You are currently browsing the tag archive for the '2006' tag.
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.
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’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 »
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)
Movie: Goal!: The Dream Begins
Released: 2006
Stars: Kuno Becker
With: Alessandro Nivola, Stephen Dillane, Tony Plana, Anna Friel (!)
Written By: Mike Jefferies, Adrian Butchart, Dick Clement, Ian La Frenais
Reason for Watching: Soccer movie!
I Can Name This Movie In One Note: Underdog sports tale of young star who just needs a break.
You Should See This Movie Because: Hey, a soccer movie! And the soccer is actually relatively decent, at least as far as soccer movies go.
Anna Friel. The co-star of Pushing Daisies, for those who haven’t seen the show (and you should, just for the record). With a British accent. I mean, yeah, she’s playing the garden variety female interest in the movie, and doesn’t get nearly enough screen time, but still.
The illegal immigration subplot. Sure, it is handled relatively poorly, but I found it the one bold risk the movie took.
The ridiculous cameos by the likes of Beckham and Zidane.
You Shouldn’t See This Movie Because: It falls into all of the pits of an underdog movie without redeeming itself very often. The main character gets oodles and oodles of breaks. Because people believe in him. Which is great. But it makes him seem whiny and lucky, not sympathetic at all. It takes baby steps toward being interesting, such as the illegal immigration subplot, the disapproving father angle, the Roger Dorn-like star of the soccer team, for example. Ultimately, though, these are all resolved by taking the easy way out. Which is fine for a chill-inducer like, say, The Rookie. But there’s really only like 1.5 chills scenes, tops. And even those aren’t super huge.
Bottom Line: Two of the writers wrote The Bank Job, which I’ll get to shortly, but was a movie I didn’t love (though other Grouches may disagree). So it is possible I just don’t get them. More likely, though, this movies has serious flaws, ones that should have been ironed out in the writing process. I think there may be a really interesting sports movie in this story, but that’s not the movie that ended up being made.
Movie: Edmond
Released: 2006
Stars: William H. Macy
With: Denise Richards, Bai Ling, Mena Suvari, Julia Stiles, Dule Hill, George Wendt, Debi Mazar, Joe Mantegna, assorted Mamet regulars
Written By: David Mamet
Reason for Watching: Did you see that cast?
I Can Name This Movie In One Note: Filmed morality play of one man’s descent (or is it ascent?) into knowledge of self.
You Should See This Movie Because: You shouldn’t need any other reason that William H. Macy, who here continues his streak of playing really interesting characters really well. Also, he always strikes me as a really odd, yet really spectacular, choice to be a leading man.
Denise Richards working in a strip club? Mena Suvari as a high class hooker? Julia Stiles side-boob? David Mamet, you are a genius!
I can see being in the minority here, but I thought the ending was nearly superb. Fitting, jarring, and so different from how the movie starts. The last five to ten minutes bumped the movie up from two to three stars.
You Shouldn’t See This Movie Because: It basically is a play. Just with more convincing scenery. I mean that particularly the script (but how the movie was filmed, as well) feels like a play. Which isn’t out of the ordinary for Mamet, the whole is just so stylized that I think it detracts from the movie.
Denise Richards has 45 seconds of screen time? Mena Suvari has a minute? Julia Stiles is in the movie for one scene? David Mamet, you are a bastard.
The story gets a bit tedious and (intentionally) short-sighted. The payoff may not necessarily be worth it.
Bottom Line: There are valid reasons to see this movie, those just don’t include the cast (other than the Mace) and the story.
Movie: The Lake House
Released: 2006
Stars: Sandra Bullock, Keanu Reeves
Reason for Watching: Other than that it is a romantic drama with Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves with a sci-fi twist? The screenplay was written by David Auburn, who wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning Proof. Which was a much better play than movie, but it did allow me to stalk Gwyneth Paltrow. Oh, and yeah, Auburn is a U of C grad.
I Can Name This Movie In Two Notes: Keanu and Sandra exchange love letters. BUT THEY ARE LIVING TWO YEARS APART!
You Should See This Movie Because: Well, first and foremost may be the two shots of Sandra Bullock in a University of Chicago t-shirt. Er, maybe that’s just for me. If you buy into the premise, it is a cute little movie. The doggy is great. I dunno, I find these “softcore” (if you will) sci-fi movies alluring. By which I mean you take a relatively standard scenario (here it is two people finding love, but not being able to see each other, instead only sending letters through the mail) and adding a little bit of a science fiction twist (the chasm separating them isn’t distance….it is time!). Again, if you can buy into it, the idea is kinda neat.
If you are into romantic dramas, no one is going to accuse this of being Sleepless in Seattle or anything, but many parts of it are relatively compelling. The chasm of time is surprisingly effective.
Also, I find Keanu Reeves fascinating, because he clearly is not capable of acting like an actual human being. I think he probably works best when he doesn’t have to act against anyone.
You Shouldn’t See This Movie Because: I can’t imagine the twists taking too many people by surprise. The subplots are often distracting, and I’m not sure the architecture angle was played up enough. Much of the appeal of the movie comes from its premise, so if you aren’t comfortable with that, I’d stay away. Maybe it is just because I knew the movie was based on a Korean movie, but to me they made up Bullock to look like an Asian video game character. Not a slutty-looking one, but a sullen fully-clothed one. Then again, playing against Keanu Reeves, just about any emotion is too much.
Bottom Line: If the thoughts of Keanu and the premise don’t repulse you, I’d guess you’d enjoy The Lake House. I’ve still yet to be convinced that David Auburn should be writing movies and not plays. But hey. Maroons in the hizzy!
Recent Comments