typewriter riot

So Many Questions

2017-08-16T12:55:00.003-07:00

Two Stars

“The Dark Tower” is a missed opportunity and I have so many questions concerning the production of this film. For one thing, was this a TV pilot? When I heard before seeing this film that the running time is a mere ninety-five minutes, I already took it as a sign that this movie might be bad. “The Dark Tower”, Stephen King’s magnum opus series of eight books, has a lot of stuff in it. I don’t expect the first film to have everything in it, but a film starter like this could have been a new “Lord of the Rings” film type series. There is no shame in taking beloved books and making them television series anymore, as shown by the adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s “American Gods” or George R.R. Martin’s “Game of Thornes”. Some might even argue that we are in a golden age of epic television anyway, so why not just make a pay per view TV series out of this book series?

Even if this was a television series, the pacing of this movie was odd even if it was for television. Many of the scenes felt like set ups to films that might have been great. However, the word to describe them is rushed. This movie doesn’t take a minute to breath. Even so much that even writing a review of this film isn’t allowing me to get to the part where I explain the basic plot to the reader. The plot starts with a kid named Jake, who lives in a New York City apartment with his mom and step dad. Played by Tom Taylor, the kid who plays him isn’t bad at all. In the fact, for the most part, the actors really aren’t the problem here. The child actor who plays Jake comes off convincing as a kid who’s a bit off. The movie starts with his dream of kids at some kind of weird camp where they are hooked up to machines and drained of power to power a tower.

Once again, all good stuff. Another scene has him sadly putting up drawings of scenes from his dreams. Once again, cool “Twilight Zone” type stuff Stephen King is famous for. However, within a couple of minutes, he figures out there’s an old house in Brooklyn which he suspects might be a portal to another world of his dreams, and he needs to run away from his mom who wants to introduce him to two people who run a school in upstate New York for special kids. Once again, this is a big problem in the film that is twofold. Jake is an interesting character, and I kind of want to see what would happen if he was in a special school in upstate New York. That’s interesting.
However, he is already on the run, and basically, we don’t get to know anything about his life beyond what I just mentioned. Before we know it, he finds a portal in an abandoned house. After a couple minutes, he’s already in a desert with the gun slinger Roland, who is played well by Idris Elba. Idris Elba, a guy who constantly has pain on his face, with a gun is in the desert and woods commenting on the ruins of civilization. They start their “Lord of the Rings” type journey to a village that is in danger, towards the Dark Tower.

But meanwhile, there’s another character, Randall, played by Matthew McConaugley who didn’t seem to know what to do with the role. He just walks around, talking in a flat voice like that’s enough to be “evil”. He wears a hood, he can kill people with a touch, he tells them as they are dying that there is no afterlife and he makes kids turn against their parents by simply walking past them. It ends up that school in upstate New York isn’t real, and it’s really him wanting Jake because it ends up Jake has the shining, another Stephen King reference. Yet, this movie can’t decide if it’s Stephen King diehards or people who are completely new to this material. However, the worst mistake a movie adaptation can make is just assume everyone read the book walking in.

However, there’s even more when Roland and Jake go to our world and do battle against Rolland to defeat his evil. They want us to believe Roland and Jake have a father son type bond now but like everything else in this film, it’s rushed. The pacing in this movie is weird. It’s so rushed, and it makes me wonder if they just threw together a bunch of openings to more compelling scripts together and threw the title “Dark Tower” on script. This movie has had a not so great history. In 2007, Ron Howard (still credited as a producer) gave a crack at this. He couldn’t figure out a way to make it work. So, then J.J. Abrams took a crack at this. He couldn’t find a way to make it work. God, if Howard and Abrams can’t make it work, I don’t think it’s going to work. Then they got a foreign director named Nikolaj Arcel, who I wasn’t sure was really well versed with the movie’s source material. Then Sony kept showing the film to test audiences, and according to the internet, after bad receptions, kept reshooting it to the point the kid looks older at the end of the film even though it’s supposed to take place over a couple days. Sony ended up spending four million dollars reshooting this film.

This film is accredited to five screenwriters, which is usually a bad sign. However, “Spiderman: Homecoming” is accredited to six screenwriters, and somehow pulled off a coherent and lovable film that took cues from John Hughes. I don’t know how exactly they screwed this up. There is no shame in today’s world of making epic books into TV series, and considering how “The Dark Tower” is considered a modern “Lord of the Rings”, I think slowly doing this over a couple years as a TV series might have served the material better.

The Biggest Twist in “Goosebumps”? It’s Actually Good.

2015-10-17T16:16:00.003-07:00

Three Stars

I had a lot of fun seeing this film.

“Goosebumps”, for those of you who grew up before Harry Potter mania overtook young adult literature, was a series of young adult novels which were designed to give you the chills, but not so much that you would be traumatized, but spooky enough that you would think twice before going to sleep. Considering the books sold three hundred million copies over the years, it’s a bit baffling that they haven’t had a movie adaptation until now. R.L. Stine’s spooky tales have been scaring kids for over twenty years now. R.L. Stine has said in an interview that the problem was that they could never figure out which book to make into an entire film, as the books aren’t very long. The “Goosebumps” film takes a very creative approach to this problem. Why not just have a kid move next door to R.L. Stine himself?

Zach (Dylan Minnette) moves with his mom (Amy Ryan) to a new neighborhood in Greendale, Maryland. He’s not thrilled to be moving from New York City, but that changes fast when he sees the pretty girl next door, Hannah (Odeya Rush). They meet each other, but she is quickly taken inside her house and he gets a stern warning from her dad, a mysterious man with black-rimmed glasses, who they later learn is R.L. Stine (Jack Black). At school, Zach quickly makes a nerdy friend named Champ (Ryan Lee), who is basically a teen version of Howard Wolfowitz. Things are going normally enough, with him being embarrassed by his mom being the assistant principal and his aunt (Jillian Bell) stepping in to help out.

Then one night, Zach hears a mysterious scream come from his next-door neighbor and thinks Hannah is in trouble. He calls his friend, Champ, and they find that there’s mysterious secrets and big surprises in the house and by mistake unleash the monsters, and things go bonkers. My favorite monster in the film was Slappy The Dummy (also voiced by Jack Black), who turns around the chair, threatens R.L. Stine and the kids and escapes to create chaos in the town.

What I appreciated about this film was it could of been a big monster chase, and in a way, it is. However, I felt the director and screenwriter took time to throw things into this film they where under no obligation to do. Some of the jokes actually poke fun at the nature of this film in general. At one moment, Zach asks why R.L. Stine couldn’t just write about unicorns and fairies. “Because” R.L. Stine says, “that wouldn’t sell three million copies.” Some of the humor is very self aware, and funny.

Another thing I liked about this film was the twist with the daughter, which I won’t give away, but I thought, was actually pretty unusual considering this is a kid’s film. They didn’t really have to think out a creative twist for her. The kid characters in this film are pretty generic for the most part, but so are the kids in most of the “Goosebumps” books. “Goosebumps” isn’t in the business of making memorable kids like “Harry Potter”, but in a way that’s okay. R.L. Stine’s stuff is all about normal kids getting into spooky situations.

Jack Black obviously has fun overdoing the cliché horror author persona of R.L. Stine, giving him a cheesy accent and a goofy back story about how none of the kids liked him as a child, as he gained the power to bring the monsters he wrote to life. In a way, this film was better thought out than a lot of the current nineties revivals we’ve been seeing lately. We aren’t seeing a big reunion of these childhood books and us, and yes, some of the twists don’t really make sense, but it doesn’t really matter. I wish more things that reach for nostalgia while also introducing a new audience, would embrace the silliness of why we liked the things in the first place.

"The Wind Rises" is a Great Farewell To The Master of Dreams

2014-05-23T06:58:00.001-07:00

Four Stars

Say goodbye to the grand master of dreams. I’ll miss Hayao Miyazaki. I’ll miss the magic, and I’ll miss the wonder. He is retiring, and his final film “The Wind Rises” is magical without being magic based. It’s based on a true story, something new for Miyazkai. Though, it has its usual theme. That thin line between good and bad, and a kind of belief that everyone has some good in them, as most of his villains are good people. However, when Miyazki’s guys are good, they are really, really good. No one creates more lovable characters than he does. The man is a master storyteller, which usually leaves the Pixar guys in awe. His final film, “The Wind Rises” is interesting, because you feel that if this is his final film, he’s going to have his say, which is obvious in little scenes he has in this film. I am reminded of “Grave of The Fireflies”, which he didn’t direct but produced, a film the great Roger Ebert called one of the greatest war movies ever made.

This story centers on Jiro Horiskoshi, a young man who wants to be a pilot. Due to his bad eyesight, it isn’t happening but he instead becomes one who designs planes. He has wide eye optimism, as he simply wants to make planes. He doesn’t know that the planes will be used for war, but at the same time, kind of does. He does know that he loves them as machines and dreams of taking flight. He dreams of his hero, an Italian plane designer named Caponi.

This definitely feels like his last film. I can tell because of all the little commentary he slips into it. His criticism of war and violence is nothing new, as seen in “Howl’s Moving Castle” and “Princess Mononoke”. The film ends on the note that Jiro isn’t completely happy with what his planes, which he lovingly designed, are used for. Between the magic of Miyazaki’s movies, there’s always been a hint of commentary. Nature shouldn’t be messed with. Girls can be strong as guys. Evil is never complete evil.

There’s nothing I can really say about the visuals. Every movie Miyazaki produces is beautiful to look at. Every detail is so worked on that you forget your watching an animated film. No one gets you more emotionally invested than Miyazaki in an animated film, except for maybe Pixar. That being said, there’s a reason that Pixar worships Studio Ghibli, Miyazaki’s production house. They take many cues from him on how seriously they should take an animated story.

There’s a love story, once again not unusual for Miyazaki, but also this one has a sad part to it. Something one notices while watching Miyazaki movies is his love stories never really stick. “Spirited Away” and “Princess Mononoke” both have love stories that aren’t going to stick or maybe they will. “Princess Mononoke” leaves it open.

It’s hard to write about Miyazaki’s last film without talking about his other work. I loved the fact that he chooses such a realistic story to end his film career. However, whether magical or non-magical, Miyazaki has the same themes throughout his films. This one is no exception. One sees the sadness and hope throughout Jiro’s life. Tragic and happy, Miyazaki’s films, at the end of the day, are about people and that’s why you forget you are watching animation. “The Wind Rises” is one of this year’s best films. The end of a career built on magic and great storytelling which will missed at the movies.

“Blackfish” is this year’s most unlikely thriller

2014-03-04T19:13:00.001-08:00

Four Stars

I don’t know how this didn’t get an Oscar nod. Excuse the pun, but that smells fishy to me. “Blackfish” is a powerful documentary about SeaWorld. Now that may not sound like much. SeaWorld? It’s a stupid amusement park. Who cares? What this documentary proves, is that SeaWorld is much more symbolic for a bigger problem. It’s symbolic for corporate greed and abuse. Using the story of the trainer Dawn Brancheau, who is killed by the whale, Tillikum, who has killed three people over his career at SeaWorld.

Tracing the history of SeaWorld, director Gabriela Cowperthwaite interviews an old fisherman who was hired by SeaWorld in its early days to kidnap killer whales from its families in the ocean. The fisherman says, “This is the worst thing I ever did.” SeaWorld, after Dawn’s death, blames her for her death. Cowperthwaite interviews former SeaWorld employees, all telling horror stories from their time working there from a whale being separated from his calf to people being almost killed by the whale and SeaWorld’s higher ups simply not caring as much they should.

SeaWorld seems like a narrow topic, but SeaWorld becomes a symbol for a lack of accountability for corporations. Skillfully using scenes of SeaWorld’s family friendly image, she spends a good amount of time talking about the mental condition of the whales. One neuroscientist says all whales in captivity are traumatized. Experts talk about how killer whales are more emotionally complex than we give them credit for.

That entire aside, though, it does beg the question of how absurd it is to build a billion dollar business around killer whales doing stupid pet tricks for a cheering audience. The government investigates SeaWorld and they lie. It’s sad to listen to these people who worked at SeaWorld, because obviously a lot of these people are sincere in their love for animals. Once again, it all comes down to money. These killer whales are worth millions of dollars.

It’s a very upsetting film, in parts, but it’s also hopeful that one-day people will stop using animals for these various purposes such as entertainment or money operations. It’s more than that, though. This film is about how certain companies would do anything for money even at the expense of a living, breathing creature. It’s unbelievable, though, that Tillikum is still at SeaWorld. The trainers in this film plea for SeaWorld to free Tillikum and let him live out the rest of his days in the wild. SeaWorld probably won’t listen. They need Tillikum to breed and it’s worth too much money.

Gabriela Cowperhwaite does an incredibly good job at making this film powerful, and I thought about it days after I saw it. It’s a powerful piece of work, and this is great documentary filmmaking. I’m not saying that documentaries have to be on depressing topics, and they too can be uplifting as well. I am not against the documentary on back up singers winning the Oscar this year, but at the very least, this great piece of documentary filmmaking should have been nominated. This was a powerful film that stayed with me. It may or may not change anything, but non-fiction filmmaking is important, and this needed to be made. It’s one of the year’s best films.

“Philomena” is a Powerful Film

2014-01-18T14:51:00.001-08:00

Three and a half stars

The movie “Philomena” is a powerful new movie on the true story of a women searching for a son she gave up years ago. Based on a book by Martin Sixsmith, “Philomena” brings together two people who are both reeling from problems in their past. One is a journalist who had a very public firing and the other a women who is haunted by the son she was forced to give up. Judi Dench gives a powerful performance as Philomena, who is constantly having a look of pain on her face but also keeps a positive outlook on her faith and forgiveness of those around her. Martin (Steve Coogan) is a bit more cynical, as he doesn’t share her faith in the very church, which made her give up her son. Together they go from Britain to America, trying to figure out what happened to her son. Steve sees it as a human-interest story at first but along the way, learns to put away some his snobbery and see things from Philomena’s point of view.

The film is directed by the wonderful Stephen Frears, who has directed some very good movies like “Dirty Pretty Things”, “The Queen” and “High Fidelity”, which is one of my personal favorites. He does a very good job of shooting this movie, using real footage of Philomena’s son intercut with the movie. I like how he didn’t make it overly dramatic and more of just a story about this women figuring out what happened to her son. Of course, something that has to be addressed is the role the Catholic Church played in this film. They are the ones who took Philomena and her son in, when she was young. They are also the ones who made her give up her son. They do not come off looking good, but I wouldn’t say this film is anti-Catholic. Philomena is a very good person throughout the film, and that is in part to her keeping her faith. She is forgiving.

I like the relationship she develops with Martin. They together have good chemistry and learn to understand each other a bit more. Martin gets angry at what has been done to Philomena. Judi Dench is always good in just about everything she is in. The pain on her face is very believable throughout the film. Steve and Philomena start to develop a very deep respect for each other, and there’s a scene towards the end where Martin finally starts to see things through Philomena’s eyes and does something very nice.

Nothing in the movie is resolved, except for the fact that sometimes institutions don’t do right by their own people. The church that Philomena lived at as a young girl didn’t do right by her, or her child. They are so stuffy they can’t even get over the fact that they considered what she did a sin. The film focuses, though, mostly on bringing these two people together in a kind of understanding of each other. A comedian, Steve Coogan, who also co-wrote the film’s screenplay, plays Martin and he does a very good job. He goes from stuffy, and the audience sides with him at times because we know he is right about the injustice of what the church did to Philomena and her son.

However, we also see the world through Philomena’s eyes. She isn’t quite ready to get angry at the church that separated her from her son. She says in one scene that she wants to forgive because she doesn’t want to remain angry. Martin doesn’t quite get why she would forgive. However, at the end, he does learn a bit about why she needs to move on. Sometimes moving on is the only way people can forgive. Philomena didn’t do anything wrong, despite what the Church considers a sin.

It should be noted, though, that this is a movie that works because of the people who made it. It’s not a movie of the week. It’s a sad and true story. We may not walk out of the theater quite understanding in our modern takes on things why Philomena is so willing to forgive, but we do understand Philomena’s willingness to move on because of the great performance of Judi Dench. Forgiveness is easy. Moving on is hard.

“Saving Mr. Banks” is A Story Within A Story

2013-12-30T14:01:00.001-08:00

Three and A Half Stars

I think "Saving Mr. Banks" is a really touching story about my favorite kind of people, storytellers. “Saving Mr. Banks” is the story of P.L. Travers, who wrote the Mary Poppins books. She sells the book to Disney, because she mainly needs the money. Yet, she also, through the process of selling and visiting Disney, has it bring up many things that she remembers from a painful childhood. Often an author sees what they had written differently than those who adapt it. The film isn’t really too much about Disney and the creative process as much as it’s about the childhood of the creator of the works Disney is adapting. I was a bit surprised at how much the film was about P.L. Traver’s childhood. The scenes with the ever stubborn author driving the screenwriter and the Sherman Brothers ,the movie’s song writers, crazy are delightful at times, and at other times, a bit sad because she is seeing this adaptation differently then they are. Emma Thompson is great as the stoic Travers, who is unmoved by the wonder and magic of Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) and his crew. She is simply in this for the money, but also she is concerned about them making a cartoon of her story. Her story is really more about her personal history then her fictional one. Much like J.K. Rowling will tell you Harry Potter is about her depression then simply wands and magic, P.L. Travers sees Mary Poppins as about her awful childhood.

Walt Disney doesn’t quite understand what is wrong with Travers, the charming fellow he is. He has charmed the whole world with his stories and characters, so why not her? In fact, her real name isn’t P.L. Travers and she really isn’t British. She hides behind this all, because of her less than staller childhood with an alcoholic father. Her father is played by Colin Ferrell and is his best role in years. He doesn’t seem like a bad man, as he loves his daughters. However, he can’t seem to get out of his own way, as he is constantly drinking. The script by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith goes back and fourth between P.L. Travers as an adult and herself as a child, spending much time in her childhood. The film’s shoots of her childhood are beautifully done. The little girl who plays Travers as a child does a great job, too. That should be noted.

One of my favorite aspects of his film is it’s understanding that the people who create magical tales are often the least magical people themselves. It takes a lot for someone to create fantasy, as it really is an alternative to his or her real life. Fantasy is an important escape, and this film seems to make the case for the importance of escapism. The escapism of writing Mary Poppins is so important to Travers that she cuts off the very real people who care about her. However, Walt Disney himself embraces the escapism of his own world, and doesn’t see why Travers doesn’t either.

I don’t know if this film is entirely what happened as it is produced by Disney Pictures, but I do give them credit for going a bit edgier in this picture. Travers and Disney seem to have a lot in common, however, when we come in the end, we realize that the difference is Walt chose to move on and Travers didn’t. My favorite scene in the film is that conversation between Walt and Travers. Also, I love the scene where the Disney driver, played by Paul Giamatti, says his disabled daughter gave him the Mary Poppins book before he left and he couldn’t stop reading. It made me think of J.K. Rowling, and it made me think that these types of storytellers haven’t really changed much in many years.

It is a serious, somber movie for the Disney Studios, and that’s what surprised me the most. This movie is a somber tale for anyone who’s ever tried to tell a story and the reasons why they tried to tell it in the first place. Sometimes we tell ourselves stories to cope, but at the end of the day, the most important story is our own.

“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug”, A Darker Chapter In Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” Saga

2013-12-24T11:19:00.000-08:00

Three Stars

Peter Jackson shoots at 48 frames per second, which is double the industry standard of 24 frames per second. He has stood by his style shooting films among criticism and praise in the movie industry. Peter Jackson not only shoots at more frames per second, but also probably stretched out the Hobbit to 2 movies longer than it probably needed to be. However, I have to say that Bilbo Biggins is a great character and J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy world is a delight. Dark, funny, epic, thrilling are words I used to describe Peter Jackson’s vision of J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy world, and how he keeps it alive as the classic it is. The books would survive by themselves, but these movies also help keep them alive. Obviously, this is the middle of the three films as we pick up where we left off. I don’t suggest you see this movie if you didn’t see part one.

We open on a rain soaked day in a village where wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) visits the exiled dwarf king Thorin (Richard Armitage). He had news to share with him that will affect the journey of Bilbo Baggins and the dwarfs who accompany him. They are on a quest to battle and kill the dragon. It’s a greedy dragon who attacked and who stole all the gold from the good people from Lake Town. Things are getting messy, as Bilbo Baggins and his merry man are going along their quest. Heck, as many devotees of Lord of The Rings saga know, no one makes walking more iconic and thrilling than the Lord of the Rings saga. Things get more at stake as they get closer and closer to the dragon in his large cave.

There are many things that happen in the Hobbit, and J.R.R. Tolkien’s complications make J.K. Rowling’s complications adorable by comparison. Going back to the review, I really do love Martin Freeman’s performance as Bilbo Baggins. He is one of the greatest characters of all time, in my opinion. I also love the performances of his co-conspires. They encounter kingdoms, dark forces, good forces, towns, different creatures and many things along the way. This installment is darker than the first one, but anyone who has read the book will expect it to be. As usual, Jackson’s visuals are beautiful to look at, and the way he shoots things can be drawn back to his 48 frames a second technique. Don’t quote me on that, because I am no expert but I have a feeling that there is a very good reason he increased the frames per second in his films.

I will say this again. Don’t see this movie if you didn’t see the first one, because you probably won’t know what’s going on. It will be really hard to follow, as the Hobbit feels like one movie cut into three. However, I enjoyed part 2 of the Hobbit. I suggest it for any fantasy fan, LOR fans or people who want to introduce their Harry Potter fan kids to the original epic that started it all. However, I still suggest renting out movie one if you haven’t shown them that. As for the film, I enjoyed it. Its always fun to watch Peter Jackson do what he does best, which is his epic style.

Fantasy has been a hot genre in Hollywood for a while now, ever since J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series has taken off. However, not too many of these franchise starters have really taken off the way Hollywood has hoped. I believe though that Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit” sagas are clear winners at the box office because they have a few things different than most fantasy sagas hitting the scene today. One of those is it’s already an established classic. Another is these films are about adults on a quest, and not teenagers with magical powers. Let the nerds complain about how Peter Jackson is milking The Lord of the Rings, and yes I get that, but I also give him credit for keeping the all-encompassing vision of J.R.R. Tolkien alive.

“Despicable Me 2” is Cute

2013-07-15T10:03:00.002-07:00

Three Stars

It’s no surprise that “Despicable Me” is beating everything at the box office. People go to the movies to feel good, be entertained and keep their kids occupied for a couple hours? They don't want to watch the end of the world and people suffer? What a concept, Hollywood. A movie like “Despicable Me 2”, the squeal to the hit “Despicable Me”, works because of it’s characters. They are really lovable and hard to hate, despite the title. Maybe that’s the joke at the center of the “Despicable Me” films, that a villain’s heart is melted by three little orphan girls who appoint him their dad. It’s a pretty basic set up for a kid’s film. I would say “Despicable Me 2” is basically cute. Though, the returning screenwriters from the first film add a lot of heart to this film’s script by laying out the whole idea that Gru (Steve Carrell) is basically a lonely guy. For an animated character in a kid’s film, they spend a lot of time making him relatable as he used to want to take over the world, and basically be the bad guy. In a way, the film is also about getting older. Now, he’s a single dad with three adopted daughters and the soccer moms around him try to set him up. His daughters wonder why he can’t seem to get out there, as we see a flashback of him trying to give a flower to a girl in elementary school but instead her yelling at him after he mistakenly touches her arm.

The film has all the things from the last film. His mad scientist friend, his minions, yellow creatures that talk in gibberish and the big creepy house they live in surrounded by a suburb. The filmmakers have a lot of fun with these minions, silly little yellow creatures that follow their leader around, with a ton of jokes of them being basically silly. Them falling down, them dressing up, them on bikes and running for ice cream. At times, it can be a bit much with the minions, but it’s okay because that’s the kind of film this is. So, Gru is recruited by an anti villain league who want him to go undercover as a shop owner in the local mall to get an evil formula that has been stolen. There he gets paired with the ultra cute (is okay to describe a cartoon character as really cute?) Lucy (Kristen Wiig). It’s a little predictable that she will get together with Gru. While at the mall, Gru meets Edurado, a Mexican guy who runs a restaurant. Gru suspects him as the villain, because he looks like a villain El Macho, a Mexican wrestler and villain who faked his own death.

The movie spends a surprising amount of time with Gru resisting dating, until he falls in love with Lucy. So, the film goes back and fourth between Gru tracking down this villain and his relationship with Lucy. Meanwhile, the oldest of his daughters, Margo (Miranda Cosgrove) falls for the teenage son of the villain. Gru seems more horrified by this than he is by the evildoer’s plan, and it’s relatable for any guy with a daughter.

The voice acting in this film is pretty top notch. Steve Carrell and Kristen Wiig sound like a believable couple, and Gru’s kids sound believable too. I believed in the way these characters were speaking, and I like Gru’s accent.

The animation is well done, and the jokes are hit or miss, but the characters are lovable and it’s a well-done kids film with some nice jokes for the parents in the audience. It’s a cute film, and not a bad squeal. Steve Carrell’s Gru made me think a bit about another character he played in other movies and TV shows. Steve Carrell is good at playing the lovable loser, weather he is live action or animated. Michael Scott and Gru have more in common than one thinks.

Misfits in Space

2013-05-19T14:55:00.001-07:00

Three stars

One of the great things about the current reboot of "Star Trek" is you don't have to be a trekie to enjoy it. I went to see this film with my brother Greg and he is new to the wonderful universe of "Star Trek" and he really enjoyed it. Also, I loved seeing it in I-Max. and 3-d. It is really cool but it always highlights something wonderful about "Star Trek" as well. There's a lot of talk, and not everything is sock-them, in your face space mayhem. "Star Trek" is never entirely a thrill ride. It has intelligent talk about space, life and emotions between the original odd couple of pop culture, Spock and Kirk. Of course, it's always fun to see the Starship Enterprise coming right at ya.

There's a reason we love "Star Trek" so much. It's basically misfits in space, and that's been the reoccurring theme throughout the entire series. Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirt (Chris Pine) are the original odd couple. Kirt saves Spock's life, but breaks a bunch of rules of the federation. Spock rats him out in the report about their mission to Starfleet Academy , because its protocol. Kirt is pissed, but it ends up Spock and Kirt have a lot to teach each other, and that's what we see in this version of the new film in the "Star Trek" franchise "Star Trek: Into Darkness". Spock teaches Kirt to do the right thing, by the rules, while Kirt teaches Spock to sometimes bend the rules to get the job done.

Meanwhile, Spock in this version is still in a relationship with Uhura (Zoe Saldana). They been fighting recently, and even Kirt askes her whats that even like? It's like fighting with Sheldon Cooper. J.J. Abrams does a very good job in this film of doing a balancing act. He is balancing the original Star Trek feel, of a lot of talk but also infusing it with some more fight scenes and action. To keep this franchise alive, I think that's exactly what it needs. It can be odd at times to watch this younger cast play the original Star Trek characters, because one of the charms of "Star Trek" throughout the years is that they never went for young and sexy. It was always people you would trust to guide the ship like Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard in "The Next Generation".

However, I really am unashamed to admit I really like this new version of "Star Trek". I think the scripts strike the right balance between the old and the new. The franchise wasn't going to live on if it didn't have some updates done. In this one, though, the Enterprise crew is facing a old enemy in Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch, sounding a bit like Snape from the "Harry Potter" films.) He talks slow, and the screenplay at times, can feel a little patched together. One moment the USS Enterprise is working together with Khan, the next minute they are against him. There's a lot of characters who come through the film that we aren't sure are good or bad. However, it all pulls together at the end. That's one of the reasons we love "Star Trek". When the crew is going to be killed, no one leaves. They are a family, and they know that.

There's the other cast too. Simon Pegg provides some comic relief as Scotty and John Cho is good as Sulu. The cast has very good chemistry. I don't think this was as good as the first "Star Trek" but it is a very good summer flick that I think both Trekies and their kids can both get something out of. It feels like both a pop corn thriller and a Star Trek film. The special effects are good, and the Enterprise ship looks great.

Finally, this brings up a interesting point. Later that night, I watched the finale to "The Office" and season finale to "The Big Bang Theory". The secret to things like this (and lets throw in "Harry Potter" too) is that we love the characters. People love to follow misfit people in extraordinary situations. People come for the stories and space, but stay for the characters they love.

Making Sense of A Tragic Narrative

2013-04-16T08:04:00.004-07:00

"Thats the thing about pain it demands to be felt."-John Green

John Green, the popular young adult novelist, wrote this quote in his novel "The Fault in Our Stars", which deals with young adults with cancer, and he is right. Sometimes nothing makes sense. Sometimes all we have is an emotional response, and emotions do not make logical sense. They demand to be felt, and who can blame us? When something tragic happens, we feel it. Feeling is all we have sometimes, and when the story is tragic, our feelings can be the first thing we feel.

If you read my stuff, you know I mostly write about film and fictional books. My job isn't to make sense of the real world. It's to make sense of the reflection of it. Fiction is a reflection of the real world, but it isn't the real world. When a tragic event happens, one that affects us but not directly, we need to make sense of it through a narrative. Of course, we can't know everything, even with the news covering it through hours and hours. So, in a way, a big event, tragic or just well, big, has to be processed like a story. Of course, the Boston Marathon Bombing is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that makes us use words I won't publish here. Our response to this event shouldn't be elegant. However, it's the job of the newspaper man or the creative type to try to give us a narrative response. Stories are our way of trying to digest something that really doesn't make sense to any sane human. We all know how the story is going to end, but it doesn't make it any better. It's going to be some extremist nut, ranting about one of two things: some kind of vendetta against America or nonsense about how he did this for some spiritual reason or both. However, the problem is, despite the end of the story being there, we can never make sense of this event. We will get a narrative one day, with details that will never be revealed, nor should they. That being said, how do we make sense of the senseless?

Well, the simple answer is, we can't. This isn't a movie or book. This is the real world. Only the insane person who did this, does this make sense to. His narrative for why this happened will be twisted, for sure, and make no sense to those of us trying to make sense of why. We might never know why. The only narratives that will make sense to us is the stories of those who ran towards the explosions, and the narratives of those who surrounded it. We know their stories are narratives that make sense, because like any good story, the core of those stories are raw emotion. That makes sense.

I don't claim to try to make sense of any of this. More than 100 people were injured and 3 died, including an 8 year old boy. It's horrible even to type these words. Sometimes the only story that makes sense is our emotions, not the actual story that happened. Not every narrative makes sense, and believe me, this one won't. After all these years, the narrative of 9/11 doesn't make complete sense. However, we can pick and choose the narrative we want from this event. Let the narrative be that good people can exist. There are no suspects yet, but I do hope this was one twisted dude and not some terrorist group. This will never be a good story, however, we can make it an emotional one. When I talk about stories, movies and books I like, I often say that stories about people are the most important. Even if the story is a fantasy, the core still needs to be human. The only way we make sense of a tragic narrative, is to focus on the stories of people, and not the bad people. Our emotional response is the story we need. At the end of the day, lets let the proper people put together the emotionless story of information on how this happened. Yes, that story of information is important. However, our emotional story is the one that will stick with us.

Remembering Roger Ebert

2013-04-06T10:27:00.002-07:00

"The wonder of life and the resources of the imagination supply all the adventure you need."-Roger Ebert's review of "My Neighbor Totoro".

I think that quote describes Roger Ebert so well. He didn't only give me a review of a film, but often I would walk away from his reviews with new ways to look at both film and life. I'm a fan of a lot of things. Film directors, writers, and other creative types, but I think it was much more with Roger Ebert. I truly admired him. In fact, I once left a comment on Roger Ebert's blog and he responded to me. What a thrill! As I read tributes to him this morning, I see that it was not unusual for him to respond to his fans.

This makes the headline in the New York Times all the more true, "A Critic for the Common Man". That is true, in a lot of ways, because Roger Ebert wrote about the art form of the common man. Movies have meant a lot to me, and so have Roger Ebert. I have had a special relationship with both film criticism and film in general. I like a lot of film critics but there was something special about Roger Ebert's brand of film criticism. The way he wrote, I felt like I was talking with a friend, and not some cultural elite who was lecturing to me. I like the way that he loved movies the way they should be loved. He was emotional about them, he wasn't afraid to explain an independent film in simple terms to someone new to that wonderful world of art cinema, or explain to a snob why a dumb movie is worth their time, and sometimes entertainment is simply entertaining, and why that isn't a bad thing. He loved all sorts of films, and in that way, he was a friend to all sorts of people, and I felt like he was a friend of mine.

I have to be honest. I have never had a relationship with a writer the way I have had with Roger Ebert. Sure, I've been a fan of many writers I've admired. However, there's something different about Roger Ebert. Maybe it was the way he wrote, but I also think through his writing, his reviews, his columns, books and TV shows, we got to know the man himself and quite honestly, he was a good one. Ebert was the kinda critic I want to be. A man who doesn't just show a love and knowledge of films in his work, but a love of knowledge of life and a love of knowledge. I admire him both as person, writer, journalist and critic.

It wasn't just a film critic I read in the newspaper. It was the TV show I remember, watching "Siskel and Ebert" every weekend, growing up. When I became older, I started to read his reviews carefully, aspiring to write mine like his. As "Game Of Thrones" author George R.R. Martin said this morning, Roger Ebert was a "a terrific writer" and I agree. He wasn't just a critic talking about movies, he was a writer, a real person, talking about film criticism.

However, I also want to not just talk about Ebert the film critic. One of the great delights of Roger, was we got a sense through his writing, he was much more than his job. One of my favorite Ebert essays is in his "Great Movies" collection, on E.T., because it gave us a look at not just Ebert the film critic. It gave us a look at Ebert the man. Roger Ebert wrote this essay on E.T. as a letter to his grandchildren. He says thanks to his wife, he has step grand children, and went on to talk about how they reacted to watching E.T. for the first time. He also talked about his affection for them, and taking them to ride horses. Okay, maybe it sounds a bit sappy but that's one of the things I really loved about Ebert. We got a sense he was a friend, and he wrote to us like he was our friend, not just the snobby film critic sitting on a high perch, criticizing other people's work. He was a fan, he was passionate, he loved this art form, and he explained in simple terms, how art affects us. That's why Roger Ebert was so important. At the end of every episode of "Siekel and Ebert", they would say the balcony is closed. Well, I'm going to say, thanks to Roger Ebert, the balcony in our hearts and minds, will always be open.

“The Hobbit” is Fun

2013-01-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

Three and a half stars

Some people are accusing director Peter Jackson of cashing in on “Lord of the Rings”, and yes, I understand, you might roll your eyes at I-HOP’s Hobbit breakfast menu, or the fact that he took a 300 page children’s novel and turned it into three films. Even as I watched, a part of me kept saying, couldn’t he have done this all in one film? It does run for two hours and forty six minutes. So, yes, he is milking Lord of the Rings a bit. However, I really enjoyed Peter Jackson’s film, and it didn’t feel like three hours. It moves along really nicely. As you know, (if you are a J.R.R. Tolkien fan) it’s the story of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), a hobbit who lives in Middle Earth. One day, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) drops by and tells him that he needs him for an adventure. At first, Bilbo doesn’t want to go. He’s a quiet hobbit, living a hobbit life in middle earth. However, he comes to his senses after Gandalf’s merry band of men invade his house, eat his food and ask him to sign a contract to join them as their burglar (funeral costs covered!) Hobbits are short, and he would be sure to be able to get past their enemies. So, Bilbo runs out of his house, yelling “I’m going to go on a adventure!” and joins the band of dwarves, who need him so they defeat the dragon which keeps the valley in fear, as he sleeps in the mountain, surrounded by gold.

Okay, so this isn’t really a film you go into, with your critic’s gloves on. Even describing the plot sounds like a total fantasy fiacre, and you know what? It is. There are a lot of chase scenes and mystical creatures and wizards and evil doers and dwarves. In one scene, they are captured by trolls that Bilbo outsmarts because they could eat the band of men. There’s capturing by evil creatures, chase scenes, battle scenes, and whatnot. There’s the first appearance of the Ring and Gollum (Andy Serkis). After all, this is the prequel to Lord of the Rings, so if you are a new comer to the world of J.R.R. Tolkien, you are in luck. This is what happens before The Lord of the Rings. The visuals, no surprise, are really good, and it’s always beautiful watching them walk New Zealand, and it's really stunning seeing New Zeland in 3-D.

There are some great warm moments, like when one of the dwarves says to Bilbo that he was sure he shouldn’t have come, and that he knew it was a bad idea but then hugs him and says he was wrong. So, “The Hobbit” is a lot of fun, and Peter Jackson is really good at directing a fantasy epic. So, while splitting up “The Hobbit” only seems to make economic sense, as this stuff has a built in audience, on the other hand, I had a lot more fun seeing this than I did seeing “Les Miserables”. The story is great, and the acting is good. Its fun watching all these Shakespearian British actors recites lines about wizards and dwarves and defeating dragons and trolls.

So, in conclusion, go see “The Hobbit”. It’s a really fun way to spend your afternoon, and sometimes that’s what the movies are good for. I would say, even ignore my earlier criticisms about how he could of done this all in one movie. Just see it, because you know you want to, it’s visually nice, and it’s simply a good story with a lot of fantasy and adventure. So, don’t be a hobbit yourself, and set out to the theater. As Bilbo says, “I’m going on an adventure”. Good advice. I like this better than the messy “Les Miserables”, which was this year’s other big epic. I mean, you can’t really compare them but “Les Miserables” can be really upsetting in places, and this one you can bring your kids to. Your kids probably will sit spellbound through all three hours. Oh, and my spell check has all of the proper names for J.R.R. Tolkien’s characters. How cool is that.

"Les Miserables" Mess or Masterpiece?

2013-01-11T06:10:00.001-08:00

Two and a half stars

After watching “Les Miserables”, I had a simple thought. I can’t decide if what I just watched was great or a total mess. I hate to knock this film, because it’s “Les Miserables”, and obviously a lot of effort was poured into this. So, I hate to report that as much as I wanted to love this film, for the most part, it was kind of a mess. It just seemed to be all over the place, and condensed a lot of themes and songs into two and a half hours without leaving any breathing room. The problem with a film like this is there are a lot of money and music and graphics and people singing to the camera. Yes, the music and story are beautiful but does it really work as a film? There’s hardly any dialogue in this movie. It rushes from one song to another. It’s very sad in places, and all the themes are there, but I did find myself looking at my watch, more than once.

One of the problems is the director, Tom Hopper, who keeps zooming in on people’s faces. They seem to be singing directly at the camera instead of to each other. Some of the songs, like a long one about a crazy hotel people stay at, where Cosette (Isabella Allen) works, as an orphan who sweeps the floors, goes on way too long. A lot of the songs seem to go on way too long. The film could have benefitted from some editing. I know, a lot of fans of the play are going to tell me I’m wrong. How can you edit out songs and cut down on scenes in “Les Miserables”? The problem is a play and films are different mediums. So, I’m sorry to say this, but I’m not sure that “Les Miserables” really works in the way that they put it together. This is not to say they are bad singers, or bad actors. Hugh Jackman, as Jean Valjean, can really sing. Russell Crowe, as Javert, I’m not really sure can.

The best scene in the movie is when Fantine (Anne Hataway) signs simply her song about dreaming a dream. If any scene in this film will become iconic, it’s that one. I’m all for musicals, but the problem with movie musicals today and ones of the past is really a matter of budget. All movie musicals today are high budget. It’s not simply producing a good musical, but being over the top with everything. Now, maybe this isn’t the best movie for me to review because I’m not a expert on “Les Miserables”, and maybe it needed a high budget to succeed.

However, I do love costume dramas. I do love sweeping epics. So, in theory, I should have loved “Les Miserables”, but I couldn’t help feeling like this film is kind of a mess. As I said, it doesn’t leave any breathing room. Instead, it stuffs the film with way too many themes, songs, emotions, sweeping camera shots, close ups, and whatnot. I hate to knock a film that everyone involved obviously strongly believed in. When one goes to see a movie like “Les Miserables”, they have a choice to make. Are they going to determine if this works as a movie or not, or be swept away by the story, music, emotions and tearful moments that populate the film? It just goes from one huge theme to another huge theme, one big song number to another big song number, and doesn’t let the viewer really feel the emotions of the piece. That’s really important to a film, because you are watching it on a screen. When you are watching something on a stage, it’s more likely to give off that emotion.

However, I should also point out I’m a bit spoiled, as I do live in New York and I could see a stage play of this. Films like this are valuable to people in other parts of the country, where people may not live near stage productions of this stuff. If a kid is inspired to discover the theater because of a film like this, that is a service. While I do not really think this succeed as a film, I do think it’s a good thing that people in other parts of the country get to see a musical, brought to them by the movies. So, an audience member can either be swept away, and that’s not a bad thing, by a film like this or can determine if it works as a film. Either way, the choice is up to the audience member. If you are swept away by this, that’s fine. If you think it doesn’t really work as a film, which it doesn’t really, that’s okay, too. Whatever your emotional reaction is, it’s fine. If you are a teenager in Kansas, who does school productions or simply a person who loves musicals, but doesn’t live near a big city, than this is a treat for you, and I totally understand that. "Les Miserables" can be a mess, or a masterpiece, it all depends on the viewer.

How To Not Write A Screenplay: 10 Mistakes Screenwriter Makes

2012-12-06T09:07:00.004-08:00

I read an article about Carson Reeves in the New York Times. He is a blogger behind a powerful Hollywood blog, Script Shadow, which reviews unproduced screenplays. The problem with a lot of the screenplays on his blog is they sound pretty bad. I don’t think I have a complete right to make that judgment because I haven’t read these unproduced scripts. The problem is that there is big differences between saying you’re writing a novel and a screenplay. If you are writing a novel, you feel like you are being a literary person. You feel like you don’t need to qualify yourself as a true writer. If you say you are writing a screenplay, than you are more likely to get that reaction of “oh, everyone is writing a screenplay.” There are a lot of problems with people who write screenplays. Often, the vision of the screenwriter is someone sitting in a coffee shop, being “creative."

Recently, someone I know who writes screenplays came up to me and said that writing a screenplay is easier than writing a novel. In some ways, that’s true. In other ways, not so much, but as someone who reviews a lot of movies, there is advice I wish I could give the screenwriters of America. Hollywood is such a seductive idea for a writer that often it gives platforms to people who can’t really write. After all, with screenwriting, you don’t have to be concern with prose or making someone turn pages or having someone pick up the book. Your readers are actors, producers, other screenwriters, directors, and whatnot. You don’t have to compel that general reading audience, because you aren’t turning in a final product. You are turning in a blue print for something that will look much more polished than simply a manuscript.

However, there are pros and cons to screenwriting. A pro to writing the book before the movie is that if the movie sucks, you always have that wonderfully good book. Another pro is that no one is rewriting your book, maybe except editors. Though, even if editors rewrite parts of your book, you still get that sole credit. Screenplays often are handed off to script doctors and other screenwriters, so by the time you are done; you get a “story by” credit instead of a “written by” credit. Stephanie Meyer, author of the Twilight books, said she would never be able to write a screenplay, because she couldn’t cut out all the stuff she wanted to say and describe about her characters. William Golden, novelist and screenwriter, sums up the difference between the magic of a book and the magic of screenplay in his book on screenwriting, “Adventures in The Screen trade,” pretty simply; If your parents read you screenplays instead of books to you as a child before you went to sleep, then I don’t really want to hear about your childhood.

Or take the joke “Community” made about screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, as Abed talks on about making a postmodern movie about Jesus, Shirley says “That’s nice , Charlie Kaufman, but some of us have work in the morning.” We all praise the novelists, but tend to look down on screenwriters, and I think there’s some truth to that. A problem with screenwriters is that they fall in to a couple categories that make them sound like the hacks of the writing world. I am often guilty myself of thinking poorly of screenwriters, as opposed to those writing novels. So, here it goes. I’m going to ask the question. Are you a really good writer who happens to write screenplays or are you a “writer” who is writing a screenplay for all the wrong reasons. So, here are the good and bad reasons to write a screenplay. I call this article “Are You a Writer Who Writes Screenplays or Are A “Writer” Who Writes Screenplays.” These are the questions one must ask themselves before they write a screenplay.

1. Does This Work As A Movie?- A lot of screenwriters have a good idea for a story, but the question the writer must ask themselves is, is this a good story for a movie or is this a good story for a novel? For example, I tried co-writing screenplay years ago with a friend. The friend and I wanted to write an epic fantasy. Half through the screenplay, I realized it probably should be a novel because we kept describing stuff in the description of the screenplay, like how their time system works, that wouldn’t appear on screen. My friend and I totally disagreed. My co-writer did not understand that the description was too much for a narration (unless the audience wanted to sit there for 4 hours of narration), and this would of worked a lot better as a novel or short story. Often a writer will have a story that works better as print. A person can read a book, put it down, come back to it, and whatnot. Not in a screenplay.

2. Can I Cap the Story in 120 Pages?- Steve Kloves, the screenwriter of the “Harry Potter” books often says people are often upset with what he cuts out of the screenplay. Remember, though, Kloves has to take 800 pages and cut it down to 120 pages. Film is a visual medium, and the audience is looking at their watches. They don’t want to be in the theater for hours upon hours. Think about “Harry Potter” as a good example of this. The books become a lot longer as the series goes on, and while the kids might love it, I think often the parents, who might love it too, are still checking their watches. People want to be in and out of the theater, within a couple hours, not sit through hours and hours until their eyes bleed.

3. Am I A Good Writer In General? - The problem with a lot of screenwriters is that they aren’t good writers, and they figure, well, I still want to write, so if I write something that gets made into something else, then the rules do not apply to me. Well, yes and no. No one expects beautiful prose in a screenplay. You are writing a fairly standard description such as “My character walks here, looks like this and does, this” followed by your character’s name in CAPTIAL LETTERS, and the dialogue under their names. However, the problem with poor writers writing screenplays is that they are lazy and under mind that movie going audience. Gone are the days that audiences are stupid. That being said, I have nothing against the occasional dumb movie. I think sometimes we should all go to the theater to just have a good time. However, even dumb movies need some skills. Take the “American Pie” movies, which aren’t exactly brilliant films. They still have good characters, and know how to set up jokes and scenes. This brings me to the next point…

4. A Lot of Screenwriters Are the Lazy Writers- A lot of screenwriters believe they don’t need to read or write in regular ways. A lot of screenwriters think they just need to watch movies all day, and they need to read screenplays and nothing more. They don’t need to know about the mechanics of storytelling or take creative writing courses or even know simple literary genres. You need to be a WRITER, and not simply a SCREENWRITER. I love movies too, but if you want to write, you need to read books. Yes, you need to read literature, and not just books on screenwriting. I can’t tell you how many screenwriters I meet who fill their book shelves with how to books on screenplays. I have nothing against the screenplay how to books, because they can be quite helpful. However, there is no better lesson on storytelling and character creation than reading stories, novels, and creative non-fiction. You cannot skip over the physical book, because you happen to think, “I’m writing movies, so why put in the work of reading? I’m not writing books!” WRONG. If you do not read anything, and just watch movies all day, your screenplay will just sound like a bunch of other movie clichés thrown together.

5. Tell a Good Story and Create Great Characters- How many screenwriters tell a terrible story, and cover up bad writing with action and gimmicks? A lot, actually. A lot of screenwriters don’t have good characters and totally bland ideas because they figure it’s a movie. Once again, that’s undermining your audience, and just plain bad writing. Think about the world’s most beloved screenplays? How memorable are the characters? Here’s a perfect example. Eric Roth, the screenwriter of “Forest Gump”, could have just written a straight adaptation of Winston Groom’s novel. However, how memorable was Forest Gump? Now, a lot of screenwriters make the mistake of relying on the actors. Yes, Tom Hanks made that role memorable. However, that character and sense of storytelling must have been very strong in the script. And another thing, do you think Tom Hanks would have even played the role of that character didn’t come strongly through the script? You need to pack a punch in your script, because like a novel, it goes into a slush pile if you don’t. You need to think you are J.K. Rowling writing “Harry Potter” instead of some dude writing a screenplay.

6. A Lot of Screenwriters Want to be Rich- A lot of screenwriters do get rich, but the problem with the salaries in Hollywood is that this breeds a lot of writers who just want to be rich. Writing a screenplay just for money isn’t the way to go. Oh, I understand we all want money, but there also must be a story you want to tell. A character you want to introduce. You need to treat your screenplay as if you are writing a story, a novel, and a passion. You need a motivation besides making money because that will lead to a weak, clichéd script and the people reading that script will see right through that.

7. You Are Not Special- This are really advice for all writers. Do you know how many people come to Hollywood with a briefcase full of screenplays without actually a decent screenplay in the bunch? Yes, that fantasy is cool but unrealistic. I think you need to really have something unique. Your screenplay, your romantic comedy, your “Harry Potter” knock off may fly but you need something unique and original too.

8. Don’t Pander To Your Audience- One of the biggest problems with screenwriters is they are thinking of the box office and target audience before they think up a good story. A lot of screenplays pander to a crowd. A romantic comedy full of clichés panders to women. Teen sex comedies that try too hard to gross out their audience also try too hard. Torture porn? Yes, it sells, but the “Saw” movies are more than horror. The Jigsaw Killer, as evil and uncaring as he can be at times, is actually a great character. That hook that he wants to punish people for taking life for granted, actually makes him deeper. So, even if your screenplay isn’t exactly high culture, you still need to put thought into it. It still needs some depth. There is nothing worst than 120 pages of pandering and clichés.

9. An Example of Perfect Screenplay - A good story and good characters should still be your top of your list. “Little Miss Sunshine” is a perfect example. What could have been a stupid comedy about a family taking a road trip turns into a warm film about a family pulling together for the daughter. Michael Arndt takes time with each character, and gives them all back stories. Each character has a story, each character is defined. Every member of his family is so well done; we don’t even stop to wonder what their last names are. He doesn’t complicate the story, which is key in a screenplay. The story is simple, which a story in a screenplay needs to be, because this is a movie that’s visual and fewer than 200 pages. Point A to point B. Middle, beginning and end. However, each character is defined, in a visual way that the audience can see. Remember, they can only see what you describe in the script. The dialogue is sharp and relatable. I could go through each point of why this is a perfect script, but I rather you rent it and see for yourself.

10. The Audience Can See Your Writing- Don’t think that just because a movie screen is between you and your audience, they can’t see your bad writing. Just because they aren’t looking at a page doesn’t mean your audience won’t see your bad writing. If the dialogue and descriptions are bad, your audience will see that. Just because they aren’t looking at a page, doesn’t mean they won’t see your bad writing on the screen. Don’t be lazy. Write as well as you can, and treat it like it’s going to be published. You always write like it’s going to be published, even if that’s not your goal. Trust me, your audience doesn’t leave their brains at the theater door.

Beloved Book Becomes Beloved Film

2012-11-18T08:15:00.000-08:00

Four Stars

John Hughes had a saying that you are more serious at age 16 than you are at any other time in your life, and I’m suppose that’s true. Reading a novel like “Perks of Being a Wallflower” as a teenager, you walk away with an intense emotional experience. It would be easy for me as an adult to shrug off this book and movie as easily the case of overly dramatic teenagers, despite how serious their problems are. I have read the bestselling young adult novel the movie is based on, and I always thought that “Perks” was a story about closed doors. The problem with me as an adult is that “Perks” packs a lot of teenage problems in a novel that’s about 206 pages. Rape, pedophilia, coming out of the closet, bullying, drugs, sex, mental health, depression, and all sorts of stuff that teens deal with. Between all the typical teenage scenes in the book and movie, someone says something that sticks out like a sore thumb, often an admission of some kind that doesn’t sound quite right.

This brings me back to John Hughes’s saying, that everything is more serious when you are a teenager. It would be really easy for me to talk on and on about all the issues this novel brings up in such a short space, but on with the movie review. Charlie is a shy kid, who is just starting high school. On his first day, he meets a wonderful English teacher (Paul Rudd), who sees how smart he is, and starts giving him extra books to read. He starts to read books like “A Separate Piece” and “Catcher in the Rye”, which in this story is almost foreshadowing of the actual story we get. Angst ridden teen novels, in an angst ridden movie based on an angst ridden teen novel, I’m starting to get the picture. It helps that this movie is written and directed by the author of the actual book, which is very rare, Stephen Chosky. Charlie is a wallflower, which means he sits back and observes, doesn’t get involved and has an unusual way of thinking.

Soon he meets some older kids, Sam and Patrick (Ezra Miller). Emma Watson and Ezra Miller have wonderful chemistry as step brother and sister, and are obviously good matches for the shy Patrick. They are quirky and it’s hard not to like them as they go on and on about good music versus bad music. Ezra Miller is very good here, as Patrick, the gay kid who has some secrets of his own. Emma Watson is also very good, with an American accent. As Charlie, the beloved character from this beloved novel, Logan Lerman does a wonderful job, and I’m (probably foolishly) hoping he gets an Oscar nod. There are a lot of hints in this movie (and in the novel) about his obsession with his dead aunt. Obviously, something was going on between him as a kid and this aunt that wasn’t exactly normal. Often, victims of abuse in the way Charlie was, become obsessed with the abuser.
Despite all the issues this film brings up, it works, because with all the underlying darkness, there’s a lot of sweatiness to these characters. Charlie’s shyness, and his two outcast friends, Sam and Patrick bring a lot of great friendship that helps them get through their traumas. Scenes like when Sam gives Charlie his first kiss, saying that the first person who kisses him should be someone who loves him, we get the sense that she means she loves him as a very good friend loves another. The scene where Patrick buys Charlie a suit because of Charlie’s great desire to be a writer or the scene where after Charlie admits that his best friend shot himself, they raise their glasses to Charlie after Sam tells Patrick what happened.

“Perks” would be easy for me to dismiss as I am no longer a teenager, and maybe I don’t have that intense nature anymore that I once had as a teenager, but a lot of teenagers have an intense nature and this film brings us back to that. I know a lot of kids will be waiting on line to see “Twilight”, and believe me, I have nothing against that. I think we all need an escape, but it is kind of a shame that more kids won’t be on line to see “Perks of Being a Wallflower”, which they might actually take something away from. One of the great accomplishments of the writer Stephen Chbosky in both the film, and this, his so far only novel, is just some of the lines alone, like “We feel infinite” or “We recieve the love we think we deserve.” Writing for teenagers often allows a writer to go for a line that perhaps some adults would roll their eyes at, because a teenager feels that seriousness John Hughes was talking about. However, a lot of Chobosky’s lines have become iconic and have great truth to them. A lot of the lines from the book (and now the move) raise this story from a normal young adult novel. “Perks of Being a Wallflower” might require the viewer to get in touch with their inner adolescence, and remember a time that the world did feel that serious. However, the issues these teenagers deal with aren’t exclusive to only teens, as many adults have problems with the same things.

What I would suggest is that if your kid is begging to see the finale of “Twilight”, make a deal with them that they also see this. I always think it’s important for younger movie goers to not only go to movies that feed them entertainment, but also give them something personal and positive to walk away with. As I said earlier, I have nothing against escapism for younger viewers, but I think “Perks” might also balance that out with something they might hold onto. “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is that book that teens probably pass along to each other, and this movie is the kind of movie that might actually help teens copes with some of the very serious issues they deal with. “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is one of the year’s best films, and a testament to being able to create characters for teenagers and adults alike. On a personal note, I’ve been waiting to review the movie version of this book ever since I’ve read the wonderful novel, and I wasn’t disappointed with the film. Often smaller movies that are geared for teenagers are the best films for them to see. “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is one of the year’s best films, and hopefully one of the best attended.

Made in America

2012-10-28T10:54:00.000-07:00

Four Stars

The story to “Agro” sounds like a farce or a political satire. It would be if it wasn’t true. However, “Argo” isn’t a farce. It’s not even a comedy. It takes its story very seriously. The story opens on Iran having a new leader installed by the United States, The Shah. This makes the citizens of Iran very angry, and they rebel, wanting their traditional way of life back. The movie opens on them getting through the gates and raiding an American Embassy. Most of the staff is taken as hostages, but some get out and are taken to the Canadian embassy, where they are stuck. If they leave the embassy, good chance the people of Iran would kill them. Meanwhile, back in the United States, the CIA is scrambling to find a way to get them out. Here’s the part of the story that sounds a bit unbelievable. Tony Mandez (Ben Afflect), who works for the CIA, is on the phone with his kid. He hasn’t seen his kid in awhile, as he is doing work for the CIA, and lives in an apartment in Washington D.C. I guess it’s a tough job, and being away from his family isn’t easy on him, but for guys like him, work comes first. His kid mentions that he’s watching the classic B- movie squeal to “Planet of the Apes”, “The Battle of the Planet of The Apes.” Tony turns it on his television set, and comes up with an idea. Here’s the part that sounds like it could be a comedy, but isn’t.

His idea is he’ll get Hollywood involved in getting out these hostages. They will pretend the hostages are a Hollywood crew, working on a ridiculous knock off of “Star Wars”, during the height of its popularity. He pitches it to the CIA, who first look at him like he is nuts. Then they think about it, and approve of it. Jack (Bryan Cranston, turning in a very good dramatic performance here), becomes the go to guy for Tony to communicate with. He contacts his old friend, John Chambers (John Goodman), who has done work for them before, providing makeup to spies and such. He flies out to Hollywood, and has a lunch with Chambers, who is doing make up for B-pictures. John introduces him to Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), who is an old time Hollywood producer. He informs him science fiction is hot in Hollywood right now (which made me think of how fantasy is the rage now). So, together, they go through scripts and find a screenplay called “Argo” that describes the science fiction environment as a Middle East like one. They have their script.

The idea sounds silly, but the movie takes it very seriously. The movie becomes this weird mix of a behind the scenes Hollywood movie, with the makeup artist and old time producer, using their magic to pull it off. They even hold a press conference about the fake movie. What I found interesting about this whole scheme between Hollywood and the United States government, about getting these hostages out, is the weird crossroads pop culture and real life sometimes take. Sometimes, they combine or work together to get something done.

Ben Afflect, as a director and star is very good in his role, as do John Goodman, Alan Arkin and Bryan Cranston. I definitely see this movie as a shoe-in to some Oscar nominations. The movie wisely mostly focuses on the very real and serious situation these hostages are in. The movie sometimes diverts to the people back in Hollywood, to lighten the mood a little. They can’t seem to believe, at first, that Tony is handing them scripts to a science fiction movie and identities that are related to this. I don’t blame them. Sometimes when someone makes a pop culture reference in a serious situation, I’ll give them a look. Not the right time, but in this film, that pop culture reference can save lives.

I often say movies are one of the few good things our country still produces. It’s always baffling to me when Americans bash Hollywood. It’s one of the few things that our country still makes well, and the world seems to accept about America. Who in their right mind would believe that Hollywood is going to Iran in the middle of a hostage crisis to make a silly science fiction picture? A lot of people, it seems. Though they do bump into hostile people, it seems that a lot of people in this hostile place of Iran are willing to buy, yeah, they are making a movie. So, let them proceed. Its very nerve raking, at times, watching this film, because I kept thinking someone, anyone, has to give them one weird look to notice that this farce they are pulling off sounds a bit off. A science fiction movie does not need to be shot in Iran. It can be shot anywhere. It’s a total crazy scheme, but once you are watching these people using it as a way of escape, it doesn’t seem that crazy anymore. Hooray for Hollywood. This movie documents a true event that was important to American history, and one of the most unbelieveable ones. "Argo" is one of the year's best pictures.

“Paranorman”, Shoe-in for Best Animated Feature

2012-09-05T06:39:00.003-07:00

Four Stars

“Paranorman”, the new film by the studio that brought us the wonderful “Coraline”, is about a boy who can speak to dead people. That sounds pretty clichéd, but “Paranorman” is a wonderful film for the whole family about accepting people who are different. I think that parts of it might be scary for younger kids, but I think the overall message is quite wonderful. Wonderful is a word I often use to describe films that I think are good for kids. “Paranorman” is about a kid named Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee) who lives in a small town in Massachusetts, which is obsessed with the witch trials that took place there all those years ago. The movie opens on Norman sitting in the living room with his grandmother. Little do we know that his grandmother died a year ago. His parents (Leslie Mann and Jeff Garlin) think him weird for constantly talking about the dead people he sees. Norman is bullied at school, and the only person who tries to befriend him is the overweight kid, Neil (Tucker Albrizzi). Norman is a loner, but he soon finds out that he is going to need the help of Neil, his sister (Anna Kendrick), and Neil’s buff brother (Casey Affleck) if he is going to defeat the dead which are rising from the ground.

“Paranorman” is made with stop motion animation instead of computer animation and it looks wonderfully done. Stop motion animation is when they create models of the characters and shoot them scene by scene. Also, the music in this film does a wonderful job of setting the mood. The film does become a bit of a chase, as Norman and his friends get stuck in the car as the dead rise from the cemetery. However, I was surprised at what this film is really about. It’s something more than just a spoof of horror movies with zombies. I won’t give it away, but there’s a reason this town revolves around the witch trials that took place so long ago. Norman is a bit of a witch himself, as he isn’t really understood.

Another thing I really liked about “Paranorman” is the script doesn’t play down to its audience. There’s even a joke in there where Norman says he can think but not sure if he can say the four letter word he is thinking of. Norman isn’t so much supernatural, as he is just the weird kid that happens to be able to speak to the spirits floating around as he walks to school. I like how matter of factly this film takes that. It isn’t scary that he has this ability, as much as he’s just the weird kid. However, the town misjudges him, his friends and the zombies. There are a lot of misunderstandings in this film, and it’s the witch’s curse that brought these zombies to life.

The thing that is great about “Paranorman” is that it’s a family film that is both artistic, as the animation is beautifully done and has a good message about not judging people. I think some of the film might be scary for younger children, but overall, I think it has a good message for kids a bit older. Being a teenager can be a bit tough, and I saw some of the same themes in this film that where in the same studio’s “Corlaline.” That theme of being a teenager and wishing for something a bit better was in “Coraline”. It’s Corlaline who learned to accept things. In “Paranorman”, it’s the people who are around Norman who learn to accept him.

My brother and I had an argument a while back, about the importance of films for families and younger people. I argued that it’s important to pick good movies for your kids to see. My brother thought there was room for all sorts of movies for kids to see. I argued that if a family can only afford one ticket, than it’s important they pick the film that is both a work of art and provides a good lesson for children to take away. The lesson of “Paranorman” is not judging people, and I think that’s a good lesson for a family film to have. After seeing this film, my brother said to me, that he sees my point. If you can only afford one ticket, see the movie your kids can take something away from.

Finally, with Pixar’s current two movies getting lukewarm reviews, and this being an okay year for animation instead of a grand year, I’m hoping to see “Paranorman” and Studio Ghibili’s wonderful “The Secret World of Arrietty” are up for Best Animated Feature this year. I love animation, and the magic of that art form is one of the reasons I go to the movies. Watch the beautiful scene in this film where Norman talks to the witch, sitting under a tree, in a lush field, and tell me why animation is just for kids. “Paranorman” is a wonderful film for both adults and kids, and a shoein for Best Animated Feature and one of the year’s best films.

"Ted" is Lazy

2012-07-30T13:23:00.003-07:00

Two Stars

I should probably just lighten up. “Ted”, the first feature film by Seth MacFarlane is mostly harmless, and can provide a good laugh. Though, one can’t help but ask themselves why Seth MacFarlane has the career he has. I’m all for dirty and inappropriate humor. Sometimes, it’s okay to laugh at stuff we shouldn’t. Some of the jokes in “Ted” try a bit too hard. There’s nothing really funny about terminal illnesses, for example. Like joking about Parkinson’s or Lou Gehrig disease, and it’s times like that you see MacFarlane, and his two fellow screenwriters, both “Family Guy” regulars, trying a bit too hard. The screenplay to this movie feels a bit loose, and all over the place. One minute, it’s a romantic comedy, and the next minute, it’s a Seth MacFarlane cartoon. I asked myself a couple times if this movie could have worked without the talking teddy bear. However, “Ted” really is a one joke movie stretched out over 115 minutes. I laughed a couple of times, but not really enough.

So, “Ted” starts with typical Seth MacFarlane humor. John (Mark Whalberg) is a lonely kid. It’s around Christmas, or as the narrator says “that magical time of year when Boston kids beat up the Jewish ones.” His parents get him a teddy bear for Christmas and they quickly become best friends. However, he makes a magical wish. He wishes his teddy bear would come to life, and he does. The news sweeps the nation and the teddy bear makes an appearance on Johnny Carson (groan. Here come the million pop culture references.) Later on in the film, John is all grown up and him and Ted (Seth MacFarlane), the talking teddy bear are sitting on the couch smoking weed and eating Corn Pops (For a guy who considers himself a satirist, MacFarlane certainly piles on the product placement in this film). John is dating this girl Lori (Mila Kunis), who’s basic function in this film, is to look really annoyed at everything Ted and John do.

John has a hard time asking Ted to move out after his girlfriend Lori asks him to move the bear out. John helps Ted get on his feet. Basically, they play this out like Ted is a bad influence, a guy John should outgrow. Ted is his stoner friend and whatnot. He comes off more like that guy you knew in college who is still smoking bongs even though he’s pushing 25. It’s like, yeah, I know everyone is playing this idea straight but I can’t get over the fact that it’s a talking teddy bear that sounds like Seth MacFarlane. No one seems to think this weird, and that works in a cartoon, but in live action, it kind of comes off as more creepy than charming.

Anyway, so there’s some other characters like Lori’s boss(Joel McHale, who stars in the brilliant “Community”, and probably rolled his eyes as he read lines written by Seth MacFarlane instead of Dan Harmon), who constantly hits on her. He tells her that her boyfriend is a loser, and you know what, he kind of is. He works at a car rental place, lies to get out of work so he can smoke weed with Ted (once again, no one acts weird that he’s a teddy bear), and ditches his girlfriend at a party so he can meet the actor who played Flash Gordon in his favorite movie as a kid. Gawd, his girlfriend is beautiful and sweet and just perfect. No way would I ditch her but that’s just me.

I kind of don’t like movies with this kind of premise. It’s what I call a built in premise. The situations and comedy comes because of an idea that’s just built into the screenplay without any real logic. I like comedy to come from life observations. I like comedy to come from things that could happen, because comedy like that makes us laugh about our own life, not just an illogic situation that doesn’t make any sense. The screenplay to “Ted” is kind of lazy and one joke. I know Seth MacFarlane is the highest paid TV writer in the world, but later that night, I watched my favorite episode of “The Honeymooners” on television. The one with the $99,000 question, and I thought to myself, you know, it’s a lot older than “Ted”, and “Family Guy” and “Two and a Half Men”, but at the same time, this is what real comedy looks like. It’s simple, it’s still relatable, and you know, Ralph Kramden is still a lot more lovable then Peter Griffen but I digress. The point I guess I’m trying to make, is that a magical plot device like a talking teddy bear who is a bad influence gets kind of old. Seth MacFarlane seems to think that comedy doesn’t need logic, when in truth, the best comedy does. Oh and there’s a subplot about some guy who tries to kidnap Ted, and make him his kid’s teddy bear. The plot kind of runs out and results in a car chase. Just because it’s a gross out comedy doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be subject to storytelling 101.

Look, I hate to spoil anyone's good time, and I could just laugh, but Seth MacFarlane is one of the highest paid screenwriters and the highest paid TV writer in the world. So, it's worth asking why is he getting paid so much?

You Can Teach A Old Dog New Tricks

2012-06-20T19:55:00.001-07:00

Three and a half stars

You know, a lot of old people give up. I don’t mean old in the sense of a mean spirited way, but I mean old as in when you’re old, you’re old. “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”, the new film by John Madden, the director of “Shakespeare in Love”, is about the idea that growing old doesn’t mean it’s over. That’s the message of the film. It’s not a groundbreaking message, but not a bad one none the less. The film is about a bunch of older people in Britain who are preparing to retire. However, they all chose to retire to India, for various reasons. Evelyn (Judi Dench) is a widowed housewife who sells her house to cover expenses. Jean (Penelope Wilton) and Douglas (Bill Nightly) lose their retirement savings. Muriel (Maggie Smith) is outsourcing her hip replacement in a hospital program, Madge (Celia Imrie) is hunting for another husband, Norman (Ronald Pickup) is looking for love and Graham (Tom Wilkinson) is there for very personal reasons.

They all arrive at the hotel, and are greeted by Sonny (Dev Patel), who dreams of escaping his mother’s watchful eye and marrying his girlfriend, Suniana (Tena Dasae). All these people are in India for their own personal reasons, not because they are just there for an adventure. However, it can’t help but be an adventure for all those involved. Going to India isn’t exactly retiring to Florida. No offense, but India’s a bigger adventure than Florida. However, I’m getting off subject. India is a supporting character in this movie, and while the movie wisely focuses on these retiree’s stories, India is the supporting character that provides the opportunities for these characters to move forward with their stories.

India is beautifully shot in this movie and provides the backdrop for some culture shock and some wonderment. The film shows India’s colors and scenery, and uses it beautifully as a backdrop to the newcomers. Evelyn gets a job teaching those who work at a phone bank how to talk to older people. Though, the most affecting story in this is the story of Graham, who is there for very personal reasons, of which I won’t reveal. However, his story is beautifully told. In a way, all their stories are beautifully told. Of course, it’s inevitable in a film like this that the older group would end up helping out the younger people. Evelyn and Muriel end up helping out Sonny a lot. When you think the hotel is going under, they come to the rescue.

“The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” is a feel good movie for grown up’s, as opposed to a movie that looks at old age as some kind of lame end of the road. I like movies about grown up’s for a couple reasons. One of the pleasures of a film like this isn’t just the backdrop of a foreign country or heartwarming stories. It’s seeing those older actors, those pro’s. With so many movies about young people with superpowers, it’s always a pleasure to see a movie about older people who happen to just be people.

“The Exotic Marigold Hotel” is a wonderful film about growing older, and not looking at it as the end. However, a lot of people will probably think this is some boring film only for the older set, and I don’t think that’s really true. Just because they are older doesn’t mean their stories are any less important. So, instead of lingering on the age of the people in this film, which will probably drive away many viewers, linger on their stories instead. You can do a lot worse than retiring to India. At least it’s an adventure. You know, unlike Florida.

"Monseieur Lazhar" is Wonderful

2012-06-09T07:28:00.001-07:00

Four Stars

If there was a word to describe “Monsieur Lazhar” that word would be compassion. That’s certainly what the teacher has for his students throughout this picture. This isn’t just a story about a good teacher. It’s a story about a good man, as well, who is dealing with his own grief, while the children around him deal with theirs. “Monsieur Lazhar” the French-Canadian picture that was a nominee for Best Foreign Picture at the Oscars last year, presents us with a school community reeling from the suicide of one of their beloved teachers. One of the students, Simon (Emilien Neron) walks in on his teacher, who’s hanging from a rope in the classroom. Another young student, Alice (Emilien Neron) also gets a glance at the teacher. Seemly innocent, the two students develop a complicated relationship, as Simon feels responsible for the teacher’s death. Alice blames him for her beloved teacher’s death, as well. The school scrambles to find a replacement teacher, and quickly hires Bachir (Mohamed Fellag), who presents himself for the job soon after the teacher’s death.

The film takes place over one school year, as Bachir leads his new class through their grief and questions. Baschir, meanwhile, is trying to seek refuge, as his family was killed by terrorists back in his home country of Algeria. This sounds like a lot going on, and the film offers no easy answers. However, Bachir is such a kind man, that I smiled when good things happened to him. There’s also the case of the children, who are dealing with their grief. Simon and Alice especially are the focus of the story, and they are played with much complexity by the two young actors. Baschir is played by Mohamed Fellag, with kindness and compassion. He has an almost fatherly concern about his students and doesn’t want them to feel abandoned again. Mohamed Fellag is a popular comedian in Canada, but here he plays the dramatic role very well.

Unlike other movies about inspirational teachers, “Monsieur Lazhar” isn’t about a teacher making big speeches or standing on desks. Instead, it’s about a teacher having compassion through simple gestures. Instead of making big statements, he reads a sonnet to the class. He goes about his job teaching the class. When Alice reads a paper on her former teacher, he wants to pass it around the entire school because of the maturity she showed. He cares for Alice, and the rest of his students. There’s the question of dealing with grief, in this film. The school has the students meet with a child psychologist. The psychologist asks the teacher to leave the room while she talks to the students. Baschir is eager to get back in the classroom because he feels so protective of his students that he doesn’t even trust the child psychologist to fix their problems.

This might sound like another inspirational teacher film that deals with issues of grief and the teacher student relationship. However, writer/director Philippe Falardeau finds the right balance between innocence and a deeper issue at hand. The film unravels in an elegant and quiet fashion. Bachir, ever the traditionalist, sees the classroom as a safe haven for children. However, he also recognizes that a classroom can also be a place to learn more than just languages. The role of a teacher is to comfort as well as teach.

The principal tells Baschir that all touching must be avoided with the students; however, Baschir can’t help himself when Simon is blaming himself for his teacher’s death. He puts his hand on his shoulder, and tells him that it isn’t his fault. This leads to a final and wonderful scene that shows that sometimes all a kid needs is a comforting hug from a caring adult.

A Reunion For Us Too

2012-05-10T14:44:00.000-07:00

Three Stars

It’s 2012, but the old gang is going to party like its 1999, music and all. “American Reunion” is really a film for those of us who remember the “American Pie” films. We have seen these characters grow up, and every time they get together, they leave their maturity behind and get into immature hi jinks. I can’t say that “American Reunion” is really a good film, but what make this work are the likable characters. We know these guys, and in a way, they know us. Why did we see “American Pie” in the first place? It’s because we were immature teenagers. Nostalgia makes this film work, because the situations they get into as adults are largely the same as they got into as teenagers.

“American Reunion” is fun. You have to know the “American Pie” series because this movie is so filled with “Hey remember that!” Sometimes a movie just reunites us with old friends. In a way, that’s what “American Reunion” does. A string of dirty jokes, retro references and reminders of the old times we’ve spent with the teenagers of the “American Pie” series. “American Reunion” isn’t smart, enlightening or really interesting. However, I think if you can’t enjoy something stupid once in a while, what’s the point? The “American Pie” movies work because these characters are lovable, despite the situations they get into.

Now the class of 1999 (boy, I feel old) are all grown up. Jim Levenstein (Jason Biggs) is married to his high school sweetheart Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), they have a kid, yet their love life has become a bit dry. However, their class reunion is coming up, and they hope to relive old times. When they arrive, we get to see another familiar face. It’s Jim’s dad, Noah (Eugene Levy), who always appears warm and wonderful as he gives his son raunchy advice. Meanwhile, we get to see the other members of the old gang like Oz (Chris Klein), Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), Finch (Eddie Kay Thomas), Heather (Mena Suvari) and Vicky (Tera Reid). They have all grown up too, but with mixed results.

They all plan to get together on the week of their high school reunion but wait, where’s their old friend, Stifler? (Seann William Scott) It’s not a party or a movie without him. Luckily, Stifler does show up and he brings his familiar grin and devilish personality as he did in the other “American Pie” films. Oh yes, he’s going to screw things up.

We may have all grown up, but sometimes going to the movies lets us be immature teenagers again, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In a way, they aren’t the only ones reuniting, we are too. At the end of the movie, they promise each other they will meet again and in a way, I’m looking forward to the next reunion.

"Hunger Games" A Treat for Fans

2012-05-10T14:42:00.000-07:00

Three Stars

The highly anticipated movie “The Hunger Games”, based on the bestselling young adult novel by Suzanne Collins, is a well made, dystopian thriller that takes place in a grim future. Teenagers have been standing on line for this film, not unlike the “Harry Potter” or “Twilight” movies. However, what makes “The Hunger Games” unusual is its lack of escapism. It’s a dystopian science fiction as opposed to a fantasy. No one wants to be on a train to the Hunger Games, but everyone would like to go to Hogwarts or have a boyfriend like Edward. Instead, “The Hunger Games” presents a dystopian instead of fantastical story. If “Harry Potter” takes us to a magical place, “The Hunger Games” takes us to a bitter and cold one.

Our heroine is a 16 year old girl named Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence). She is a hunter and hangs out with the local boy Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Unfortunately, it’s that time of year again, the annual Hunger Games, which is a government, mandated game show where kids kill each other. Younger sister Primrose (Willow Shields) is entered and Katniss volunteers in her sister’s place.

Katniss, along with a boy named Petta (Josh Hutcherson), arrive on the train and are taken away to the Hunger Games. They meet their mentor, the bitter drunken Haymitch (Woody Harrison), who won the games himself as a kid. Then they are dumped into a forest like arena which will result in a death battle with one victor. Most of the film takes place with Katniss trying to survive with her bow and arrow. “The Hunger Games” is a bloody sport, and Jennifer Lawrence delivers an intense performance. She keeps the audience on the edge of their seats, with her bow and arrow, hoping she survives all the traps that are set.

I have to warn people with kids that there is some disturbing material. There is violence and the death of young people. However, anyone who has read the book knows this. Anyone whose read science fiction knows that dystopia is a tough place. This dystopia shows the evils of both big government and out of control media. Everyone watching the games treats death like a sporting event. What I cannot deny is that “The Hunger Games” is a well made thriller. Director Gary Ross does a good job of using a shaky camera to give the film an eerie feel.

“The Hunger Games” is a bit harsh, but for those who read dystopian novels, this is nothing new. Those who know science fiction know that the future can be a bad place, those who are new to the genre might be shocked by the premise. This will be food for thought. A dystopian future movie, “The Hunger Games” also has teenager romance and a dash of rebellion. If you’re a fan of the books and a teenager, this delivers. If you’re anyone else, children killing each other might not be your cup of tea.

Oh, Just Buy It

2012-05-04T15:18:00.002-07:00

Two and a half stars

The characters in this film are as pure as white snow, with the exception of the evil ex-husband, and you cannot help but like these people. You know, I really wanted to hate these people and this movie, but the ex-marine who does the right thing, the struggling single mom, the sassy grandmother and the adorable kid make it really hard. So, you have a choice. You can either roll your eyes or just buy it.

“The Lucky One” is based on the novel by mega bestselling author Nicholas Sparks, and you have to give him some credit. His characters are lovable, and hard to hate, but that’s why people read his books I suppose. No one in real life is as good or attractive as these people.

The movie opens on a guy named Logan (Zac Efron), who is a marine in Iraq. He finds a picture of a woman near his station. He puts it in his pocket and the picture becomes his good luck charm. He survives his tour of duty, even when others around him aren’t so lucky. He returns home, and has some trauma from the war. However, he decides that it’s important for him to find the women in the photo and thank her. So, he finds out where she lives and walks (yes, walks) from Colorado to Louisiana. He meets her, a good looking single mom named Beth (Taylor Schilling), her sassy grandmother Ellie (Blythe Danner) and her adorable son Ben (Riley Thomas Stewart). He just wants to thank her (really?), but she won’t listen. She finds him a bit odd. Wouldn’t you? The sassy grandmother however hires him to work at her dog kennel. Being a good guy, he soon bonds with her son.

Beth doesn’t warm up to him right away, but of course, they soon fall in love. However, there’s her evil ex-husband Keith (Jay Ferguson) who threatens to take away her child, and has a lot of power in the small town they live in. He even controls the police, who stalk poor Beth but luckily she has Logan to support her.

All the characters are charming, and once the evil Keith is out of their way, they can be a really good family. I don’t claim to say this is a great movie, and it’s ultimately forgettable, but kicking it is like kicking a puppy. So, enjoy the montages of good looking people doing adorable things like all three of them washing the dogs together. I say if you have a date and you want a movie to bring her to, this isn’t a bad choice. On the other hand, there’s no way you are going to measure up to the guy in this movie, unless you really are that good of a guy.

"21 Jump Street" Has Some Charm

2012-04-20T09:18:00.003-07:00

Three Stars

“21 Jump Street” is an affectionate satire loosely based on the vintage television police drama and about teenagers in general. This version of “21 Jump Street” plays it for laughs. The film starts in 2005, where Schmidt (Jonah Hill) is a nerdy teenager who gets tongue tied while asking a girl to the prom. He gets laughed at and called a nerd by Jenko (Channing Tatum), who is a jock. Fast forward a few years, and they are both in the police academy. Jenko still isn’t a good student, and barely graduates. Schmidt decides to help him and the two become unlikely friends. The two cops screw up and are quickly reassigned to 21 Jump Street, a division of cops who look young and go undercover in the local high schools. They have to take down a dealer who is supplying the kids with a new kind of drug.

When they arrive at the high school, they are shocked to find teens are not as they remembered. Caring about the environment is cool and comic books are in fashion. Jenko blames the TV show “Glee” and Schmidt observes he went to high school in the wrong era. The humor lies in the fact that the two guys take their assignment overboard. Jenko takes AP chemistry and makes friends with the nerds. Schmidt gets to be in the school play. The captain (Ice Cube) tells them he better not find them supplying alcohol to minors. They throw a party anyway.

Going back to high school gives Schmidt and Jenko an opportunity to relive their high school days. Schmidt becomes a better student. Jenko gets to ask a cute 18 year old girl (Brie Larson) to the prom. They both get to switch their high school roles as Jenko becomes a nerd in AP chemistry and Schmidt gets to go to parties. As they are adults now, they can look at high school without being immature about it. When Jenko overhears Schmidt ask a girl to the prom, he simply is happy for his partner.

Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, who are known for directing the animated kid’s picture, “Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs,” they play the idea of cops going undercover as teenagers for laughs. Members of the original cast make cameos, including Johnny Depp. The film has the mandatory car chase scenes and sight gags. “21 Jump Street” is a sweeter film then I expected it to be because it plays to the idea of these undercover cops being friends, and the idea that if you get tongue tied when asking the girl to the prom the first time you’re a high school student, maybe you can ask a girl the second time around. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum have good chemistry. The script, co-written by Hill, generally has a lot of fun with the premise and is affectionate about the old TV show. That makes the film all the more likable.

Professors Battle It Out in "Footnote"

2012-04-06T10:23:00.000-07:00

Four Stars

You know, if I wasn’t a film critic, I might be a professor. I know a lot about literature, as well as film. I can go to grad school and become a doctor of literature. I can see professors trying to top each other. You know, who has more degrees? It’s like in “The Big Bang Theory”, where they pile on Howard for not having a doctorate like the rest of his professor friends. I can see some truth in that. In the comedy/drama, “Footnote”, the Israeli film that was the nominee for best foreign picture at the Oscars this year, it's about a father and son who both happen to be professors. Through the use of some creative graphics, we learn about them both. Eliezer (Shlomo Bra-Aba) is a bitter old man, who had been passed up for the Israel Prize, a prize given to scholars, time and time again. He’s clearly a man who can’t look at the big picture. The fact he has a successful son who followed in his footsteps and a marriage that has lasted, he doesn’t seem to care about. All he cares about is the fact that his research is the best, and he is better than everyone. That includes his son, Uriel (Lior Ashenazi). Uriel isn’t a bad guy. He has his own wife and kids. However, he seems to lack backbone, and doesn’t confront people well including his work obsessed father. The trouble starts when Eliezer is told he will get the Israel prize. This is a confirmation of his life’s work. However, Uriel is soon informed that there was a mix up. He is supposed to get the prize. Not his father.

Instead of using this as revenge against his jerk of a dad, he decides that he will give up his award for his father. That’s a good son, if I ever heard of one. All this leads to ethical dilemmas, and the writer/ director Joseph Cedar does an excellent job of showing this. They clash, often. However, these two professors are steeped deep in their research as they try to dissect the Talmud. The Talmud is a Jewish text, and many scholars have tried to make sense of it. Eliezer has spent his entire career trying to make sense of it. We see many scenes in this film of rooms with books; close up of pages and piles of papers. I can think of when I was in college, and I would go to the professor’s office to discuss the ‘C’ on the paper I handed in and being interested in the books on their shelves and the papers piled on their desk. This film gives a really good feel of professor’s life.

I suppose this may sound boring to a mass audience. Who wants to see two professors fight over who is going to win an award for research concerning a really old piece of text? However, this isn’t about a fight. This is about a son who tries to do the right thing for his father, and really gets nothing in return. Again, who wants to see that? That being said, this film is about relationships (something I needed after sitting through “The Hunger Games”). It’s about relationships between father and son, relationships between work and personal life and the relationship between researchers. The music is also very good throughout his movie, and sets the mood.

However, the film does come down on the side of how the relationship with your son is more important than you’re most important work, and when the end of the film comes, I think Eliezer starts to realize that. All you have to do is look at the expression on his face. I liked this film because it shows that when people are really wrapped up in their work, it can overtake another important aspect of their life. That important aspect is the personal part of your life. Eliezer is so wrapped up in being the smartest and the best; it’s at the expense of his son. Uriel talks about what a great teacher Eliezer is, but its Eliezer who needs to be taught something that you can’t find in a textbook.