Review: White House Down

Let’s get the comparison out of the way.  Olympus Has Fallen is a better movie than White House Down.  In what has to represent career lows for both Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum, the duo have been outdone in the presidential catastrophe genre by the non-immortal Gerard Butler.  But in the interest of keeping things real, let me say that comparing these two movies is the equivalent of comparing Burger King and McDonald’s; both are almost equally terrible and in the long run will probably kill you.  It’s just that the stench from White House Down is a bit more pungent.

The plot of this latest movie from director Roland Emmerich finds former Marine Cale (played by Channing Tatum) looking to earn a job with the Secret Service and win the respect of his daughter (Joey King) while on a trip to the White House.  When a band of domestic terrorists unleash an assault on the White House in an effort to take the President and wreak political havoc, Cale is forced to take action in order to save both the Commander-in-Chief and his own daughter.

Clearly Emmerich and writer James Vanderbilt (The Amazing Spider-Man) are completely eschewing realism for this movie, but that should neither come as any surprise nor is it the kiss of death.  The problem here is that White House Down is the continuation of a downward spiral for Emmerich, who once upon a time knew how to deliver actions movies that were short on intelligence and long on fun.  More recently his films (2012, 10,000 BC) have shown his transformation into a caricature of himself as a director with action sequences that seem poorly planned and the kind of schlocky sentimentality that could send someone into sugar shock. 

Making matters worse are Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx who act as gasoline to the flame that is Emmerich’s direction.  In my opinion Tatum is Mark Wahlberg redux – an actor who is funny (in a big goon kind of way a la 21 Jump Street), but is hard to take serious in any other kind of role.  He is only passably believable as a former Marine turned Cop, but has no credibility as a divorced father.  Sure, writer James Vanderbilt is feeding him terrible lines, but it feels like Tatum is making no attempt to exude any kind of charisma while delivering them.  Normally, I would call this a paycheck film for an actor, but with Tatum it’s really hard to distinguish because acting is not really his strong suit.

Then there is Jamie Foxx, who I have said repeatedly is a terrible actor.  In fact, he may be the worst actor ever to win an Academy Award…seriously.  And it seems in White House Down, he sets out to prove this sentiment true.  If ever there was a less believable performance in cinematic history than this one, I challenge one and all to find it.  Yes, he fumbles lines.  Yes, he fails at maintaining any kind of consistency in his character.  Yes, he has zero chemistry with his muscle-bound co-start.  And yes, he is actually a worse dramatic actor than Channing Tatum.

So with the two names sitting atop the marquee performing so poorly, it’s no wonder the movie wreaks so badly.  Even with fair performances from acting veterans Richard Jenkins (Speaker of the House), James Woods (head of the president’s Secret Service detail), and Jason Clarke (rogue Delta soldier), and a better-than-usual turn for Maggie Gyllenhaal, whom I will forever refer to as the weak link in the Dark Knight, nothing makes this viewing experience any better.  Not even a slightly better than average child performance from Joey King (Cale’s daughter) and good comedic relief from Nicolas Wright (as a White House tour guide)

There’s no nice way to put this.  White House Down stinks.  At best it’s a Sunday night FX movie at the end of a long weekend when you can’t really concentrate and you need something to put you down for the night.  Under any other circumstance, you will without a doubt find yourself struggling with the same regret I am plagued with as I type this review.  If it is action you seek, go with Independence Day as it will let you experience some of Emmerich’s better work from days long since passed, and it will also give you that White House demolition visual.  A refresh of that movie could be useful as Independence Day parts 2 and 3 are rumored to be in the works; also to be directed by Emmerich.  On second, you may want to take a pass on those movies as well. 

Standout Performance:  Richard Jenkins.  He’s solid in this movie and that’s saying a lot.

Read More

Review: Liberal Arts

When people write about liminal moments they wax poetic about the “coming of age.”  And when they crack jokes, it’s usually about the follies associated with the mid-life crisis.  And what of the thirty years that lie between?  That is what the plot of Liberal Arts is about – those three decades when an individual struggles to graduate from who they are to what they think they should be as adults.  When Richard Jenkins’ Peter Hoberg tells Josh Radnor’s Jesse that the world’s dirty little secret is that none of us feel like adults, he reveals the singular thread that ties the plot of Liberal Arts together. 

The narrative follows Jesse (Josh Radnor) – a overly sentimental man-child who spends too much time in the pages of a book and in his own head.  Lost as a thirty something, he carries around an idealized vision of his youth that is reinvigorated by a return trip to his college campus to celebrate the retirement of his favorite professor (Richard Jenkins).  The experience of seeing some old familiar faces, befriending a troubled youth (John Magaro), and striking up a romance with a precocious nineteen years old (Ashley Olsen) forces Jesse to take a hard look at his life – past, present, and future – and assess his struggles to grow into adulthood.

Radnor, of How I Met Your Mother fame, acts as both writer and director in the film and doesn’t completely fall on his face.  The narrative is a bit chatty and there are clearly some moments of self indulgence, but the arcs do a good job of capturing the pitfalls of nostalgia and contrast them nicely with the sense of impeding finality associated with one’s twilight years.  The young who struggle to be young and the old who struggle to be old with the Radnor stuck in the middle creates a natural tension that helps frame his emotional paralysis. 

It’s not a perfect film though.  Some plot elements are cliché and at times realism is sacrificed for an all-too-cute detail.  Furthermore, the tone oddly sacrifices it subtle touch at crucial junctures of the film, instead opting to hammer home points almost ad nauseum.  Still these issues and an ending that is all too predictable are covered up nicely by good acting.  Richard Jenkins is thoughtful, tragic, and genuine as the retiring professor who is fearful of life beyond his world of academia.  Likewise Elizabeth Olsen as Zibby is precocious, charming, and dynamic – the perfect embodiment of a romance that simply-should-not-be.

As for the rest of the cast, I found Josh Radnor’s protagonist satisfactory.  It’s hard to separate him from the character of Ted Mosby but in this film he has penned a character that is not much of a stretch for him to play.  It’s not easy to play a likeable character that does some questionable things, but he pulls it off.  On the other hand, I found the work of the usually solid Allison Janney (as cynical Prof. Judith Fairfield) an exercise in hokey over-the-top acting.  Hers was the least palatable of the principle characters and her scenes amongst the worst in the film. 

Clearly this is a movie with the look and feel of the indie production that it is.  It’s dialogue driven and loaded to the gills with sentimentality and nostalgia, and because of this it is not going to appeal to everyone.  However, if films about introspection and those in which the experiences of many come together to paint a complete narrative spark your interest, then this is a movie that you should see.  I don’t think it’s a great movie, but it has some nice qualities.  I don’t think it is supremely entertaining, but I did want to watch it to completion.  Thus, I give Liberal Arts a soft recommendation as a midweek rental that may make you ask yourself a question or two about your life even as you completely forget the film a couple hours after watching it.

Standout Performance: Elizabeth Olsen.  It’s hard not to like the younger sister of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen as she has shown herself to be a good actress with great screen presence.

Read More

Review: Jack Reacher

I haven’t read any of the Jack Reacher novels.  I can’t even tell you who the author is.  So going into the movie, I had no gripes about Tom Cruise’s height, which apparently is a big issue for fans of the novels, and I had no preconceived notions on how the film should play out.  I also don’t harbor any ill will towards Cruise the actor.  Let’s be honest here.  If we – the general public - allowed the personal lives of every actor to completely influence how we react to their respective movies, then we would never be able to enjoy a single film.  There’s hardly a boy or girl scout to be found in the entire lot.  Given these factors, I went into this film with more of a clean slate than most and probably better positioned to like it.  Unfortunately, I did not like it as much as I thought I would.

The movie is about a former military police officer – Jack Reacher, who is something of a savant when it comes to criminal investigations and hand-to-hand combat.  He lives as a drifter, moving from place to place, trying to right the wrongs of society.  In the film, he is called in to investigate a public shooting on behalf of a discharged military sniper with a criminal past.  Working with the defense attorney (Rosamund Pike), Reacher pulls together the pieces of the conspiracy at hand.

Going into the film, I was under the impression that it was going to be two hours of fisticuffs, gunplay, and car chases.  While there is a fair amount of this sort of action, a lot of the film is dedicated to the art of detection.  Tom Cruise’s Jack Reacher is as much a thinker as he is a bruiser.  This gives the movie a more deliberate pace than I was expecting, but also makes it slightly more cerebral.  The problem with the film is that to someone with no history with the character, there is nothing in this movie  todistinguish it from any other whodunit film ever made.  A crime happens, things are not exactly as they seem; the protagonist comes in and cracks the case; end credits roll. 

So clearly, the creative team behind this film did not harbor aspirations of reinventing the wheel with his film, but in the spirit of the new year and all the positivity that goes with that, here are a few reasons you should see this film:

- Tom Cruise.  Whether you love him or hate him, you have to respect the fact that he cares about his craft.  He doesn’t turn in his greatest performance, but there’s more good than bad – especially with the fight scenes.

- American Muscle.  If you’re a fan of muscle cars, there are some nice rides tearing up the streets of Pittsburgh in this film.  Director Christopher McQuarrie and his creative team clearly chose vehicles that would appear right at home in the steel city.

- Rosamund Pike.  I have long been a huge fan of Pike going back to her appearance in Die Another Day opposite Pierce Brosnan.  While she is starting to approach the back nine of her career, she knows what kinds of performances work for her and more often than not delivers.

Despite all these positives and an accomplished supporting cast that incudes Robert Duvall, Richard Jenkins, and David Oyelowo, I can only half-heartedly recommend this film.  I would not suggest you see it in the theater as there’s just not enough to warrant the cost of seeing it on the big screen, but there’s definitely value in it as a rental.  In a year loaded with action movies, you could definitely do a lot worse than this one.  And while I don’t think we’ll be seeing another cinematic entry into the world of Jack Reacher based on this effort, this movie will at least mildly entertain you for two hours. 

Standout Performance: While not his best work, the movie rests on Tom Cruise and he gives it a good run.  

Read More

Review: The Cabin in the Woods

Some day I am going to have to learn to stay away from horror movies that promise to redefine the genre, because anything that promises so much, usually crumbles beneath the weight of expectations.  But until that day comes, I will continue to watch movies such as The Cabin in the Woods.  What baffles me most about this film is the delusions of grandeur surrounding it did not come from the filmmakers or the marketing team – which were supposedly handcuffed by the desire to keep the “twist” under wraps, but by critics and fan geeks alike.  It shocks me because the movie I watched unfold was hardly worth any of that praise.

Since the powers that be at Lionsgate have gone to such great lengths to not give away much about the actual plot – even at the expense of the theatrical box office, I don’t want to be the one to spoil things.  So here is what I can tell you about the plot.  Five college students head up to a cabin in the woods (hence the title), and bad things ensue, though not exactly how you would expect.

Truth be told, I probably would not have watched this movie in the cinema were it not for two names in the credits – Chris Hemsworth and producer Joss Whedon (also known as Thor and director of Marvel’s The Avengers respectively).  I would have definitely watched it, but probably as a rental.  However, as I debated for a week about whether or not to plunk down the $11 to see it on the big screen, I read in numerous places that the film expertly toyed with the conventions of horror movies.  The last movie to successfully do that was Scream so I mistakenly made the assumption that this movie would be a clever tongue-in-cheek look at the genre, as we know it today in 2012.

That is not what goes on in this film.  I think a better way to describe the movie is as a melting pot of ideas, conventions, icons, and mythos that drive the modern day horror movie.  It is a jambalaya comprised of the ingredients that make up the movies that make you cower behind your hands or jump in your seat.  But like any stew that is loaded with a bunch of mismatched ingredients splashed across your plate, the final product that is The Cabin in the Woods is not visually appetizing.  There are too many things in play; too many layers to what should be a straight meat-and-potatoes plot; so much so that at the end of the day, nothing is distinct, recognizable, or significant.  The movie, its plot, and its direction are all rendered a giant mess.

As for the acting in this film, it grades out at fairly weak.  Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford are the best of the cast though clearly not at their best, and as for those in the cabin – well, besides Hemsworth and to a lesser extent Fran Kranz, the rest of the crew (Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchinson, Jesse Williams) leave a lot to be desired.

This movie sat on a shelf for a couple of years because of studio finance problems and I wonder if maybe it would have been best left there.  This assessment is probably a bit harsh and somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to my expectations.  At the end of the day, like any horror movie, there is a market for this film.  It has some suspense, lots of gore, a bit of sex, and some cheap scares.   So if this is what you seek, I would meekly recommend this movie as a rental.  Just don’t go into it thinking that it will redefine the genre.  If anything, you’ll find yourself hoping that future horror filmmakers will stick to the playbook when making the next fright fest.

Standout Performance:  Brian White.  He was one of the few likable characters in the film and a native of Boston, Massachusetts. 

Read More

Review: Friends with Benefits

For the last three months, this movie has provided me with a joke that I have been working ad nauseum. Basically it would unfold as follows:

A trailer or television spot for “Friends with Benefits” would run with clips of Mila Kunis as her typical neurotic self and Justin Timberlake doing his best Joseph Gordon Levitt “500 Days of Summer” imitation to try to make us forget he was once the front man for N’Sync. As said trailer fades to flack, I would turn to the whomever was with me and say: “Oh, I already saw this movie a few months ago when they called it ‘No Stings Attached!’” [Insert fake laugh track here.]

I

t was a fair assumption to make on my part given that I had been bamboozled in the past by carbon copies masquerading as distinct cinematic works (i.e. Armageddon vs. Deep Impact and Lambada vs. The Forbidden Dance). Still, like a moth to flame I ventured out to the local AMC waiting to be duped yet again. For once, I was glad that I did because other than a problem with pacing during the second act, I found the film both entertaining and engaging with just enough self-deprecation in its tone to make the inevitable schmaltz palatable.

In all of Timberlake’s previous jaunts into the world of celluloid, I found his presence disarming – a break in my “willing suspense of disbelief.” When last I saw him in “The Social Network,” my resounding thought was: “Oh that’s Justin Timberlake pretending to be someone who worked with Mark Zuckerberg.” Much to his credit, this film represents the first time he is able to shed his crooner baggage and immerse himself into the plot of the film.

As for Kunis, historically I have not been a big fan. Yes, I was one of the few who preferred Kristen Bell’s Sarah Marshall to Kunis’ Rachel Jansen. But in this film, she delivers a great quirky/off-beat/wounded character performance grounded with an in-your-face east coast aggression that makes her very endearing. In a most unique twist for a romantic comedy, the two leads actually have chemistry as not only paramours but also as friends. It is in this aspect it exceeds its doppelganger – the aforementioned “No Strings Attached.”

As for the film itself, when it is taking not-so-pointed jabs at friendships, sex, and relationships, it is poking fun at pop culture (sorry iPad, T-Mobile, and flashmob enthusiasts). Director Will Gluck makes good use of NYC and Los Angeles as backdrops to this story that will make you laugh when it is not tugging at your proverbial heartstrings. I would definitely recommend this as a date movie – if not in the cinema, then in the comfort of your own home.

Standout Performances: Mila Kunis, Justin Timberlake

Read More