8 Reasons to Watch "Her"

8. THE MUSIC

From top to bottom, Her features stellar tracks from Arcade Fire and the Breeders, but The Moon Song written Karen O and Spike Jonze (performed by Joaquin Phoenix & Scarlett Johansson) is the gem of group.

7. AMY ADAMS

Amy Adams had quite a year with American Hustle, Man of Steel, and Her.  While Her is not the best work turned in by Adams, she is very good as a well-intentioned friend to Theodore Twombly who likewise is coping with a less than stellar love life.

6. THE VISUALS

The cinematography in this film is top notch as the camera masterfully frames a futuristic Los Angeles by blending its iconic landmarks with new state of the art architecture.

5. IT'S SURPRISINGLY FUNNY

It's billed as a clever romance set against a futuristic backdrop, but it is dripping with satire.  The result is some genuinely funny laughter-inducing moments that nicely balance the more dramatic elements of the plot.

4. THE SCRIPT

The sense of disconnect that permeates this film is pungent and ironic given society’ seamless connectivity to technology.  Jonze’s script exploits this condition to make a statement on emotional evolution.

3. SCARLETT JOHANSSON

While you never see her onscreen, Johansson feels omnipresent.  Her casting represents a stroke of genius as her unique voice helps to lend an almost palpable form to voice without a body.

2. JOAQUIN PHOENIX

Phoenix has made a living successfully portraying complex characters dealing with unusual circumstances so it should come as no surprise that he is able to bring to life a most unconventional romance.

1. SPIKE JONZE’S ANSWER TO…
Lost in Translation.  Depending on whom you ask, Lost in Translation was a semi-autobiographical look at director Sophia Coppola’s failed marriage to Spike Jonze.  And depending on whom you ask, Her is a complimentary piece to that film.  While the film is great on its own, this extra layer of subtext makes the respective films all the more intriguing.

Read More

Review: The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Who doesn’t love a comeback, right?  I guess that’s why we have so many stories of redemption put to print and screen.  Blood and guts, sweat and tears, gut busting laughter – whatever the packaging the plot mechanisms remain the same: a meteoric rise to the top, out right acts of hubris, a disgraceful descent into ruin, and after the appropriate amount of suffering a return to top form with a newfound sense of humility.  Take a look at your Nook, your iTunes, and at your DVD shelf and you will see that paradigm all over the place.  Its latest big screen incarnation comes wrapped in the magical packaging in The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.

The movie follows Steve Carell’s Burt as he goes from bullied child in grade school to the pinnacle of the magic world as a headliner at Bally’s in Las Vegas.  Along for the ride is his childhood friend and fellow magician Anton (Steve Buscemi).  But after years of working together performing the same routine day in and day out and living a life of excess, the two magicians lose their popularity and have a falling out.  The movie goes on to detail how Carell’s Burt deals with his plight and his attempt to recapture that former magic.

Going into this movie, you know two things: that the movie is not going to be a cinematic masterpiece; and exactly where the plot is going to take you.  So I am not going to tell you about the cinematography, the directing, and the level of believability.  None of that matters here and people who say otherwise are cinema snobs.  The only thing you really need to know is whether writers Jonathan Goldstein and Jon Francis Daley can make you laugh with the inevitable slew of punch lines aimed at Criss Angel, David Copperfield, Siegfried and Roy, et al.  And the answer to that question is…a bit.

I went into the movie with tepid expectations even though the cast is littered with some very funny acting talent.  Carell, Buscemi, and Carrey each on their own are capable of delivering an entire film’s worth of laughs so the prospects of the three of them together made me wonder if this would be to the world of magic what Anchorman is to television journalism.  Still, given the release date and WBs recent track record (very poor), I had the feeling this one would be quite forgettable.  Judging by the sparse crowd for 7 PM on a Friday night, I wasn’t the only one who felt this way.

So much of the film feels pedestrian.  The plot really doesn’t matter much as ninety percent of the movie feels like filler between the occasional big gag, some of which are quite funny.  In this way, I liken most of the narrative to commercials that run during sporting events.  You sit tolerate them until the action starts.  Needless to say, this is not a ringing endorsement for the film.  There are however a few times when the comedic bits make the down time worthwhile but that is more the exception than the rule.  More often than not, the gags fall short of the mark - especially Jim Carrey’s.  Clearly his role in this movie is to deliver a series of grotesque sight gags that get played out very early on.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from Carrey is Alan Arkin, as retired magician Rance Holloway.  If it feels like he is the only one really trying in this movie, it’s because he probably was.  He’s the moral conscience of the film, but at the same time he is incredibly funny.  Arkin’s an absolute pro and that especially shows opposite some of his underperforming cast mates.  If Steve Carell could have bottled some of that magic, this film might have been a letter grade higher, but Carell doesn’t give you anything you haven’t already seen in The Office or Get Smart. 

As for the rest of the cast, Buscemi is mostly window dressing and never gets to stretch his chops in this movie, which is disappointing.  When he is on his comedic game, he can steal the show.  James Gandolfini, Jay Mohr, and Brad Garrett are in this movie, but probably dropped their funniest lines on the way to cashing their paychecks. And as for Olivia Wilde, I am not always the biggest fan of her work, but I found her character in this movie very likable.  It was a nice turn for the actress.

I am going to be frank and tell you that there is no way you should pay to see this movie – not at the cinema, not at as a purchase, and not at a Red Box kiosk.  You will regret every single penny spilled.  At best it’s a middle-of-the-queue Netflix movie, but probably better left to a random viewing on HBO, Starz, or MAX.  With low expectations and little investment, you will probably appreciate the humor a bit more.  This is a movie that could have been better, but it also could have been worst.  So take it for what it is and you’ll probably achieve the best entertainment value.

Standout Performance: Alan Arkin.  He is the best of the cast hands down.

Read More

Review: The Words

The Words is a movie that had a couple of really good things going for it – namely good looking people and some actors who can really act.  Those two things together usually make for a successful film as it has a little something for everyone; attention to the acting craft for cinema purists and eye candy for those whose movie interests are a bit more narcissistic.  Still, something went awry with this film that kept it from being the movie it should have been, and in my opinion, it was a matter of writers/directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal getting a bit too clever for their own good.

The plot of the movie details the story of a struggling writer (Bradley Cooper) and his rise to fame on the merits of another writer’s work, which he finds in an old briefcase.  Intertwined with that plot line is the story of the anonymous Old Man who discovers what has happened with this novel and not only reveals his identity to Cooper as the true author but also details the inspiration for his novel.  But really, all this is movement is in fact a piece of fiction being read by Dennis Quaid’s Clay Hammond at a public reading. 

Too many stories, within a story, within a story really throw this narrative off balance.  No one plot line has enough meat on the bones to act as a stand-alone feature, but the toggling between multiple layers in this film really hinders the congruency vital to make this narrative work.  The editing and pacing truly do the film no favors as each time one of the threads hits its stride, the viewer is explicably yanked away to a different time and place. 

The acting though is surprisingly better than I thought it would be.  Bradley Cooper has received a lot of accolades for his work in Silver Linings Playbook, and I would say that his work in The Words is on par with that.  I don’t think either performance is Award Season worthy, but he added an unexpected level of credibility to the role.  Zoe Saldana as Cooper’s paramour is under utilized and thus not allowed to make much of an impact.  Jeremy Irons as the Old Man turns in an average Jeremy Irons’ performance, which is to say that he is very solid.  He could probably read a dictionary an instill it with an impressive mix of class and gravitas.  As for Nora Arnezeder and Ben Barnes as Celia and the Young Man, I found their work to be charming.

The part of the film that was the weakest for me was the true present day portion of film helmed by Dennis Quaid and Olivia Wilde.  Not only was it the least compelling narrative, but I also felt that the acting left much to be desired.  Quaid is on an extended run of playing each role looking as if he hasn’t slept in three days, and the streak continues here.  At the very least you want it to seem like actors are really trying, and it seems as of late that Quaid has resigned himself to mailing it in.  As for Wilde, she’s window dressing – nothing more and nothing less, and whatever gift for acting she possesses is most certainly not on display in this film.

So what’s the final verdict?  I didn’t loath myself after watching this film, but about half way through I wanted it to hurry up and be over with so I could just see how it would end; not exactly a ringing endorsement – to say the least.  If you really love movies, then I suggest you stash it somewhere on your rental queue (or however else you make your choices), and when you’ve run out of films you really wanted to see, give it a look.  If you’re more of a casual viewer, then you should steer clear of this one.  There’s not enough there to truly make it worth your while.  And for those who find themselves unsatisfied with Zoe Saldana’s screen time in this film, here’s hoping she gets to do more heavy lifting in the much anticipated Star Trek Into Darkness.

Standout Performance: Nora Arnezeder.  In very little screen time I found her work to be compelling as she did a great job of telling a story despite a paucity of spoken lines.

Read More

Review: In Time

Pretend that Robin Hood is transferred to a future where time is the standard currency and in this place he sees inequity and classism run completely amuck to the extremes.  But instead of finding his own Maid Marion to join him on a crusade to assist the huddled masses, he meets a Bonnie to play opposite his Clyde.  If you can envision this in your mind then you can save yourself two hours, because -and let me not mince words here - In Time is a really bad movie.

Coming into this film Justin Timberlake – as an actor - was on a bit of a roll.  Friends with Benefits, Bad Teacher, and multiple appearances on Saturday Night Live had shown that JT possesses decent comedic timing and sense.  Poking fun at oneself and the ability to sing a ditty are valuable assets in sketch comedy, but selling action and drama is an entirely different beast. In Time proves that Timberlake is not quite ready for prime time as a dramatic lead.

But the failure of the film does not rest on his shoulders alone.  Time as a currency and the inherent problems associated with such a system appear promising as a premise, but prove difficult to flesh out in execution.  Time is a great dramatic mechanism for manufacturing a sense of urgency, but when established as the primary unit of measurement in a value system, it ironically serves to dampen dramatic turns.  The root of this issue stems from the fact that we are not naturally inclined to assign value to a day versus a week versus a month, and so on and so forth.  Time spent pondering this unnatural value system during the film is time spent not caring about the protagonists.  Furthermore, writer/director Andrew Niccol clearly attempts to use the film as a vehicle to preach about societal morals, values, and norms but the movie lacks the voice to intelligently articulate such commentary.

Timberlake is mediocre at best, but Amanda Seyfried is an utter disaster.  She has been completely unremarkable in her other cinematic endeavors (Red Riding Hood, Mamma Mia) and yet she continues to land major roles. She has one kind of performance in her repertoire and it's that of an apathetic, cold, and sterile person.  Cillian Murphy as the time police is completely neutered in this role, coming off as detached, aloof, and uninterested.  As for the rest of the cast, Olivia Wilde, Johnny Galecki, and Matthew Bomer are not onscreen long enough to rescue the film from itself.

I could go on and on about the issues with this film, but then I would be wasting time (irony abounds), so I will simply advise one and all to avoid this movie at all costs.  And if you are a huge Justin Timberlake fan, then that goes double for you unless you want to be less of one by time the credits roll.

Standout Performance:  Matthew Bomer stands out as one member of the cast who decides to give it a decent go.

Read More

Review: The Change-Up

The Change-Up is a textbook example of good cast / bad movie.  There are so many places where this film goes wrong that it’s hard to find a good place to begin the critique.  If I had to pin it on one thing I would say that Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman are two very funny actors, but are way too similar in their respective styles to sell the brand of comedy that director David Dobkin is trying to sell for nearly two hours (30 minutes way too long).

The straight man/funny man shtick is a classic and when done correctly can be incredibly entertaining (think Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin or more recently Vaughn and Favreau in “Swingers”).    The reason why this formula fails in “The Change-Up” is because while Bateman is adept at playing the straight man, both he and Reynolds draw their comedy from a wry sarcastic delivery.   One person has to set up the proverbial pins so the other can knock them down but unfortunately there’s not enough of a contrast between the two actors to properly set up the punch lines.

Another major issue with this film is that it is just not funny.  When you think about “switch” movies – Freaky Friday and the Hot Chick – there are significant visual differences between the protagonists (age, gender, appearance) that lend to physical (and often absurd) comedy.   In this film, we have one Caucasian male in his 30’s trading places with another.  Wow - mind-blowing!  And true to form, they figure out how to solve their own lives by walking a mile in each other's shoes – not too bad a gig when you’re walking that mile with Leslie Mann or Olivia Wilde. 

So then what we’re left with here is a raunchy comedy that is not funny and that wants you to be emotionally invested in the third act to characters that amount to little more than two jumbled masses of tired clichés.  I found more catharsis in watching Judge Reinhold of Beverly Hills Cop fame and Kevin Arnold (Fred Savage of the Wonder Years) do this song and dance back in the 80’s classic Vice Versa. 

Avoid this movie – in fact, avoid most of what Ryan Reynolds is doing while he is the midst of a “Nick Cage Cash Grab” because he is on an epically bad run not seen since well…since the run that Adam Sandler is currently on.  Do not rent, do not VOD, do not watch even if it is for free.  You have been warned.

Standout Performance: Alan Arkin really sells his role as Reynolds’ dad, but that performance gets lost in the mediocrity.

Read More

Review: Cowboys and Aliens

Cowboys and Aliens – the name alone seemed to promise a rollercoaster ride of a movie with two distinct film genres colliding on one screen. And with Jon Favreau directing Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, and Olivia Wilde, this film promised a raucous redefining of both genres. I could not help but imagine an amalgamation of “The Quick and the Dead” and “Independence Day,” each time I walked through Times Square and glanced at the gigantic billboard featuring Daniel Craig along with the following statement: “From the Director of Iron Man.”

What the billboard should have read was, “From the director of Iron Man 2,” because despite the presence of Han Solo and the best James Bond-to-date, the film never takes off. Steve Spielberg may have received producing credits for this project but it feels like he directed it – and not in a good way. For most of the film, Favreau seems intent on slow playing the audience – a dramatic shift from a director who usually keeps plots moving at a brisk pace (i.e. “Elf” and “Iron Man”). For a movie such as “Jaws” or “Signs” in which there is a big reveal, deliberate pacing works. This is not that kind of movie.

Where the film ultimately falters though is in the character department. Favreau and screenwriters Orci, Kurtzman, et al ask us to like a group of characters that are not likable and the few characters that connect with the viewer (i.e. Beach’s Nat Colorado), are not significant enough to make one emotionally invested in the plot. By the time the leads make their dramatic turn towards redemption, I would venture a guess that anyone still watching this film has probably begun to turn their attention towards the exit sign.

I think the writers missed the boat on this film, because they crafted a script that takes itself entirely too serious. Sure, it has the gravitas and grit associated with the western genre, but sorely lacking is the bombastic flash that headlines sci-fi movies. The cantankerous quality that permeates this film is exasperated by the fact that Favreau has at his disposal two actors in Harrison Ford and Sam Rockwell who have mastered the art of infusing sharp wit into long action sequences, and he fails to utilize their talents. As a result, the film we are left with is one that is lacking as a western, as sci-fi adventure, and as a summer tentpole flick.

I am late in reviewing this film, as both the critics and the public have spoken ($89M domestic gross against a $163M budget), but I thought I would chime in because it is easy to get drawn into a vehicle that features so many accomplished performers. I really cannot recommend viewing this film in the cinema or home and suggest you steer clear in lieu of pretty much anything else.

Read More