nonetheless, I want to be careful not to reveal too much about the delicate plot.  Almodóvar develops a fairly intricate story, but it never feels like work for an audience to put it together.

Here’s what you should know: this is a movie about “sex, secrets, and cinema,” as the back of the DVD case so eloquently puts it.  Penelope Cruz may be the movie’s poster child, but her character Lena is hardly the focus.  Sure, she sets the plot in motion; however, this is Mateo’s movie.  Before he became blind, he made a movie called “Chicas y Maletas” (“Girls and Suitcases,” for you non-Spanish speakers out there) in which he cast Lena.  But she came with some baggage of her own: an obsessed lover, Ernesto Martel, who insists on producing the film and having his homosexual son document the production.  What follows?  I’m not saying.

Cruz is hauntingly beautiful as Lena, and it’s another role that she knocks out of the park.  None of her co-stars outshine her – but her director does.  Almodóvar commands this movie (as all directors should), and his passion for cinema exudes from the film.  Everything in the movie just seemed so orderly, from the beautiful sets to the bright colors to the precision of the acting, and “Broken Embraces” explodes off the screen.  B+ /


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

Random Factoid #306

30 05 2010

This post was partially derived in my own head, but there was a major impetus by Red’s “Greatest Comedy Ever Tournament.”

I love quoting comedies.  I do it to the point where it borders on becoming a vice.

So naturally, when “The Hangover” lit the world on fire, I managed to learn almost every line only seeing it once (I won’t lie, Facebook helped a lot).  Over time, I began to say one particularly memorable quote a little too much.

It’s not a purse; it’s a satchel.  Indiana Jones wears one.

Long story short, I said it so much that people had to tell me to shut up and never say it again.  So now I quote with a little more discretion.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: Robin Hood

29 05 2010

I almost gave up hope on “Robin Hood,” but I’m glad I didn’t allow myself to become entirely disengaged. I’ll get right to the point: the first 45 minutes are absolutely brutal. They are boring and they seem completely pointless. They don’t do much to develop a story, yet as we see later, they are more like a prologue, providing crucial information to prop up the rest of the film.

But out of nowhere, the movie reverses the slump and becomes genuinely entertaining. Everything suddenly clicks: the story begins to make sense; the pace picks up; and Russell Crowe begins acting. It takes him a while to kick his performance in gear, like he’s finally fought off the hangover that plagued him at the beginning. He’s pretty good when he decides to act. When Crowe doesn’t, he lifelessly walks through the motions and mumbles every line, rendering them incoherent.

But maybe it’s not all his fault. The character in this movie is tough because it’s Robin Hood before he was Robin Hood. Have no doubt about it: this is not the Robin Hood we have come to know, and it’s not the one I anticipated. I wasn’t expecting the jolly fox in the green suit, but I was expecting a little more of the “steal from the rich and give to the needy” spirit that we most often associate with the character.

I assume we will see this aspect played up if a sequel is made, yet at the moment, the character is awkwardly undefined. In this movie, Crowe’s purpose is to establish the roots of the legendary defender of the weak. He doesn’t explore where this commitment is derived from so much as he gives us a Maximus rehash with a little more discretion. He’s chomping at the bit to be the legend that we see very little of the man.

Where Crowe has issues, co-star Cate Blanchett has none. Strangely, the movie only seems to reach its full vitality when Blanchett is on screen. She picks up on whatever tiny nuances the script has, and her acting always hits precisely the right tone. Blanchett has graced the screen with many of the preeminent male actors of our generation (DiCaprio, Pitt, Damon), so her history alone makes it impossible to say that her chemistry with Crowe ranks among her best. However, the two do make a great pair, and their scenes are easily the movie’s most memorable that don’t involve the impaling of bodies by arrows.

Read the rest of this entry »


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

Random Factoid #305

29 05 2010

This is my standard operating procedure (SOP) for non-crowded movies.  If you want to sit on a row that already has people on it, you sit where you want to sit but leave one space between your group and the other group.  It eliminates awkwardness and leaves room to breathe.

But when I did that today, the person that sitting two seats down seemed to be almost offended by the fact that I didn’t sit by her.  It’s not like I thought she had cooties; I just wanted some space.  It’s what we all want, and if anyone has ever been in an uncomfortable theater with little leg room, they know what I’m talking about.

Today’s incident just struck me a little more unusually than normal.  It isn’t misanthropic of me to leave a little room, is it?  I’m just trying to make sure we don’t invade each other’s comfort zones.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

« Previous Entries Next Entries »