Day 163: Cloud Atlas

"A half finished book is, after all, a half finished love affair."

After a four year hiatus from the big screen, Andy & Lana Wachowski return to the director's chair, this time joined by a rather unlikely kindred spirit, German director Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run). To say that their latest film is a one of a kind epic of unbelievable spectacle and overwhelming ambition, would be the understatement of the year. Their collaboration, an adaptation of David Mitchell's 2004 novel Cloud Atlas, is nothing short of one of the finest films I've ever seen.



The Wachowskis grabbed everyone's attention back in 1996 with their neo-noir film debut, Bound, one of the best heist films of the 90s, but it was their follow-up film, 1999's The Matrix, that set the world on fire and re-defined action & sci-fi filmmaking. They fell from grace almost immediately, however, when that film's 2003 sequels were, let's say less than well-received. Their last film, Speed Racer, was greeted with an equally cold reception, but like The Matrix sequels before it, have rightfully gained a cult following in the interim.Tykwer had a very similar trajectory, though his star never rose to the heights of The Wachowskis, at least here in The US. He's been doing director for hire work lately with films like 2009's The International, and seemed just as unlikely to take us by surprise.

Cloud Atlas is a film that virtually defies description. It's six tales, set over several hundred years, that are all inter-connected through various people and events. Nearly every actor in the film pulls sextette-duty with a role in every timeline: An 1830s high seas journey, a 1930s composer's odyssey, a 1970s journalistic conspiracy tale, a 2012 farcical comedy, a 2140s science fiction escape adventure, and a far future dystopian quest. It sounds so much more confusing than it actually is, and the ease with which the filmmakers weave these six tales together is mind-boggling.



The actors are all top-notch, pulling from some of the biggest stars in the world (Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant) to journeymen character actors (Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Keith David) to British heartthrobs (Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw, James D'Arcy) and stunning newcomers (Doona Bae, Xun Zhou, David Gyasi). Everyone is given at least one showcase role, and they all get a chance to shine. Bae is particularly dazzling in her scenes set in 2144 Neo Seoul & Hanks is fantastic as always in virtually every role. They all get to play their fair share of good and evil characters, which is welcome in a film like this. I can't say anything good about any of the characters that Grant plays, but he's much better at being despicable than I ever thought he could be, and Weaving excels at playing villains.

The two standouts in the cast for me, however, were Berry & Broadbent. Halle Berry is not an actress I've ever had a particular affinity for, but I thought she brought a wonderful, lived-in quality to her roles, especially when she plays the 70s journalist, risking her life for a big scoop. Broadbent is also great throughout, but really shines in his present day comedic scenes. His character's predilection for the word "ruddy" always managed to make me laugh, and he proves to be one of many, many characters in this film worth rooting for.



While it's hard to sum up the plot (make that borderline impossible), it's the kind of film that works better when you don't know all of the particulars. For a film that jumps around in time as much as this one does, it's never frustrating. They cut away at major moments, but it's almost always to another key part of the story, so you're not focused on missing out on something. For as much as I fear this film will be ignored at award time, I truly hope it's recognized for it's superior editing. This is one of the best edited films I've ever seen.

One assurance I can give you is that it makes every effort to give the audience a satisfactory pay-off in a holistic manner. The scenes in the far future are hard to follow at first because of the tribal dialect the characters use, but after two or three scenes, you begin to keep pace. The same can be said for all of the little coincidences that pop up throughout. You're rewarded for noticing every little thing, and it's not often that you can say that about a film. Even though it runs close to three hours, it's never boring, not even for a second, and the momentum that builds over the course of the film make the third act hugely satisfying.



Perhaps the saddest fact of all is that Cloud Atlas will likely not get the audience it deserves, particularly here in the US. Epic films that don't feature Hobbits or aren't directed by James Cameron don't tend to draw big crowds, and that's sad. That Tykwer & The Wachowskis were able to wrap up all of their loose ends and tell an epic story with a beginning, middle and end in under three hours is a miracle in and of itself. We live in an era that rewards sloth in filmmaking. Mediocre fare like the fourth Twilight book is broken up over two films with barely enough substance for one, and it's greeted with record-shattering box office. However, when filmmakers have the integrity and fortitude to confine their ambitious vision to one film, it's greeted with apathy.

I cannot recommend that you see Cloud Atlas enough. See it on as big a screen with as ear-drum shattering sound as you can. You may not love it as much as I did, but I guarantee you'll walk away from it feeling as though you've experienced something. And when is the last time you walked out of a theater thinking that?

GO Rating: 5/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 162: Alex Cross

"I will meet his soul at the gates of hell before I let him take another person I love from me."

Yeah, pretty much. That's but a taste of the overly verbose dialogue that crowds every inch of the film Alex Cross. If there's been a dumber detective movie made in the last ten or so years, I certainly haven't heard about it or seen it. As a matter of fact, I was a bit of a pariah in the theater, openly snorting and giggling at some of the more preposterous elements of this film, much to the chagrin of the serious minded Alex Cross fans in the audience.

I realize that I am not the target audience for this, and I fully admit that I went into the film knowing that it had gotten awful reviews, so I was there for the wrong reasons, but it doesn't mean I didn't pay my money like everyone else. In order for me to fully explain how awful the film is, I'm going to get into some spoilers, but don't worry, I don't expect you to see the movie and I don't think you should, and even if you do, these won't ruin your enjoyment of the film.

First off, Jesus Christ on a cracker, this movie is stupid. There's an old adage in screenwriting that you should enter a scene as late as possible and end it as quickly as possible, but screenwriters Marc Moss & Kerry Williamson have never heard of this. Well, in fairness, it may have been a directorial decision made in editing the film, but virtually every scene of this movie has thirty seconds of establishing silence before beginning the dialogue, and then once the dialogue begins, it's almost solely expository.

They feel the need to have a scene where Tommy (Edward Burns) tells his new partner Monica (Rachel Nichols) that he's sleeping with, but has known for two months, that he's been friends with fellow detective Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) since they were kids. The next scene is between Tommy & Alex and consists almost exclusively of them swapping stories from their past as kids growing up. Virtually the entire movie has mind-numbing structural contradictions like this. It's positively rife with them.

Here's another one I'd like to throw at you. This trio of detectives is hunting a serial killer (I'll get into how fucking stupid this character is shortly) and the killer is able to glean their identities not from any sort of crackerjack detective work, but because they live in a world where the local newspaper publishes photos of police detectives on the front page. Yeah. This is a totally plausible occurrence in the world in which this film exists.

So, about that killer. Matthew Fox plays him, and he doesn't have a name. His character's name on imdb is listed as "Picasso" because one character in one scene calls him that, so I guess that's as good a reason as any. Matthew Fox is an actor I have no particular affinity for, even though he was on one of my favorite shows of all time, Lost. However, viewers of Lost will know of this annoying tic that he has where any time his character of Jack thought he had the upper hand, his eyes would bug out and he would begin to take huge, dramatic pauses in between words. Okay, so his character in this movie does this the entire time. He seems to think that it makes him look intense, but it makes him look like an asshole.

So this killer is only a pawn in a much larger scheme, he's a hired hand who, we're told later, came highly recommended. Yet he hangs out at his first crime scene and sketches a picture for the detectives that will surely case the scene, and within this sketch, he includes a hidden message as to who his next victim will be. What the fucking fuck? What kind of logic is that? This guy's a paid assassin, receiving orders from a person disguising his voice on the phone with him, yet he knows not only who his next victim is, but he disguises it in a MAD Magazine style fold-in drawing? These are the sort of stupid, inane, nonsensical details that should be weeded out in a first draft, or at the very least be deleted from the film before it's released into theaters.

But, I'm getting hung up on minutiae here. Let's get into the absolute stupidest thing that this film does. The killer uses a sniper rifle to try and kill Alex Cross, but instead kills his pregnant wife. This leads to a solid fifteen minutes of scenes where Alex Cross has to comfort his other children, deal with his own grief, and get a sassy talkin' to from his mother about his duties as a father. In the interest of full disclosure, I've never seen a Tyler Perry movie before, but I imagine that these schmaltzy, ham-fisted scenes are the kind that his films are typically made up of, as they have no business in a detective film like this.

Much like my similar complaint with the villain in this summer's Dark Shadows, the filmmakers felt the need to pile on offenses for this villain because they don't trust the audience enough to want to see him taken down for his crimes. The filmmakers feel as though his crimes have to be so egregious and personal that the audience can't help but ravenously root for the hero to disembowel him, and be satisfied with nothing less.

The whole endeavor is a nightmare. Director Rob Cohen (Stealth, XXX, The Fast & The Furious) is the worst possible director for a film like this. His action sequences are all shaky-cam nonsense that you can't follow to save your life, and he thinks that swelling the strings on the score is a substitute for tightening the screws of suspense. The performances are almost comedically miscalculated. Tyler Perry has a loyal following, and I'm sure there are people out there who think he's a good actor, but he's so woefully miscast here. His idea of being intense involves staring off into the distance and delivering his lines in a trance-like monotone.

The only thing worse than Ed Burns the director is Ed Burns the actor, and he's as awful as ever here. Even semi-respectable actors like John C. McGinley, Giancarlo Esposito, & Jean Reno show up, almost to add some respectability, but fall just as flat as everyone else thanks to the awful script. That brings us to Fox, who is as bad as anyone has ever been in anything. He is irredeemably awful here, mistaking pauses and intensity for actual character traits. It's a horribly misguided performance, made all the worse because of the equally bad material he was given.

Avoid Alex Cross at all costs. Even if you're a fan of the other films in the series, this one bears no resemblance to those. It's as bad a movie as I've seen all year, and will certainly live in infamy as one of the only films ever made that I could find absolutely nothing positive to say about.

[Header Image]

Stuck

My faithful readers,

I am stuck. I'm in a bit of an existential funk as it is, but one thing I could always fall back on, no matter how hard things got, was that I could still sit down, watch a movie, jot down some notes and then crank out a review. Now even that feels like a chore. It took me a full four days to sit down and write my review for Seven Psychopaths, which I loved, because I get angry with myself for falling back on the handful of adjectives and phrases that I use to praise virtually every movie that I love. I found myself deleting entire sentences because I couldn't come up with a new way to say what I wanted to say.

I could chalk it up to writer's block, or maybe just a lack of enthusiasm for writing in general, but I don't think that's the issue. Here's the issue. I'm not well. Mentally or physically. I know that I need to do something about my physical well-being, and I have for a long time. I'm just too lazy to even get started at this point. Even going to the gym for 30 minutes a day was too much for me, so I haven't gone in a while. My mental well-being is also in a state of flux due to my current anti-depressant not being as effective as my last. I need new meds, which I should be able to just go and get, but my lack of insurance coverage has left me just taking my old meds in hope that things just don't deteriorate.

Why am I getting so personal on a movie blog that's supposed to be fun and enlightening about film criticism? I don't know, I guess I'm just trying to let you know why I can't write as well as I used to. I have a back log of some 20+ reviews that I've started and haven't finished, everything from The Dark Knight Rises to Easy Rider. I just stopped writing them because I felt like I had no interesting angle from which to approach them. It's sad that the abominable reviews for Alex Cross have made me interested in seeing it, just to see if I can write some hyperbolically bad review in an attempt to get my groove back. Who knows if that'll work though.

I guess what I want, more than anything, is for those of you who read my blog with any regularity to just throw me some suggestions. If you're a writer, how did you get unblocked? If you're just an average schmo, what movies do you want me to review? I need help, and I certainly haven't been able to find any within myself.

On a side note, my oldest daughter Clementine and I have been watching the entire series of The Simpsons in order over the past few months. We just started Season 9 this morning, and it's been one of the best things I've ever done with my child (as weird as that sounds). It's been a great experience, and I would highly recommend it for anyone with a child over the age of 6.

Okay, any help from anyone would be greatly appreciated and let's break out of this funk together!

~Elitist Movie Snob

Day 161: Seven Psychopaths

"Gandhi was wrong, and I'm the only one with the balls to say it."

Irish playwright Martin McDonagh started off as strongly as any writer in the late 1990s. His plays from Beauty Queen of Leenane to The Lieutenant of Innishmore racked up acclaim, Tony Award nominations, and respect from critics and fellow writers for his ability to capture the underbelly of everyday life mixed with scathing humor. His feature film debut was 2008's In Bruges, which earned a well-deserved Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay, and his follow-up, Seven Psychopaths, is an even better experiment, that is sure to be under-seen and under-appreciated.



A struggling writer by the name of Marty (Colin Farrell) is working on his latest screenplay for which he has a title, "Seven Psycopaths," and not much else. His best friend Billy Bickle (the brilliant Sam Rockwell) is desperately angling for a chance to help with the screenplay, but is also involved in some side work with his friend Hans (a never better Christopher Walken) as dog nappers. They're stealing dogs from a park near the LaBrea Tar Pits and returning them several days later for the reward money.

Things take a turn for the worse when one of the dogs they steal happens to belong to a mobster (Woody Harrelson). Marty's screenplay is also taking shape thanks to a tip from Billy about a serial killer by the name of The Jack of Diamonds killer, going around LA killing low-level mobsters. Before long though, the unlikely trio finds themselves on the run from the mob, and various other psychopaths they are encountering in greater numbers.



The film is a spiritual cousin to films like Adaptation and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, in that it's almost more of a commentary on the very nature of writing than it is a film unto itself. The film is as layered and nuanced as anything Tarantino has churned out in his career, but can't help but being held up as an imitator, when it's far from it. It's sad to say that the film will likely end up being a victim of its own cleverness. Essentially, you're watching the film that Marty's writing, but the brilliance of it is that it's also shaped by the budding writing aspirations of both Billy and Hans, making it into a bit of a jumbled mess in the second act. But it all serves a higher purpose.

It's the kind of film that won't get the audience it deserves. The people who would truly enjoy it will likely stay away for fear that it's just another wannabe potboiler, and not the truly brilliant statement on action and crime films that it actually is. What sets it apart is that it's almost like watching a story being work shopped right before your eyes. Story lines come and go, but somehow manage to all tie together neatly at the end. As a matter of fact, the ending is brilliant beyond words, and worked for me in a way that I never thought it would. Conversely, I could easily see someone walking out of the theater detesting the direction they take at the very end of the film.



A huge part of what makes the film so successful is the performances. Rockwell is my favorite actor currently working, and he's in a full-on frenzy here. If you're not a fan of his from films like Confessions of a Dangerous Mind or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you likely won't be won over by his antics here, but for me they worked beautifully. Walken hasn't been this good in a long time, either. He goes for broke and it pays off huge dividends. He's fully given in to self-parody and it plays so brilliantly, I think he's going to be sadly devoid of awards recognition at the end of the year.

While I've never been a particularly big fan of his, Farrell makes a great leading man here. He underplays everything so well, and knows how to sit back and volley to his co-stars, giving them the payoffs, it's a great showcase for his unique abilities. Harrelson also makes the best of his slightly underwritten role, infusing his character with an unpredictability that pays off wonderfully. There's also some great small roles from Tom Waits, Michael Stuhlbarg, Kevin Corrigan, Harry Dean Stanton, and Michael Pitt. It's an amazing cast, top to bottom.



I hate that I always have to qualify films that I love by saying that this is not a film for everyone, but it truly isn't. While I found the film to be brilliantly self-aware and endlessly quotable, I could see it coming off as jarring or annoying to the average movie goer. If you love films like Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects, and the other films I've already mentioned, I would have a hard time believing that you wouldn't love this film as well. When I saw Argo last week, I remember thinking that it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year, but that I likely won't go back it watch it again. On the other hand, Seven Psychopaths is a movie that I cannot wait to see again. And again. And again.

GO Rating: 4.5/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 160: Argo

"You could teach a rhesus monkey to direct in a day."

When you get right down to it, there is no more pure way to evaluate a director's success than how much he or she improves with each successive film. Using solely this criteria, Ben Affleck is one of the best directors working in American cinema. His first film behind the camera was 2007's excellent Gone Baby Gone, followed in 2010 by the even better The Town. 2012 has seen him direct his best film yet, and arguably, one of the best thrillers in recent years, Argo.




Based, like so many great true stories, on a footnote from history, Argo tells another side of the 1979-1981 Iran Hostage Crisis. Six workers at the American Embassy in Iran escaped when the building was being seized, and hid out at the home of the Canadian Ambassador. When word reaches the CIA, they set in motion a series of half-baked plans to extract the Americans from Iran. The only idea that gains any traction however, is one posed by Tony Mendez (Affleck) to pose as a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a phony sci-fi flick titled Argo.

Mendez travels to Hollywood to meet with makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman) to see what sort of material he can gather to make this idea work. They team up with producer Lester Siegel (the brilliant Alan Arkin), who sets them up with everything they need from a fake cast to posters & press junkets. The major hiccup in the plan however, is that Mendez will have less than 48 hours once he's Iran to prep the six people and get them out with a sound enough alibi that can fool the Iranian military & government.



The story first came to light when it was declassified by President Clinton in the mid-90s, and an article written by Joshuah Bearman appeared in Wired magazine. The story is compelling and gripping enough on its own, but Affleck and his screenwriter Chris Terrio turn it into first rate drama. The way that they layer on complications and potential roadblocks that threaten to derail the mission at any moment, is masterful. The film's 120 minutes fly by, even though it's as unnerving as any two hours I've spent in a movie theater.

The true mark of why it's such a great film, however, is the way it effortlessly weaves humor into the film. The portions set in Hollywood are hilarious, with Arkin getting most of the best lines and relishing every minute of his screen time. The humor brings much needed levity to the dense subject matter, and never distracts from the main tension at hand, merely alleviates it enough to make the whole experience more fulfilling.



The performances are outstanding, with Affleck using his effortless charm to prove why he became a movie star in the first place. The supporting cast is also great, including a small roles from the always great Bryan Cranston, as well as Victor Garber as the Canadian Ambassador. The stand-out among the six Americans would probably be Scoot McNairy as Joe Stafford, the most reluctant to participate member of the group. A scene late in the film between him and Affleck is underplayed very well, and ends up making what should have been a groan inducing scene into a touching coda to the story.

Ultimately, the credit for the film's tremendous success belongs to Affleck. Like so many actors turned directors, he has a firm admiration for the films he was raised on, and never hesitates to give everyone else around him in the film their moment in the spotlight. He uses actors to their fullest, and uses the tropes of filmmakers like Cassavettes, Pakula & Lumet to great effect. All of his films feel strongly influenced by these and other great filmmakers of the 1970s, but this is the first time he has really stood on his own and showed how these influences have shaped him into a great filmmaker himself, rather than just paying homage.



Argo is a challenging, gripping, tense and hugely satisfying film. It is a crowd-pleaser in the best sense of that term, in that it's not only engaging, but also enjoyable to people across many demographics. It's a solid film that will hold the interest of just about anyone who buys a ticket to see it, and I can't recommend any higher that you do. Ben Affleck has flipped the script on even his biggest critics. This is a grade-A effort on his part, and I eagerly look forward to whatever he directs in the future.

Go Rating: 4.5/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 159: Frankenweenie

"What were you boys doing up there?" "Science."

I had been hoping that 2012 would be a return to form for the once reliably macabre Tim Burton, but following the disappointing Dark Shadows, that hope seemed to wither away into nothingness. I'm not even sure what a return to form would look like at this point, it's been nearly two decades since Burton has made a great film (Ed Wood) and the only correlation I can make is that as his budgets have increased, his imagination has decreased.

It's only a matter of time before his films become derivative of his earlier films and he begins repeating himself ad-nauseum, and while I wouldn't necessarily say that his latest film Frankenweenie falls into that category, it's certainly not the long awaited return to form we've been hoping for.




Based on Burton's own live action short film of the same name (which is available on The Nightmare Before Christmas blu-ray from a few years back) Frankenweenie tells the story of young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) who loses his dog & best friend Sparky in a tragic accident. Being a young man with a healthy interest in science, thanks to his over zealous science teacher Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau), Victor stumbles upon the idea to bring Sparky back to life using electricity.

When his secret is discovered by his classmate Edgar (Atticus Shaffer), Victor is blackmailed into becoming a reanimation veterinarian. The other children in town have their own designs on bringing their deceased pets back to life, and the film builds towards a climactic showdown of the various reanimated animals. There are some subplots involving the other children and a scene that I rather enjoyed involving the scared townspeople turning on the science teacher, and invariably, the very notion of science, but like most every other subplot, it went nowhere fast.  



The film isn't short on imagination, and it wears its heart for old monster movies firmly on its sleeve. The other kids in town resemble & even sound like famous horror film stars from Boris Karloff to Paul Muni, and science teacher Mr. Rzykruski is clearly based on Burton's beloved mentor Vincent Price. My favorite homage was the town's mayor, Mr. Burgermeister, based on the character from the classic Rankin/Bass holiday favorite Santa Claus is Coming to Town. There are homages aplenty, including the climactic showdown at a windmill, and they add to the overall loving air of attention to detail that the film is packed with.

Burton has always packed his films with outsiders, but with no real antagonist in this film, the outsiders struggle to find any meaningful direction. As I mentioned earlier, the subplots come and go quickly enough that you can't get invested in any of them, but the main plot has no real driving force to it, leading the final battle to have very low stakes. It could have been better had they stuck with the small-minded townsfolk's fear of science, but that's just one of many avenues that could have made the film feel richer and more complete.



The voice cast is notably good, featuring a mini-reunion of sorts for lovers of Beetlejuice, as the film features both Winona Ryder & Catherine O'Hara voicing characters. Martin Short is also a welcome addition in multiple roles, giving Victor's dad a nice, understanding tone that is usually in short supply in films about outsider kids. The child voice actors do admirable work as well, although it is odd to have both adults and children voicing the child characters.

The animation is fantastic, rendered in glorious black and white. I am an ardent admirer of stop-motion animation, and this is very good, if almost too bland. It doesn't have the anarchic glee of an Aardman Studio film or the visual opulence of a Laika film, but it doesn't look bad and adds to the overall eeriness of the film. It feels clinical rather than homey, and that does give it all a bit of a disadvantage when held up to other films in the genre.



Ultimately, it turns out that a film needs more than a lot of love for its influences to be a complete film. The film just doesn't have a ton of substance. It's a cute diversion and never overstays its welcome, it's just didn't have enough at stake to feel like a full experience. Tim Burton has it in him to make a great film again, it's just that he's wallowed in mediocrity for so long that when he does something halfway decent such as this, it ends up seeming much better than it actually is as a result. There's a lot to like about Frankenweenie, but I really wanted to love it.

GO Rating: 2.5/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 158: Hotel Transylvania

"Wooden stake through the heart?" "Yeah, but who wouldn't that kill?"

In my review of ParaNorman, I pointed out how the top notch work from Pixar, Studio Ghibli, Dreamworks (in the last four years) & Laika studios has us in a bit of an animation renaissance. Sadly, Sony Pictures Animation has just two homegrown feature films under its belt, and hasn't done much to contribute to this overall golden age. Their first effort was 2009's Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which was charming enough, but not terribly substantive. Sadly, that film looks like a masterpiece next to their most recent effort, Hotel Transylvania.




Hotel Transylvania tells the tale of Dracula (Adam Sandler) as an overprotective dad to his daughter Mavis (Selena Gomez). After the tragic death of his wife, Dracula promises to keep Mavis from the outside world which would shun and harm her, so he builds a retreat for monsters deep in a Transylvanian forest. It is the only place on earth where monsters can let their hair down and be who they are, without fear of intervention from the outside world. And all the heavy hitters from Frankenstein (Kevin James) to The Wolfman (Steve Buscemi) have gathered at the hotel for Mavis' 118th birthday.

The unthinkable happens, however, when an unsuspecting human named Jonny (Andy Samberg) finds the castle on a hiking trip. Dracula first tries to get rid of the human, then tries to disguise him as a fellow monster, but all hell really breaks loose when Jonny & Mavis fall for one another. Will Dracula ever let down his guard enough to trust a human? Will the divide between the monster world and the human world be too much for their love to survive? Can you keep from rolling your eyes and the non-stop cheap and easy humor that portends to substitute itself for actual entertainment?



Despite its advertising campaign, I actually held out some hope that this film might actually be a worthwhile diversion, considering it was the feature directing debut of Samurai Jack & Dexter's Laboratory creator Genndy Tartakovsky. What I only found out after seeing the film is that Tartakovsky is the sixth director that this film went through in its development, meaning that it was in pretty dire straits before he came on board. The script also has no fewer than six credited writers, so it appears as if this was a film made by committee rather than actual filmmakers.

Sandler and his stable of Happy Madison cohorts (James, Buscemi, David Spade, Jon Lovitz) voice virtually every character, so if you're not a fan of their brand of sophomoric humor, chances are this film will do little to win you over to their cause. Just when you thought Sandler couldn't get any lazier, he stumbles into the domain of lazy acting: voice-over work. It's a shame too, because he was someone that I admired for a long time, but it's been over a decade since he's produced a comedy worth laughing at. Oh, and just in case you're wondering, it takes all of eight minutes to get to the first fart joke. Eight minutes. Must be a new record.



I think the overall problem with the film is that it just doesn't bring anything new to the table. The "monsters are really afraid of humans" angle has been covered several times before, most notably in Monsters, Inc. Good rule of thumb for animated films, if Pixar's done it already, it's not worth trying to do it again. Oh, but it's also the story of an over-protective father learning how to let go and let his child figure out the world on their own terms. Hmmmm... Which Pixar movie was it that covered that territory already? And Sandler's not content to just rip off other people's films. Wait until you get to the climactic scene, set on board an airplane, that's almost a little too in debt to The Wedding Singer.

I guess the real reason I dislike this film so much is how inherently lazy everything about it truly is. There was probably some original ground to cover here, but everyone seems to have avoided it like the plague, sticking to ground paved by everyone before them. There are lots of family films in the marketplace in this day and age, it's worth having something new and or original to say if you're hoping that parents are going to shell out their hard earned money to drag the whole family to the theater, and if this is as new and original as it's going to get, I'd rather stay home.



Look, I'm being awfully harsh on the film, but  I spent my money on it, so I get to have my say. Characters mugging to the camera and Jokes about bodily functions have their place in films. Hell, even The Master had a fart joke in it. But when that's all you've got, it's not enough. Period. End of sentence. There's got to be more to it than that, and this film brought nothing imaginative to the equation beyond what must have been a series of "insert joke that will make an eight year old laugh here."

It's a well-animated film that's nice to look at, and thank goodness, otherwise I would've left (although my daughters would have been upset). It's just not enough to continuously stop the flow of the action to insert a horrendously auto-tuned musical number because you've run out of ideas and/or plot. There's got to be a reason to get the people into the theater, and I know that 90% of it is just getting them in there in the first place. However, I will approach anything and everything from this studio and these filmmakers with kid gloves from here on out, because they did everything in their power to earn that. To paraphrase Dean Wormer from Animal House, "cheap, lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

GO Rating: 0.5/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 157: Looper

"We both know what has to go down. So why don't you do what old men do, and die."

One of the most assured directorial debuts of the last decade was Rian Johnson's 2005 modern film noir Brick, a film that I admire on many levels, but don't necessarily like. The film is also notable as one of two films from the same year, along with the masterful Mysterious Skin, to re-introduce former child television star Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a big screen actor with serious chops. Their latest re-teaming is Looper, a science fiction/action film that isn't short on science fiction, action or ambition...




In the year 2044, Joe (Gordon-Levitt) works as a Looper, a hitman that executes people sent back from the future. Essentially time travel is only used by a corrupt entity that utilizes it to send people back 30 years into the past to be eliminated. It pays well, keeping most of the Loopers on the upper end of the societal echelon, as the future is even further racked with financial decay, but the job is not without its inherent risks. The biggest risk of all is that eventually, one of their hits will be their own future selves, effectively "closing the loop" and erasing all traces of the relationship.

When the story opens, the Loopers are being flooded with loop closings, left and right. Joe begins to become leery of this proposition, and naturally, when his own time comes, he's overpowered by his future self (Bruce Willis) which sets off a series of cataclysmic events that threaten not just the future, but the present as well. I won't go into any further details of the plot, as the film is just now being released nationwide, but rest assured that the film has some twists up its sleeve that are radically unpredictable, and the film will keep you guessing right up until its final moments.



First of all, it must be stated that the premise for this film is ingenious. It creates a fully realized science fiction world that you'll have no problem buying into and going along with. It's captivating, and although it does rely heavily on voice-over narration by Joe to explain the rules of the world, it's never done in a distracting way, giving you information precisely when you need it. There are numerous parallels you can draw between this film and other time travel films, most notably 12 Monkeys, but it is most certainly its own animal, indebted to the past but not beholden to it.

This theme comes through in the costume choices as well, having fun with the premise that past fashion has become in vogue again, as nothing is ever new, it merely recycles itself. The organization that Joe works for is headed by Abe (Jeff Daniels) who is from the future, and conveys the aforementioned theme through a pretty brilliantly written exchange with Joe near the beginning of the film. It's sly without ever calling attention to it, and for that it has to be admired.



For as much as there is to admire about the film, however, I'm left feeling hollow by it. The film is so smart, and plays so fast and loose with the very concept of time travel and its implications, that the major driving plot device behind the film's final hour almost made me angry. It's seriously difficult for me to explain without going into major spoiler territory, but you'll know it when it happens, and while it may work great for some, it totally took me out of the movie. For me, it was akin to the moment in Superman Returns when the kid shoves the piano at the henchman, and that's almost more than I want to say about it.

There are two gaping plot holes that I can't get past, only one of which I can discuss in a spoiler-free review. Why do the Loopers have to kill their own future selves? It seems as though this one action would be easy to solve, namely, give the hit to a different Looper. But I guess there wouldn't be a film if that were the case, so it seems almost ridiculous to discuss. I'd be happy to discuss the other one in a future post, once more people have seen the film, but it was a pretty big deal breaker for me.



The performances are very good across the board. Gordon-Levitt is great as always, and his makeup is much more convincing in the context of the film than I think it comes across in the advertising. It's not distracting at all. Willis is also great, as is Daniels who arguably got the best written character in the film. Emily Blunt, whom I haven't mentioned at all, is also very good, and plays one of the better written females in a science fiction film.

Overall, I have to admire a film that's this bold and innovative, even if I don't like the ultimate plot of the film. Ultimately, I was disappointed by the route they decided to take the premise, and was left with the distinct feeling that the film could have ended in a million different ways, but they ended up choosing the most violent and mindless ending possible.

For a film that had so much thought and care put into every aspect of it, I question why they felt the need to turn it into a bloodbath by the end, seemingly deflating any of the subtlety that they had spent so much time cultivating. I recommend the film for sci-fi geeks and film lovers, because it is so original and admirable, but don't be surprised if you find yourself leaving the theater wishing that there had been more to it than a great premise.

GO Rating: 3/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 156: Gentlemen Broncos

"It's a friendship stone. Let's blow on it."

2004's Napoleon Dynamite unleashed an epidemic on the world. It made it cool to be uncool. While the film itself is a gem of quirks & truly bizarre characters and behavior, it also paved the way for a wave of copycats and imitators with an ever increasing deluge of diminishing returns. It can't be duplicated, but that hasn't stopped people from trying. Even that film's director, Jared Hess, has been trying to rebottle the lightning that led to his own initial success. His 2006 film Nacho Libre had an enormously entertaining trailer that spoiled all of the film's laughs, namely because the jokes were only funny out of the context of the film itself. In fact, that seems to be the problem with his brand of humor, the context of the film actually serves to squash whatever humor there is in the situations and characters.

His most recent, and to date last, film was 2009's Gentlemen Broncos, a film with an equally promising set-up. A home-schooled teenager writes a science fiction story that ends up being pilfered by his favorite author and turned into a wildly successful, albeit bastardized, novel. It's a brilliant premise that goes south so quickly, it makes you wonder why it was even made in the first place.

There's a strange dichotomy at work in the film, namely that it's obviously funny that the group of misfits we're introduced to early on are home-schooled and therefore socially inept, but the filmmakers make their behavior and quirks so outlandish that they would never be taken seriously as real people. It's like he's inviting us to laugh at the very notion of how awkward home-schooled children are by creating a group of characters that's more in line with a bus full of psychopaths. The joke is seemingly in the setup, but the punchline is a gut-punch that shames you into feeling bad for laughing at the mere premise of them being bizarre.

But anyway, Benajmin (Michael Angarano) has written a science fiction novel called "Yeast Lords" that he hopes to enter into competition for a chance at publication. One of the judges on the panel is Dr. Ronald Chevalier (Jemaine Clement), who's in some hot water of his own over his recent spate of unpublished rubbish. He's lost his mojo, so he decides to steal Benjamin's story, repurpose some of the character names and details, and pass it off as his own work, now titled "Brutus and Balzaak." These are the jokes people!

Anytime someone reads from the book, the film audience is treated to an on-screen interpretation starring Sam Rockwell as Bronco or Brutus, depending upon whose adaptation is shown. Rockwell is probably my favorite actor working in film today, and his performance was the highlight of the film, but he's so underused that even his appearances became trying late in the film. It's also made more confusing when two other students from the home-school trip Tabitha (Halley Feiffer) and Lonnie (Hector Jimenez) work on producing their own, officially licensed, film of "Yeast Lords."

The film is a jumbled mess, piling on subplot after subplot until you're not even sure what the main through line of the film is anymore. Benjamin's mother (Jennifer Coolidge) creates her own line of nightgowns & popcorn balls, and because he has no friends, hires Benjamin a "Guardian Angel" by the name of Dusty (Mike White) who ends up playing the lead in Lonnie's film of "Yeast Lords." The script is a nightmare of confusing plot diversions, made all the more difficult to enjoy because of the bizarre characterizations the actors chose in bringing them to life.

Coolidge is an actress that I normally like, but she makes so many woefully misguided decisions here, playing her character like nothing that resembles an actual living, breathing human being. Jimenez is a terrifying presence, playing his character not like an outsider, but like a deranged man who has been suddenly deprived of his medication. And absolutely no care or concern was given to creating a likable protagonist, so Angarano has no choice but to amble through the film doing nothing more than looking mopey or pouting.

Clement is pretty much the only saving grace of the film, outside of Rockwell. That he chose to model his character's voice on actor Michael York gives him the perfect air of pomposity, and the class he teaches on adding mythical suffixes to boring character names is probably the funniest part of the entire film. He goes a long way towards helping you to root for Benjamin by making Chevalier a particularly odious character, but a great villain does not a great hero make, and I never felt compelled to actually like Benjamin.

A lot of directors end up falling into self-parody at some point in their career, it's just not usually on their third film in five years. Jared Hess may yet snap out of his creative funk, but it's not likely. Unless he can attract major talent to elevate his bargain basement material, it's only going to go downhill from here. He may yet recapture the magic of Napoleon Dynamite, but he has to try harder than this. I refuse to believe this was the best possible version of this idea that was had. It's far too promising an idea to be wasted on such a dreadful movie.

[Header Image]

Day 155: The Master

"You are the bravest boy I've ever met."

In the first seven years of his career, writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson made four films. However, in the decade since then, he's only made two, the most recent of which was 2007's There Will Be Blood, a film universally and correctly regarded as a masterpiece. Needless to say, the anticipation for his latest film, The Master, has gone through the roof, particularly following a strong showing at the Venice Film Festival, where it took the lion's share of awards, including a shared Best Actor award. So does it live up to the hype?



In all honesty and fairness to the film, it could never live up to the hype that's been built up around it. No film could, particularly one that flies so brashly in the face of any expectations you may have. It's almost as if Anderson is defying you to dislike the film, it's that bold an experiment. Ultimately for me, it paid huge dividends, but I could completely and totally see someone who's equally devoted to the director walking away with the opposite reaction.

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is a naval officer returning to the States following WWII. He's shown to be an aimless wanderer with an anger problem. He's unable to hold down a job, and seems to only take pleasure in creating moonshine out of whatever chemicals he has at his disposal. His talent for improvising drinks gets him in trouble when he is accused of poisoning a fellow worker on a cabbage farm. He makes his escape, stowing away on another sea faring vessel, albeit one carrying significantly different cargo than he's used to hauling.

Commandeering the ship is Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a "hopelessly inquisitive" doctor who has invented a new quasi-religion dubbed "The Cause." Seeing a kindred spirit in Freddie, Dodd takes him in as a new inspiration and protege. Dodd has plans to take The Cause to another level, making it into a fully formed spiritual movement, and he wants Freddie at his side when he attempts to change the world. But Freddie's volatility threatens to unravel the already tenuous base upon which Dodd has built his empire.



I suppose what is so maddening about The Master is that it is as formless and spontaneous as Freddie is. It doesn't have a direct through line apart from the passage of time, and anyone hoping for a sense of closure and finality will not find it here. Anderson's past work has always been built around resolution for his characters, and there's always a strong sense of an ending to his films, but this film seriously diverts from that path.

A scene late in the film has Dodd riding on his motorcycle as fast as he can toward a definite point in the distance. It's almost as if Anderson is reminding us that the film is doing anything but, a bold but effective choice. I don't know how successful The Master is as a film, but as art, it's defiantly brash and daring. Does that make it a good film? I'd leave that up to the individual to decide, but I would say yes.

The story that's been getting a lot of traction prior to the film's release is that is based on the founding of Scientology. While the parallels certainly exist between The Cause and Scientology, the film is no more about Scientology than Boogie Nights was about pornography or There Will Be Blood was about oil. It's the world the characters live in, but it only serves to illustrate the differences and startling similarities between Freddie and Dodd.



The other thing that the film's supporters and detractors seem to agree on is that the two lead performances are remarkable. It's hard to argue otherwise, as both of these actors are executing at the top of their craft. This is the strongest male tete a tete I've seen since F. Murray Abraham & Tom Hulce went at each other in Amadeus. Phoenix is good in a very showy, explosive, actor-y way, but it's Hoffman who stole the show for me.

Hoffman burns with intensity, barely able to keep his true nature in check, having moments where he can't control his animal instincts. Phoenix gets the majority of the flashy scenes, and he's outstanding, but Hoffman underplays his scenes to fantastic effect. About forty-five minutes into the film, these two have a scene, where Dodd "processes" Freddie, that is possibly the best scene that Anderson has ever put on film. It's a remarkable exercise in flawless writing, directing and acting.

Amy Adams is quite good in her role as Dodd's wife, but the rest of the supporting cast is largely forgettable. That's not to say that there's any bad performances in the film, it's just such a two-man show that everyone fades into the background by the third act. Adams does make the most of her scenes however, providing a sound voice of reason for her husband, proving again that she is one of the best actresses working in film today.



The parallels between Freddie & Dodd drive the film all the way, and I would wager to say that your enjoyment of the film is largely contingent upon how you feel about them as characters. Dodd sees in Freddie a man who is much like himself, a dreamer, an improviser, and a powder keg just waiting to explode. Dodd needs Freddie to succeed, because otherwise, they both fail. It's a love story in the most unconventional sense of the word, but no less romantic as a result.

The Master is most assuredly not a film for everyone. I can already see Anderson's fans drawing battle lines and standing firmly on either side of the film. Those who go along for the ride will defend it until their dying breath, and those who don't will seek to tear it apart. It is an epic in every sense of the word, mainly because it's an epic risk for a filmmaker who could easily be playing it safe at this point in his career. It's a comfort to know that films like The Master exist, whether you love it or hate it, it's existence proves that PT Anderson is one of the boldest filmmakers alive.

GO Rating: 4.5/5


[Photos via Rotten Tomatoes]