As sad as it may be, if one movie from 2016 could serve as a (non-polemical) time capsule for what it was like to live in this year, that movie might be “Office Christmas Party.” From top to bottom, the film is chock full of time-specific references to technology: iCal, Uber, 3D printing, frustrating Wi-Fi. Imagine watching this in 30 years with your kids. They are likely going to ask a lot of questions about what certain terms mean.
But beyond the minutiae, very little about “Office Christmas Party” feels specifically tied to the year. Unlike television’s “The Office,” whose episodic structure dictated it ignore the ravages of time, cinema’s unique capability to provide a snapshot of a particular cultural moment has led to some invaluable representations of corporate America. Particularly in the wake of the 2008 recession, movies from “Up in the Air” to “The Company Men” to “The Internship” serve as documentation to the hopes and anxieties of the average blue-collar worker in their time.
The premise of the film seems to provide a great launchpad into some topical territory. Jennifer Aniston’s Carol Vanstone, a Miranda Priestly impersonation spiked with a Grinch attitude, rolls into the Chicago branch of her family business to announce a 40% reduction in employees and total cancellation of Christmas bonuses. There’s an initial wave of panic, anger and frustration from the managers in the office, especially from Carol’s entitled brother, branch manager Clay (T.J. Miller). But once that subsides, there’s no 2016-specific fuel to their actions, no sense of worry that the climate is unforgiving. “Office Christmas Party” could have been written at just about any time in the last 40 years and simply spruced up with current cultural products.
Jennifer Aniston stars in “Cake” as Claire Bennett, a woman struggling with chronic pain following a tragic automotive accident. The poster and production stills almost completely hide it, but she sports a deep and instantly noticeable scar on her face stemming from the traumatic event.
And, per usual in an indie drama, the emotional scars run far deeper. She attends group therapy as well as physical rehabilitation only to undo their progress in a toxic cocktail of booze and painkillers. Claire further masks her agony through biting, sardonic wisecracks, deflecting anyone from exposing her pressing need for help.
It would be wrong to assign the character sole responsibility for her continuing struggles; the maelstrom of physical and emotional pain presents a tough obstacle for even the strongest individual to overcome. Claire’s self-destructive tendencies do not disqualify her from receiving sympathy, either, yet the movie’s myopic focus on her pity party feels … well, pitiful.
Not to discredit or downplay her anguish, but Claire is a wealthy, white Angeleno living comfortably in unexplained luxury. Her inability to function in society, shockingly, never seems to raise doubts about the continuance of her lifestyle. She never seems to worry about having the funds to procure pain pills in Tijuana, and she never entertains the possibility of a world without the invaluable assistance of her inexplicably loyal Hispanic maid and driver Silvana (Oscar nominee Adrianna Barraza).
Welp, the Oscar nominations have been announced, and it looks like Jennifer Aniston is going to have to try again if she wants people to start calling her “Academy Award nominee Jennifer Aniston.” (For what it’s worth, I am seeing “Cake,” her failed awards vessel, tomorrow night.)
A lot of people have hurled ridicule at Aniston for her formulaic rom-coms or her tabloid personality. Some of the vitriol resembles the phenomenon of “Hatha-hate,” the extreme and baseless revulsion towards Anne Hathaway. I have certainly been critical of some of her less than stellar roles like the ones in “Just Go With It” or “The Bounty Hunter.” For the latter title, I began my review with this sentence: “Have you ever watched a movie and wondered what could make an actor’s standards drop so low?”
But I have also noted Aniston’s slow move towards quality, such as her roles in “Horrible Bosses” and “We’re The Millers,” which are at least attempting to do something out of the ordinary. Moreover, I featured an Aniston title in my “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column that highlights lesser-known films: “Friends with Money,” a superb indie that should have provided her with more credibility as a respectable actress. (I thought I had written about “The Good Girl,” but I guess I did not.)
If I am just being honest, though, Aniston’s lasting impact for me consists of two scenes in two mediocre films, “The Break-Up” and “He’s Just Not That Into You.” For whatever reason, the illustrations her characters give of complex situations are infinitely reusable and applicable to daily life. Just ask anyone who knows me well, I have probably quoted one of these two scenes to them.
“I want you to want to do the dishes” works great when trying to explain that you desire a genuine gesture, not an empty one.
And “I just need you to stop being nice to me unless you’re going to marry me” works well for flaky, noncommittal people outside the realm of marriage and courtship.
I also love the line from “He’s Just Not That Into You” where Aniston is told by a friend, in a supposed gesture of comfort, “There are many people who never get married – look at Al Pacino, never been married, happy as a clam!” And Aniston, flabbergasted, responds, “Would I be Al Pacino in this scenario?” I also tend to feel like the Al Pacino in plenty of supposedly helpful illustrations about my life, though maybe that will change one day.
In “We’re The Millers,” television’s “Breaking Bad” meets film’s “National Lampoon’s Vacation” as mid-level drug dealer David Clark (Jason Sudeikis) enlists a crazy cast to help him smuggle marijuana across the U.S.-Mexico border. (So in that way, perhaps it’s more like “Maria Full of Grace” meets 2013’s “Identity Thief.”) This motley crew from near his building includes well-meaning exotic dancer Rose (Jennifer Aniston), tough teenage street rat (Emma Roberts), and an aloof adolescent boy Kenny (Will Poulter) with a passing resemblance to Tintin.
The movie manages to provide a few decent laughs along the journey, though they are largely front-loaded. “We’re The Millers” starts off with some very clever and witty banter, largely uttered by Sudeikis, who is quickly proving himself to be quite the sultan of snark. It’s certainly a much better role for him than his bland characters in “Horrible Bosses” and “Hall Pass,” and he could soon be rivaling Paul Rudd for roles.
But the film starts to veer off course in the second half, resorting to more and more ludicrous gags to provide humor. These ridiculous scenarios often provide their fair share of cringe-worthy moments, enough to make the film feel like it has overstayed its welcome by a solid 30 minutes. Though I don’t want to say too much, at least “We’re The Millers” doesn’t end by caving to all the road trip, family, or rom-com tropes.
By the time the gag reel rolls, the film essentially arrives at a comedic standstill. It’s got enough sardonic and standoffish Aniston and sulky Roberts to make anyone roll their eyes. But it’s also got some good Sudeikis everyman sarcasm and a pretty winning performance from Poulter, playing naive innocence with gusto. So, in other words, “We’re the Millers” is decidedly average. C+ /
I think it’s crucial to apply a comparative approach to evaluating the merits of “Wanderlust.” When you look at it in relation to “Role Models” and “Wet Hot American Summer,” director David Wain’s first two comedies, it’s a disappointment that settles for cliches and stereotypes rather than the unique brand of humor on display in his prior work. But of course, compared to other mainstream comedies of the moment, its mild satisfactions are amplified probably more than they should.
Marveling at cult-like communes is nothing new, and the colorful cast of nudists, stoners, and washed-up hippies certainly play into just about every single one of our preconceived notions. It’s amusing enough to watch their antics play out in front of two newly unemployed Manhattan refugees played by the ever hilarious Paul Rudd and the ever gorgeous Jennifer Aniston. Both are a little creeped out at first, but she eventually warms up to the idea of living in a subculture of open doors and open marriages.
There are a few good laughs here and there, but the majority of the time, I just sat there wondering when it would reach “Role Models” heights. Thankfully it does at one point due to Paul Rudd, who honestly might get my vote for the funniest person working in comedy at the moment. His dry, caustic, and biting sarcasm hits home every time even when he’s not trying to be funny (and if someone made a movie of my life, I would want him to play me). Rudd gets one scene, improvised I assume, where he gets to totally let loose with wild accents and wordplay trying to pump himself up for a sexual encounter that absolutely brings down the house. I was easily laughing for a solid two minutes afterwards, totally missing the next scene. And really, as long as I get one of those for my money, I go home happy no matter how derivative or childish the rest of the movie might have been. B- /
We are now inhabiting the post-“Hangover” world, and in case you needed any proof that studios are looking to locate the success gene in the hit comedy’s DNA, I submit “Horrible Bosses” as evidence. It really shouldn’t surprise you; it’s a page straight from the television networks’ playbook. As soon as Fox premiered “American Idol,” every network wanted a singing competition. After ABC had a big hit with “Dancing with the Stars,” every network suddenly had a dancing show. We live in a culture of thinly veiled rip-offs that barely bother to disguise their ever-so-slight variations from the original success story.
The good news for Seth Gordon and the “Horrible Bosses” team is that, at least at this moment, I still find the formula amusing and funny. The next movie shamelessly pressed from the “Hangover” mold, however, will probably not be in my good graces, so at least they got the timing right on this one. But the fact that some movie other than the sequel has tried using a similar blueprint for high cash and laugh returns signals a foreboding era in comedy. (Then again, I said the same thing last summer about “Iron Man 2” being the first of many “The Dark Knight” rip-offs, and nothing seems to have materialized there.)
The film invites these comparisons by using what may be the most recognizable aspect of “The Hangover” for laughs – the Wolfpack. From now on, any comedy that has a ragtag alliance of three thirtysomething guys will inevitably have to be measured against the ridiculously high standard set by Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis. Unfair? Probably. Justified? Definitely.
Adam Sandler sure has fallen a long way since the glory days of “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore” – and those days weren’t even that good. Fifteen years later, we are invited to just go wherever with the comic who has long since worn out the welcome mat with “Just Go With It,” a typical Sandler comedy that might have been fairly amusing if it had been made a decade ago. It’s a step above last summer’s “Grown Ups” but probably only because there is a strong female presence to whip him in line.
Taking a fairly unique premise, the movie follows Sandler’s Los Angeles plastic surgeon (cue some scary and derivative jokes involving lots of Joan Rivers-esque figures) Danny and his morally suspect way of picking up women without a hitch – pretending to be married. It works out great for him until he meets the incredibly well-endowed, good-natured, and much younger Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), and he has to start an elaborate lie to keep her. The ruse, which eventually requires index cards, grows to include his divorced assistant Katherine (Jennifer Aniston) and her two annoyingly precocious children as well as his horndog brother (Nick Swardson).
All things considered, this could have been more than just mildly entertaining, which is what the end product settles for. There are a few chuckles, usually accompanied by a groan but thankfully not with eye-rolling. So by all means, if you want to see Adam Sandler re-enact the movies from his prime, “Just Go With It” should provide you with what you’re looking for. But you’re probably better off dusting off one of his older flicks so you can have the faintest hint of nostalgia of a time when these jokes and formulas weren’t stale. C /
Have you ever watched a movie and wondered what could make an actor’s standards drop so low? Even if you haven’t before, you will watching Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston slog through the miserable “The Bounty Hunter.” You may not have held either of these actors in the highest of regards anyways, but it’s easily a career low for both stars.
The movie is an action comedy – well, if you count Butler punching a few people as action and a few pity sneer as comedy. We’ve never quite seen a plot like this, where exes fight with stakes as high as prison, but it never feels the slightest bit original. In fact, it just feels like an old trip down Memory Lane, mimicking every sort of used gimmick with ex-lovers. But boy, Memory Lane has never looked so run-down or shabby. It’s time for some renovation.
It’s the typical “hate turns to love” romance story as Butler’s bounty hunter Milo gets to track down ex-wife Nicole, Aniston’s flighty news reporter who foolishly misses her court date over an article. He finds her and begins hauling her to jail, and on their journey, they suddenly start to realize that they never gave their marriage a fair shot. I’d call it a dumbed-down Stockholm syndrome, but something tells me the writers of this movie don’t even have the intelligence to use Wikipedia and look it up.
Don’t even mention the writers adding insult to injury by trying to add complexity to the plot by adding in other storylines. Honestly, if anyone wants to spend nearly two hours of their life watching this movie, they want to see it for Butler and Aniston. The last thing we want is to have our time wasted by anything that detracts from the main story – sorry, Jason Sudeikis, but you really stink here, and Lorne Michaels would fire you if you ever did anything this bad on “SNL.” D /
Have you seen the trailer for “The Switch?” Looks kind of ehh, right? Typical late summer fare that will have to pass for entertainment (at least for those of us not fortunate enough to have an independent theater). Just so we are all on the same page for the rest of the post, I’ll embed the trailer below.
The poster to the left doesn’t really make you want to see it much either. The gasp on Jennifer Aniston’s face and the pretentious-looking sniffle that Jason Bateman is doing sure doesn’t tell you much about the movie. But look closer…
Did you notice the pedigree of the movie? It’s from the people who brought us “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine.” Does that add to your anticipation at all? It shouldn’t, given the murky relationship between “The Switch” and the two Best Picture nominees. I probably wouldn’t have thought twice about the reference given that Jason Bateman was in “Juno,” but The Los Angeles Times did some investigating:
The studio’s marketing wizards are plugging “The Switch” as being the movie “From the people who brought you ‘Juno’ and ‘Little Miss Sunshine.’ ” But who are these “people”? The film’s directors, Josh Gordon and Will Speck, had nothing to do with either of those films. Nor did the film’s screenwriter, Allan Loeb. The film’s producers, Ron Yerxa and Albert Berger, were producers of “Little Miss Sunshine” but had no involvement at all with “Juno.”
It turns out that those “people” are the people at Mandate Pictures, the production company that was involved with both “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” as well as such films as “Whip It,” “Drag Me to Hell” and the “Harold and Kumar” series. I’m sure all the folks at Mandate are really nice people, but it feels like a big stretch to use such a tenuous connection to lure us into the theater to see a film whose writers and filmmakers had nothing to do with “Juno” or “Little Miss Sunshine.”
Do you feel cheated at all? If you were really going to spend $10 to see this movie because you could mention it in the same sentence with “Little Miss Sunshine,” you ought to up your cinema smarts. I don’t ever use poster connections to tell me what movies to see, largely because I will have figured out what movies my favorite filmmakers have chosen to involve themselves in. I especially could care less for romantic comedies and mindless action movies, both of which are genres whose success is driven mainly be stars, not directors. Sorry, David Frankel, I saw “Marley & Me” because I love dogs and Owen Wilson, NOT because you directed “The Devil Wears Prada.” Meryl Streep is the reason that movie is good.
Fun little closing note: there is one movie that could have used “from the man who brought you ‘Little Miss Sunshine'” on its poster. That movie? “Toy Story 3.” Clearly it didn’t need to tout that name to make any money.
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.
“Love Happens” is an ehh movie. There’s nothing that is horribly awful with it, but it doesn’t have anything going for it either. And sometimes that is just as bad as a flat-out bomb. The movie is so caught up in clichés that it’s impossible not to see the whole plot from the poster and trailer. Imagine that.
Aaron Eckhart plays Dr. Burke Ryan, an author of a self-help book about grieving the loss of loved ones appropriately after his wife died in a car crash. Anyone care to venture what’s actually going on?
If you guessed “the man who gives advice hasn’t taken his own,” you would be correct! Burke is secretly a wreck, giving off a façade that he has it all together. The only person that can call it is his father-in-law, played by a scary Martin Sheen.
So how does Jennifer Aniston play into the movie? If you guessed “love interest with problems of her own,” you would be correct! She plays Eloise, your typical beautiful girl who always falls for the wrong guy. After the typical bad first impression of Burke, they begin casual flirtation and start to hang out.
Is there any romantic spark between Aniston and Harvey Dent? Not in the slightest. There is no chemistry between the two of them, and it doesn’t help that the story is so poorly written that it doesn’t allow for much affection at all. I don’t hate Jennifer Aniston by any stretch of the imagination, but “Love Happens” gives me insight into the minds of the people that do.
Don’t let the title fool you. “Love Happens” is not a movie about love; besides, there would have to be love shown. This is a movie about overcoming grief, and in that regard, it isn’t terrible. But it isn’t good enough to redeem the nearly two hours of my time that this movie ate up. C- /
There’s more to March than just the Oscars. Finally, March arrives and we can stop dwelling on 2009. In my opinion, March is usually a pretty decent movie month. This year’s crop looks especially promising with new movies from Tim Burton, Paul Greengrass (“The Bourne Ultimatum”), and Noah Baumbach (“The Squid and the Whale”).
March 5
After almost 3 months, “Avatar” will have to cede those illustrious 3-D and IMAX screens to Tim Burton’s twist on “Alice in Wonderland.” The titular character is played by relative newcomer Mia Wasikowsa, who will look quite a bit older than the Alice you remember from Disney’s 1951 animated classic. If that’s not a big enough draw for you, surely Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter (who will hopefully channel more of his glorious Jack Sparrow than his Jacko-esque Willy Wonka) will suffice. No? How about Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen of Hearts? Or Anne Hathaway as the White Queen? Perhaps Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar? No doubt about it, this is one exciting cast, and I’m sure Tim Burton won’t have any problem distinguishing himself from the numerous “Alice in Wonderland” rip-offs that have sprouted over the past few years.
“Brooklyn’s Finest” is directed by Antoine Fuqua, helmer of “Training Day,” which was enough to get me interested. However, it really looks to be little more than a mash-up of every cop movie ever made. But hey, that may be your thing, which would make this your potpourri.
March 12
I’m excited for “Green Zone,” which looks to be a smart political thriller. See my previous post at the release of the trailer for more info.
On the indie side of things, Noah Baumbach looks to return to Oscar form after “Margot at the Wedding” underwhelmed with “Greenberg.” The movie stars Ben Stiller as Greenberg, the grouchy misanthrope who finds a reason to be pessimistic about everything. However, a special woman comes along and begins to melt his heart. I’m looking forward to a double-edged performance from Stiller, one that can show off his dramatic chops but also give us plenty of hearty laughs.
Seth Rogen’s four roommates in “Knocked Up” were equally as funny as he was. Each of them have slowly gotten their “moment”: Jonah Hill in “Superbad,” Jason Segel in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” Now, it could be Jay Baruchel’s turn. “She’s Out of My League” pits him similar situation: the uncomely guy getting the smoking hot babe. Hopefully Paramount gives this the push it deserves, maybe making Baruchel a breakout comedic star of 2010.
Could “Remember Me” get Robert Pattinson the Razzie for Worst Actor? After narrowly missing the cut for his two performances as Edward Cullen, this could finally be the one to get him the kind of awards attention he deserves.
Forest Whitaker is an Academy Award winning actor. What on earth is he doing in “Our Family Wedding?” For that matter, America Ferrera has won SAG and Golden Globe awards, and Carlos Mencia was once actually funny! This looks not only insufferable but almost racist. Plus, didn’t I see this movie in 2005 when it was called “Guess Who?”
I guess this sort of serves as a “fall movie preview.” With this, I want to present what I’m looking forward to in September, what other might be looking forward to, and hopefully introduce you to some movies that you might not have heard of yet.
September 4
The movie that I’m most excited for opening this week is “Extract,” the latest comedy from Mike Judge, creator of “Office Space” and TV’s “King of the Hill.” The movie stars Jason Bateman, who has been in nearly every comedy and yet I still have not tired of him, as the owner of an extract factory who is a bit down on his luck. Also featuring a great supporting cast which includes J.K. Simmons (“Spider-Man,” “Juno”), Mila Kunis (TV’s “That ’70s Show”), Kristen Wiig (“SNL”), and Ben Affleck, the movie looks to be truly hilarious entertainment.
Other releases this week include “All About Steve,” a comedy with Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper (“The Hangover”), and “Gamer,” a non-stop action film with Gerard Butler (“The Ugly Truth”).
September 9 & 11
Opening on 9/9/09, “9” uses a clever marketing ploy to hopefully drive audiences its way. But I’m not sold. The ever creepy and quirky Tim Burton is behind it, and I have never really been into his type of movies. The story revolves around nine CGI animated rag dolls living in a post-apocalyptic world. Maybe this will be some sort of a breakout hit, but until I hear buzz from friends or other bloggers I trust, I’m not throwing my money at it.
“9” is the big attraction of the week. Also opening is Tyler Perry’s latest movie “I Can Do Bad All By Myself,” starring Taraji P. Henson of “Benjamin Button” fame, the thriller “Whiteout” starring the gorgeous Kate Beckinsale, and the horror flick “Sorority Row.”
September 18
There are several movies to get excited about that open this weekend. First and foremost is “The Informant,” starring Matt Damon. It takes your usual FBI rat story and flips it on its head, turning it into a comedy. I have always thought Damon has a great knack for subtle comedy, perfectly illustrated in the “Ocean’s” movies. The director is Steven Soderbergh, Oscar winner for “Traffic,” but has also helmed “Erin Brockovich” and all three “Ocean’s” films. And the good news is that this is only Matt Damon’s first role of the year with Oscar potential (see the December preview later).
Also opening is “Jennifer’s Body,” which is the first film written by Diablo Cody since winning the Oscar for “Juno.” It stars Hollywood’s beauty queen Megan Fox as a vampire who eats guys at her high school. Her presence alone will drive every young guy in America to this movie. It also features Amanda Seyfried, one of the bright spots in the otherwise disastrous film adaptation of “Mamma Mia!” I love the quick-witted humor of “Juno,” and although this doesn’t appear to offer similar antics, curiosity (and Megan Fox) will probably get me.
In limited release, “Bright Star” opens, a movie consider by many to be a major Oscar player. It isn’t the kind of movie that excites me just from watching the trailer, but the buzz surrounding it coming out of the Cannes Film Festival can’t be discarded. The movie follows the life of the poet John Keats in the early 1800s. It is directed by Jane Campion, writer/director of “The Piano,” and features a cast of nearly no recognizable names. I feel obliged to tell you about it because many are sure that you will be hearing about it during awards season and also because so many people love movies set in the beautiful English country with tons of beautiful costumes and people.
Also opening is “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” an animated adaptation of one of my favorite books growing up. Unfortunately, their idea of adapting it is taking the basic premise of food raining from the sky and destroying the rest of the original story. Maybe I will check it out for old time’s sake, but I’m not expecting anything special. The week also puts forth a romantic drama “Love Happens” starring Aaron Eckhart (“The Dark Knight”) and Jennifer Aniston. And technically, the writer/director of “Babel,” Guillermo Ariaga, releases his latest movie, “The Burning Plain,” to theaters this weekend, but you can watch it on demand starting August 21 if you are that curious.
September 25
Being a musical theater junkie, I feel that it is my duty to push “Fame.” The movie is a musical that follows a group of talented artists throughout their four years in high school in New York. At a time in their lives where they don’t know if they have what it takes it to make it big, all the emotions appear to run high. The movie features no stars. so hopefully this will launch some very promising careers.
For action fans, Bruce Willis is at it again in a high concept sci-fi called “Surrogates,” in which everyone in the world controls a robotic version of themselves from home called a surrogate. Willis plays a detective who investigates the possibility of the surrogates killing the user who operates it. For sci-fi fans, a screamfest called “Pandorum” with Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster (“3:10 To Yuma”) looks to deliver. For all those craving a raunchy comedy, a little studio will try to pack you into “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell,” adapted from the tales of drinking and its consequences in the book of the same name. In limited release, those who like the costumes of “Bright Star” get “Coco Before Chanel,” the story of the legendary fashion designer. (NOTE: “The Invention of Lying” was pushed back to October 2.)
So, readers, what is your most anticipated in September? Anything I left off? Take the poll and let me know.
Jennifer Aniston stars in “
In “
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.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments