Review: Movie 43

The year was 1991.  I had hopped on the train to Boston to enjoy a saturday with friends.  After a fine meal, we decided to see a movie at the Loews Copley Plaza (gone but not forgotten).  Someone insisted on seeing a movie I had never heard of called Drop Dead Fred and we all acquiesced.  I was basking in the glow of a perfect day away from school and thought nothing could ruin the moment.  Twenty minutes into the movie, I realized that I was horribly wrong.  There was one thing that could do just that…and I was now watching it.  As I walked out of the cinema some ninety minutes later I uttered these three words: “worst movie ever.”  In the two decades since, I may have echoed that sentiment a few times, but no movie has truly been able to seize that moniker from Drop Dead Fred.  All of that changed yesterday when I watched Movie 43, because it is indeed the “worst movie ever.”

Movie 43 is a collection of self-contained sketches directed by a collection of individuals featuring casts that are accomplished to varying degrees.  The comedic (and I use that word lightly) skits are tied together by a plotline featuring Dennis Quaid as a deranged screenwriter who desperately and forcibly pitches script ideas to a film executive (Greg Kinnear).  What ensues is a litany of asinine juvenile sketches that wouldn’t even be good enough for the SNL cutting room floor. 

Let’s cut to the chase.  Yes, it really is the worst movie I have ever seen and were it not for extreme boredom I probably would not have made it past the first twenty minutes.  However, what is most surprising about this movie is some of the names attached to it.  Some of that can be explained away by the fact that each actor’s awareness of the production was contained to their own respective sketches.  While that nugget absolves absolutely no one, it makes things a bit more palatable.   Peter Farrelly (There's Something About Mary, Kingpin) however has no such excuse as he championed this project from start to finish as a writer/producer/director.

So what makes it so bad?  The skit about an eligible bachelor with testicles on his neck (Hugh Jackman) would in most cases mark the low point for any film, but not in this one.  With sketches about coprophilia (Anna Faris), female menstruation (Chloe Grace Moretz), and rowdy birthday leprechauns, the film manages to reach new lows every time you think it could not possibly get any worse.  The experience of watching Movie 43 is best likened to following the real life exploits of Lindsay Lohan on TMZ.  It’s repulsive and disgusting yet demands attention because you just can’t help but wonder how far the once mighty can fall.  Rest assured, this film will plummet beneath whatever depths of idiocy you can fathom.

If I absolutely had to pick out a bright spot or two in the movie, I would single out real life couple Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts for their portrayal of a married couple who has opted to home school their son.  Likewise, Terrence Howard as the coach of an all black high basketball team stands slightly above the other sketches.  Sure, those two skits have moments where they pander to the lowest denominator in society, but there are also some genuinely funny punch lines that almost make you forget the shame and regret that mounts the longer you watch this movie.

To spend any more time discussing Movie 43 would be a disservice to myself and to the rest of humanity.  Before you clicked on this post, you were probably not inclined to watch this movie and hopefully, nothing I have written will in any way change your opinion.  There’s bad; then there’s terrible; and then there’s another level that you should completely avoid and this is one of those movies you should never watch…ever…under any circumstances.  In fact, should this DVD ever find its way into your life, you should treat it as you would the VHS tape from The Ring.  Break it; burn it; throw it in a well; whatever you need to do to make sure your eyes never see a single frame.  You’ve been warned.

Standout Performance: Everyone who passed on this movie.  

Read More

Review: J. Edgar

I had spent the better part of the last two days jousting with Excel Spreadsheets so I was looking forward to catching a flick last night.  There were three readily available options: Men in Black 3 at the cinema, The Woman in Black via On Demand, or my most recent Netflix disc - J. Edgar.  I let my girlfriend choose, because I wasn’t partial to any of those options.  Her choice was J. Edgar, which clearly turned into a “be careful of what you wish for” moment, because she ended up walking out of the room before the end of the film utterly bored.

I concur that the movie was rather mundane, but I do not think it was a total waste of time. I should however qualify that statement by revealing that I am a bit of a history enthusiast, so for me a film about the life of the former director of the FBI was somewhat interesting on two distinct levels.  On the first level, I followed the narrative, placing it within the context American history as I understand it while cognizant of the fact that Hollywood is rarely ever historically accurate.  The second level was in regards to the choices made by the creative team in depicting Hoover’s life.  Details about his personal affairs have been greatly debated since his passing as much of what is known has been disseminated through rumor and innuendo.  In this film, credible sources have been ignored; questionable ones accepted; and vice versa.  So I watched with interest to see what choices the creative team made in this narrative in regards to facts.

On paper, this is a strong cast headlined by Leonardo DiCaprio, Judy Dench, Naomi Watts, and Armie Hammer, but in a lot of ways all of the major players are as bland as muted as the plot and cinematography.  In the film, there are times where I felt like DiCaprio was absolutely channeling the complexities of Hoover and then there were other times where it all seemed off.  I am a fan of DiCaprio and his movies, but in all honestly, he does not possess a great amount of range as an actor.  He is at his best when he stays within his comfort zone.  In my opinion, this film and this role are a bit too much of a stretch for him.  His was a very uneven performance that is emblematic of the problems that plagued the film as a whole. 

As for rest of the principles, Armie Hammer as Clive Tolson (Social Network, Mirror Mirror) does little more than stand around in bad makeup and carefully tailored suits, casting longing looks at DiCaprio’s Hoover.  Judy Dench makes some painfully odd choices playing Hoover’s mother that are a little too creepy for comfort and the usually feisty Naomi Watts relegates herself to a sullen existence throughout the two hours of running time.

At the end of the day, the problem with this film is that not a lot of substance manifests onscreen and what does is not necessarily something that appeals to a general audience.  Furthermore, Hoover is an irredeemable character that would not be able to draw empathy even from the late mother Theresa.  So when you add this all up, you are left with a film that is neither engaging nor entertaining.  It’s the worst kind of biopic in that it has no real purpose embedded in its narrative.  I am going to recommend you take a pass on this one and hope that DiCaprio fares better in The Great Gatsby due out in December.

Standout Performance: Josh Lucas did a decent job in portraying Charles Lindbergh in very limited screen time.

Read More

Review: Dream House

The low-lying fruit in Hollywood is the horror genre.  How else can you explain 42 sequels to Saw and 30 incarnations of Final Destination.  Okay, so there aren’t that many; it only feels that way.  But really, horror films are incredibly polarizing.   You rarely find anyone who is ambivalent.  People tend to be on one side of the aisle or the other.  Those, who are on the side that does not mind cheap scares and a little bit of gore to go with their popcorn and soda, are a loyal bunch.  Having seen Dream House, it feels like the fine marketing folks at NBCUniversal were really trying to reach out to those fans, even if it meant stretching the truth a bit.

The problem here is the Dream House may look like a horror film and try to act like a horror film, but that is precisely what it is not.  On paper, director Jim Sheridan’s project has a lot going for it.  Daniel Craig, in my opinion the best James Bond ever, sits in the driver’s seat of this mind-bending (or so it aspires) movie as a husband and father of two, who learns that he and his family are living in a house where three ghastly murders took place.  The plot unfolds as Craig’s Will Atenton peels away the layers to the murders and moves closer to discovering a dark set of truths.  If the movie only aspired to be that (a Whodunnit flick), all would have been better off.  Unfortunately, the movie incorporates a supernatural element to the movie that leaves the plot looking like a thin slice of Swiss cheese.

The cast does very little to redeem themselves or the film in this outing.  Daniel Craig is just adequate in much the same way as he is in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  The issue is that Craig excels in alpha-male roles involving intense physicality as opposed to that of a more passive and slightly inept detective of events.  Rachel Weisz is cast as a key role in this movie (Will Atenton's wife), but struggles to really make a strong emotional impact.  It is in stark contrast to some of her better performances (i.e. About A Boy, Definitely, Maybe).  Perhaps she and Craig fell victim to the cinematic trap that is spouses working together on a film (see also Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut).  As for Naomi Watts, I’ve not seen her in a film that I liked since The Ring.  Or maybe I feel like that is all I have seen her in because she has one stock performance that she constantly delivers.

I hate to say this, because I am one of those people who enjoys a good scare, an intense thriller, or even an occasional gore fest, but I find myself hard-pressed to recommend this movie.  At the very most, it is a bottom of the queue / free cable movie, but in all honesty it is a movie you should take a pass on.  However, Daniel Craig fans fear not.  Skyfall is currently in production and is already receiving great buzz.

Standout Performance:  Marton Csokas has made a decent career out of glaring at the camera and portraying generally mean characters.  This film is one more notch in the belt.

Read More