Review: Playing for Keeps

One of the best things about a buffet is that you get a little bit of everything - prime rib, king crab, lasagna, shrimp cocktail all piled sky high on an overpopulated plate.  One of the worst things about a buffet is that while you can a little big of everything, none of it is done particularly well.  That more or less sums up the biggest problem plaguing Playing for Keeps starring Gerard Butler and Jessica Biel.  There are a bunch of subplots running concurrently in this film beneath the umbrella of the central narrative, but none of those side stories are particularly compelling or entertaining.  The result is a film that feels more muted than emotive.

The plot of the movie focuses on Gerard Butler’s George, a former soccer great, who has fallen on tough times in the aftermath of his playing career.  Recently relocated to Virginia, he tries desperately to reunite with his estranged son and ex-wife (Jessica Biel) while trying to find a job to alleviate his financial woes.  In a completely unforeseen turn of events (sarcasm should be noted), Butler becomes his son’s team’s soccer coach in an attempt to mend fences shattered by the selfish behavior of his past.

This premise makes the film sound like some decent family fare packed to the gills with melodrama that builds an emotional crescendo, culminating with a warm and fuzzy moment.  And this very well might have unfolded perfectly had director Gabriele Muccino’s film not veered off into “Desperate Housewives” territory.  What started off as a movie with soccer images, families, and a central father/son relationship, almost literally takes a sharp left turn onto Wisteria Lane in a not so subtle attempt to make sure that this film caters to as large a target audience as possible.  Sadly, vamping up the familial themed plot serves only to muddle up the  tone and vibe of the film.

However, one of the more positive aspects of this film is Gerard Butler, who seemingly finally found a role perfectly he was perfectly suited to portray – that of a past-his-prime burnout with a reputation for poor life-choices and philandering.  It almost makes you wonder if writer Robbie Fox wrote the part with Butler in mind.  The moppy hair, the disheveled clothing – it’s as if the powers that be let him onto the set after a late night without stopping for making and wardrobe.  And sadly, that gives his character a modicum of believability.  I dare say it may be Butler’s most credible work since 300 – though it’s not nearly as interesting. 

Working opposite Butler is Jessica Biel as his ex-wife Stacie.  In regards to Biel, let me ask you this.  When was the last time you walked out of a theater and thought to yourself how great she was in that movie?  Three years?  Five years?  Never?  Well fear not, that streak (however long it is) will remain intact.  In Playing for Keeps, she isn’t as soulless as she was in Total Recall (2012) or as inept as she was in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, but of all the women to be featured in this film, her character clearly represents a step down in regards to screen presence.

As for the rest of cast, Dennis Quaid, Uma Thurman, Judy Greer, and Catherine Zeta-Jones look and feel at least a decade past their respective primes but they are for the most part satisfactory as cynical individuals who are cavalier with their indiscretions as a means to navigate the banality of their every day lives.  While collectively the presence of their characters in this narrative  greatly undermines the overall direction of the film, the seasoned actors do manage to provide an entertaining moment or two.  On the other end of the age spectrum, Noah Lomax (as Butler’s son) shows himself to be as capable a child actor as I have seen in a while and that helps to offset some of what ails this movie.

So when you put all these pieces together ,you are looking at a film that is an absolute pass as a rental.  It’s not quite  a RomCom nor is it family fare; and there’s not enough of either genre embedded in the film to satisfy anyone who might be tempted to watch.  And really, there are too many other titles in this sphere of filmmaking ranging from mediocre to fantastic to spend your time on this one.  If you’re really looking to satisfy your Gerard Butler fix (not that anyone in this world would or should require one), I would suggest you take a look at Chasing Mavericks.  While I haven’t seen it as of yet, I can’t imagine it being much worse than this film.

Standout Performance:  Noah Lomax.  In retrospect, it’s not entirely surprising that the youngest member of this cast turned in the best job.

Read More

Review: Hitchcock

During my undergrad days at Brandeis, I took a course that focused on Hitchcock’s filmography.  Most enrolled in this class because they thought it was a lay up; I took it because I love movies.  For the next three months I had the pleasure of watching more than fourteen of his films and delving into a series of interviews conducted between Francois Truffaut and Hitchcock himself.  After twelve weeks and three term papers, I came away with an appreciation for the master of suspense, so it was with a curious eye that I watched Hitchcock starring Sir Anthony Hopkins.

The plot of the film finds Hitchcock some thirty plus years into his career searching for his next great endeavor.  When he comes upon Psycho, a gruesome novel about a trouble young man, he decides that it should be the basis of his next film.  Unfortunately, the esteemed director has trouble getting studio backing, thus the plot of the film focuses on his endeavors to finance, produce, and direct the controversial project himself.

I liked the film, but I readily admit that it’s not for everyone.  A movie about making a movie doesn’t exactly scream, “Must see!”  So if you have never had an interest in Hitchcock, his movie Psycho, or gaining a small window into the history of movie making this film is not going to do much for you.  Let me be clear though in this one regard, Hitchcock (the movie) isn’t a biopic or a documentary-style film, but instead a clear dramatization of real life events that at times panders to the lowest common denominator in regards to Hitchcockian associations.  Even still, director Sacha Gervasi spins a decent yarn about the man’s efforts to bring the violent offbeat story of Norman Bates to life.

What elevates this movie above others of this ilk (i.e. Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story) is the work of Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville respectively.  Their attention to detail, their chemistry as a couple, and the way they cultivate the flaws in their respective characters makes this film an interesting character piece.  That you can at times forget you are watching a story about an iconic director and instead focus on the nature of the relationship between a husband and wife is a credit to their crafts.

Also in the plus column is Scarlett Johansson.  I love Scarlett Johansson, but that doesn’t mean I think she is a good actress.  The last time I thought she was really extraordinary onscreen was way back when in Lost in Translation.  While her work as Janet Leigh is nowhere near that stratosphere, she does a nice job with the character.  Likewise for Toni Collette who absolutely disappears into the role of Peggy Robertson – Hitchcock’s production assistant.  In a lot of ways, this movie is about the women in Hitchcock’s life and Collette does a great job of making her character feel important.

Unfortunately, it’s not all pluses across the board in the acting department as Jessica Biel continues her unimpressive run of underwhelming performances.  Looking both pouty and sleepy at the same time seems to be one of her go to acting moves, but she has yet to realize that it simply does not work.  As Vera Miles, she fails to add anything to the narrative besides apathy.  Danny Huston also turns in a pedestrian performance as Hitchcock’s antagonist, but more than anything he seems like a walking cliché straight out of a bad episode of Mad Men.

The best way then to frame a movie like Hitchcock is to think of it as the gambling equivalent of a pick ‘em.  Is it good movie?  Sure.  Is it well acted?  For the most part.  Will you like it?  Maybe not so much, depending on your sensibility.  The premise is niche and the pace is slow and this will be a major turn off for most.  If however, you are a fan of cinema of Hitchcock himself, I would recommend giving this one a look.  There are no big reveals or stand out moments, but it is well acted and films with good acting have been in incredibly short supply lately.

Standout Performance: Helen Mirren.   She does a great of delivering a nuanced performance as Alma, who represents the heart of the film. 

Read More

Review: New Year's Eve

Let’s fast forward through the diatribe I typically express whenever I come across one of those ensemble cast movies that features half of Hollywood (Valentine’s Day, What to Expect When You Are Expecting).  Let’s just accept the fact that I think they are terrible, lack character development, and feature actors just mailing it in.  Having just seen the movie New Year’s Eve I can tell that I saw nothing in this movie that makes me feel otherwise. 

New Year’s Eve follows the lives of a bunch of people in New York City on New Year’s Eve battling the holidays, the elements, and the trite sentimentality that drives their respective matters of the heart.  Why director Garry Marshall – he of Pretty Woman, Beaches, and The Princess Diaries fame – keeps venturing into this genre is beyond me, but rather than completely dismiss the film as a complete write off, I am going to highlight the glorified vignettes and how they don’t work to varying degrees.

Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele star in the “love in the elevator” portion of the movie and their collective performance plays like two high school drama students acting out a series of romantic clichés.  Not much better than that, is the “mending the fences” storyline as brought to life by Jon Bon Jovi and Katherine Heigl, though there is a thin layer of authenticity to this plot line as Heigl is asked to play a bitter and domineering woman and Bon Jovi a selfish self-centered musician.  On the opposite end of the authenticity spectrum is the performance of Josh Duhamel who plays the role of a cad that has come to grips with his own sentimentality and hopes to find a special someone that he once shared a moment with.  As to who that is, well it is a mystery easily solved about ten minutes into the movie.

Not to be upstaged in the unbelievablity department is the competition between two couples to have the first baby born in the new year for a monetary prize.  Is it unbelievable that this might happen in real life?  No - crazier things have been done in the real world for the almighty dollar.  It is in fact the performances of Seth Myers and Jessica Biel that are hard to fathom.  Myers delivers every other line with his hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar expression from SNL: Weekend Update, and Biel has yet to master the ability to convince anyone that she can actually act. 

Then there is the arc shared by Michelle Pfeiffer and Zac Efron.  I was sure I would hate this one the most.  I cannot stress how overly contrived, incredibly cliché, and so overused the paradigm for their story line is, however it is still represents the most entertaining parts of the movie.  Effron is believable as a douchebag (obviously) bike messenger, but it is Michelle Pfeiffer who carries their story.  Of the one million characters in the movie, hers is the most sympathetic and the only one that seems to have any real depth despite the limited screen time.

As for the rest of the cast, Hilary Swank is there and fairly dour as she is charged with shouldering the gravitas of the movie.  Likewise Robert DeNiro, Abigail Breslin and Sarah Jessica Parker negotiate the mother-daughter relationship in ways that are not compelling.  Also appearing in the movie are Halle Berry, Common, Cary Elwes, Alyssa Milano (yes, apparently she still acts), Sofia Vergara, Carla Gugino, and so on and so forth and none of them do anything of significance to impact the movie one way or another.  As glorified extras, their presence actually breaks what little reality exist in the film as you find yourself thinking more about actor recognition rather than investing in the characters they are attempting to portray.

So I could sit here and tell you not to watch it (which is what I would suggest) but for the most part it probably won’t make much of a difference.  This is one of those movies that from the moment people first see the trailer, they instantly decide whether or not they are willing to invest their time and/or money on this project.  But if I can save even one person from this disaster, I will say it again: this is not a good movie.  It’s an exercise in quantity over quality so in lieu of one really good plotline you get five terribly weak ones.  The best recommendation I can make is to not only skip this movie, but to quit the genre altogether.

Standout Performance:  Michael Bloomberg and Ryan Seacrest.  They were asked to pay themselves.  It’s about as easy as acting can get.

Read More

Review: Total Recall (2012)

The pre-release buzz on Total Recall (2012) was not good – most saying that it fell short of the original.  I myself thought the first Recall was entertaining, but given that it featured Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sharon Stone, and Michael Ironside – three actors who have enjoyed varying degrees of success not necessarily tied to their acting prowess, definitely sent me into the movie with diminished expectations.  The fact that some were using the presence of the three-breasted woman (played by Kaitlyn Leeb) in the film to generate chatter about the project really punctuated my concerns about the movie.

Set against the backdrop of a post apocalypse world with civil war tensions rising, the plot of the movie follows the plight of Doug Quaid – a blue-collar worker who is plagued with feelings of discontent.  A visit to Rekall – a memory implant company – opens up a reality in which he is a key operative who may hold the key to easing the delicate political balance that plagues what’s left of the world.

I get a kick out of the people who in their reviews of this movie called it terrible or incredibly disappointing.  I don’t know what they expected to see onscreen when the lights went dim in the theater – perhaps Shakespeare in the Park – but to me the movie plays like your prototypical summer action flick.   And that’s perfectly okay, because not every movie can or should be The Godfather or Inception. Sometimes a movie can just be visual entertainment.  The plot of this movie is not as intricate as it may seem at face value and there are no real supremely intelligent reveals to elevate the proceedings.  The action scenes are slick and well choreographed and the pacing brisk and steady.  This one is not going to make anyone’s Best of the Year list in any category and you won’t find it hotly discussed at any MENSA meetings, but it delivers exactly what most should expect of it – guns, explosions, and mayhem. 

If it is possible to be the lead in a big budget action movie and not make a real impact then Colin Farrell accomplishes that feat.  I cannot really think of one memorable moment for him in the film – beyond having a really cool phone in hand (literally) – and if ever there was a scene that was well shot or choreographed, he was relegated to second fiddle by one of the other principals.  He’s not a good actor and he has only one gear.  You could probably make a compilation of his work in Minority Report, S.W.A.T., The Recruit, and this film and be hard pressed to figure out which scene was from which movie. 

As for Kate Beckinsale, she does some really good work in this movie.  Her performance (and that of her stunt double) is the biggest reason why Farrell’s act doesn’t derail the proceedings.  She uses her range to slide seamlessly from the role of a loving wife into that of an insanely aggressive assassin.  On the opposite end of that spectrum is Jessica Biel who was in the movie, shot some guns, flashed puppy eyes at Farrell’s Quaid, and threw the occasional punch or two.  The word “uninspired” best describes her work.   Rounding out the cast was Bryan Cranston and Bill Nighy - two terrific actors who always bring conviction to their respective roles, but sadly they were underused in this movie.  To have that kind of talent at your disposal and not fully exploit it represents a missed opportunity.

So despite these shortcomings, the film is still entertaining so I guess the MVP of the movie has to go to director Len Wiseman and his creative team.  The futuristic visuals are fun and engaging and there is a couple of show stopping action sequences.  If you appreciate the less cerebral brand action movie loaded with big explosions and great visuals then I would recommend seeing this in the cinema, otherwise this is more of a rental flick.  Again, it’s probably not going to make it into your DVD collection, but it is still worth a look. 

Standout Performance: Kate Beckinsale dominates this movie from start to finish and delivers by far the best performance of the cast.  

Read More