Review: The Descendants

When George Clooney is focused on being an actor/entertainer, his movies tend to be very good.  And when he is more interested in pushing other agendas (i.e. political), those films tend to be bland, didactic, and not nearly as intelligent as some knights of the keyboard would have you believe.  But then again, I tend to be skeptical when those who hardly reside in the real world step down from the mountaintop to lecture us common folk on how we should view our real world problems (see also, Sean Penn).  And so Clooney’s career has metamorphosed from obscure mediocre television actor to grounded and gracious television and film A-lister, to self-important pseudo intellectual sensationalist.  But that doesn’t mean the man can’t still participate in a good movie every now and then, and that is precisely what The Descendants is – a good movie.

I know I am really late on this film, but like I mentioned before, Clooney’s films are very hit or miss for me so I am almost never in a rush to see the latest from Stacy Keibler’s lesser half.  Fortunately, this one earns him a checkmark in the plus column as it is a compelling story featuring strong acting, good directing, and nice cinematography.  The plot of the movie finds Clooney’s Matt King juggling the imminent death of his comatose wife, her recently discovered marital indiscretion, his disconnect with his two rapidly maturing daughters, and an impending real estate deal that will greatly affect the local economy in Hawaii.  Clearly, the man has a lot on his plate.

So what works best about this movie is Clooney and his ability to shed his celebrity baggage and immerse himself into a role that runs counter to everything that people tend to admire about him.  His Matt King is a conflicted man running short on both confidence and bravado, seemingly lost and vulnerable on many fronts both personally and professionally.  Though the plot of the film is highly layered and very unique, the sense of self-doubt and the tormenting search for answers that Clooney’s King endures is a profoundly universal experience and that is what is so engaging about this movie.  Reinforcing this inner struggle is the Hawaiian Islands as a backdrop as the confines of this geographical region heightens the sense of isolationism that permeates King’s life.

One of the other challenges to this film is the importance of Patrice Hastie as Elizabeth King.  Since her entire body of work in this movie involves lying motionless in a hospital bed, it is left to the supporting players to lend a voice to her character and create depth.  Robert Forster, Rob Huebel, Mary Birdsong, Judy Greer, Matthew Lillard, and Nick Krause perform admirably in this capacity and add color to Clooney’s struggles through the portrayal of their own respective coping mechanisms.  As for Shailene Woodley (Alexandra King), she is perfectly cast as Clooney’s petulant and defiant teen so much so that you wonder whether the seams between performance and reality actually exist.  Hers is the right character to act as the sidekick for Matt King on this emotional journey and their relationship acts as one of the key elements of catharsis.

Now having the seen the film, I have to admit that I am not sure it is worthy of all the platitudes lavished upon it during last year’s awards season.  Don’t get me wrong.  Writer/Director Alexander Payne has put together a well-executed film that is constantly tugging at your emotions and sensibilities.  But I think the film is just that; a good (not great) movie that tells a very personal story, with solid direction, and some very strong acting.  None of this is a bad thing, but in some ways I think the critical masses convinced themselves that they were seeing something in this film that wasn’t necessarily there - as I believe was the case with Clooney’s last critically acclaimed movie – Up in the Air.  Still, if you have not seen this one, I would definitely recommend renting it since well-executed films have been in short supply as of late.  This one may not be a game changer, but you will most definitely find yourself engaged and invested.

Standout Performance: George Clooney.  I am partial to his work in Ocean’s Eleven and in O Brother, Where Art Though? but he does a very good job of disappearing into this role.

Read More

Review: Bachelorette

Bachelorette is one of those films first released via On Demand and Electronic-Sell-Through before a very modest theatrical release.  Back in the day when people were buying DVDs like bread and milk before a big storm, such movies were distributed Direct-to-DVD.  In other words, those movies stunk.  So I find it curious that some have described Bachelorette as a cross between The Hangover and Bridesmaids, because the latter two are actually quite entertaining. 

The plot of the movie chronicles the missteps surrounding three high school friends - Regan (Kirsten Dunst), Gena (Lizzy Caplan), and Katie (Isla Fisher) – who reunite as bridesmaids for the wedding of their friend, Becky (Rebel Wilson).  Selfish and mean-spirited, their respective behaviors cause problem after problem and ultimately threatens to derail the wedding.

The problem here is that writer/director Leslye Headland is trying to capture that R-rated comedic magic that others have seemingly bottled with movies such as Bridesmaids and Ted, but unfortunately she neglects the three key elements to successfully creating a solid R-rated romantic comedy – likability, humor, and some semblance of redemption.  Here is how I think she and her film fared:

1. Likability of the cast.  At some point in the past I liked most of the individuals in this cast; Isla Fisher in Definitely, Maybe; Kirsten Dunst in Bring It On, James Marsden in Bryan Singer’s X-Men movies, and so on and so forth.  Unfortunately, I loathe all of them in this movie and that goes ditto for Adam Scott, Lizzy Caplan (Parkey Posey 2.0), and Kyle Bornheimer.  Most everyone in this movie is unsavory and worse still is that nearly every actor in this movie is clearly mailing it in.  As a result one cannot help but feel ambivalent about whether or not the movie’s emotional strings (romantic and otherwise) end up tied in a neat bow.

2.  Humor.  Simply put, there is none.  Someone forgot to tell Headland that cocaine humor stopped being en vogue in the 90’s.  In all seriousness, I cannot recall one scene that elicited anything more than a mild chuckle.  Completely void of any semblance of wit, most attempts at a punch line come off as cruel and mean-spirited.  Sure, having protagonists who make snarky comments can play in a movie, but only when those characters are either likable or have redemptive qualities, which leads me to my third point.

3.  Redemptive qualities.  In a film, redemption comes form the journey where the characters emerge from the events of the plot transformed – finding themselves in a better place from whence they came.  In an R-rated comedy, this also means having the sensibility to straddle the line that divides adult humor and cras vulgarity, so as to ensure that no matter how far the protagonists stray into mean-spirited douchebaggery, viewers can all walk away from the film feeling good about the protagonists.  The trio of Dunst, Kaplan, and Fisher not cross that line, they aslo emerge from the journey (if there actually was one) unchanged.

So in taking stock of this film, it becomes obvious that Headland and her creative team swung and missed on all three criteria.  It should come as no surprise then that I am not recommending this film.  The purported romantic comedy is neither funny nor emotive, thus this is a film to be avoided  at all costs.  There are too many films in this raunchy comedy space that execute this formula infinitely better to waste your time on this one.  You have been warned.

Standout Performance: None.

Read More

Review: Think Like a Man

I just finished watching Think Like a Man and I feel like I just watched a two-hour infomercial for Steve Harvey’s book “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man.”  So much so that when the credits started rolling I fully expected Vince Offer to stroll onscreen rockin’ a headset to try and sell me both a Sham Wow and a Slap Chop in some two-for-one deal.  Sure, the movie was based off the book, but that doesn’t mean it had to show up in every other scene.  I haven’t seen that kind of egregious product placement since Wayne and Garth vowed not to bow to any sponsors.  Unfortunately, this is not the only problem in what could have been an entertaining movie.

Think Like a Man is one of those movies that has fifty-five different plot lines acted out by a huge ensemble cast, though it’s not as egregious in this offense as some other movies are (New Year’s Eve).  This film has a bit more flow and symmetry and the characters’ lives are more interconnected as a battle of the sexes is waged with Steve Harvey’s book as not only the catalyst, but also the playbook.

The first problem with the film is that it is nothing but the same old thing we have seen a countless number of times, but only done worse.  The women want to enter into serious relationships, while the men kick and scream like children being led to the dentist chair.  To make matters worse, each of the ten principle characters (yes, ten!) are nothing more than stereotypical archetypes (the player, the mama’s boy, the single mom, the gold digger, et al) upon which RomComs are built.  And because there are so many story lines unfolding, no one character is fleshed out enough to become anything more than a tired cliché. 

The second problem with the film is that it hedges its bet.  The movie is clearly geared towards women and surely you must have known long before you even decided to read this review that the movie’s fifty-five endings will all be tied up in a neat bow.  However, while all this is unfolding, director Tim Story and his creative team try to hedge their bet by pandering to the male audience with a certain brand of buddy humor.  There are circumstances in which this can work – those rare films with a little something for everyone, but in this movie it feels like each time the plot twists, one segment of the audience is left alienated and thus by the end no one really feels satisfied.

As for the cast, there are too many to address individually, but since this movie is drawn along gender lines, I will follow suit and do the same.  Of the two, I found that collectively the male half of the cast out performed their female counterparts.  They had the advantage of being connected to one another in the film and it is in precisely those moments where the men as a group excel by displaying a witty repartee that is both funny and authentic.  The women, on the other hand, are for the most part isolated and saddled with roles that are stuck in the clichés that define their respective characters and this leaves their collective performances feeling a bit hollow. 

Despite some of these issues, I don’t want to frame this movie as one void of entertaining qualities.  There are some genuinely funny scenes and moments that are universally relatable, but unfortunately, many of those moments feel generic and lack candid insight.  Needless to say, I am not super-enthusiastic about this movie, but I don’t lament watching it the way I do so many others (The Three Stooges readily comes to mind).  As a rental, there is some value here with one or two laugh out loud moments, though by the third act most will find themselves waiting for things to wrap up.  If you do decided to watch it, do so with your significant other on a slow night and just maybe it will spark and old memory that the two of you can chuckle over.  Just don’t expect to find any life altering insights into the battle of men v. women.

Good Performances: Romany Malco, Jerry Ferrara (you’ll always be Turtle), Kevin Hart (a bit over the top), Terrence Jenkins, and Jennifer Lewis

Bad Performances: Michael Ealy, Taraji P. Henson, Gabrielle Union, Chris Brown

Standout Performance: As I was watching the movie, I kept thinking: this would be the perfect movie for Morris Chestnut circa 2004 and lo and behold, he appears.  Kudos to his character for referring to Warren Buffett as “Dub Beezy.”

Read More

Review: Silent House (2011)

Make no mistake about it, Silent House (2011) is a one-woman show – a movie that slowly unfolds from the perspective of Sarah played by Elizabeth Olsen.  Like Hitchcock’s Rope, this movie is carefully edited to give the appearance that the camera tracks Olsen’s every move with one continuous shot, meaning she is literally onscreen for 99% of the movie.  Given that amount of screen time, you would think that the success of this movie would ride solely on the shoulders of the youngest Olsen sister, but unfortunately there are other mechanisms in this film that ultimately spoil what is a solid piece of acting.

Brought to you by the directing duo that brought you Open Water, Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, Silent House is based on La Casa Muda – a Uruguayan film released in 2010 that was in turn based upon a real occurrence from the 1940’s.  The plot of this movie finds Olsen’s Sarah going to her family’s old summer home with her father and uncle to prepare it to be sold.  What follows is an uninterrupted eighty-five minutes of terror as Olsen’s Sarah finds herself locked in the home with an unknown figure lurking in the shadows.

To me, the horror genre is like the little brother that no one really expects much from, and so they throw him a ticker tape parade when he brings home a B-.  Like these enablers, fans of horror expect so little and yet remain so loyal.  So really, all this film had to do to be considered a strong showing was to deliver some cheap scares, a thrilling crescendo, and a big reveal that didn’t completely fall flat.

Unfortunately, the film morphs into two movies and not in a good way.  The first half plays like a nuts-and-bolts horror film, nicely slow playing the tension in the vein of Spielberg’s Jaws.  Had the creative team stayed this course, the film would have been a win.  Unfortunately, the second half of the movie morphs into a psychological thriller - from a horror film to a whodunit, which would not have been the worst thing in the world had the directors not tipped their hands too early.  And as much as this movie was marketed for the long tracking shots, that gimmick ultimately turns into a detriment as the edits become easier to spot and this breaks the reality that was nicely established earlier in the film.

None of the film's failures however has anything to do with Olsen.  She turns in a strong performance, especially considering that many of these takes lasted well over ten minutes.  With her background in live theater undoubtedly aiding her greatly in this role, there are two things that she absolutely nails in this performance.  First, she expresses sheer terror expertly through facial expressions with the kind of excellence not seen since the original scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis owned Halloween.   Second, she crafts a protagonist that is both likable and sympathetic. 

As for the rest of the cast, in their best moments they are merely adequate but for most of the film Adam Trese (as John), Eric Stevens (Peter) and Julia Taylor Ross (Sophia) show that they are not up to the task of keeping up with Olsen.  Collectively, they bring the quality of the film down a few notches as each delivers performances that are wrought with both overacting and underselling at precisely the wrong moments.  If the unsteady camera and poor lighting are not enough to give this a b or c-level movie feel, then the supporting cast makes sure that this is no longer up for debate.

What this all adds up to is a movie that is flawed, disturbing, and not as clever as Kentis and Lau thought it was when they plotted this remake.  If you love horror movies, then you will enjoy about 50% of this film and that may make it worth a rental.  If you are anything less than a huge fan of these types of movies, then this is probably a pass.  It is just not executed well enough to tolerate a twist that is incredibly disturbing and highly telegraphed.  In a genre where little is expected or demanded, there are just too many other titles to settle for this kind of mediocrity.

Standout Performance: Elizabeth Olsen – clearly the best actress in the Olsen family.  She dominates the film for long stretches and manages to rise above the mediocrity that surrounds her.

Read More

Review: Zookeeper

I can only ask myself why I did it?  Why did I put Zookeeper on my queue?  Why did I stand idly by as it crept its way up the list?  Why did I open that red envelope and put the DVD into my PS3?  To these questions and so many more I can only offer up some best guesses.  Maybe it was because l had recently watched We Bought a Zoo and enjoyed it so much that I felt compelled to follow it up with a movie called the Zookeeper (completely disregarding that the two films are polar opposites).  Or maybe it was because I was swayed by the incredibly silly but highly entertaining trailers for Here Comes the Boom also starring Kevin James.  Or maybe I am just a glutton for punishment.  Whatever the reason, Adam Sandler and his Happy Madison Productions (Jack & Jill, Grown Ups, Bucky Larson) have gotten me again.

To wrap your head around the movie that is Zookeeper, you have to try to envision what would happen if the script for Eddie Murphy’s Doctor Doolittle and the script for Ben Stiller’s Night at the Museum mated.  The end result could only be exactly what you find in this film, which sees Kevin James playing sad sack Griffin Keyes, a zookeeper with the ability to speak to the animals and who in turn solicits their advice in order to make sense of his middling life and win back the love of Leslie Bibb’s Stephanie.

After reading the preceding paragraph, if you need me to explain why this movie does not work then you should probably go back and read the brief synopsis again.  The gimmick of animals speaking with human voices is a shtick that can wear incredibly thin over the full length of a feature film.  This is especially true when those voices are provided by the likes of Adam Sandler, Nick Nolte, Sylvester Stallone, Cher, Jim Breuer, and Judd Apatow – a veritable who’s who of people playing deep into the back nine of their careers.  Truth be told, I am the least likely person to be amused by the novelty of talking animals, but I have to believe that even the most ardent subscriber to Zoo Books would at some point while watching this film just want to hit the mute button.

As for the live cast, they are about as engaged as one would expect in a film with this plot and of this caliber – which is to say, not so much.  Leslie Bibb is accomplished at being blonde and playing attractive women who are grating on the nerves so I guess that my finding her annoying in this movie was actually her doing a good job.  Joining her in the supporting cast is Ken Jeong (The Hangover) who as far as I can tell appears in this movie for only two reasons - to put on a long wig and to cash a paycheck.  It is an usually subdued performance turned in by Jeong, one in which he kept his pants on, so by that standard, I guess it would have to be deemed a success.

As for the plus side of this film, Kevin James and Rosario Dawson somehow manage to rise above the muck and do just enough to keep me from wanting to snap the DVD in half.  James holds his over-the-top antics in check just long enough to sell himself as the likable goof that you want to root for while Dawson eases into each scene fashioning that same low maintenance charm that made her performances in Men in Black II and Clerks II the only redeeming quality in both films.  Still, it’s not enough to make this movie anything better than an incredibly poor piece of cinematic fluff.

I don’t loathe this movie in the way I loathe Project X or Jack & Jill.  Those films are an assault on cinematic sensibilities.  Zookeeper is well-meaning and has a likable protagonist but it’s just not that entertaining and the last time I checked, they call this the entertainment industry for a reason.  So while I don’t recommend this movie in any way, I am not going to rally the villagers to storm the Happy Madison offices with the pitchforks in hand the way they always do in Frankenstein movies.  Instead I’ll just caution you to check your Netflix queue to make sure this title has not made its way onto your list.  And for your hardcore Kevin James fans (if there are any), be on the lookout for Here Comes the Boom.  

Standout Performance: Joe Rogan gets the nod as Leslie Bibb’s ex-boyfriend Gale.  Sure his character is one big cliché and every word out of his mouth is nonsense but Rogan is hilarious and everything he does brings me back to his days on The Man Show, News Radio, and Fear Factor.

Read More

Review: Lawless

Prohibition era stories have been done quite a bit by Hollywood.  Gangsters in suits with semi-automatics in hand, bullets and blood lining the streets of New York and Chicago, and square-jawed lawmen chasing down thugs from speak-easies to back alleys.  There has almost been a romantic quality that has underlined these movies, which most often are marked with severe brutality.  Filmmakers and moviegoers alike have held an affinity for these stories and have watched with different rooting interests as the system and its laws crash down on the men peddling their bootleg moonshine.  

Lawless is the latest entry into this sub genre although it takes the conventions of this kind of narrative and flips it on its head.  Like Jessica Chastain’s Maggie Beauford, the story escapes the mean streets of the inner city for the rural rolling hills of Virginia to a town run by the immortal Bondurant brothers.  When the state sends crooked lawmen to town to take control of the bootlegging, a back woods brouhaha begins to brew.

What makes this unique from its brethren is the matter of role reversal.  The system and its laws – mechanisms of the big city and its judicial system – have been handed to the Bondurant brothers by way of their legendary hold over this small town in Virginia.  Thus, the lawbreakers are cast as the lawmakers in this rural community and their reputations give them the authority to wield such power.  So when Guy Pearce’s Rakes comes to town with his special detective’s badge and threatens to disrupt the status quo, it is up to the Bondurants to enforce nature rules. 

Tom Hardy plays Forrest Bondurant – the leader of the pack and the muscle of the group.  While Shia LaBeouf's Jack Bondurant is the narrator of the film and is framed as the lead, Hardy’s character is the most pivotal to the film.  And as usual, he delivers.  Hardy is quickly establishing himself as a tremendous actor who makes good choices and his stunning record remains intact with this film.  He once again brings a strong physical presence to the role while hinting at a deeper sentiment and drives his brute force.

And as for the rest of his cast members, it is a bit of a mixed bag.  Jason Clarke as Howard Bondurant does a nice job playing the bridge between the three brothers.  On the one hand he brings a physical edge to the role while on the other he exudes the foolhardy demeanor one would expect from a middling sibling underling.  Joining him in the plus column is Guy Pearce, whose Charlie Rakes is an exemplary villain, dispensing acts of crooked punishment without an ounce of remorse.  Pearce does a good job of fashioning a creepy persona that is both vile and threatening.  Rounding out the superlatives are Dane DeHaan as Cricket Pate and Mia Wasikowska as Bertha Minnix.  The two do a fine job of portraying good-natured sympathetic characters that find themselves swimming in a pool with sharks.  In a movie with varying shades of gray, their performances establish the light end of the scale between good and bad.

As for Jessica Chastain and Gary Oldman, two of the major talents featured in this film, I was left some what unimpressed.  Chastain is a very good actress who has done very good work (as recognized by numerous awards nominations), but I found her performance to be vanilla and run of the mill.  As the most prominent woman in a male dominated cast, there was an opportunity for her to deliver a standout performance and to steal the show.  Unfortunately, nothing about her stood out and consequently she is relegated to “also-ran” status in this film.  As for Oldman, his presence is window dressing in the same manner as I described Liam Neeson’s in Battleship. As he does nothing whatsoever to legitimately advance the plot, I would guess that any number of actors could have easily filled his shoes and probably have done so with a bit more verve.

And last and most certainly least is Shia LaBeouf.  The man simply is not a third of the actor he thinks he is and the harder he tries to distance himself from the Transformers movies that made him so wealthy, the more his limitations as an actor get exposed.  He’s a one trick pony in the same way Taylor Kitsch is, but was just more fortunate to be attached to a Hasbro property that actually translates to a movie.  LaBeouf has one gear and that is of a petulant beta male with a dour disposition.  Even when cast in this role, his ability to channel this onscreen is questionable at best.  In a movie that features decent story telling and some good acting, he is the lone black mark.

LaBeouf however does not completely derail this movie.  There is enough here at work to keep you entertained.  I won't call this a must see movie, bu I would have no problem recommending it for the holiday weekend.  The character acting is just strong enough to engage viewers and get them to emotionally invest and the action sequences are robust enough to pick up the pace of the film when required.  It won’t get your adrenaline pumping the way Premium Rush did last weekend, but it will provide you an interesting story.

Standout Performance: Tom Hardy is quickly becoming one of most solid performers in Hollywood by combining legitimate character acting with a strong physical presence.  

Read More

Review: Battleship

Well, it’s official.  Taylor Kitsch has absolutely no range as an actor.  I thought I would announce that here because it’s probably not a well known fact since according to theatrical box office numbers, most of you have not seen any of his movies.  Having just completed the third leg of the Year of the Kitsch (John Carter, Savages, Battleship), I can tell you that he delivered the same performance in each of the movies and that of the three, his work in Battleship was the most onerous. 

When the creative team pitched this film, they probably convinced the fine folks at Universal that they had the winning formula – an amalgamation of Armageddon, Friday Night Lights, Pearl Harbor, Independence Day, and believe it or not – just a tiny bit of Titanic; action director Peter Berg to go along with the long-haired dude from Friday Night Lights; and Rihanna and Brooklyn Decker to provide some eye candy for the young male audience.  And as if all this were not enough to ensure a successful summer popcorn flick, this movie would be based off of Hasbro’s board game, Battleship. 

Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the powers-that-be that the core members of this target demographic probably have never played a board game – let alone Battleship, and those old enough to remember the game would probably consider the premise downright silly.  Still with Peter Berg, director of Hancock, The Kingdom, Friday Nights Lights, and The Rundown, attached to the project and an astronomical budget (upwards of $210M), I had some hope that a entertaining film could rise from the rubble.  Sadly, I was wrong.

Forget the silly association to Battleship and the requisite tedious steps taken to tie back to that Hasbro property, because this is a nuts-and-bolts alien invasion movie set out on the ocean.  There’s nothing new about the premise and unfortunately no acting, no action choreography, and no set design is able to compensate for this banality.  It truly feels like a case of "been there; done that."  Many of the scenes in the film remind you of something you’ve seen somewhere only done better, and if any of your hopes for this movie were pinned to the presence of Liam Neeson, then forget about it.  He’s pure window dressing.

As for the cast, Kitsch is his usual low rumbling monotone self, exuding very little presence.  He doesn’t have the shoulders to carry a movie let alone a big budget blockbuster, but given the right role he can be of value to a cast (as in Savages).  Also along for the ride are Brooklyn Decker and Rihanna, two women who are not known for their acting chops and it doesn’t take long to be reminded of that in this film.  Alexander Skarsgard, Jesse Plemons, Peter MacNicol, et al are adequate at best and do not do enough to warrant much more than a passing mention, and my best guess is that Liam Neeson probably put in a few days of work at most on this set.

But really, this movie isn’t about the cast.  It’s about the spectacle and of course the silly association with Hasbro.  And while it is very mediocre, it certainly is not the worst movie of the year.  I can’t in good faith recommend it, but I am not vehemently against it.  If I were still living up in the northeast and it was a miserable winter night at the end of a long week, I could see the value in mindlessly watching this film.  But really, if you want an alien invasion film, there are so many better choices.  Ditto, if you are looking for a war epic or even a nautical thriller.  There is no shortage of replacements.  What you have then in Battleship is a movie not bad enough to despise but not good enough to remember.  At the end of the day this kind of cinematic mediocrity is relegated to that figurative place where forgotten movies go while Universal execs are left to lament a $200M investment in Taylor Kitsch (though they can take comfort in knowing that they have company in Disney).

Standout Performance: Tadanobu Asano gets a participation award for having to carry the scene that most tediously tries to evoke memories of the board game and for his attempt to sell that scene with such conviction.  

Read More

Review: Priest

I was on the Paul Bettany bandwagon for a little bit.  He had a nice run with A Knight’sTale, A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander, and Wimbledon.  Those were movies with varying degrees of merit and success, but Bettany usually stood out as a solid performer.  His career seemed to get derailed with The Da Vinci Code and this launched a long string on unremarkable performances in mediocre films.  To me, the best work he has done in the past six years is as the voice of Jarvis in the Iron Man and The Avengers films.  So I really expected very little when I sat down to watch Priest – a movie that’s been sitting on my Netflix queue for months.  Despite these diminished expectations, I still found the movie to be incredibly underwhelming.

The premise of film rests on a war between humans and vampires for control of a post apocalyptic Earth where a special order of Priests is the key weapon against the blood sucking fiends from beyond.  So when Karl Uban’s Black Hat leads the vampires in a revolt against humankind, Paul Bettany’s Priest is forced out of retirement to spring into action.

Besides a few recognizable names, everything in this movie feels 2^nd and 3^rd rate.  There’s not anything inherently wrong with that as there are a slew of B-level movies that are incredibly entertaining, however that kind of success is born from a willingness on the part of the cast and crew to bask in the inherent shortcomings of such a project.  In Priest, the production value feels like a bunch of cinematic concessions executed by individuals going through the motions and that makes it difficult to emotionally invest in a fanciful narrative when the performers themselves don’t seem fully vested.

As the lead, relatively little is asked of Paul Bettany beyond reprising the visual appearance of his character from the Da Vinci Code.  His lines are sparse and much of the physical action in the movie is provided by stunt doubles and computer graphics engineers.  Still Bettany manages to deliver a performance that is completely void of any charisma and while some of this is due to the nature of the character, at the heart of any good story there must be a protagonist that the viewer can empathize with and this, he fails to provide.

As for his supporting cast, Karl Urban (Star Trek) as Black Hat is plain boring.  This is a disappointing turn as Urban has shown himself to be a strong participant in a number of action movies.  There’s just not a lot of meat on the bones of this role, but Urban does nothing to compensate for this shortcoming.  Likewise, Maggie Q as the priestess, Lily Collins (Mirror Mirror) as Lucy Pace, and Cam Gigandet as a green sheriff, are utterly drab in their respective portrayals of paper-thin characters and fail to add any entertainment value to the film.  And as for how they got Christopher Plummer to appear in this movie, I have no idea.  Needless to say, not even he is able to rise above the morass.

So in the end, what you get with this movie is exactly what you would expect from the one-sheet or DVD cover - lots of darkness, guns, knives, and church iconography.  And what you don’t get from Priest is also exactly what you probably expected not to get – which is a good movie.  Obviously I do not recommend this movie as a rental or on television, unless you are incredibly bored and the only other options staring you in the face are Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood or Sex and the City 2.  In that case, you have my blessing to proceed.

Standout Performance: None.  

Read More

September 2012 Movie Guide

OPENING SEPTEMBER 7, 2012

THE WORDS
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Zoe Saldana, Olivia Wilde, Dennis Quaid, Jeremy Irons

Why You Should See It: Because there was enough buzz around this movie that CBS Films was interested in acquiring it before Sundance.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because the whole struggling author narrative has been done so many times before.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  There’s a reason why certain movies get released in early September (a time of the year dominated by television season premieres).  This one is probably a rental at best.

Other theatrical releases for 9/7:  Bachelorette, The Cold Light of Day

OPENING SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 

RESIDENT EVIL: RETRIBUTION

Starring: Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriguez, Kevin Durand

Why You Should See It: Because you miss the summer action series that is May to August at the cinema.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because it’s a Resident Evil movie.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Wait for Resident Evil 6 in October.  The games offer a more robust and engaging narrative than the films.

Other theatrical releases for 9/14:  Arbitrage, Finding Nemo (3D), Liberal Arts, The Master

OPENING SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 

DREDD

Starring: Karl Urban, Lena Heady, Olivia Thirlby

Why You Should See It: One last bit of summer fun as the first day of autumn rolls around.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because you can’t shake the memory of Sylvester Stallone playing this role in 1995.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  This is a yes, but greatly aided by the dearth of other September theatrical options.

END OF WATCH

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Anna Kendrick, Michael Pena, Frank Grillo

Why You Should See It: Because it looks like a gritty, fast-paced, cop movie.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because unsteady camera work might make you feel nauseous. 

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Game time decision.

TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE

Starring: Amy Adams, Clint Eastwood, Justin Timberlake, Matthew Lillard

Why You Should See It: To scout out Lois Lane (Amy Adams).

Why You Should Avoid It: Because Justin Timberlake hasn’t been able to deliver in a dramatic role.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Could go either way – though it helps that someone else besides Clint is sitting in the big chair.  His last two directorial efforts are Hereafter and J. Edgar.  Ouch.

PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

Starring: Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Paul Rudd, Nina Dobrev

Why You Should See It: To see if Emma Watson can make people forget her ten years as Hermione Granger.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because Logan Lerman – of Percy Jackson and The Three Musketeers infamy – gets top billing.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Probably best saved for the Netflix queue.

Other theatrical releases for  9/21: House at the End of the Street

OPENING SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 

LOOPER

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano, Jeff Daniels

Why You Should See It: Because the premise is interesting, the production values look slick, and because Gordon-Levitt rarely disappoints.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because Bruce Willis has become little more than a caricature of his former self.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  A good way to close out the month of September.

Other theatrical releases for 9/28:  Hotel Transylvania, Won’t Back Down

Read More

Review: Premium Rush

I love what technology has done for films.  The advancement of computer graphics has allowed directors to take us to worlds previously reserved for the imagination like the planet Pandora in Avatar and to realize characters like The Avengers on a scale that was previously relegated to the funny pages.  And because of this, the bar for action movies keeps getting set higher and higher.  But as much as I love this escalation of scale and scope, I have to admit that Premium Rush is a refreshing change of pace from this trend, as the plot is taut, the scope is narrow, and the live action feels incredibly real.  The finished product then plays like a narrative that is adrenaline fueled and in a perpetual state of motion.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, fresh off his impressive performance in The Dark Knight Rises, keeps the ball rolling as Wilee, a law student turned bike messenger who shreds the pavement of NYC with reckless abandon.  When a premium rush job ends up in his bag, he finds himself on the run from Michael Shannon’s, Bobby Monday – a man with questionable intentions.

While most action movies incorporate one great chase scene to serve as its signature action sequence, Premium Rush in its totality is in fact one great chase.  Normally this might not be dynamic enough to drive the plot of an entire film, but writer/director David Koepp builds sub layers to this great pursuit – a chase within a chase within a chase – that involves a symphony of moving pieces while never losing sight of the ultimate end game.

New York City serves as a perfect backdrop to the game that is afoot.  The film expertly showcases the city in a way that seems very organic.  From Columbus Circle to the Chelsea Pier, the traffic, the milling pedestrians, and the urban bustle become as much a part of the supporting cast as anyone not receiving top billing.  The director manages to frame the city in such a way that it made me nostalgic for my time in New York (which is no easy feat) in much the same way that To Rome with Love and Midnight in Paris made me fondly reminisce.

As for the cast, Gordon-Levitt is very good at making a difficult character likeable and in this way he does a great job of portraying an anti-establishment bike messenger.  More importantly he completely takes on the physicality of the role and carries himself in a way that makes his command of the bicycle highly credible – even when it is in fact a stunt double.  This is significant because  bike action dominates the film and any break in that illusion would critically derail the narrative.

As for the supporting cast, Michael Shannon delivers yet another good villainous performance.  He is an expert at making characters feel authentically creepy while incorporating elements of menace, and this makes his performance stand out.  Likewise, Dania Ramirez does a good job playing opposite Gordon-Levitt as a fellow bike messenger and a love interest, though the romantic aspect of this movie is merely a subplot.  Premium Rush is about the chase, and Ramirez is up to the task of keeping pace.  As for Jamie Chung, Aasif Mandvi, and Wole Parks, they do decent work as mechanism to add color and to build depth into the plot and its characters, most of whom rarely stay in one place long enough for anyone to get a good look. 

The caveat in a film like this is that because it is almost perpetually in a state of action, there is little room for substance.  However, the cast and crew do enough to ensure that in those rare instances where the proceedings pause to take a breath, there is ample exposition to keep the audience emotionally invested.  So while the plot is not super sophisticated, the protagonists are engaging, the pacing exhilarating, and the payoff very satisfying.  Thus, I would definitely recommend this movie and would recommend a theatrical viewing as the stunts are top notch and the cityscape is well framed.  As you walk out of the cinema, you will definitely feel entertained and you just might feel the urge to get your bike out of storage.

Standout Performance: It probably should go to Gordon-Levitt, but I am giving the nod to Christopher Place.  Mostly known for stunt work, Place brings a nice bit of comedic relief to the proceedings as a beleaguered bike cop.

Read More