Review: 21 Jump Street (2012)

I think we all get the drill when it comes to movies based on old television shows that have long since disappeared from syndication.  They usually aren’t done very well as they rely far too much on nostalgia as opposed to things like a solid plot and good acting (i.e. Bewitched, Miami Vice, Lost in Space).  And when they try to take a dramatic television show and transform it into a comedy, well…its usually twice as bad (Dukes of Hazzard).  So my expectations were fairly low for 21 Jump Street.  How could Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum possibly follow in the footsteps of Johnny Depp, Peter DeLuise, Dustin Nguyen, and Holly Robinson (let’s pretend Richard Grieco never happened) AND be funny?

This is in no way hyperbole when I say that this movie represents the most fun I have had at the cinema in months.  At first glance the plot appears to cast Tatum (Jenko) and Hill (Schmidt) as the typical popular jock and dork respectively, but the film cleverly manufactures role reversals while poking fun at the conventions of the present juxtaposed against those of the past.  And Hill and Tatum are up to the task of delivering this brand of comedy.  You would think that most of the comedic chemistry between the leads would be attributed to Hill, but surprisingly it is Tatum that drives the laughter bus, as he is far more entertaining when thrust into roles that prevent the actor from taking himself seriously.

As for the supporting cast, it is solid led by Ice Cube as Captain Dickson.  He completely steals the show, as his scenes are some of the best in the movie.  Whenever he is berating Jenko, Schmidt, and the rest of his team, Cube delivers the sharpest one-liners; many of which produced genuine laugh-out-loud moments.  Rob Riggle (The Hangover, The Other Guys) is solid as a gym teacher with his usual shtick of idiotic amped-up machismo that at times can be hit or miss, but in this film completely works.  Dave Franco (Fright Night) is adequately annoying as Eric Molson - BMOC, and Brie Larson (who was amazing in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) does a nice job as Hill’s love interest.

Writer Michael Bacall definitely does not pull any punches with his script as the movie truly earns its R-rating and directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller do an adequate job of framing together action sequences to remind you that despite the plethora of gags and jokes, the film still boils down to one about cops and drug dealers.   If you liked the television show, you will enjoy this movie, as there are some great surprises that I won’t spoil.  And if you have never head of the show before seeing the trailer, fear not.  There is a lot to like about this movie.  You won’t have to do a lot of thinking during the two hours that you’re watching it, but you will definitely do a lot of laughing.  Korean Jesus alone makes the film worthy of a $12 price of admission.

Standout Performance: A tie between Ice Cub and Korean Jesus.  To me, it’s the best scene in the movie.

Read More

Review: Fright Night (2011)

While watching Fright Night (2011), a punch line comes to mind that was uttered by Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, while he was speaking with Jon Bon Jovi about his participation in the movie Vampire: Los Muertos.  Specifically, he said to Bon Jovi: “Finally, a role that requires you to suck!”  That one line perfectly captures how I feel about Colin Farrell’s turn as a blood sucking fiend from beyond in a film that can best be described as Disturbia (which is a cheap man’s Rear Window) meets The Lost Boys.  However, I have to admit that despite some bad CG, for once Farrell is not terrible – and I think this is because for years casting directors have been trying to place him in leading roles that require the audience to like him.  To the contrary, this role works precisely because it capitalizes on the unlikeable qualities that seem to pervade his public persona.

So going into this movie, I really did not want to like it.  It had been sitting on my iPad unviewed for over a month.  Only a cross-country flight could bring me to watch it.  This movie has a lot in common with the aforementioned Disturbia, which was not a particularly good movie.  One major reason it surpasses its doppelganger is that it features a protagonist that the viewer can root for.  Anton Yelchin (Star Trek, Like Crazy) is solid as a high school kid looking to maintain his perceived tenuous grasp on popularity and on his attractive girlfriend Amy, played by Imogen Poots.  You watch him on screen and find him believable as a sneaker-head/closet geek who is painfully aware that he is dating up and worried that some day his significant other is going to realize this.

Farrell's Jerry Dandridge is a good antagonist to Yelchin’s Charley.  While he may not be the most authentic vampire incarnation to make it on screen (actually far from it), Farrell smugness is so palpable that viewers can find themselves rooting against him regardless of the thirst-for-blood associated with his role.  Toni Collette is adequate as Charley’s single mom and David Tennant offers a nice tonal change of pace as the enigmatic illusionist Peter Vincent.  Of the group, Christoper Mintz-Plasse is the biggest miss as Evil Ed Thompson, though part of me wonders if it is because to most he will always be McLovin.

At the end of the day, we’re not dealing with Shakespeare here as there is nothing terribly original about a plot that involves a vampire terrorizing a semi-isolated small community – even when you throw the bright lights of Vegas into the mix.  But the movie is meant to put you on the edge of your seat and director Craig Gillespie does a fair job of building tension while intermittently opting for the cheap scare.  In a genre that is notorious for churning out low budget gore fests, Fright Night rates above average in regards to character development.

I do have to say that the film unravels a bit in the third act and that detracts from the overall tone of the movie, but I still consider Fright Night a fair horror rental - especially if you are looking for a moderate amount of suspense.  It may be a bit mild for hardcore enthusiast, but there is just enough there to keep everyone entertained.

Standout Performance: Imogen Poots does a nice job of channeling Sarah Roemer’s Ashley in Disturbia and Elisha Cuthbert’s Danielle from The Girl Next Door.

Read More

Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes - released back in 2009 - is a fun take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famed sleuth. Holmes is portrayed brilliantly by Robert Downey Jr. as an enigmatic savant who shares an antagonistic brotherly camaraderie with Jude Law’s Watson.  The film does a nice job of teasing the emergence of Moriarty by slowly revealing him as a shadowy figure tacitly pulling the proverbial marionette strings from behind a curtain of anonymity.  In doing so, it lays the groundwork for the inevitable sequel (because of a $522M worldwide gross).  It’s like setting up the bowling pins, and then knocking them down.

Only in the second installment – Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, Guy Ritchie and crew roll a gutter ball.  Okay, so maybe the movie is not that bad.  Maybe it is something more along the lines of a seven-ten split, but then I think that would be taking the bowling analogy too far.   So you may be wondering how things could have gone so awry when Downey Jr. and Law fall right back into step with their rapid witty banter without missing a beat and just in time to take on the evil genius who is bent on profiting from the destruction of Europe?

To me the problem boils down to the script.  Specifically, writer Michelle Mulroney attempts to get too clever with the plot.  A battle of wit and mental acumen between two brilliant people like Holmes and Moriarty lends itself to the written word, but not so much to motion pictures.  It can be challenging enough to take viewers on a journey through the mind of one genius who is mentally superior to the common person.  When you try and do that times two amidst a barrage of plots turns and twists, one is most assuredly going to fall victim to the trap of “aspiring for so much and achieving so little. “

Further exasperating the problem is that the esteemed cast does little to mitigate the shortcomings of the script.  Rachel McAdams is the weak link in the first movie as Holmes’ love interest Irene Adler, and she still feels out of place in limited screen time during the second outing.  Noomi Rapace is pedestrian as the gypsy Madam Heron whose significance in the film continually diminishes until she is rendered completely insignificant.  Jared Harris lacks the polish to portray the professor-by-day-evil-genius-at-night antagonist that Moriarty represents and he serves as a reminder that it takes more than a British accent to make one seem sophisticated.  And sadly, nothing about Stephen Fry’s Mycroft Holmes works for me in the film.  His presence is a case of subtraction by addition.

However, the action sequences are impressive and that is where the entertainment value lies.  If you’re looking for a film with gunfire, loud explosions, and hand-to-hand combat; and you can overlook cerebral shortcomings, you will definitely enjoy the movie.  Even if you’re not, I suspect that watching Robert Downey Jr. work will be worth the price of either the purchase or rental.  You won’t feel cheated if you invest time and/or money into this film.  You just may not feel fully satisfied.

Standout Performance:  Downey Jr. and Law have collectively mastered the art of witty repartee.

Read More

Review: The Rum Diary

The Rum Diary – the opening credits flash, the plot advances, the scene fades to black, and then the closing credit roll.  I am guessing that for most people, the movie will soon after be completely forgotten.  It is unfortunate, because director Bruce Robinson puts forth a movie that is very stylized in its depiction of 1960’s San Juan with Johnny Depp running point man for the narrative as a burned out journalist who takes a dead end job in San Juan as a means to escape life in 1960’s America.

The problem with the film I suspect is the source material.  Based on a novel by Hunter S. Thompson, you get the impression while watching the film that you are watching a movie based on Thompson’s own experiences in P.R., especially given, (Depp) Kemp’s affinity for alcohol, his left-ward leaning tendencies, and the way he becomes an active participate to the very story he is trying to report on.  It is no surprise then that Thompson was unsuccessful in getting the novel published until some thirty years after it was written.

The film is set in the 1960’s in San Juan – a stone’s throw from Cuba and Miami.  This infuses an electric vibe into the proceedings since in a historic sense, it was an interesting time in the Northeastern Caribbean given the  delicate political balance and the abundance of change in the air.  However, that is also a contributing factor as to why the film feels like such a disappointment.  As the lead, Depp’s character is not engaging so when he takes his dramatic turn and decides to become an activate participant against the swindle that is afoot, it is hard to really feel invested.  His performance is as empty as the rum bottles his character leaves in his wake.  As for the rest of the cast:

Aaron Eckhart is sufficiently nefarious, but there is a notable absence of any real consequence to crossing him, which effectively neuters him as the big-bad of the film.  Amber Heard is stunning as Chenault, but lacks screen time to truly develop into a love interest for our protagonist.   Thus it feels flimsy when she serves as part of the catalyst for Depp’s social awakening.  Michael Rispoli is adequate as an ex-pat; likewise for Richard Jenkins whose Lotterman is the epitome of a manic boss. 

Ultimately, I can neither recommend this film nor dissuade people from seeing it.  There is no better way for me to articulate it then to say it is just a movie.  You will watch it, be neither terribly entertained nor terribly annoyed, and then you will probably not think about it again until the next time you catch it on cable television.  If you are looking for your Hunter S. Thompson / Johnny Depp fix, I would suggest Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas instead. 

Standout Performance: Giovanni Ribisi – but not in a good way.  I cannot for the life of me figure out the purpose of his role or what he was trying to achieve in his approach to portraying it.

Read More

Review: Project X

As I sit at the keyboard, I have officially published thirty-nine movie reviews on this blog.  When I finish this write up about producer Todd Phillips’ Project X, that number will remain at thirty-nine, because what I watched today can only in the loosest sense be referred to as something that vaguely resembles a film.  Full disclaimer – I am not in the target demographic for Project X.  This much is obvious.  The question I want to ask is, what are the target psychographics they considered when they hatched this idea?  Because although it’s been a while since I rocked a J. Crew anorak around Andover, I find it hard to believe that the seventeen year-old version of me would have found this entertaining.

Here is a quick synopsis of what exactly transpires onscreen.  Three unpopular guys want to be popular so they throw a “game-changing” party in North Pasadena that rages out of control.  Texts, drinking, drugs, sex, and anarchy ensue until a man with a flame-thrower shows up to retrieve a garden gnome. Lucky for us (insert dripping sarcasm), they decide to record everything that happens.  Voila!  A found footage film is born.

This continues a disturbing trend in Hollywood where studios distribute these faux found footage films because they are cheap to make and/or cheap to acquire.  The increased popularity of this genre is not unlike what we witnessed ten years ago on TV when Survivor opened the floodgates that led to a glut of ridiculous reality television shows (i.e. Temptation Island, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire).  Networks kept pumping these out (and still do) because they could be produced at a fraction of the cost of a scripted series.  But in the end, you always get what you pay for - a lesson that obviously has not been learned.

So what we get in Project X is a “movie” with no plot.  The mere act of writing a synopsis (as I did two paragraphs ago) is giving it far too much credit as a narrative.  The film is nothing more than a collection of visuals cut and edited in way to celebrate the brand of misguided teen angst that exists in today’s society.  But no slick soundtrack or grotesque sensationalism can mask the simple fact that Project X is ninety minutes of visual and audio noise.  As for the cast, the most I can say is that there is one – comprised of a bunch of D, E, and F-level faces that are vaguely familiar, but none of which should receive acting credits for appearing in the project.

I don’t think I need to spell out at this point whether or not I am going to recommend Project X.  I think I let the cat out of the bag pretty clearly in the preceding paragraphs.  I’ll just close this out with a riddle.  What do you call it when a lot of things happen, but when you add them all up, they amount to nothing?  I call that Project-X.  (ba-DUM-Tsssh!)

Standout Performance: The Garden Gnome.
Interesting Attached Trailer: Neighborhood Watch – Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, and Jonah Hill join forces in this film that promises to be either comedic genius or epically bad.

Read More

Review: Safe House

It was Ben Franklin who once espoused that death and taxes are the only sure things in life, but that’s because he never saw a Denzel Washington movie.  Because the one thing that we can all be sure of is that Denzel always delivers a strong performance that is both complex and loaded with conviction.  Crimson Tide, Training Day, Remember the Titans, Philadelphia – he consistently makes good choices as an actor.  Heck, the man is even entertaining when he is being parodied (as in this skit).

With Ryan Reynolds…not so much.  It appears to be feast or famine when it comes to movies featuring the man formerly known as Van Wilder.  And coming on the heels of two very subpar movies in The Change-Up and Green Lantern, Reynolds was definitely in need of a hit.  So as I settled into my seat to watch Safe House, I wondered if this was going to be more of a Denzel movie or more of a Ryan Reynolds movie.   

And the answer is…a fair amount of both.

All the usual elements are present in this CIA-centric action flick - rogue agents, foreign assassins, double crosses galore, and a young idealistic protagonist.  Director Daniel Espinosa does a decent job of keeping these plot pieces moving via high-speed car chases, hand-to-hand combat, and a hailstorm of bullets.  There seems to be a sense of motion that perpetuates throughout the film.  My major beef with the cinematography is the overly gratuitous use of the unsteady camera.  In moderation, it serves a purpose.  When abused, it induces nausea.  In Safe House, the filming technique was definitely abused.

As for the cast, overall the principles do a good job.  Washington and Reynolds mesh well as there is a complex duality that underlies the contrast between their respective characters - namely veteran vs. newbie and cynic vs. idealist.   Likewise, Vera Farmiga, Brendan Gleeson, and Sam Shepard do a nice job portraying CIA suits whose ethics rely on the "varying degrees of gray" scale.  Really though, the driving force in this film is the intense action sequences.  

On the strength of those sequences alone, I recommend this film although I could do so with more conviction had things not unraveled a bit at the end.  It really is unfortunate that the answer to the whodunit question can be seen from a mile away and that the payoff to the film asks for a little too much suspension of common logic.  However, watching Reynolds and Washington fight would-be assassins and each other proves worthy of your time and money.  Big screen or in the comfort of your own home you really can’t go wrong either way.

Standout Performance: Ruben Blades delivered some fantastic lines during one of the few respites from the action.

Read More

Review: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

When I left the house to go watch Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, I thought I knew what I was getting into and yet I still went.  I’m not sure what compelled me but I suspect that it was this SNL skit.  I fully expected to see some whispering, some screaming, and lots of things on fire.  Those elements were sure-fire guarantees.  Yet some twenty-four hours after watching Nic Cage’s latest movie, I am still perplexed as to what it was that I actually watched.  But I briefly digress.

Spirit of Vengeance isn’t a sequel, but not exactly a reboot.  So if you watched the first one, you’ll probably be more confused.  In the first installment, they played the origin story straight and while it was not a particularly good movie, you understood that you were watching a tier 2 superhero movie.  With Spirit of Vengeance, it is hard to discern whether Mark Neveldine and company are intentionally going for camp or if it is just really bad filmmaking all the way around.

In the interest of efficiency, I am just going to rattle off the things in this film that didn’t work for me:

-          - The plot:  We’ve seen the “devil fathers a child so that he can possess the boy” storyline so many times before and it never gets any more interesting.

- No Eva Mendes: Way to remove the best part of the first film.

- Idris Elba: He’s a terrific actor who has done some great work (Thor), but as Moreau he actually detracts from what is already a horrible movie.

- Logic: One example is geography.  According to this film, all of Europe must be about five square squares miles because everyone in the film can drive all over Europe in a matter of hours.

- And of course, Nic Cage: We all know Cage’s track record.  No one can shift seamlessly between The Oscars and The Razzies better than the nephew of Francis Ford Coppola.  He has long been the model of the “one for me, one for them” model that so many actors use when choosing their roles.  What this means is that when he’s good, he’s very good.  And when he’s bad, well… well, you get Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance.

In Face Off, there is a scene where Nic Cage pretends to be John Travolta's Sean Archer pretending to be Nic Cage’s Castor Troy (think about that one for a second).  In the scene, Cage’s character beings to trip out on some narcotics to which Nick Cassavetes remarks, “No more drugs for this man.”  Those are the words I wanted to utter while watching Cage convulse, shake, scream, and laugh for two hours.  What I should have actually been thinking is “No more Nic Cage movies for this man (me).”

So here’s the verdict.  Save your $12.  Save your Netflix queue.  Boycott whichever network premieres this movie on cable.  Take those 90 minutes and do something else...or do nothing else.  You’ll still be better off.    

Read More

Review: Tower Heist

When I first saw the trailer for Tower Heist, I thought it looked like a B-Level Ocean’s 11.  Then I saw that Brett Ratner had directed it and revised my expectations to D-Level.  But truth be told, what makes it onto screen for the first hour of the movie is a passable attempt at a caper flick.  Trump Tower in Columbus Circle makes for a very solid backdrop against which the Madoff-esque plot can unfold.  Don’t get me wrong, Ratner, Stiller, and Murphy aren’t exactly channeling Soderbergh, Clooney, and Pitt here, but this film is definitely a step up from X-Men: Last Stand, Little Fockers, and Norbit respectively.  The problem then with Tower Heist is the last thirty minutes, but more on that later.

So what worked?

- Alan Alda.  As Arthur Shaw, the veteran thespian proves once again just how accomplished he is – seamlessly slipping into a role that calls for the kind of duplicity one would expect from a swindler of Madoff proportions.

- The pacing.  Most of the movie moves at a brisk pace.  This is however partially due to the fact that Ratner rarely lets his films get bogged down in character development.  So while you will never get depth from one of his movies, at least you know that the man keeps the proverbial assembly line moving.

- Stephen Henderson.  As Lester the kind-hearted doorman, Henderson adds some much needed likability to the proceedings.  His presence alone makes you hope that in the end, Alda’s Shaw get his just deserts.

So what didn't work?

- Ben Stiller.  Stiller is miscast as the straight man in this film, which is ironic because he has made a nice career for himself playing the ultimate misfit.  Everything you like about a Ben stiller performance – oddball behavior, physical comedy, and painfully awkward les faux pas - is absent from this film.  As the lead, he is drab, one dimensional, and predictable.

- Eddie Murphy.  Nothing Murphy does in this film works.  He has no chemistry with Stiller and adds no comedic relief to the proceedings.  If delivering lines loud and over-the-top were an Olympic event, Murphy would have walked away with the gold for his performance.

- The third act.  It's dangerous when a flimsy script gets cerebral with its plot twists, because when that happens, things tend to come to a screeching halt.  I guess this derailment of Tower Heist was inevitable.  Just like any other team or individual who tries to defy the odds to accomplish the impossible, Brett Ratner’s attempt to make a decent movie was destined to run out of steam during crunch time.

- Underutilized Cast.  Tea Leoni, Judd Hirsch, Casey Affleck, and Matthew Broderick are given nothing to work with in this film - a total waste of comedic talent.

So…should you see it?

Should you ever see a movie that lists the director and the two lead actors as things that do not work in the film?  Of course not, but there is just enough in this film to make it tolerable under precise circumstances…in other words: for free, because honestly, the biggest heist about this movie is that it made $153 million worldwide at the box office.  So wait for it to show up on TBS or something.  At the very least, lower investment and expectations for this movie will decrease your disappointment.

Read More

Predictions: 2012 Academy Awards

With the award season winding down and the Academy Awards show upon us, it is time for me to offer up my Oscar picks.  In the interest of healthy competition, I have included the picks of my favorite fitness guru @JennieBFit.

BEST PICTURE

- The Artist, Thomas Langmann, Producer

- The Descendants, Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, and Jim Taylor Producers

- Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Scott Rudin, Producer

- The Help, Brunson Green, Chris Columbus, and Michael Barnathan, Producers

- Hugo, Graham King and Martin Scorsese, Producers

- Midnight Paris, Letty Aronson and Steven Tenebaum, Producers

- Moneyball, Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, and Brad Pitt, Producers

- The Tree of Life, Sarah Green, Bill Pohlad, and Dede Gardner, Producers

- War Horse, Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, Producers

(Me)                           And the winner is…The Artist

(@JennieBFit)             And the winner is…The Help

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

- Demian Bichir, A Better Life

- George Clooney, The Descendants

- Jean Dujardin, The Artist

- Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

- Brad Pitt, Moneyball

(Me)                           And the winner is… Jean Dujardin

(@JennieBFit)             And the winner is… Jean Dujardin

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

- Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs

- Viola Davis, The Help

- Rooney Mara, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

- Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady

- Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

(Me)                           And the winner is… Viola Davis

(@JennieBFit)             And the winner is… Meryl Streep

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

- Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn

- Jonah Hill, Moneyball

- Nick Nolte, Warrior

- Christopher Plummer, Beginners

- Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

(Me)                           And the winner is… Christopher Plummer

(@JennieBFit)             And the winner is… Max von Sydow

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

- Berenice Bejo, The Artist

- Jessica Chastain, The Help

- Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids

- Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs

- Octavia Spencer, The Help

(Me)                           And the winner is… Octavia Spencer

(@JennieBFit)             And the winner is… Octavia Spencer

DIRECTING

- Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

- Alexander Payne, The Descendants

- Martin Scorsese, Hugo

- Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

- Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

(Me)                           And the winner is… Michel Hazanavicius

(@JennieBFit)             And the winner is… Michel Hazanavicius

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

- A Cat in Paris, Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli

- Chico & Rita, Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal

- Kung Fu Panda 2, Jennifer Yuh Nelson

- Puss in Boots, Chris Miller

- Rango, Gore Verbinski

(Me)                           And the winner is… Rango

(@JennieBFit)             And the winner is… Rango

Read More

Review: The Debt

The Debt is the ultimate exercise in misdirection.  Not so much because it is a film full of plot-twists (because it’s not), but because it has you thinking that you are watching one thing when you’re really watching something else entirely.  You see, the movie possesses the three key Hollywood elements that make you think you are viewing movie greatness:

1. An esteemed cast featuring players known for dramatic roles (i.e. Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, Ciaran Hinds, Jessica Chastain)

2. Heavy hitting subject matter set against the backdrop of a major historical event – Mossad secret agents capturing a Nazi War criminal in East Berlin post World War 2.

3. People with European accents.

The misdirection then resides in the fact that you are not really watching a good movie at all.  In fact, the movie – like a lot of the accents in the film – is just plain bad. 

For me, that epiphany came during the third act when the misdirection faded and I realized that I was being lulled into apathy.  It didn’t matter that writer Matthew Vaughn and director John Madden (not that John Madden) had thrown everything but the kitchen sink at me.  Troubled pasts, a festering love triangle, hand-to-hand combat, covert operations, a scandalous cover up – not one of these element made me care a lick about how things would play out.

Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, and Ciaran Hinds are pedestrian as the three Mossad agents.  Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas, and Sam Worthington – as the flashback younger versions of the aforementioned trio do not fare much better.  If for nothing else, at least that makes for consistency.  The issue at hand here is that the premise, the material, the composition of the cast all seem to aspire to achieve some great level of film-making, but no one is seemingly up to the task of stepping up.

When done well, drab lighting and slow pacing can be considered art.  When done poorly it is lazy directing and cinematography.  And while walking around a film with one persistent scowl may work for Christian Bale, for the rest of Hollywood it comes off as a half-hearted attempt at exuding gravitas.  And so the peril the protagonists face and the claustrophobia of their situation never really manifest onscreen.  In fact, I found myself wishing that someone would put Jesper Christensen’s Doktor Bernhardt down for the count - not so much for his crimes against humanity but more so that the end credits would roll.

Unfortunately, it takes a good two hours for that to happen.  Had I not paid for the digital rental, I would have pulled the ripcord long before things faded to black.  I cannot recommend this movie – neither as a rental nor for cable TV.  I never thought I would utter these words in regards to a Helen Mirren movie, but I preferred her performance in Arthur. 

Standout Performance: If I had to pick one person, I would say Jessica Chastain.  But since I don’t, I will say none.

Read More

Review: This Means War

This Means War is an action movie masquerading as a buddy film masquerading as a romantic comedy.  Before you get too excited about that prospect, you have to remember that it is a McG movie.  So without seeing a single frame of the film, you should already know that you're about to see a flick with a shortage of character development and a glut of rapid scene cuts.  He is after all the man who directed the A.D.D. inducing Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.  I have to admit though, in his latest directorial effort, the finished product comes off as a bit more balanced and a lot more entertaining than his last film (Terminator Salvation).

The movie is about two CIA operatives – one a lady’s man and the other a divorcee with a soft heart – who fall in love with the same career-driven woman and use their CIA training and resources to duke it out for her love.  All the while, a German arms dealer makes his way to L.A. to exact revenge on the aforementioned smitten secret agents.  If this plot works for you, then you should absolutely see this movie.  If this synopsis leaves you with some reservations, fear not.  There are some really good elements that make this film entertaining – albeit flawed.

Reese Witherspoon is billed as the star, but really that is in name only.  Her character is the most vanilla of the principles and could easily have been played by a plethora of actresses without affecting the final product in a favorable or adverse manner.  Witherspoon’s Lauren is a means to an end – a catalyst to spark the battle of machismo mojo between Chris Pine’s FDR and Tom Hardy’s Tuck.  And this is where the film works.  Pine and Hardy are better known for their action prowess and this serves them well during the physical comedy bits, but they also show solid comedic sense and timing to match.  There’s natural chemistry between the two that emerges in their banter as they slip seamlessly between camaraderie and antagonism.  

As for the rest of the cast, they do their best to keep up with McG’s breakneck pacing.  Chelsea Handler’s sarcastic quips are as fast and biting as machine gun fire.  While at times it feels like she is delivering her stand-up routine, she ultimately steals most of the scenes shared with Witherspoon.  Daren Herbert, Kevin O’Grady, Jesse Reid, and Viv Leacock do a nice job as Tuck’s and FDR’s respective CIA teams and add value to the comedic hijinks while Til Schweiger, as Heinrich is little more than a mean scowl dressed in a dark suit.

I would half-heartedly recommend this movie with the understanding that you’re going to be treated to a brisk but shallow narrative with unrealistic action mixed in with some genuinely funny moments.  If you’re looking for a romantic comedy or an all out action film, then there are better choices.  If you are looking for a fair compromise that has something for fans of either genre, then this is a fair choice.

Standout Performance:  Chelsea Handler delivers some great ad-libs.

Read More

Review: Larry Crowne

Here is a one-line synopsis about the movie Larry Crowne.  The film is about a really nice guy who is recently divorced, recently laid off, and short on money.  All one hundred minutes of the movie play out in a fashion as bland and ordinary as that synopsis.  Beyond that, I don’t know that I feel compelled to expound much further.  The film runs about one hundred minutes and as those minutes melt away, you get the impression that Tom Hanks – as the director- intends it to be precisely so, as if such an approach gives the proceedings the feeling of authenticity.  Ultimately, it just feels like lazy filmmaking.

Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are the two draws to this movie but their cache is not enough to keep this film from plunging into the depths of apathy.  In fact, their presence detracts from what few merits there are about this film, as clearly their respective star powers have diminished.  What makes it onto screen are two performances completely void of the vitality and charisma that planted Hanks and Roberts firmly onto the A-list – this seemingly the result of years of complacency combined with Nia Vardalos’ and Tom Hanks’ milquetoast script.  It is not quite to the level of watching the 1972-version of Willie Mays stumbling around the outfield as a New York Met, but their respective drop offs are palpable. 

Hanks is at his tolerable best when he is acting opposite Gugu Mbatha-Raw’s Talia, who shines as Crowne’s youthful newfound life coach.  She is funny and her free spirit brings energy to the middling proceedings.  The strength of their dynamic though is problematic to the film, because the chemistry between Hanks and Roberts – which is supposed to be the driving force in the film – pales in comparison.  In fact, the best scenes in the movie are those that involve the supporting cast.  Rami Malek, Malcom Barret, George Takei, and Wilmer Valderama inject a little bit of life and some light-hearted humor to offset the real world issues plaguing the protagonists.

You really do not need to see this movie.  You probably know someone who is living Larry Crowne’s life and probably doing so in a much more interesting fashion.  If this movie is to be viewed, then in my mind it is best watched on cable on a night when you find yourself in front of the television with some other work to do.  If you are a Julie Roberts fan, then you’re better off avoiding this one and waiting for the much-anticipated Mirror, Mirror.  As for Hanks, he can be seen in the Oscar nominated Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.

Standout Performance: Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Talia turns in a refreshing performance.

Read More