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.

The characters are all genuinely interesting.  And yet, considering the length of the movie and relatively lack of action, they really aren’t fleshed out as much as I would have liked.  Which isn’t to say the characters are caricatures, they most certainly are not.  Arquette, for example, isn’t just a wet blanket and isn’t just hopelessly in love.  Besson’s characters generally do have a defining characteristic, but almost universally have shading to their personalities.

Jean Reno is a man.  A hoss.  Seriously, he’s great.  In everything.  Here, where many other actors would have made his character a little hokey, Reno turns the boastful playboy who is still a momma’s boy into something larger than life.  Even though her character at times felt like she belonged in a different movie, I was pretty OK with Rosanna Arquette here.  She may not have totally risen to the challenge, but she’s definitely more than just arm candy.  Even if she is looking rather attractive.  Jean-Marc Barr, well, I’m sure the ladies love him.  Actually, that’s not fair.  He does acquit himself well.  In many ways, though, the character was like Rocky in Rocky Horror.

It is hard to argue with the path of the movie.  I may not have always agreed with the way the story was told, but I did find it engrossing.  Reno and Barr have a relationship that is never filled with animosity, but even at its strongest, still driven by their competition.  And even as Reno mentors Barr in the ways of life, he can never quite best him.  Similarly, Arquette and Barr’s relationship isn’t complex, per se, but as The Looking Glass would tell you, it isn’t easy to get between a man and the water.  The ending is…wow.  In some ways discordant with the rest of the movie, it is hauntingly jarring, beautiful, and powerful.  I wish the rest of the movie had adequately built up to the ending.

The movie apparently did really well in France, but flopped in this country.  Which is fair.  And not particularly a judgment on audiences in either country, the film’s sensibilities are more in line with those of the French, I’d imagine.  I believe it was a very personal production for Besson, so I certainly can’t begrudge him the inconsistencies in the movie, or that it doesn’t quite hold up to his very high standards.

Jared and I took in the slate of Animated Short nominees each of the past two years. The 2007 nominees literally put me to sleep but in 2006 it was a pleasure taking in preparations of a singing bird before the big show (”Maestro”), that Ice Age squirrel’s attempt to protest his food (”No Time For Nuts”), and Disney’s wonderful and devastating watercolor take on Hans Christian Anderson’s “The Matchstick Girl.” The winner (and my favorite), however, was a Danish/Canadian entry called “The Danish Poet” with a distinct animation style and a wry look at love and fate.

Youtube is starting a program to feature short films called The Screening Room and “The Danish Poet” was one of its first selections. I highly recommend it. It’s embedded below or click through it to get to a high definition version.

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.

Last year, I thought that the AFI finally realized that they ran out of ideas for their “100 Films” series of lists when they reprised the 100 Best Films on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of lists. That being the case, I foolishly forgot about the annual TV special that Jared and I have used for argumentative and gambling purposes in the past.

But last Tuesday, the AFI once again drew from their well of unoriginality and scrounged up 10 new lists of the best “genre” movies. Pigeonholing some of the great classics of the past century into just one of these categories is mystifying…how Field of Dreams gets thrown in with “Fantasy” and not “Sports”, as if they are mutually exclusive,  is just silly. Not to mention that the movie deserves a Top 5 All-Time Sports Movie designation and if you asked anyone who had seen Field of Dreams, I don’t know anyone who would call it a “fantasy.”

I’m getting distracted, however, onto the lists, in alphabetical order. One disclaimer: I will not claim to have seen all 100 selected films…but I’ll be passing judgment nonetheless.

Animation

This list was kind of a no-brainer…throw a few Disney classics with a couple of computer generated hits, and you’ve got a perfectly innocuous and inoffensive group of 10 animated films. I can’t be too picky with much of anything on here, other than that when is the last time someone watched Snow White, Pinnochio, or Bambi without a child under the age of 8. Classics for sure, but sort of vanilla. I’m somewhat baffled by Shrek’s placement on here, and the ballsy option would have been South Park, but the chances of that one landing on this list were slim to none. Or maybe even Nightmare Before Christmas…but if you’re making lists of genre films, then out-of-the-box thinking may not apply.

I’ll save the vitriol for some of the next lists.

Courtroom Drama

I was actually kind of excited to see this as a genre, as I think its a sorely under-appreciated one. Case in point, I’ve only seen one of these films from beginning to end…and its not A Few Good Men. So, I don’t feel at all capable of judging this list. But looking over the 50 nominees, I’d like to give personal shout-outs to: Amistad, historical narrative done well and Djimon Honsou’s coming out; My Cousin Vinny, which defintiely deserved to be on the list; The Rainmaker, the second-best John Grisham movie after The Firm.

On my must-see list before and after the publishing of this list: 12 Angry Men (I know…) and The Verdict.

Epic

Ooh! Fun category time! No question that Lawrence of Arabia deserves the #1 spot, and seeing it on your television on DVD just doesn’t cut it. I still remember seeing it at the AFI Silver a few years back and it is one of my fondest movie memories. But where are the other David Lean epics? No Zhivago or River Kwai? And are war movies like Saving Private Ryan really epics? Ten Things I Hate about Commandments…now that’s an epic.

Fantasy

As reference in my introduction, the films in this category make little to no sense. For me, fantasy occurs in a make-believe land with fantastical elements spread throughout. Creatures and things of supernatural nature are parts of a fantasy. Field of Dreams, Big, and It’s a Wonderful Life are not fantasy films…maybe heartwarming dramas, but not fantasy! Groundhog Day is a comedy with a silly premise!

I’m happy to see the Lord of the Rings recognized and Wizard of Oz is a clear #1. But how do Mary Poppins or Princess Bride not make it here? Or Willy Wonka? and the Muppet Movie isn’t even on the nomination list? Labryinth is a terrible movie inspite of the David Bowie role, so I’m glad it wasn’t in the Top 10, but it is a fantasy?

Is my definition too narrow…or was the AFI just reaching on this one?

Gangster

This is about as near-perfect a list as the AFI could create, but their margin of error was pretty thin. The top 5 are dead-on, and the only additions I’d make are The Untouchables (overrated, but still good) and Casino (underrated, and can’t be watched on cable). I know Jared’s said that Scarface is awful, so maybe that’s the biggest miscue on the list.

Mystery

Also known as the Alfred Hitchcock Memorial category, the choices here are kind of all over the place, and even my favorite wild card film here, The Usual Suspects, I wouldn’t classify as a mystery. AFI defines it as any film that revolves around solving a crime. Is this any different than a courtroom drama? The broad definition allows Big Lebowski to be classified as a mystery.

The AFI even got its Hitchcock wrong. North by Northwest deserves to be higher, and The Man Who Knew Too Much and Rebecca belong more so than Vertigo, which I think is Hitchcock’s most overrated film. Loved Rear Window though…and that brings the deconstruction of a mystery as an art form. And if there was going to be a modern mystery on the list, both L.A. Confidential and Memento are better options than the great story behind Usual Suspects (and how is that not gangster??).

Romantic Comedies

I feel like a sheep wandering into a pack of wolves here, with Jared lurking ready to pounce on me for my bad judgment on romantic comedies. But I’ll give it a good go.

There’s one glaring error on the list. How Pretty Woman doesn’t make it on a list of the best rom-coms, I don’t know. It belongs here alongside When Harry Met Sally… and Sleepless of Seattle as the best of the bunch over the past 25 years.

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen, well, any of the pre-Annie Hall movies. Put it on my queue, especially It Happened One Night, which has been the answers to my favorite trivia questions since the It’s Ac days (What are the three movies to sweep the Oscars with Best Picture, Director, Actor/Actress?)

You should check out the list of the 50 nominated films…the AFI did a surprisingly good job of putting recent films on the list, including Wedding Singer, 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Clueless.

Sports

Ah, a topic close to my heart. For those of who you may be confused, the AFI defines sports movies as “a genre of films with protagonists who play athletics or other games of competition.” Just wanted to clear the air.

The films that clearly deserve it: Rocky, Hoosiers, Bull Durham, Caddyshack.

The films I haven’t seen so can’t judge: Raging Bull, Breaking Away, The Hustler.

The films I haven’t seen but know they don’t belong: Pride of the Yankees (title says it all) and National Velvet (has anyone under the age of 40 seen this?).

The film I have seen that clearly doesn’t deserve it: Jerry Maguire. It’s not a sports movie. It’s a romantic dramedy, and a mediocre one at that.

For the films I’d liked to have seen here: Field of Dreams (an absolute travesty that deserves top 5 placement), Karate Kid (Sweep the leg, Johnny!!), and Rudy (for some reason, the room is dusty whenever I’m watching the final 20 minutes).

Western

Other than say this is a genre I need to see more of, there isn’t that much for me to say. I loved 3:10 to Yuma from last year, so there’s hope. And Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is in my top 5 films of all time. But I thought The Searchers was too much a product of its time (horribly racist and slow-paced), so I’ll report back after seeing a few of these classics.

Whew….that’s that. AFI…give up the list making, unless you want to do 100 Scores, then put me first on the list as a judge.

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.