Author Archive

27 Dresses has a relatively standard plot.  Katherine Heigl is desperately in love with her boss (Ed Burns).  Her younger sister (Malin Ackerman) comes into town to visit, and a few weeks later, is engaged to Burns.  Meanwhile, Heigl is doggedly pursued by James Marsden, a first class wedding reporter.  The title comes from the fact that Katherine Heigl is a very very good bridesmaid, which might be expected after attending 27 marriages.

Movies of this sort typically depend on the success of a few key arcs.  One is the pain the lead feels at being so close to the man she loves, and yet unable to reach him.  This film executes this arc exquisitely, as Heigl not only has to deal with her dream man being with her sister, she has to plan much of the wedding, dealing with her sister’s Bridezilla routine.  The film does an excellent job of not laying it on too thick, and Heigl is great for just barely letting the pain show through as she soldiers on.  Well done on this front, 27 Dresses.

A second important arc, or moment, at least is the realization that the guy next door/best friend/dork you are helping out is actually the one for you.  Generally speaking, there are two main contributing factors here.  First, an established relationship with the guy next door/best friend/dork you are helping out, so the realization is believable.  And second, of lesser importance, is some sort of amusing event forcing the realization.  I’ll hold comment on the latter, which is a very minor spoiler.  My biggest problem with the movie was with the former.  Part of it is that Heigl and Marsden don’t seem to have much chemistry.  But the larger problem is that there’s no foundation for their relationship.  Granted, the characters have perfect backgrounds for each other.  But I didn’t find myself wanting them to be together.  It seems the only reasons they get together are Marsden’s stalkerish tendencies, one alcohol-fueled night, and an Elton John song.  And it is “Benny and the Jets”, for crying out loud.

There’s a few fun supporting characters, even if they don’t get much screen time..  The lovely Krysten Ritter (Gia Goodman from Veronica Mars) plays a “Goth” secretary at Heigl’s work.  Melora Hardin shows up as Marsden’s boss.  And sadly, the character is nothing like Jan.  Last, but certainly not least, Judy Greer is Heigl’s best friend/co-worker.  In a just world, Greer (the Love Monkey alum, as you surely remember) would get to be playing leads.  But I’m happy to take what I can get.

Aline Brosh McKenna’s script isn’t perfect, but it delivers.  McKenna also wrote The Devil Wears Prada, but don’t hold that against the movie.  I mostly admire the restraint shown.  Yeah, being a bridesmaid twenty-seven times is quite a lot, but it fits in with the story.  Even the slightly ridiculous things never feel over the top.

Possibly the the coolest thing about the movie, and I have an imdb.com commenter to back me up, is that Malin Ackerman’s ringtone appears to be Mikey’s music from Nickelodeon Arcade.  I mean, come on.  How cool is that?

The best thing about Hancock may be the Bond trailer which precedes it.  Granted, I may be just a wee bit pumped up for Quantum of Solace.

Will Smith seems just about incapable of making bad movies.  Probably because he’s ridiculously awesome.  No, seriously.  Go back and watch some episodes of Fresh Prince.  The man is a genius.  In Hancock, we get to see a different sort of Will Smith character, trading drunken misanthropy for the usual wisecracks and winning smiles.  It is fascinating to see his darker side, and I, for one, am rooting for him to play the heavy at some point.

The movie was well-publicized as a sort of anti-(super) hero story.  Really, though, Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan’s script plays just like a superhero movie, only the reluctant hero is a little more blitzed than usual.  So I guess I didn’t find it particularly unique, in that regard.  Which is disappointing, because I think given the premise and the actors, it really could have better broken away from the superhero norms.

Is it just me, or does Jason Bateman seem destined to go down the career path of Greg Kinnear or Dennis Quaid?  Maybe it is just me.  He gets to be married to Charlize Theron in this movie.  He got to be married to Jennifer Garner in Juno.  Jason Bateman is a lucky man.  Both his and Theron’s characters needed a bit more to them.  I don’t want to ruin the few twists in the movie, but there are a few key moments when the movie could have done more to explore these non-Hancock characters.

Speaking of not ruining things, look out for the Friday Night Lights characters.  I won’t say who they are, but one is likely one of your favorite, and the other may well be one of your least favorite.

The film is enjoyable, it just doesn’t always seem to hit the marks it should.  There are several potentially poignant moments, but the film fails to deliver.  Instead, we are left with a relatively average superhero movie.  Which, hey, isn’t a bad thing.

Idiocracy should have been great.  Mike Judge’s dystopia is immediately recognizable yet clearly hyperbolic.  (Ethan Cohen co-wrote the screenplay, he also co-wrote Tropic Thunder, for whatever that is worth).  Luke should certainly be able to excel at anything Ron Livington does.  Maya Rudolph has the comedic chops, and I must admit I was not aware how slammin’ she is.  And call me crazy, but I think Terry Crews is woefully underappreciated.

So what happened?  I think the idea appeared so engaging at first, it seemed the jokes would write themselves.  Except they didn’t.  Granted, the movie is littered with gags.  The lettering of the hospital comes to mind.  But the gags become increasingly infrequent, which is exacerbated by the boredom between them.  Making the movie doubly frustrating.  Frustrating for not being entertaining, and for taking so long to get to the next gag.

I don’t particularly like using the word, but Idiocracy felt surprisingly “conventional.”  The setting was original, but the storyline could have used some serious sprucing up.  I don’t know if it is just because the movie was done by Mike Judge, but I wonder if the ideas would have been more effective as a TV show supported by a team of writers.

By the way, I’m sure seeing Idiocracy a month before Wall-E is affecting my judgment, but I’d totally believe WALL-E as a sort of sequel to Idiocracy.  As in Idiocracy taking place just before people leave Earth.  The two movies share many of the same sensibilities, at least.

Wow.

I have a huge film-crush on Luc Besson, but even I was skeptical of The Big Blue.  A two-plus hour movie chronicling the competiton between two free divers?  Free diving being swimming down into the water as deep as one can go, without any supporting apparatus, like an oxygen tank.  As expected, it was one of my least favorite Luc Besson movies, but it was actually surprisingly gripping.

Jean-Marc Barr stars as a childlike restless soul with a troubled heart.  Brought up in a seaside community, his father dies in a diving accident, but that only drives Barr to master the water.  He works both as a subject in science experiments, holding his breath underwater in arctic climates, as well as a wrangling dolphins.  (Like Jessica Alba in Good Luck Chuck!).  Jean Reno is the gregarious diver who holds the free diving record.  And yet, he knows he won’t be satisfied until he’s the best, meaning beating Barr, his childhood friend (or acquaintance, at least).  Barr accepts, and the two compete at a series of free diving events, their dives getting deeper and deeper, thus becoming more and more dangerous.  Rosanna Arquette falls for Barr at first sight, and leaves her entire life behind on the chance he reciprocates.

The movie is sparse.  Which is a term I probably use too liberally.  Here I mean that events don’t necessarily drive the movie.  Besson co-wrote the screenplay, based off of his story which mimicks two real life divers, with Robert Garland (who has The Bob Newhart Show, Sanford and Son, and uncredited work on Tootsie and the Twilight Zone movie on his resume), Marilyn Goldin, Jacques Mayol (one of the real life divers), and Marc Perrier.  I must admit a bias against underwater scenes.  I can’t explain why, but I just rarely enjoy them.  Most of my least favorite Bond scenes are the underwater ones.  In any case, that obviously negatively affected my thoughts on the film. But while the film isn’t empty, it just feels like there should be more there.  Or maybe it is more that I felt there was more to explore in the story, and the events depicted seemed more forced than I expected.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hindsight is 20/20, but my word does this movie feel like it was based on a play.  The biggest reason Proof failed (well, other than me not being cast as an extra) is that it basically was a filmed version of the play.  Not a knock against plays, they are just a different animal than movies.  Not saying movies need to be expansive, Driving Miss Daisy just lacked a certain…cinematic quality.  The disjointedness of the scenes, for example.  Or the way we are told and not shown too many things.  Mostly, though, the way that nothing really happens.

Not that I disliked the movie.  I wouldn’t say it was moving, but it was certainly entertaining.  I mean, shoot, any movie starring Morgan Freeman has better than even odds of being good, right?  Obviously, it is a defining role for him, one that set the tone for his roles ever since.  And sure, he’s amazing in it.  But to be honest, I kinda wish he was given more.  At least, less Bagger Vance, and more a character with some sort of depth.  Because any depth I saw was a direct result of the awesomeness that is Morgan Freeman.  Same goes for Jessica Tandy.  Her character wasn’t terribly notable to me, but I wouldn’t mess with her.

Call me crazy, but the standout in the movie, in my mind, was Dan Aykroyd.  He was nominated for an Oscar for the role, and you know the Academy absolutely dreaded having to do that.  Again, the character wasn’t terribly interesting, but it just seemed to fit Aykroyd like a glove.  Mostly a straight man to a dominant (though not domineering) mother, he had Southern charm, a little guy-next-door-who happens to own a factory, and sure, a few laughs.  In some ways, he’s the linchpin of the movie, bringing everything back to reality, and acting as a relief from seeing Freeman and Tandy square off.

1989 had a rather diverse set of Oscar-nominated movies.  Check them out.  I kinda feel like doing this blog during late 1989 would have been all sorts of fun.  I’ll save my gushing for another post, but it is safe to say I would have been dismayed at Driving Miss Daisy’s haul.  The movie is solid, and certainly watchable, but I can’t imagine telling someone they need to see it.  I totally get the Oscar appeal: Morgan Freeman, old respected lady, and it is “weighty” because it is historical, it deals with racism (but the toned down everybody is happy kind), and was based off a play.  Still, as is more often the case than not, the Academy got this decision wrong.  Driving Miss Daisy is a good film, but not a special one.

Trailer after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

I believe I speak for all of us when I say that the Golden Grouches heart Laura Linney.  Last year, they all really liked The Savages, we all enjoyed Breach, and maybe I’m the only one brave enough to see The Nanny Diaries (the things I do for you, Scarlett).  But what’s she up to now?

The City of Your Final Destination: A grad student (Omar Metwally, from Munich and Rendition) wants to write a biography of a semi-obscure Latin American writer, and visits those (Laura Linney, Anthony Hopkins, Charlotte Gainsbourgh) who knew the man.  The film is directed by James Ivory, the first since the passing of Ismail Merchant.  It was written by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, who has written many Merchant Ivory films, and based off a Peter Cameron novel.  It seems to be in the can, and Wikipedia said it was geared for an April wide release (not a good sign), but there appears to be some litigation surrounding the movie.  First Anthony Hopkins sued, claiming he hadn’t been paid, and then someone sued claiming she’d invested money in the film without receiving a credit or her money back.  So, I’m not quite sure what to think.  Other than Laura Linney will undoubtedly be great in it.

The Other Man: A husband thinks his wife is cheating on him and starts looking for, um, the other man.  Not a particularly novel plot, but when the movie stars Laura Linney, Antonia Banderas, and Liam Neeson, well, that’s something.  Based on a short story by Bernhard Schlink the movie was directed by Richard Eyre (Notes on a Scandal, Iris) and written by Eyre and Charles Wood.  Charles Wood will be 78 this year.  Charles Wood co-wrote Help!.  Charles Wood is awesome.  The movie is currently slated to be released December 25, 2008.  So I’ve got some pretty high hopes.

Spread: Something about a womanizer and one of the girls he dumps.  The movie stars Ashton Kutcher (I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess he plays the womanizer) and Anne Heche.  Maria Conchita Alonso is in it, along with Linney.  The movie is apparently very raunchy.  The world definitely does not need a Kutcher-Linney sex scene.  Imdb says the movie is in post-production and due out in 2009.  I would not be terribly surprised if this went straight to DVD.

Kevin Approaches: This one may not actually be happening, as all the cast is listed as “rumored”.  But, the rumored cast includes: Robert Carlyle, Minnie Driver, Laura Linney, Guy Pearce, and Christopher Walken.  The New York Times summarizes thusly: “A loner ventures out to seek love in New York only to wind up with success in the art world.”  Weird.  In any case, I’m rooting for it to happen, because that’s a pretty awesome cast.

The movie is worthy enough to be an Indiana Jones film, but it certainly doesn’t add anything to the canon.  Most of the non-Harrison Ford characters are superfluous, but that’s always been the case (save for Sean Connery, of course).  So yeah, it does sorta feel like a blatant cash grab.  But one of the reasons for the success of the Indiana Jones franchise is its sense of fun, and that’s retained in this installment.  Yeah, some parts are ridiculous, silly, unnecessary, or slow, but there’s enough fun stuff to keep things moving along.  Oh, and while no one may be positive about the origins of Indiana Jones, I see no reason to believe anything other than the theory he was based on a University of Chicago professor.

I was able to see a sneak preview of Get Smart, so I might as well be a good little toadie and put up a review.  Based on the TV show (co-created by Mel Brooks(!) and starring Don Adams and Barbara Feldon), Get Smart is quite funny and has surprisingly decent action.  And I’m fairly certain those are all you really need from an action-comedy.

When I heard about Steve Carell in this role, it made a whole a lot of sense.  Anyone familiar with the series and Carell’s work would likely agree he was THE person to play the role, because it plays right into his strengths.  And he does a fabulous job.  I also think those who somehow aren’t big Steve Carell fans will be able to tolerate him here because the movie sort of tones down the Maxwell Smart character into something a little more digestable.

Anne Hathaway is…wow.  She’s pretty much the definition of classically beautiful.  She’s the type of girl you bring home to meet your parents, and your mother not only loves her, but tells her she could do better than you.  She’s…well…darn near perfect.  And I’m not just talking about her beauty.  She’s not going to be an action star, but she handles the action scenes nicely.  But comedy is a huge strength for her.  99 was always the sane, logical one in the operation, generally playing the straight man (or, woman, I suppose) to Max, but often knowlingly supplying a Mel Brooksish punchline.  Again, the character has been smoothed over a bit, but the casting was inspired.

The supporting cast is really spot on.  I’m an Alan Arkin fan (who isn’t?)  so I would have liked a bit more for him, but he’s funny.  Dwayne Johnson really has, in my mind, earned the right to drop “The Rock” when describing him.  He can do action and comedy (sure, particularly physical comedy).  His role in the movie isn’t particularly new fare for him, but it is a good fit.  There’s ton more, I’m not usually a David Koechner fan, but he’s funny, especially when playing off Johnson and Terry Crews (who is totally the man).  Masi Oka and Nate Torrence (from Studio 60!) are absolutely hilarious as the nerds, and you’ll no doubt find yourself wanting to see more of them.

I didn’t love James Caan’s quasi-Bush impersonation.  It felt out of place and unnecessary.  I also wasn’t sold on Terence Stamp as the bad guy, but others seem to feel differently.  I didn’t think he was bad, just didn’t knock it out of the park.

The film (written by Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember) does feel pretty close to the original.  As I mentioned, I think Maxwell Smart and Agent 99 were softer versions of themselves, which I think sells better, but I sort of missed a bumbling Smart who managed to escape situations either through luck or the sheer genius of his imbecility.  The plot isn’t anything novel, it has a few unsurprising twists, but I don’t think summer popcorn fare really need to have unique stories.  The movie is chock-full of gags and one-liners, and most of them hit.  I laughed way more than I expected to.  I’ve heard some people have a problem with the age difference between Carell and Smart.  I don’t really understand why that sort of thing would bother people (the movie does make an attempt to explain it), but they definitely have an on-screen chemistry.  I don’t think their buildup is handled particularly effectively, though, it just sort of seems like, “Well, everyone in the audience expects these two to end up together, so, let’s put them together.”

I enjoyed Get Smart.  In many ways, it is the ideal summer movie.  Fun story with fun characters, entertaining action scenes and a plot not really veering into the ridiculous, but which doesn’t require too much thinking.

Walk Hard is a tremendous parody. Unfortunately, it isn’t a particularly good movie. Of course, I’m also not a fan of The Rutles, so just keep that in mind. As the title might imply, Walk Hard hews closest to Walk the Line (with Ray a close second), but it also skewers much of the music industry since 1960. And sure, most of the parodies are spot on. But that doesn’t mean they were funny or made for a particularly good movie.

The cast is pretty tremendous, and has way too many cool people to mention all the performances. It was a good role for Kristen Wiig, who was more tolerable than I normally find her. Margo Martindale is a name you may not recognize, but she’s been in tons of stuff I’ve seen over the past few months. She plays Dewey’s mom, and I just want to give her a shoutout as a top notch matronly character actress. It was nice to see Chris Parnell pop up, and he was one of my favorite characters. And Jenna Fischer is rather fetching (aside from being totally great):

Here’s a good place to point out I really enjoyed the original songs in the movie. They are funny, but catchy and always appropriate for the situation and era being parodied. Having Dan Bern along for the ride was an excellent call.

John C. Reilly is, by definition, awesome. It is interesting to think about the ride he’s taken, even since being Amos “Mr. Cellophane” Hart in Chicago. Still, Dewey Cox started to wear on me by the end. Considering how much screentime he had, I was surprised by the lack of depth to Dewey, and the repetitiveness of his actions.

I found the script terribly disappointing. Partially, I’m sure, because it was a Judd Apatow joint, and I was expecting more. Too many jokes seemed forced or implied. I found myself rather unamused for most of the film. I think making a movie of this sort is terribly difficult, since so much time is devoted to songs and the parodies themselves, meaning it is just that much harder to form a coherent plot and add in funny jokes. The jokes didn’t always miss. The Beatles scene was quite good:

Walk Hard may make you feel with it when you get one of the more obscure musical references, but like The Rutles, it ends up just being kinda boring, with a few interesting bits sprinkled in. Give me Spinal Tap any day.

Ok, maybe this’ll be a regular feature, maybe not. I’m writing up my Forgetting Sarah Marshall review now, and I started writing about how excited I am for Kristen Bell’s upcoming movies, as listed on imdb. Writing and writing. So I decided to make it a separate post. The normal caveats apply about imdb’s often spotty description of movies in production, though I’ve tried to verify info as best I can.

Fanboys: (Official MySpace site) You may have read about how this movie has gone through Weinstein developmental hell. Script rewrites, major plot points edited out, release dates announced, pushed back, and removed, the director replaced and then brought back. Obviously, all of these things do not bode well for the movie. But when you have a movie about devoted Star Wars fans going to Skywalker Ranch to grab an advance copy of Phantom Menace, and a cast of not only Ms. Bell, but Jay Baruchel (Undeclared, Knocked Up, starring role in I’m Reed Fish (OK, maybe that one is just for me)), Chris Marquette (Eli from The Girl Next Door), Dan Fogler (Good Luck Chuck and Balls of Fury…um…he might be the exception here), Seth Rogen, Carrie Fisher, William Shatner, Danny Trejo, Christopher McDonald, and Billy Dee Williams, well, that’s a movie we deserve to get a chance to see.

Serious Moonlight: No, not the David Bowie tour. Serious Moonlight was written by Adrienne Shelly, and tragically, it likely is the last we’ll have from her. The Grouches weren’t too keen on Waitress, but that won’t dampen my enthusiasm for this movie, which doesn’t appear to have a release date, but is listed as in post-production. Cheryl Hines is making her feature film directorial debut. The movie is apparently about a woman (Meg Ryan) who ties her cheating husband (I assume Timothy Hutton here) to the toilet. Unfortunately, their house is then burglarized. I assume hilarity ensures. It is unclear what role Kristen Bell plays (the mistress, maybe?). And Justin Long is also in it (one of the burglars?). As a fan of each of these actors (Sue me.) I’ve got pretty high hopes for some sort of wacky comedy.

When in Rome: No, not the Olsen twins movie, and not the group who sang “The Promise” (second time I reference that song on this blog!). When in Rome, listed as filming, is a romcom about a girl (Kristen Bell), who goes to Rome for her sister’s wedding, grabs some coins out of a fountain, and apparently along with finding the male lead (Josh Duhamel), the coins also make several suitors relentlessly pursue Ms. Bell. Also in the cast, possibly as suitors, are: Will Arnett, Jon Heder, Danny DeVito, and Dax Shepard. Um, wow. I mean, yeah, I’d argue Josh Duhamel is the right choice there, but geez. Angelica Huston is in it as well. The film was written and directed by Mark Steven Johnson, who has a mixed resume. He wrote and directed Simon Birch, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider. He also wrote Grumpy Old Men and Jack Frost. David Diamond (The Family Man, Evolution), and David Weissman (same) co-wrote.

Finally, Antique. The movie is listed as in pre-production, and Bell is listed as rumored (here’s a site which confirms). Antique seems to be your standard indie ensemble film, to broadly generalize. Kristen Bell somehow befriends a homeless man who changes her life. Also in the movie: Anne Archer, Lolita Davidovich, Rachael Leigh Cook (wow, it has been almost a decade since She’s All That), and someone named Kevin Zegers, who was in Air Bud AND MVP: Most Valuable Primate. Oh, and that homeless man? William H. Macy! Sign me up. The movie was written and directed by Renji Philip, this appears to be his first full-length movie. The link given on imdb says that filming was supposed to happen in April 2007. In that article, the director compares the film to Magnolia and Crash (presumably without the sucking part).

Congratulations to The Golden Grouches as this weekend we crossed 10,000 hits since we got this here thing rolling. Just wanted to say thanks to anyone who has stopped by. Also to LeeLee Sobieski, since searches for her have given us about a tenth of our hits. And a big shoutout to my fellow Grouches. Guys, John’s posts clearly show that compared to mine, your posts look like Pulitizer material. So keep ‘em coming.

Oscar season is fast approaching, and I think I speak for all of us in saying that we hope to build on our efforts from last year. The first step was establishing we could see all the nominees. The next step is to translate that experience into something meaningful, while still being fun. We’ll brainstorm ways to make that happen, but suggestions are always welcome.

Here’s to good movies, good posts, and good times.

In an article on Portfolio.com, Felix Salmon writes:

McKenzie did a fair amount of real-world research on the popcorn front, and his most important finding (as far as I’m concerned) is that if you’re in a cinema which gives you a choice between buying a medium bag of popcorn and a large tub of popcorn, there’s a greater-than-50% chance that the medium bag will actually contain more popcorn than the large tub.

He’s talking about Richard McKenzie’s book Why Popcorn Costs So Much at the Movies, And Other Pricing Puzzles. Part of the reason for the disparity, apparently, is that many places allow free refills for the large popcorn. (Tip o’ the hat to Marginal Revolution).

OK, I’m gonna describe a movie, you tell me the title. Ready? An attached songwriter meets up with female musician. They have a whirlwind relationship, she writes his lyrics, and they end up in a recording studio. Sorry John, not Once. Wanna play again? An 80s star, played by a romcom vet (who does well with the ladies), is commissioned to write a song that can propel him back to glory. But to do so, he needs the help of a female lyricist, played by a baby-faced romcom vet, who he somewhat reluctantly falls for in the weekend they have to write the song and record a demo. Apologies, Brian, but I’m not talking about Music and Lyrics.

No, as Adam surely figured out from this post’s title (’cause he’s smart like that) I’m referring to Face the Music. No, I hadn’t heard of it either. But dangerous things happen when you are at your family’s house, it is midnight, and you are scrolling through the free movies on InDemand.

Face the Music was apparently released in 1993, possibly only in France. Facts are sparse. I don’t believe it is on DVD. The film stars Patrick Dempsey as the songwriter who found Molly Ringwald singing in a Parisian nightclub. He wrote music for her lyrics, creating a smash hit. As they receive some nebulous award, he proposes to her, they get married, but it doesn’t last long, due partly to differences over her singing career (which he tries to thwart), and they lose track of each other. Fast forward a few years, and a noted movie producer manages to get them to agree to write a song together for his movie. It has to be done in a weekend, so Molly has to head to this countryside development Patrick Dempsey owns. With the fiancee he’s supposed to marry in a few weeks (she refuses to let him play music and instead forces him into a career as a real estate developer, just in case you can’t see where this is going).
Read the rest of this entry »

(I saw the director’s cut, for those keeping track at home.) Back to back Ridley Scott pictures, and both receive one star. Hm. I haven’t seen enough of his movies to comment, I suppose.

I must admit, I came into this movie with relatively high expectations. Deservedly so, I think. #99 on imdb.com, based on a Philip K. Dick story, starring Harrison Ford. Those are pretty valid reasons to look forward to a movie.

But then I fell asleep. A lot. I’d tried watching the movie twice on TV, fell asleep both times. And three separate times watching the Netflixed DVD until I managed to struggle through it. I think I gave the movie a fair shake. The problem, as may be obvious, is that NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS STUPID MOVIE. I’m firmly convinced that anyone touting Blade Runner as a classic scifi movie (or 2001, for that matter) doesn’t actually like science fiction. Because, yes, there are some cool futuristic effects and depictions, but I kinda expect my scifi to have a storyline. I’m picky like that.

So there are replicants, they look and act like humans, but are more badass. And have a three year shelf life. Banned from the planet, a few make it back, and Harrison Ford is the only one who can hunt them down. The only way to determine a replicant, of course, is through a standardized test. This movie brought to you by ETS! Anyway, Harrison Ford has to eliminate the five or so replicants before they cause a ruckus. Except he’s really terrible at his job. He’s only responsible for killing like two of them.

And that’s basically the movie, save for some Coke ads and Sean Young looking sad. There isn’t even really much scifi psychobabble. Just…nothing. Except lots and lots of boredom.

I will say that the supporting cast is pretty awesome. Well, the major supporting players, like Rutger Hauer and M. Emmet Walsh aren’t bad. But the crew under them are great. William Sanderson (E.B. from Deadwood) does what he does best. And his toys may be the highlight of the movie. Daryl Hannah is rather alluring and (spoiler alert) has the best death scene of the movie. James Hong (token Asian guy in like everything) makes what would be a dreadful scene almost tolerable. And Edward James Olmos, though woefully underused, shows Harrison Ford what it means to be badass.

Ford, by the way, is rather wimpy, I thought. That’s not entirely his fault, as his character doesn’t really get to do much (as I might have mentioned once or twice). Ford is a tremendous action-adventure star, if not the best, but Blade Runner overmatches him. He needs something against which to act, specifically as an almost outmatched sheepish hero, and I don’t just mean the terrorists in Air Force One. He works in, say, Sabrina, because he can still do his uncomfortable laughter, still be in his element in situations where by all rights he shouldn’t be.

Granted, it doesn’t help that Sean Young never got the memo the replicant she was playing was supposed to act like a human being. She’s nice to look at, though.

(Spoiler alert) I don’t really understand the controversy over whether Deckard is a replicant or not. The movie doesn’t really address it. I wish it would have, that might have been a little intriguing. As it is, I don’t care what Scott said or didn’t say, there’s no point in hoping the movie delivers.

Obviously people like this movie. I can’t understand why. Unless they enjoyed the movie’s all natural sleep-inducing effects. There’s an interesting idea in there (obviously, Philip K. Dick wrote it), but Scott and screenwriters Hampton Fancher and David Peoples just mangle things. The concept of replicants is definitely thought-provoking (hence their appearance again and again in scifi) but Blade Runner chooses to do nothing more than present them as an idea, as opposed to taking the concept anywhere meaningful.

Trailer after the jump. It does a fair job summarizing the boredom that is Blade Runner. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the fun things about Netflix (and having a ridiculously long queue) is that I’ll receive movies, but have absolutely no clue why I put them on my queue. Such is the case with The Duellists. It was the first film Ridley Scott directed, but that wouldn’t be a reason. It stars Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine, who are cool, but I don’t think that would be enough. The movie was written by Gerald Vaughn-Hughes, but I’ve never seen anything by him, and it is based on a story by Joseph Conrad, who is cool. The Duellists is about two soldiers in Napoleon’s army who fight a series of duels. Which is kinda badass-sounding. So maybe that did the trick?

Anyway, I instantly regretted the pick. I say “instantly”, because for some reason, my DVD player didn’t sync up the sound and video. Making the opening swordfight rather bizarre. Fortunately I had my 360. Or I should say “unfortunately.” Because, wow, what a terrible movie.

I mentioned that the movie was about Keitel and Carradine dueling, yes? Well, that’s pretty much all there is to the movie. They don’t have a good reason for fighting. They don’t see each other for years, but when they happen upon each other, time for another duel. Sort of like Peter Griffin fighting that chicken. Only worse. In between duels, well, I’m not sure they got around to deciding what would happen between duels. Which was a mistake, in my humble opinion. There’s a few vague subplots involving women, I suppose. But they are beyond thin. And the ending, well, I suppose the fits the rest of the movie. In that it is pointless, unsatisfying, and pretty much stupid.

OK, the movie wasn’t entirely bad. The moustaches were pretty amazing. Also, Keitel’s character is the special kind of dementedly driven than only Keitel can conjure. I would not want to be alone in a room with that man. Albert Finney is in the movie. And for a brief second so is the guy who plays Hastings on A&E’s Poirot. So that’s something. Also, someone named Tom Conti who was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for a movie called Reuben, Reuben. I can’t believe I’m not making that up. The duels themselves are generally awkward, though there’s one that is kinda cool.

Please don’t see this movie. Read a book. Play outside. See a different movie. Poke yourself in the eye with a fork.

Trailer after the jump. It does a fair job describing the vapidity that is The Duellists. Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to check out the 2008 Movie Awards Liveblog.

Through the magic of Ytic, I saw The Promotion (which comes out this week in limited release) a few weeks ago. If you read the good folks at Cinematical, you’ve seen them hype this movie. Mucho. I quite enjoy their work, but I’m going to have mildly part ways here. The Promotion is a decent enough film, funny and charming at times, but ultimately it is too slight to reach its potential.

Seann William Scott and John C. Reilly are assistant store managers at a local chain grocery store fighting over a promotion to store manager at a new branch opening. The movie follows their wacky exploits and politicking as they try to best each other. Fred Armisen is their boss, Jenna Fischer is Scott’s girl and Lili Taylor is Reilly’s wife.

Written (and directed) by Steve Conrad (who also wrote The Pursuit of Happyness and The Weather Man), The Promotion seems like it knows it can be funny, it just can’t quite decide the right path to get there, taking a few steps down several different ones, then quickly turning back and starting anew. To wit, we get a few fantasy pops, but only early on. The always awesome Bobby Cannavale shows up as Jenna Fischer’s boss, as a potential foil to Sean William Scott, but then he goes away for the bulk of the movie. Reilly plays a Canadian and Taylor a Scot, so the movie has some fun with their accents, but not to the point of being a running joke. Etcetera.

The cast is pretty spot on. John C. Reilly can’t help but be funny. That’s just a truth. Seann William Scott being funny may be less so, but Dude, Where’s My Car? was hilarious. And I think you have to admit Stifler is a pretty great character. I would have liked to see more to the characters of Jenna Fischer and Lili Taylor (though, to be sure, that’s pretty much always the case), something elevating them more from the typical supporting female pillars.

I’m more than a bit biased, but I enjoyed all the shots of Chicago. Probably would have liked it to become even more of a character, to be honest. But hey, they did manage to get Rainbow Cone in there.

But perhaps the biggest problem with the movie as a whole (other than that the humor only comes in spurts) is with the resolution. Neither Scott nor Reilly end up as sympathetic characters. I found myself not particularly rooting for either one to win the job. And that’s sort of a problem, seeing how the entire movie is two struggling against each other to win the promotion. And the ending, well, I didn’t find it satisfying in the least.

So I’d say The Promotion is generally amusing, and it shouldn’t be avoided, but I don’t think it is worth actively seeking out.

Trailer after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

The other movie I saw at the DC Film Fest, I Just Didn’t Do It is a film by Masayuki Suo, the guy behind Shall we dansu?, the Japanese movie which would be remade as Shall We Dance? By the way, Shall We Dance is a surprisingly decent movie, considering it is about ballroom dancing. It has a pretty great cast (Richard Gere, Bobby Cannavale, Nick Cannon, Susan Sarandon, Jennifer Lopez et al). So shut up.

I Just Didn’t Do It is an indictment of the Japanese court system, but also partially of Japanese culture. It tells the story of a 20-something guy accused (wrongly?) of groping a schoolgirl on the train, a too-prevalent act that ends with an alarming 99 percent conviction rate in the courts, leading most charged with the crime to pay a fine and stay a few days in jail.

There are a few interesting characters along the way, and the story is probably worth telling, but ultimately the movie just drags on too long. Probably a half hour could have been cut without really losing anything other than a few subplots that went nowhere. And it would have added to the surprising lack of tension.

I also saw this movie with John, and we both remarked on the newbishness (yes, I went there) of the audience. It was as if they hadn’t seen a movie before, but because it was a movie in a film festival, they felt obliged to cover for it by laughing 30 seconds after a joke or loudly remarking on incredibly stupid things a few beats after a comment would have been appropriate (not that comments were appropriate, but where they would have been if it had been more of a participatory movie).

Also, strangely, while watching the movie, I couldn’t help but notice Brian furiously taking notes.

What? Look, I really tried, and I almost made it, but it is a movie about getting in trouble for groping Japanese schoolgirls. The joke had to be made. It just had to.

Trailer after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

Well, I got about a month behind on my reviews, and now I can barely remember these movies. So here are some quick hits to clear out the backlog.

La Zona was the first movie I saw at the DC Film Fest. It was in Spanish, which is my sworn enemy, but I still found it quite entertaining. So, you know how there are nice parts of cities and then crowded, rundown, dirty parts of cities (at least until they become cool and become a nice part)? Imagine an entire city that’s poorly off, save for one heavily fenced-off zone (I’m assuming that’s La Zona, but again, I passed Spanish based entirely on my rugged good looks) that looks roughly like your average upper middle class neighborhood.

There’s a power outage, three riffraff youths manage to make it over to La Zona, a few people die, and one of the youths ends up trapped, desperately trying to get back as he’s stridently hunted. We get a little Lord of the Flies/civilization vs. nature action as the select citizens in La Zona attempt to prevent the police from disrupting their world by taking matters into their own hands.

Not a perfect summary, but close enough. John said something along the lines of how the plot ripped off like four Twilight Zone episodes. Maybe more like Alfred Hitchcock Presents, but still, the point is both valid and works in the movie’s favor, I’d argue. It is a fascinating study and constantly entertaining. The movie does run a little thin at points, but it is definitely worth a look. Also, I’d be a poor IB student if I didn’t mention the similarities to Durrenmatt’s The Visit. Which I thought was pretty great.

Also, the movie co-stars Javier Bardem’s brother. Who I actually enjoyed. Trailer after jump: Read the rest of this entry »

As I’ll mention over and over again (like I’m Nelly and Tim McGraw!), I think Philip K. Dick writes near-perfect stories. Really, M. Night Shyamalan writes like a poor man’s Philip K. Dick. Their stories have a similar structure, and tend to have a similar portrayal of reality. It is just that Philip K. tends to have sharper twists, and warmer stories. It also interesting to note the range of directors who have tried their hand at Philip K. Dick movies. Ridley Scott, Paul Verhoeven, Steven Spielberg, John Woo, and Richard Linklater have all directed adaptations. Their movies, along by those done by perhaps lesser lights, have achieved varying levels of success. Where “success” is naturally defined as how much I like a movie. Here’s how I’d rank them:

8. Next

I don’t what anyone says, Nic Cage is great. And Jessica Biel is quite lovely, if a tad overrated. But they have negative chemistry in this clunker of a movie. Uninteresting throughout the movie, the climax is totally unsatisfying. It does get some points for that cool scene with lots of Nicholas Cages. We’ll ignore the fact this was directed by a Bond director.

7. Blade Runner

I fell asleep five different times when attempting to watch this movie on three different occasions. And I tend to have trouble sleeping. There are certainly intriguing idea in the movie/story, but the film is horribly boring.

6. Screamers

It stars Peter Weller, so that’s a plus. If you squint really hard, you can kinda see some very vague outlines of the plot of Battlestar Galactica. But you’ll also see why Battlestar Galactica works as a series and wouldn’t as a movie. The plot is thin, and the twists are sadly telegraphed, due to lack of other options presented. To wit, the trailer gives away basically the entire movie. It does get marks for having an incredibly creepy kid.

5. A Scanner Darkly

I recently proffered my thoughts on this one. Again, the rotoscoping is rather amazing, but the story just isn’t as interesting as it should be. And The Twist doesn’t have the impact of a good Philip K. Dick twist.

4. Impostor

Released the first week of 2002, Impostor and Screamers may be the two little known movies on this list. It has a rather stellar cast which includes Gary Sinise, Madeleine Stowe, Mekhi Phifer, Vincent D’Onofrio, and Tony Shalhoub. And if you think a movie with the latter two isn’t worth watching, you haven’t been paying attention. While Impostor does have some of the flaws found in movies adapted from short stories, I think it does a good job capturing the feel of Philip K. Dick’s world. The alienation, the eternal question of what it means to be human. And the ending is pretty solid.

3. Minority Report

Minority Report is a really good movie. It has the best special effects of any Philip K. Dick film, but they are used to support an interesting story. The standard Philip K. Dick tropes of “What is reality?” and “Is there such a thing as too much technology” really shine through. The only knocks might be that it gets a bit saggy during its long run time, and it is maybe a little bit too glossy.

2. Paycheck

Ben Affleck gets a bum rap as an actor. There, I said it. And Paycheck is underappreciated. I might even argue it improved upon the short story. And, come on, Aaron Eckhart and Paul Giamatti! The plot is really interesting. Future you tells you to take these twelve tchotchkes and use them to save the world. We again see Dick’s warning of the danger of technology, but also his genius, as it applies to what would happen if we could know the future. And we get to puzzle out the riddle of each object.

1. Total Recall

Well, obviously. This competition was over before it started. Total Recall has a basically perfect blend of action, humor, campiness, commentary, sexiness, Philip K. Dickosity, and Schwarzenegger. I can’t hope to top I-Mockery’s post about it, though. Total Recall is just an amazing movie. And the ending will blow your mind.

I know we’re supposed to hate Uwe Boll. Of course, that’s probably just going to bias me in his favor, given my general taste in movies. In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale was the first Uwe Boll joint I had the pleasure of watching. And really, I don’t see what the fuss is about. ItNotK:ADST was a perfectly decent movie. There are plenty of better movies to watch, but the film is certainly watchable.

The screenplay of In the Name of the King, by Doug Taylor (based on a story by him, Jason Rappaport and Dan Stroncak) tells a relatively standard fantasy story. In the interest of full disclosure, my two least favorite genres may be documentary and fantasy. Sue me. Jason Statham plays a farmer (named Farmer!) seeking revenge who ultimately teams up with the King’s army to defeat an evil sorcerer-villain-type and his army of bad guys.

The movie’s cast is most impressive. Jason Statham is the lead, and he’s perfect serviceable as the reserved hero who just wants to protect his family but is destined for so much more. Ron Perlman plays his gruff, talkative friend who kicks a$$. Which is just about the ideal role for him, obviously. John Rhys-Davies is a poor man’s Merlin, and I’m a fan of his, though I think he could have been more of a presence in the film. Matthew Lillard plays the King’s idiotic semi-evil nephew who wants to usurp the throne. Which, again, is pitch perfect casting. Also want to mention Brian J. White, who doesn’t have an especially meaty character, but imdb says his first role was in The MatchMaker (uncredited) and he was also in Brick, so I have to show him some love.

And then, oh man, and then Burt Reynolds as the King. Which is exactly as ridiculous as you are picturing. Finally, Ray Liotta as the evil sorcerer. In my mind, I put Ray Liotta as sort of the evil Keanu Reeves. Because Keanu Reeves isn’t actually capable of playing a real human being. He doesn’t talk like people talk, and if you ever take a second to watch, he doesn’t seem to walk like people walk. Which, don’t get me wrong, doesn’t mean I don’t like him. Because he can be great. But I’d describe Ray Liotta similarly, except that he’s flat out creepy.

The women of the movie are all quite attractive: LeeLee Sobieski as Rhys-Davies’ well-meaning daughter who gets screwed by Ray Liotta and wants to fight in the army, Claire Forlani as Farmer’s wife, and Kristanna Loken as the leader of a group of peace-loving forest-dwellers. And I’ll offer significant props to Boll and Taylor for making them all mostly-essential to the plot, generally strong characters. Possibly the most frustrating/impressive part of it all is how tastefully dressed all three remain during the entire movie.

Adam prompted me to see the movie, and he made some very good points concerning the special effects, so I’ll leave off that discussion, in the hopes he picks it up in the comments or in a post. The battle scenes were generally awesome, though they did seem a bit awkward. They didn’t feel entirely necessary, though. As if they had been shoehorned into the story, which was disappointing.

As I mentioned, the story is standard, though marginally engaging. Some of the intrigues and disparate storylines coming together could probably have been tightened up. Ultimately, I think you are likely to come out of In the Name of the King with exactly what you were expecting. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Trailer after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

I can’t decide if this makes me a bad person, but after watching Logan’s Run, what stuck in my head was that Michael York is one of the least masculine leading men I’ve ever seen. Pictures don’t do it justice, but here’s one, and here’s another. And hey, more power to the 1970s for not forcing their leading men to be super macho.

Written by David Zelag Goodman in an adaptation of a book by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson, Logan’s Run takes The Who’s plea “I hope I die before I get old” quite seriously. Set in a future where the planet has been ravaged, humanity survives by living in a giant domed city. But the dome is only so big, thus there needs to be some sort of population control. Upon turning 30, citizens take place in a bizarre, trippy ceremony/spectacle ending in death. But people are OK with this, because, hey, that’s just how things are. The few who try to escape are known as “runners”. Logan (Michael York) is a “sandman”, a person charged with stopping said runners. Logan eventually ends up running (hence the title), and taking a chick along for the ride (Jenny Agutter).

Certainly an interesting idea. Like too many 70s movies, though, Logan’s Run rather quickly becomes tedious and stays that way. The film runs just under two hours and it really feels like a half hour could have been chopped off without losing anything. Alternatively, a stronger film would have used the time to flesh out this version of utopia. Instead, we are left with only a vague concept of the futuristic society and its workings. Which is sad, because things like the all-knowing computer, Box (the totally ridiculous evil robot), and the totally sweet service that teleports hot chicks (generally) willing to have no strings attached sex to your room at the push of a button just aren’t given the time they so richly deserve.

My opening point aside, I actually think Michael York works here. There’s pretty much no way he’d get cast in the role today. Jenny Agutter is your typical female co-star. She’s a surprisingly strong character, though, for those who care about such things. And she does win an award for least convincing reason to disrobe (non-porn division). That’s another nice thing about the 70s. Nudity was strongly encouraged. That’s the version of history I choose to believe, at any rate. Richard Jordan is decent as the friend/company man, but he’s apparently the grandson of Learned Hand, so that’s awesome. Peter Ustinov shows up. As does Farrah Fawcett, in a completely unnecessary role. And yet, it is Farrah Fawcett. Working her into a movie was never a bad call.

The movie was nominated for two Oscars, Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography (Ernest Laszlo). It also was given a special achievement award for visual effects. And yes, the special effects look about 30 years old, but they are pretty cool.

Logan’s Run may be worth a viewing for its place in the scifi canon, but I’m not really sure it stands on its own. It doesn’t have a sense of humor or a sense of urgency. It doesn’t seem to be a particularly meaningful parable, and it doesn’t have a particularly gripping ending.

Trailer after the jump. I love old trailers. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m aiming to get a list of some sort up on Mondays. Since I’ve finally watched ten movies released this year, here’s my first top ten movies of the year list. I could see the argument that The Counterfeiters should count as last year because of the Oscars, but let’s face it, it shouldn’t. Also, I really loved Rambo. I can’t help but think that those who didn’t don’t understand the core of what an action movie should be. Or, at the very least, have wildly different expectations about actions movies than I do.

Broadly speaking, the first four belong in a tier, then the next four, then then last two.

1. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
2. Rambo
3. In Bruges
4. Iron Man
5. Run Fatboy Run
6. The Promotion
7. The Counterfeiters
8. How She Move
9. The Bank Job
10. 21

So, I may have borne The Holiday some ill will because it screwed me a little in an early Fantasy Moguls league. What? A Nancy Meyers movie at the holidays with Kate Winslet. It should have been gold! But a year and a half later, I probably have that out of my system. Mostly.

Kate Winslet is a British newspaper reporter who still hasn’t gotten over a relationship she had with a co-worker (Rufus Sewell) three years ago. Upon finding he’s engaged, she decides needs to escape. Cameron Diaz plays an expert movie trailer designer (which, OK, is kinda cool) living in Hollywood who has a bad breakup with her boyfriend (Ed Burns) and decides she needs to escape. They go online and swap houses for two weeks. When Kate gets to Hollywood, she runs into an old screenwriter (Eli Wallach) who becomes her friend and meets a movie score composer (Jack Back) and his girlfriend (Shannyn Sossamon), who have a rocky relationship. When Cameron get to England, she meets Kate’s brother (Jude Law).

That’s more backstory than I like to give, but I do it to make a point. That right there is, basically, the entire movie. There’s the barest of tension or arc. There are maybe three critical moments in the movie, none of which feel gut-wrenching. Meyers’s script is otherwise fluid and generally moves along, but I suppose I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is clever. The problem wasn’t that the movie was predictable (not that I usually find that a problem), it was that there wasn’t even anything to predict, really. The trailer voiceovers that popped in every so often for Diaz’s character were a neat quirk. I might have liked to see the device mirrored for Winslet, or the playfulness permeate a bit more throughout, but that’s a very minor dispute.

The actors are generally solid. Kate Winslet can’t help but be awesome. I’m not opposed to Cameron Diaz. I think she does slapstick very well, for example. Not sure she adds much here. Jude Law is as devilishly handsome as always. Basically same as Alfie, only with no topless Sienna Miller (What? That’s an important fact!). I’m a fan of Jack Black taking on more serious roles. I don’t think this one is a perfect fit, but it definitely works. Shannyn Sossamon in the movie for long, but I’ve been swooning for her since 40 Days and 40 Nights, and nothing has changed on that front.

But the star, in my book, is Eli Wallach (The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, among a million different awesome things, including a guest shot on Studio 60). He’s always been a haunting character actor, and it is good to see nothing has changed in his old age. Wallach’s character is a refreshing take on comic relief and one of the movie’s few high points.

There are a few really awesome bit parts. John Krasinski has about 30 seconds of screen time as one of Diaz’s assistants. Dustin Hoffman gets kinda meta in a cameo. And James Franco and Lindsay Lohan show up as…well…I won’t ruin it, but it relates to Diaz’s job, and it is pretty hilarious.

I will say I have a friend whose opinion I generally trust, and who generally has a similar taste me in movies such as these did enjoy the movie. Which won’t get me to change my opinion, but perhaps those of the female ilk might find ways to appreciate the movie, ways that I just couldn’t. She made a really excellent point about the movie, something I didn’t catch (shocking, right?). But it only really makes sense to anyone who has seen the movie, and I can’t imagine anyone reading this has. I’ll share in the comments, if there is popular demand.

Trailer after the jump. And it reminds me that the movie has the goofiest IM chat since You’ve Got Mail. Read the rest of this entry »

I won’t give this one the full treatment. Just wanted to say that the references to Nintendo games are pretty much right in the sweet spot for my generation, so the movie is worth a look for that, if nothing else (Ninja Gaiden! Double Dragon!). In some ways, this is a perfect bridge from the 80s to 90s. The plot, in its barest form, is nothing short of ridiculous, but there’s an appealing blend of hokiness (Beau Bridges getting addicted to Nintendo, for example) and seriousness. The film is both a long-form commercial for Nintendo and a sparse, gripping, family drama. That may be the innate beauty of The Wizard, it is, ultimately, a serious movie that doesn’t take itself seriously. Yeah, there are plenty of cliches, like the bumbling evil guy or the nonsensical video game competition with an absurd host (and really, did the filmmakers think no one would notice the scoring announcements wouldn’t sync up with the visuals?) and bizarre scoring conventions. But that’s almost to be expected.

The cast is awesome. Christian Slater! Fred Savage! Beau Bridges! Luke Edwards plays the creepy kid who is a video game savant pretty well. Frank McRae is awesome. McRae, if you don’t know him by name, was the teacher in the opening of Red Dawn and Sharkey from License to Kill. So yeah, he rocks. And then there’s Jenny Lewis. Who is fantastic in the movie. One of the most striking things about the movie, to me, was how they dealt with her character’s sexuality, since Lewis was about twelve when the movie was filmed, and her character was probably meant to be right around that age. For the most part, she’s completely desexualized, assuming the role of mother figure to her little band, ostensibly partially in an effort to fill her own void from the mothering influence she never had in her own life. Not that mothers can’t be sexualized, they just aren’t in this sort of 80s movie, where the focus is on the kids and the parents are there to present some sort of obstacle for the kids. There is one scene, though, where in a last ditch effort to avoid the bad guy, she’s in a casino and screams out that he inappropriately touched her. And you can tell it is an 80s movie, because people immediately swarm around him, allowing Jenny Lewis to leave without anyone noticing. Now, I’m skeptical a movie today gets away with that (or even attempts it), just as I’m skeptical that the role wouldn’t be given to an eighteen year old (or someone playing eighteen, at least).

There’s also romantic tension between Fred Savage and Jenny Lewis, and I found their relationship rather poignant. They are two twelve year olds with no money or assets shepherding a nine year old on a road trip to California because “California” is the only thing he says (that and his frequent attempts to walk there alone have landed him in a home for mentally disturbed kids, from which Fred Savage springs him). Perhaps their struggle to persevere coupled with that age’s awkward method of courting isn’t anything new, though I might argue it is a particularly tender balance of puppy love and a marriage. But I think the evolution of their relationship on the journey contrasted their reversion to normal kids once everything has been set right, or at least as right as it can be, is very interesting. Just great bombastic 80s naivete, in my opinion, that these kids can grow so much as people, well beyond what kids their age “should” have to deal with, when facing these hardships; but once they’ve restored things to their natural order, they too are restored to the normal lives of twelve year olds.

I should probably stop talking about twelve year old girls before I become Brian. What? You really didn’t think that joke was coming? My point, or at least my intended point, is that The Wizard actually has some depth. Am I alone on that point? Would even David Chisolm, who wrote the screenplay, back me up? Beats me. Maybe. But I honestly think the movie is worth seeing on its own merits, not just because it introduced the world to Super Mario Bros. 3.

Presented without comment (to give the others their fair cracks at it), here are the summer blockbusters to which each of us is most looking forward:

Adam

• Dark Knight
• Indiana Jones 4
• Iron Man

Brian

• Indiana Jones 4
• Dark Knight
• Tropic Thunder

Jared

• Dark Knight
• Mamma Mia!
• Pineapple Express

John

• Wall-E
• Indiana Jones 4
• Tropic Thunder

I’m a bit of a Philip K. Dick nut. His ability to weave consistently fresh sci-fi tales (stories which really don’t belong to be pigeonholed as “merely science fiction”) is unparalleled. And any fans of twists have to credit him as one of the masters. I think his stories generally have transferred really well to the big screen (with any luck, they’ll continue to do so), for a variety of reasons, but ultimately because he always paints an intriguing landscape, but one sparse enough to allow the filmmaker to breathe.

A Scanner Darkly, though, I find to be one of his lesser works. Maybe it got too personal. Whatever the reason, the plot just doesn’t seem as crisp as some of his other novels and stories. Of course, his depiction of the future is as poignant as ever. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a Philip K. Dick work. So while I have all kinds of respect for the movie, it was hampered a bit by the source material. That said, I don’t think Richard Linklater helps his cause. The story he carves out is probably not how I would have interpreted the novel.

The story, really, isn’t worth getting into. Not too far into the future, a certain drug has devastated large portion of the country’s population, but no one can prove who is manufacturing the drug. A Scanner Darkly relates how one cop (Keanu Reeves) goes undercover, as a druggie, in an attempt to learn more. As Keanu starts using, his sense of reality becomes skewed.

A Scanner Darkly, as probably goes without saying, is notable for its use of rotoscoping. I have mixed feelings about it. It does end up looking really awesome. But it only really seemed useful for a few scenes. First and foremost was the scramble suit (here’s a description). I cannot fathom how they’d successfully pull off the scramble suit with a regular live action movie, so perhaps the scramble suit validates the technology.

Reeves, Woody Harrelson, and Robert Downey, Jr. acting together feels like some sort of dream. They could set up a traveling show consisting solely of them having a normal conversation and I’d go see it. And call me crazy, but I think Winona Ryder holds her own with the group.

So where does that leave us? A rather beautiful movie that seems unfulfilling. It may be worth seeing just for the rotoscoping, and the actors will keep you engaged. But I think the story may have been better adapted as a television series, with someone better fleshing out Dick’s ideas. Because there are some really interesting nuggets in there, but A Scanner Darkly doesn’t consistently capitalize on them.

Trailer after the jump.
Read the rest of this entry »

It is little late and I really hope no one will make a decision whether or not to see Iron Man based on my thoughts. But on the off chance, since I just came back from a 11 pm showing (and learned walking up 14th street at 1:30 in the morning is pretty safe) thanks to free tickets Gavin won on the radio (thanks Gavin!): it is a really solid movie. I’ll think about posting more later, but Robert Downey, Jr. and Jeff Bridges are pretty fantastic, and the movie is just all-around rock solid. Great special effects, and a decent story. I do recommend it.

AND PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD STAY FOR THE END OF THE CREDITS!!!

Sometimes my love of the ridiculous leads me to the sublime. And sometimes it leads me to Men at Work. “WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY EMILIO ESTEVEZ,” I surely shouted. “How could this not be amazing?” That it starred brothers Estevez and Sheen and featured a score by Stewart Copeland (drummer for the Police) only seemed to pave the way for success.

Though released in 1990, the movie has an unmistakable 80s feel. Emilio and Charlie play lovable garbage men who witness the murder of a politician, Rear Window style. Only much creepier. Of course, they don’t realize it was a hit until the dead politician turns up on their garbage route. Hilarity then ensues, with some Weekend at Bernie’s riffing. Well, except for the hilarity. Almost all of the movie misses, and misses badly. Part of the charm of this sort of wacky 80s escapade movie is the irreverence. It would take a whole lot of artfulness to wedge deft wordplay into such a script, so the fact that Estevez fails in that respect isn’t necessarily a knock against him. But where’s the wackiness? Indeed, the movie sometimes feels like it has a decent frame, as if the straight man is delivering his lines, but the comic partner is nowhere around to knock down the jokes.

The only parts of the movie that do work are the zany ones. The increasingly disgusting office pranks, for example. And primarily, Keith David. I link to his imdb profile because he might not be familiar by name, so you might be saying, “Who can it be now?” (like there was any chance I’d make it through this post without a bad reference to the Aussie band) but by face (and especially voice) he is. Arbiter from Halo, for crying out loud! So, yes, Mr. David rocks. And in Men at Work, it seems Emilio Estevez basically said, “OK, go crazy.” And crazy Keith David went. To some degree of mania I’ve never seen. Almost inexplicably, it references the truly amazing Better Off Dead, a point I verified through (also almost inexplicably) another blog post on this movie.

The bad guy, played by John Getz, is one of the lamest bad guys ever. He’s got your typical moronic henchman, but his evil plan is…to continue illegally dumping toxic waste? How nefarious! Mr. Getz plays the villain rather awkwardly. The female lead is Leslie Hope, who doesn’t do much for me, but who popped up a decade later to play Jack Bauer’s wife in 24. So that’s something.

I normally don’t notice these things, much less comment on them, but the homophobia in the movie goes way beyond latent. On multiple occasions, bad guys (or, at least, enemies of the brothers Sheen) end up tied together in sexually suggestive positions. And yes, the fact that they are tied together in sexually suggestive positions is overtly referenced in the movie.

Feel free to skip Men at Work. The laughs are few and far between. If you watch it with a friend, you very well might be men at sleep.

A pretty ridiculous trailer after the jump Read the rest of this entry »

If we ever recap 1981’s Oscar season, I have a pretty strong suspicion I’ll be railing against the inclusion of Reds in the discussion. Nominated for 12 Oscars, it won three (Best Supporting Actress, Best Cinematography, Best Director). Without having seen many of the other movies nominated or having the potential to be nominated, I suppose I can’t say anything too definitive, but I imagine the only Oscars I could have supported were the nominated performances of Diane Keaton (Best Actress) and Jack Nicholson (Best Supporting Actor). By the way, the last four years Jack’s been nominated for an Oscar? 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003. Just saying.

Reds is based on the story of John Reed’s life. John Reed was a journalist from the U.S. who was in Russia when the Communists took over. He later wrote Ten Days That Shook The World about the experience. The book is still relatively well-known, and special to me because I somehow still remember seeing it in the University of Maryland library for some high school report I was writing.

The movie, written by Warren Beatty and Trevor Griffiths, is framed by the love story of Reed (Beatty) and Louise Bryant (Keaton), but also makes forays into intellectualism in the U.S. at the time and the Bolshevik Revolution and its immediate effects. Not succinctly either, the sucker clocks in at over three hours. And there’s the ultimate problem of the movie, in my opinion. The range of the movie is epic, and while it might be necessary to tell John Reed’s story, it also hinders enjoyment of the film. The way Reed and Bryant meet is cute (or “meet cute” as I may have learned from watching The Holiday recently (review to come)), but did we really need twenty minutes (or whatever) of Bryant’s ensuing ennui as Reed and his intellectual cronies including Eugene O’Neill (Nicholson) blabbered? And how is Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton in an Oscar-winning role) relevant to the story at all? In my mind, her nomination was Ruby Dee-esque. Finally, while the old people recounting stories of Reed and Bryant sometimes served to break things up (and did bring to mind When Harry Meant Sally), but the bits seemed jarring and out of place.

The movie does have much to applaud, especially for those who enjoy an intermission in films they watch. As I mentioned, I thought Nicholson and Keaton were great. And I’m a bit of a Warren Beatty fan. It is also fun to see Gene Hackman show up. Balancing a relatively standard love story with the events of 1917 and their fallout in the U.S.A. and Russia is obviously quite difficult, and the film ably straddles that line often. Beatty (as writer, director, and actor) does an admirable job displaying Reed’s determination in sticking to his convictions even as he becomes disillusioned with the Bolsheviks, and with the Communists in the United States. Especially considering the time when the movie was filmed, Beatty takes in the high road in largely not reducing the Bolsheviks to caricatures, but instead painting them in a relatively honest (historically-speaking) light.

Reds is a decent movie, though not great. While it certainly could have been a little shorter, I’m not sure that would have bumped it up a star for me. There are interesting stories within, but as a whole, Reds fails to congeal into a cohesive movie.

After the jump, one of the most misleading trailers I’ve ever seen: Read the rest of this entry »

Movie: The Bank Job

Movie: Bats

Released: 1999

Stars: LOU DIAMOND PHILLIPS!

With: Dina Meyer, Bob Gunton, Leon

Written By: John Logan

Reason for Watching: LDP!  The movie was part of a Lou Diamond Phillips three pack my brothers got me as a birthday present a few years ago.

I Can Name This Movie In One Note: Bats attack a small town, in about as boring a manner as possible.

You Should See This Movie Because: Lou Diamond Phillips.  Come on.  Lou Diamond Phillips!

You Shouldn’t See This Movie Because: It is really really bad.  I guess it is supposed to be a horror movie, but it isn’t scary so much as not scary.  And it isn’t exciting or funny either.  At least the bats are really friggin’ ugly in the few closeups we get of them.  Basically, it is a terribly written movie.

Bob Gunton (the warden in Shawshank, among other that guy roles) should have been given a much meatier role.  And Leon (of Jamaican bobsled fame) is a terrible waste as the stock wacky/scaredy cat black supporting actor.

Bottom Line: Bats is your typical movie that shouldn’t be made (except to give Sweet Lou a regular paycheck, of course).  Interesting factoid: What do Bats, Gladiator, The Aviator, Sweeney Todd, and Any Given Sunday all have in common?  Answer after a TV Promo

All those movie were written or co-written by John Logan.  I can’t figure it either.

Movie: Scoop

Released: 2006

Stars: Woody Allen, Scarlett Johansson, Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane

Written By: Woody Allen

Reason for Watching: Miss Scarlett.  Also, I liked Match Point.

I Can Name This Movie In One Note: Woody Allen’s take on mystery.

You Should See This Movie Because: The actors are all really fun.  Woody Allen’s shtick is still lovably zany.  Hugh Jackman obviously plays well as an upper class Englishman.  Scarlett Johansson is impossibly attractive, as always, but I’ll submit this (hopefully) early part of her career has generally had a theme of misfit characters tending to interact with their betters.  But hey, whatever she’s doing, she’s doing it right.  Ian McShane (perhaps most notably Al Swearengen, but was also in a pretty good Columbo, the one where you think you see a picture of Mrs. Columbo) predictably steals his scenes.

I’ve made no secret of my undying love for Scarlett.  She’s too classy to be seen wearing anything too revealing, but her short scene with a red one-piece swimsuit did take my breath away for the whole scene.  Maybe because it wasn’t skimpy, I don’t know.  In any case, I can think of no better way to christen the new YouTube capabilities than by sharing it (though it isn’t quite the same out of context):

You Shouldn’t See This Movie Because: Woody Allen needs a writing partner.  Scoop is a mystery like Gosford Park is a mystery, and that’s not a compliment.  Ian McShane’s scenes could probably have been woven into the movie more effectively, though in some sense he’s a classic Woody Allen character.  And some scenes just seem awkwardly written.

Bottom Line: I go back and forth on Woody Allen.  Bananas is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen; I don’t love Annie Hall as much as some, but respect it to no end for its groundbreaking nature; and Without Feathers is nothing short of amazing.  Sometimes I wonder if his talents would be better served on TV, maybe in a sketch comedy show.  Scoop is an enjoyable movie, but not particularly notable.

(trailer after the jump)

Read the rest of this entry »