Jeremy The Critic

The 10 Best Alternative Drive Movie Posters

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:08:00 +0000

Conspicuously absent from my annual post highlighting 2011's best and worst movie posters was the critically adored Drive, a film many (including myself) would rank amongst the very best of the year. Never an easy sell and seemingly destined for cult classic status from the start, its commercial failure could be chalked up to the studio just simply not knowing what they had, or at least being able to articulate it in a manner that would entice audiences to see it. The result was a confused print campaign featuring a Ryan Gosling-centric character poster that strangely misrepresents and epitomizes the film's retro style all at the same time. It's not terrible, but good luck finding it hanging anywhere other than a teen girl's bedroom. Another one clumsily repositioned it as some kind of lost entry in the Fast and Furious franchise and its DVD/Blu-Ray cover art is just flat-out embarrassing, not to mention inaccurate (the scorpion's not on the front of the jacket!). So artists and fans came up with designs of their own and I've rounded up the best ones below, with a top pick so extraordinary it was wisely approved by the studio for release as an official poster for the film. Whatever anyone thinks of the movie, it's impossible to deny its iconic images and motifs inspired some really creative designs. Wherever possible I've tried to include links to the artists and their work, some of which is available for purchase.

10. by Peter Gagic

9. by Rich Andrews (Empire Design)

8. by Vincent Gabriele

7. by Mike Horowitz

6. by Louis Fernando Cruz

5. by Louis Fernando Cruz

4. by Cory Schmitz

3. by Phil Noto

2. by Ken Taylor

*Downloadable Blu-Ray Cover
1. by James White (Signal Noise Studio)

Runners-Up:

by Cory Schmitz

by Vincent Gabriele


by Louis Fernando Cruz

by Scott Hopko (Hopko Designs)

by Adri Ncde

by Timo Lessmollmann

by Edward B.G.

by Masse Hjeltman

by Pierrot Neron

by Drew Wise

The Best (and Worst) Movie Posters of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:32:00 +0000

It's funny how every year I do this list (and apologies for the tardiness this time) I plan on posting just the ten best and before long the entire page is filled with images and explanations. And here I was thinking this was actually one of the weaker years for posters. Maybe not. Here's the best and worst of 2011:

10. (Tie)

The Devil's Double

I had literally no clue what this film even was before seeing the poster (the title refers to the man chosen for the job of "body double" for Uday Hussein, the playboy son of Saddam). Knowing that, this image makes a lot more sense, in addition to an all gold poster just looking incredibly cool.

We Need To Talk About Kevin

Or rather, we need to talk about how creative this poster is. There's nothing wrong with using classic movie posters as your inspiration provided it's done well and it really doesn't get much better than this Rosemary's Baby-esque design. From the devil tail on the sonogram to the old school book jacket style, this is top notch, selling it as pure horror instead of drama. And from everything I've heard about the film, that may not be a misrepresentation.

9. Martha Marcy May Marlene

It was between this and the other QR Code-inspired MMMM poster (see runners-up below), but I far prefer this one. Really clever using the overlapping images and dreamlike photography to reflect the film's themes. Not sure if all that text is necessary but everything else is so visually arresting it hardly matters.

8. Hesher

Part of another great set of posters (see the teaser below) and the most attention-grabbing of the bunch. Looks like a vintage Metallica vinyl record cover, complete with the band's title font. If you've seen the movie (and if not you should) you'll appreciate this even more as it perfectly captures the anarchism of the title character. Nice touch with the cigarette burns.

7. Meek's Cutoff

Didn't like the movie, but LOVE the poster. How often do you see a woodcut-style design for a film poster? My only worry is that people may check out the movie based on it and be disappointed it isn't quite as bad-ass as this.

6. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Kind of resembles a WWE D-Generation X poster...starring an Ape. It might also be the first time a hashtag is prominently featured instead of the actual title. Yet somehow it's still very clear what the movie is. Bravest design of the year.

5. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Should I post the censored version? The uncensored version? I settled for the one in between. This advanced teaser (which seemed to appear no where outside the internet or overseas) caused a lot of controversy when it leaked. But it got your attention and generated interest which is exactly what movie posters should do. Shock value doesn't always work, but in this case it definitely does.

4. Haywire

This is for a movie technically released in 2012, but its art house style poster dropped in 2011 so I'm counting it. This comes from Neil Kellerhouse, the artist who designed some of the best prints of the past decade, and while I wouldn't rank this as high as those it's still among the more impressive and interesting of the year. It effectively plays up the sex and violence with a Blow-Up-inspired image depicting the most memorable scene of the film.

3. Shame

I'm starting to notice a trend here. How do you sell an NC-17 film about a sex addict? I have no idea. Which is what makes this poster so impressive. They somehow answered that question. You just let it sell itself. Those who know about the movie will think the striking, lonely image of crumpled bedsheets makes perfect sense, while those who don't will be intrigued enough to want to know more. Perfect.

2. Young Adult

A brilliant film gets an equally brilliant poster to go along with it. The idea of having the poster double as a YA book cover in honor of its (anti-) heroine is really inspired and the execution is even better. All the details like the "Jason Reitman" seal and creases in the corner prove the designers gave as much attention to this poster as Reitman and Diablo Cody gave to their tragicomedy, which was easily 2011's most criminally underrated film.

1. The Ides of March

Once again George Clooney stars (or at least co-stars) in the year's best poster. The guy must be doing something right if all his movies are not only being touted for awards consideration, but their posters are also topping "best of" lists. Featuring the two acting MVP's of 2011, this is a fresh, inspired twist on the usually stale concept of plastering stars' faces and heads on the page. The best posters are ones that can convey multiple meanings and given that Ryan Gosling plays press secretary to George Clooney's Presidential candidate this is a clever visual play on how a person's identity can be lost in someone else. And I haven't even seen the movie yet. Who knew those two looked so much alike?

Runners-Up:

The Best Unofficial Movie Poster of 2011

If only the actual movie were as captivating as this Drew Struzan-inspired 80's throwback poster implies. A mixed bag if there ever was one, J.J. Abrams' Super 8 was 2011's most strangely disappointing (but at times oddly entertaining) blockbuster. Anyone looking for a reason why it didn't completely succeed should just stare at this image. While the movie managed to capture only the superficial pleasures of early Spielberg, this poster looks and feels like the real deal.

And The Worst...

The alternate Fassbender version is just as bad, but something about the silhouette of the wheelchair superimposed with the floating MacAvoy head gives this one the edge.

Tom Cruise just dropped a new hip hop album.

One of Quentin Tarantino's favorite movies of 2011. No, seriously.

The Spy Kids posters are always an eyesore but this takes it to a new level. Haven't we all been waiting for 4D Aroma-Scope?

A close call between this and the Spanish version. Very close.

You knew this would show up here. Much like the film, it doesn't even seem like they're trying.

I was almost tempted to put this on the "best" list because at least it bothers to be hilariously awful and entertainingly over-the-top. Complete with photoshopped cash that's likely more than the film's box office total. No one can claim this doesn't capture the movie's spirit. For better or worse. Would you let that man chaperone a school trip?

What does that title even mean? Forget it. I don't want to know.

Nothing "cool" about this. This kind of looks like Community: The Movie if Community was, you know, unfunny and went straight to DVD. What's on Sean Astin's head?

What would this list be without the inclusion of the ubiquitous Nicolas Cage, who at one time not only starred in quality movies, but quality posters. This one looks like an ad for a wax museum.

Haywire

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:45:00 +0000

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Gina Carano, Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Bill Paxton, Channing Tatum, Antonio Banderas, Michael Douglas, Michael Angarano
Running Time: 93 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Steven Soderbergh's Haywire is both more and less than it seems. On one hand, it's an action movie. But on the other, it sort of isn't. It's a conventional spy story that's presented in an unconventional manner, exceeding and subverting expectations while strangely at the same time barely managing to meet them. A second viewing is probably in order, but with only one to go on it's safe to say it distinguishes itself from most other mainstream action movies not so much in terms of plot, but style. It feels like a not-so-distant art house cousin of Drive or The American in the sense that it'll turn off viewers expecting a fast-paced, non-stop mindless action extravaganza (its D+ CinemaScore proves it) and reward those looking for something a little different. But the real story coming out of it is the arrival of a legitimate female action star capable of believably kicking ass. Recently, we've had Angelina Jolie in Salt and Zoe Saldana in Columbiana corner the action market in terms of charisma and willingness to get their hands dirty, but in terms of pure physicality and presence, former MMA fighter and first-time actress Gina Carano puts them both to shame. And her casting that proves just how ingenious Soderbergh is in tailoring his movies to the strengths of his stars.

The film opens in a diner in upstate New York, where we meet Mallory Kane (Carano), a contracted covert operations agent with a private firm employed by the government for missions they'd rather wash their hands of. She sits with a man named Aaron (Channing Tatum) who she thrillingly kicks the crap out of over coffee, breaking his arm and escaping with the help of passing customer Scott (Michael Angarano), who has no idea what he's just gotten himself into to. In flashback, we're told the story of how she was sent by her boss and ex-boyfriend Kenneth (Ewan McGregor) to do a job in Dublin where she'd pose as the wife of a British agent named Paul (Michael Fassbender). But it's all a set-up, putting in motion a chain of events that cause her to go on the run, alternating between being the hunter and the hunted, all while trying to uncover who betrayed her and why.

Initially, the narrative framing device is confusing because it takes a bit to differentiate what's happening in the present from the flashback scenes as the title cards indicate shifts in location (Dublin, Barcelona and New York for anyone keeping track) rather than time. It's worth noting how the picture looks since it doesn't quite visually resemble any other recent action movie. The color looks washed out and the image dim and out of focus, no doubt a deliberate choice by Soderbergh who often works as his own cinematographer in his films and wanted to distinguish this from the slick blockbusters we've grown accustomed to. Once we catch up the plot is pretty basic so most of the thrills come from the style and execution. Otherwise deliberately paced, when the action scenes do arrive they're brutally realistic, especially a hotel room confrontation between Carano and Fassbender that has to rank amongst the most exciting intergender onscreen fights in recent memory. Most of the rest of the action is saved for the final half hour, but it's worth the wait.

What Soderbergh does for Carano is almost exactly what he did for adult film star Sasha Grey in The Girlfriend Experience in taking an untrained actress and placing them in a carefully structured project that plays up their strengths while covering their weaknesses. On a lesser scale it's comparable with what Darren Aronofsky did for Natalie Portman in Black Swan by not only hiding her weaknesses as actress, but actually incorporating them into her character and transforming them into strengths. Soderbergh's careful not to give Carano long monologues and dialogue-heavy scenes that would expose her inexperience, instead playing up her intensity and presence. There's no need for tons of emotion in a movie like this and he's wise to not let Carano attempt to supply any. She's a bad-ass. Plain and simple. But in instances she's called upon to do more in "acting" scenes opposite her seasoned co-stars, she still holds her own, proving she can only improve as a performer moving forward. Pretty and powerful, it's not out of the question she could emerge as a the female equivalent of Jason Statham if she attaches herself to projects that make the best use of her talents. And unlike other action heroines, the ex-American Gladiator doesn't at all look like she can be snapped like a twig.

Soderbergh cleverly plugs in his star-heavy cast in utility supporting roles with Ewan McGregor relishing the rare opportunity to play a sleaze and Michael Douglas slipping into familiar authority figure mode as a powerful government agent. Even Channing Tatum fares really well as Mallory's ex-lover and potential adversary. But the real standout is Fassbender, who in his brief, but extremely memorable turn as a suave, dangerous British agent gives just cause to terminate Daniel Craig's 007 contract after his next outing. As perfect a fit as Carano would seem to be for Wonder Woman, Fassbender is for James Bond. And since the films cover much of the same territory it also wouldn't be off base to claim that the stuck-in-a-rut Bond franchise could stand to look and feel more like this.

If there's anything holding the film back from greatness it's Lem Dobbs' script, which taken altogether seems very conventional and ordinary despite its sometimes convoluted presentation. It's a simple story told in a complicated way that succeeds in making you fell like you're watching something of considerable substance. Without Soderbergh's stylistic choices and such a believable, intimidating lead it wouldn't work at the level it does. But those elements are there and it does work because of them, making me think that once you have the story all sorted out on the first viewing, everything else will likely improve on subsequent ones. Besides marking the arrival of an exciting new action actress, it also provides a reason to re-examine just how talented a filmmaker Soderbergh is. Unlike any of his peers, he's been able to successfully alternate between low budget indie projects and mainstream blockbusters. Now with Haywire, he's proven himself capable of combining both.

2012 Oscar Nominations (Reaction and Analysis)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:23:00 +0000

Well, we have our 84th Annual Academy Award nominations as Academy President Tom Sherak and Oscar-nominated actress Jennifer Lawrence read them off early this morning (video above). And overall, I did pretty well with my predictions. Turns out I made the right call playing it safe, with only a few exceptions. You can read the entire list of nominees here. If one thing's for sure it's that I still have plenty of movies left to see and review. Here are some of the major talking points coming out of this morning's announcement:

-Obviously the huge shocker came last when the polarizing, 9/11 tearjerker "EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE" (sorry, that personal space invading title just begs to be written in all caps) was announced as the final Best Picture nominee. You could hear the gasps of shock and awe after it was read. And the funny thing is I had a strange feeling that could happen and wrestled with adjusting my predictions to include it, before wimping out. We all underestimated the Academy's penchant for embracing sentimentality. It knows no bounds. That combined with the movie peaking just as voters were filling out their ballots resulted caused this. While I haven't seen or reviewed it yet, I've heard it's also the kind of movie you love or hate. Apparently enough voters loved it and it even spread to the supporting Actor category with a surprise nod for Max Von Sydow.

-"War Horse" nominated for Best Picture. I'm glad I stuck with that prediction when everyone else seemed to abandon it. As usual, sentimentality and comfort rule the day for voters.

-Spielberg out for Best Director but Terrence Malick is in for "The Tree of Life", which also scored a surprise, but very welcome, Best Picture nomination. Didn't think voters would go for something this challenging but I'm glad they did. It was an achievement even they couldn't overlook. Justifiably praised to high heaven by critics, it's now officially gone the distance, picking up the two biggest nominations. Easily the best news of the morning.

-I knew David Fincher wouldn't be nominated for "Dragon Tattoo", nor would the actual picture. It's clear now they just don't like him. But I was wrong about Rooney Mara. Always on the radar but somewhat of a long shot, she made it in. Guess they wanted to reward the film somehow, so that makes sense.

-So, what was that I was saying yesterday about pronouncing Michel Hazanavicius? I wouldn't want to be in Tom Sherak's shoes reading some of those tongue-twisters. But on the other hand, he does get to present with Jennifer Lawrence, so there's that. And she was surprisingly skilled at pronouncing those names.

-I guessed 7 Best Picture nominees. There were 9. And those extra two were shockers so I wasn't that far off the mark there.

-"Midnight in Paris": Best Picture nominee. Ugh.

-Woody Allen: Best Director: Ugh.

-"Bridemaids": Best Original Screenplay. Ugh.

-Surprise Best Actor nomination for Demian Bichir for "A Better Life." Who? What? We'll have to have a fight on Oscar night between him and "The Artist's" Jean Dujardin to determine who gets crowned this year's Roberto Benigni. I understand the desire to not only reward great work and bring attention to an actor and film no one's heard of, but I can't help but think nominations like the one for Bichir do more harm than good, causing people to not want to see the film and tune out of the Oscars altogether. While the performance may be deserving, I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the announcement, knowing fewer will care what happens in this category now.

-Two HUGE Supporting snubs: Albert Brooks in "Drive" and Shailene Woodley in "The Descendants." They were screwed big time. There's simply no other way to put it. Two of the best performances of the year don't get in. And now we can officially say it: The Academy hates "Drive." As for Woodley, they probably thought it was "too soon" or she "has time" because of her age so they just didn't vote for her.

-None of my "wish" nominations came to pass. Admittedly, all except a couple were the longest of long shots.

-I'm glad Nick Nolte got in for "Warrior." Same for Jonah Hill for "Moneyball." It's well deserved, even if it doesn't quite take the sting out of Brooks being overlooked.

-Only two Original Song nominees? Why even have the category? If "Man or Muppet" loses with one other nominee we should all riot.

-Thrilled to see J.C. Chandor's original script for "Margin Call" nominated.

-Overall, they could have done much worse. And as tough a time as I'm giving "Midnight in Paris," it is at least a good film. As much as we sometimes complain, the Academy rarely nominates anything of poor quality for Best Picture and this year seems to be no exception. Predictions coming before the big show on February 26th.

2012 Oscar Nomination Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:50:00 +0000

Haven't done this predicting thing in a few years so we'll find out when the nominations are announced tomorrow morning whether I'm an expert, lucky, a fool or maybe just something in between. I learned my lesson last year though when The King's Speech won Best Picture. I'm putting myself in the mindset of your average Academy voter and imagining what would be the safest, most unchallenging picks possible. That's how they think. If something else happens that's great, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Below are my predictions for what will be the nominations in the 8 major categories, along with one "wish" choice I highly doubt will come to pass. Here it goes....

Best Picture

"The Artist"

"The Descendants"

"Moneyball"

"Hugo"

"The Help"

"Midnight in Paris"

"War Horse"

Comments: Unlike last year when there had to be 10 nominees, there can be anywhere from 5 to 10. I'm going with 7.And this is about as mundane a line-up as possible. I'd be surprised if they nominate "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." Seems too edgy for their tastes, regardless of who directed it. Here's hoping I'm wrong and the average, insanely overpraised "Midnight in Paris" doesn't get in for either Picture, Director, or Screenplay. It probably will though. And yes, I really think they'll nominate "War Horse" despite it being a massive commercial and critical flop. I'd rather not consider the scary possibility "Bridesmaids" could sneak in here. But luckily I don't have to because it won't. They hate comedy.

I Wish: "Drive"

Best Director
Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
Alexander Payne, "The Descendants"
Martin Scorsese, "Hugo"
Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
Steven Spielberg, "War Horse"

Comments: Here's hoping I'm wrong again and someone like David Fincher displaces Spielberg in this category but I won't hold my breath, especially considering how badly they screwed him over last year. I think Spielberg's in just for being Spielberg. Why do I have this strange feeling George Clooney could sneak in for "The Ides of March or that movie could be nominated for Best Picture?"And what a relief I only have to spell Hazanavicius' name and don't have to pronounce it.

I Wish: Nicolas Winding Refn, "Drive"

Best Actor
George Clooney, "The Descendants"
Brad Pitt, "Moneyball"
Juan Dujardin, "The Artist"
Leonardo DiCaprio, "J. Edgar"
Gary Oldman, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

Comments: Yes, I still think they're nominating DiCaprio. It's Leo in a biopic with old age make-up. They don't care if the movie's awful or not. Despite the push, Michael Fassbender probably won't get in for "Shame." It's NC-17 and about a sex addict. Consider it a victory if Academy voters even made it through the film without suffering heart attacks.

I Wish: Ryan Gosling, "Drive"

Best Actress

Meryl Streep, "The Iron Lady"

Viola Davis, "The Help"

Michelle Williams, "My Week with Marilyn"

Tilda Swinton, "We Have To Talk About Kevin"

Glenn Close, "Albert Nobbs"

Comments: If Kristen Wiig somehow, someway gets nominated for "Bridesmaids" it would rank among the most undeserving Best Actress nominations in Oscar history. And boy does that cover a lot of ground. It's just an okay comedic performance and nothing more. For some reason I just don't see Rooney Mara making it in for "Tattoo."

I Wish: Charlize Theron, "Young Adult" (A long shot, but possible. Fingers crossed for the best performance of the year)

Best Supporting Actor
Albert Brooks, "Drive"

Christopher Plummer, "Beginners"

Jonah Hill, "Moneyball"

Kenneth Branagh, "My Week with Marilyn"

Nick Nolte, "Warrior"

Comments: This is cut and dry. Hard to screw this up. If anyone's getting left out it could be Nolte. Or Hill. If so, it's hopefully to make room for Patton Oswalt who really, really deserves to be here. So does Brad Pitt for "The Tree of Life," but since he's already locked in as lead for "Moneyball" that won't be happening. But it should. It was arguably the better performance.

I Wish: Patton Oswalt, "Young Adult"

Best Supporting Actress

Jessica Chastain, "The Help"

Octavia Spencer, "The Help"

Shailene Woodley, "The Descendants"

Berenice Bejo, "The Artist"

Melissa McCarthy, "Bridesmaids"

Comments: A surprise isn't out of the question here. Not enough to go out on a limb with anyone else though. That's the line-up. Of the 50 films in which she appeared this year, it looks like Jessica Chastain's getting in for "The Help." And here's the only category "Bridesmaids" actually deserves to be nominated in.

I Wish: Elle Fanning, "Super 8", Judy Greer,"The Descendants" (Unfortunately no chance for either)

Best Original Screenplay
Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"

Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"

Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumulo, "Bridesmaids"

Tom McCarthy, "Win Win"

Will Reiser, "50/50"

Comments: I've already expressed my displeasure at the underwhelming "Midnight in Paris" being here. And not to beat a dead horse, but the likely inclusion of "Bridesmaids" in this category is even worse. Especially, if it's at the expense of the strongest screenplay of the year, Diablo Cody's "Young Adult." It's embarrassing if those two get in and that doesn't.

I Wish: Diablo Cody, "Young Adult"

Best Adapted Screenplay

Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, "The Descendants"

Aaron Sorkin, Steve Zaillan, "Moneyball"

John Logan, "Hugo"

Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

Tate Taylor, "The Help"

Comments: There's really nothing else worth considering, with one exception. But I don't think that's making it in. This category is locked and probably the easiest to predict. It was a really good year for adapted screenplays and this list reflects that.

I Wish: Hossein Amini, "Drive"

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:20:00 +0000

Director: Troy Nixey
Starring: Katie Holmes, Guy Pearce, Bailee Madison, Jack Thompson
Running Time: 99 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark does a lot right and gets one thing wrong. But the thing that goes wrong will be all everyone wants to talk about when it's over, which isn't completely fair. Having not seen the 1973 ABC made-for-television horror movie that scared Guillermo del Toro enough as a kid to want to produce this remake, I'll guess it's probably more frightening this version, only because I imagine it did less. With a much smaller budget the filmmakers would have no choice. And that's the advantage the older horror movies will always have over their newer counterparts: Age. Anything older tends to look and feel scarier because of the lower production values, while anything newer just inherently looks slicker and therefore less threatening. This remake impresses with how it uses mood and atmosphere to sidestep that problem, fumbling only when it goes for too much. You'd never know from the advertising that Del Toro didn't actually direct this but his fingerprints are clearly all over it, to the point where I occasionally questioned whether his involvement helped. It's frustrating when a movie just needs to pull back and do less to get more because that problem seems so easily correctable. Still, it's a welcome throwback that doesn't feel exactly like your average modern horror movie and the two lead performances carrying it are phenomenal. They're sure to be as underrated and overlooked as the talented actresses giving them, one of whom is back on track in a major way. The rest of the movie is okay too. But it's just okay, when it had the tools to be great.

After a creepy prologue taking place in the early 1900's, the movie flashes forward to the present when young Sally (Bailee Madison) is sent by her mother to live with her architect father Alex (Guy Pearce) and his new girlfriend Kim (Katie Holmes) in an old, large mansion they're redecorating in Rhode Island. Sad, over-medicated, and all but ignored by her workaholic dad, Sally fails to form much of a connection with Kim, instead spending her time exploring Blackwood Manor. She starts hearing voices from the basement, and after some investigating, unwillingly unleashes an army of Gollum-looking gremlins with razor sharp teeth and almost ridiculously distinctive facial features. They start to wreck havoc, targeting the property's caretaker (Jack Thompson), eating furniture and shredding clothes in hopes of finding a human sacrifice. Preferably a child. The biggest change from the original is making the protagonist a child instead of an adult, a good call considering nothing creates tension and terror like a child in peril. Guy Pearce has the most ludicrous role in the film and it's difficult to tell how much of that can be attributed to the writing, which practically necessitates his character be a dope, insisting everything's in Sally's head and accusing her of acting out for attention. A necessity from a story standpoint, but it's still feels like the normally reliable Pearce is reciting lines and collecting a paycheck. Or it could be that his co-stars are just so good.

The relationship between Kim and Sally carry the film and the performances from Holmes and Madison are outstanding. Precocious but never too cute, Madison makes her character seem sullen and desperately curious rather than just a merely a helpless victim, which is a nice change from the norm. Armed with her Polaroid camera as a weapon (the creatures don't like flashes) she goes on the offensive more often than not. A few years ago when Madison appeared in Brothers I wrote that the weak acting link was clearly Natalie Portman, completely miscast and unbelievable as a mother to her. I specifically suggested Katie Holmes would have been a far better choice and it feels good to be proven completely right, as Holmes really shines here opposite Madison in exactly the way Portman couldn't in that film. After wisely laying low for the past few years appearing in mostly small, independent films (notwithstanding the Kennedys miniseries she did an underrated job in) it's been a long time since she's anchored a mainstream release like this and boy is it great to have her back and firing on all cylinders, especially in a part playing to all her strengths. As Kim, she grows into the unfamiliar role of de facto step mom to this withdrawn child, overcoming her own past to become Sally's protector and the only adult she can rely on. With a mixture of strength, intelligence, sensitivity and warmth, Katie makes her the most likable character in the film, delivering a performance that should win over any doubters. She also makes a surprisingly effective scream queen, letting out a yell at the end of the film that would make Jamie Lee Curtis proud. If horror movies these days were better, I'd say she should appear in more of them, but since they aren't, she probably shouldn't. But this was a good step regardless. Though the bias media would never acknowledge it, Holmes has been clawing and scratching her way back lately, quietly making all the right choices to return to relevance as an actress.

While it's inevitable that at some point we have to see the creatures, many of the scarier scenes come before that, when Sally's alone and we see nothing. When the CGI creatures do show up there's no getting around the fact it seems to come too early and we get too much of them. They don't necessarily look "fake" per se (and I have no idea how their appearance differs from the original), but they are slickly rendered, which probably wasn't the best choice given the old school approach they've already taken with the material. Horror just might be the only the genre where a film's quality has an inverse relationship to the size of its budget. It seems the more money you spend the less authentic things seem to look and feel, and this is hardly the worst offender. In fact, it's rather conservative compared to others in that regard so that even this eventually does give in with the special effects is telling. But more fascinating than that is despite the film being helmed by first-timer Troy Nixey, I'm betting that decision was more than likely made by Del Toro, who (like Spielberg and Lucas) was probably so enamored with the technology that it never occurred to him that approach may not the best fit for this story. He's also obsessed with myths and fairy tales, which is fine, if it didn't lead to an over-explanatory library research scene Holmes is forced to save. Everything else Nixey does from a directorial standpoint in terms of creating suspense is so effective it's reasonable to believe a modern horror classic was within grasp if better decisions were made regarding the creatures and less work was put into making them look cool. Should they have shown them at all? That's the million dollar question. They probably should have, but not as much, and maybe left a little room open for the interpretation that this little girl might really be losing it. Just suggesting that possibility would be more terrifying than anything we're shown.

Showing too much is a problem found in horror movies today that we'd never have to contend with in the 70's because they didn't have the budget to do that, and the films mostly benefited as a result. That said, despite the somewhat inexplicable "R" rating, this could hardly be considered a gore fest that trades in suspense for brutal kills. It still shows less than we're used to, relying mostly on atmosphere to tell its story, giving it a kind of a throwback feel that puts it in a different league than most modern day horror. The ending is frustrating, but in a good way. It's never bad when you care enough about a character enough to actually get angry at their eventual fate. It makes the bond between the two main characters seem even more meaningful in retrospect. For kids who accidentally stumble upon Don't Be Afraid of the Dark on cable in the middle of the night, it's probably just as likely as the original to cause nightmares for those who grew up with it. For adults, it'll be suspenseful and entertaining. It's hard not to appreciate the craftsmanship that went into in re-making this, while still wishing there was just a little less of it.

Water For Elephants

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:18:00 +0000

Director: Francis Lawrence
Starring: Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, Christoph Waltz, Hal Holbrook, Paul Schneider
Running Time: 121 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Poor Reese Witherspoon. Forced to share the screen with an untrained sideshow spectacle who's poked and prodded at for audiences' enjoyment as an evil carnival barker urges them to pour out their pockets in hopes of getting a glimpse. No, it's not Rosie the elephant I'm referring to, but her other co-star, Robert Pattinson, who now faces the challenge of trying to be taken seriously as a dramatic actor after being established as a consumer product studios can make money off of. And outside of the Twilight franchise, even that assumption is uncertain. He's got a long road ahead of him and probably knows it, but all things considered, this is a decent first step. Water for Elephants is the right type of project for him to get his feet wet, playing to his strengths while offering him as few opportunities as possible to embarrass himself. So that's good news in itself. It also helps the film is an easy, enjoyable watch and at least slightly less ridiculous than I expected.

Adapted from Sara Gruen's popular novel and directed with old school flare by Francis Lawrence, the film employs one of my favorite narrative devices: An old man looking back on his life. Unfortunately, that promising device is executed about as clumsily as possible, treated as a mere afterthought before the film flashes back to The Great Depression when 23-year-old Cornell veterinary student Jacob Jankowski (Pattinson) loses both his parents in a car crash. Adrift in life, he starts riding the rails, ending up on the Benzini Brothers Circus Train. He meets the controlling August (Christoph Waltz) the circus owner and animal trainer who's married to the beautiful Marlena (Witherspoon), and prone to unpredictable fits of sadistic rage, treating her almost as badly as he does his animals. After an awkward first meeting, August hires Jacob as the circus vet but it becomes a complicated working arrangement when Jacob starts to fall for Marlena. It might be the one element in the circus that August can't control, with the results of that fledgling relationship having potentially dangerous consequences for all involved.

The big draw here is the circus setting and period atmosphere. From a technical standpoint it's virtually flawless and looks great. There are a bunch of Oscar nominees involved in the costuming, production, art direction and set design and it really shows. From a visual standpoint it actually feels like The Greatest Show on Earth or one of those old style Hollywood epics from the 1950's they don't attempt anymore. The script, however, makes it feel slightly smaller than it should. More like a TV movie, as the doomed lovers plot can't always keep up with the inspired circus backdrop. Pattinson, looking less pale and vampire-like than usual, effectively broods and longingly stares at Reese, but it's clearly the more experienced Witherspoon who's carrying this. She's a genuine movie star in the truest sense and the unattainable Marlena character fits her like a glove. Unlike her role, Pattinson's could have easily been swapped out with just about any other actor in his age range or older with no harm done to the film, but he holds his own, giving what resembles at times a passably strong performance. The two have okay (but not great) chemistry and their age difference isn't much of a factor. If anything, it's interesting to see a younger man and older women for a change, and an argument could be made it better suits the nature of this particular story of the protagonist being shown the ropes.

Watching I couldn't help but wish everything else had as much bite as Christoph Waltz's psycho circus ringmaster. Again channeling his sadistic streak from Inglourious Basterds he seems to be the go-to sociopath in movies these days, infusing each scene with his co-stars with a genuine sense of danger. There are points we fear for their lives, not to mention the life of the elephant. Besides the framing device mishap (which strangely has the younger Jacob narrating the story even though his older self, played by Hal Holbrook, is telling it in the present day) my biggest complaint is the film does lack that extra edge to put it over the top. Whether there was a fear in alienating faithful devotees of the novel, Pattinson fans or just a concern with preserving that audience friendly PG-13 tone, there are times it seems to be playing it safe when it really needs to cut loose with the romance and violence. Other than that it's difficult to pinpoint much Water for Elephants does wrong, and believe me I was looking. Chalk it up to low expectations if you must, but there's something to be said for telling a simple, but visually compelling story in a smart, straightforward way.

Margin Call

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:50:00 +0000

Director: J.C. Chandor
Starring: Kevin Spacey, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Irons, Zachary Quinto, Penn Badgley, Simon Baker Mary McDonnell, Stanley Tucci, Demi Moore
Running Time: 109 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

In the opening minutes of writer/director J.C. Chandor's thrilling debut feature Margin Call, Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci) a manager at an unnamed financial firm, is let go. He's told it's nothing personal. We see his face as he takes the news, says his goodbyes, cleans out his desk and gets escorted to the elevator by security. Just before he leaves he hands his protege Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) a USB drive and tells him to "be careful." That's the set up. What unfolds over the next 24 hours is the pay off. When Peter works out Eric's model the results are horrifying and the potential losses for the firm crippling. There would be no firm. He calls back in his friend and fellow analyst Seth (Penn Badgley) along with their boss Will Emerson (Paul Bettany). The information travels up the chain of command to Will's boss Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey), then to Sam's boss, Jared Cohen (Simon Baker) before finally landing in the lap of CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) whose impending 4 am helicopter arrival is so suspenseful it may as well be Darth Vader arriving on the Death Star. Without giving too much away, in just a few scenes Irons exceeds all expectations of this character's involvement, creating the most intriguing (and scariest) portrayal of a high ranking CEO I can remember seeing on screen. Besides being the best performance Irons has given in decades, it's exactly the type of brief, but gripping work the supporting actor Oscar category seems created to acknowledge.

It's not so much what's said at that emergency meeting, but how, and the implications for all involved. And for a talky film, there are definitely times when nothing is said but you can still feel that the tension is always escalating. This story is all about escalating tension. It would have been easy to choose to make a film demonizing those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, and even stupider to try to evoke sympathy for them, but Chandor wisely doesn't judge. Your boss has a boss who's taking orders from their boss who's taking orders from another boss and if you're at the bottom of the food chain (or even at the middle), you just do what you're told. The financial crisis started because those at the top got greedy and everyone else just kept following orders. We're taken inside a shark tank where it's a battle for survival but these are real people with qualities both good and bad. The scariest part of the film is how any of them could be any of us if we're willing to take the job and for that money there are likely few among us who wouldn't.

The closest we get to a hero is Quinto's idealistic, inexperienced underling Peter, a rocket scientist whose brains unwillingly take him from the trading floor to a scary meeting with the CEO, where the entire fate of the firm suddenly rests on his calculations. Bettany's Will is a greedy hotshot who has a monologue late in the film that will give you chills. Simon Baker is fantastic as an arrogant wunderkind promoted to securities head before his time but now faces the very real possibility he could be thrown under the bus unless head of risk Sarah Roberston (Demi Moore) takes the fall instead. Though never explicitly stated, we know and she knows it's because she's a woman and she's reached her limit in a man's world. Moore, in full Disclosure mode, hasn't had a part this meaty to chew on in years. The same could be said, perhaps more so, for Spacey, who breaks out of his post-American Beauty slump as a good man torn between doing what's right and doing what's right for the firm, which may or may not be the same thing depending on one's perspective. He knows what the plan is and the devastating consequences for everyone not at the top if they decide to go through with it. A sub-plot involving his ailing dog gives the film an unexpected emotional humanity, serving also as an uncomfortable reminder that situations spiral out of control and anyone, regardless of their values, can be caught up in the current.

This is an astounding debut feature for a filmmaker and it wouldn't be off base to call it Wall Street for the current generation. I'd even go as far as to call it superior to that film (and certainly to its recent sequel) since it has more compelling characters, better performances and isn't as one-sided. It casts no judgment and leaves interpretation up to the viewer, which is why it succeeds. It's a snapshot in time, and a rare opportunity seeing so many actors of such a high talent level appearing together in the same project, much less one with material this strong. They must have been chomping at the bit when they read the script but even with a cast this packed no one seems to be fighting for screen time and each role, however small, feels important. The two standouts are clearly Irons and Spacey but everyone else is excellent, with a few delivering some of their best work. Efficient and tension-filled, there isn't a wasted minute to be found, leaving me pondering what would happen to its characters when the smoke cleared.

Midnight in Paris

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:15:00 +0000

Director:Woody Allen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Kathy Bates, Adrian Brody, Carla Bruni, Michael Sheen, Alison Pil, Corey Stoll, Tom Hiddleston
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 94 min.

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Good news for the present. Someday it'll be the past and then people can finally appreciate it. That's essentially the message of Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, the most financially successful film of his career, and yet another touching on what's emerged as 2011's recurring cinematic theme: Nostalgia. Whether it was the return of the 70's and 80's in Super 8, The Muppets and Drive, a call back to the silent movie era in films like Hugo and The Artist or a warning against the potential danger of living in the past in Young Adult, 2011 truly was the year we wished we could be in any time but 2011. So now it's Woody's turn and it's kind of unfortunate this carries the baggage of being his biggest moneymaker because now everyone will go in expecting something monumental. It isn't, nor does it signal this huge "comeback" you've been hearing about. In fact, Allen will never need a comeback since he's so inconsistent it would be impossible to tell if it happened. With an unmistakable emphasis on quantity over quality over the years, his output is so hit-or-miss it's almost maddening. More frustrating than that though is an inability to point to anything he specifically does wrong, despite the end result often being unremarkable. This is no exception, but at least it's enjoyable, boasts an interesting premise and features one of the better neurotic Allen protagonists. It's a nice, pleasant diversion. But that's about it.

The story centers on Gil Pender (Owen Wilson), a successful Hollywood screenwriter and wannabe novelist vacationing in Paris with his overbearing fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her wealthy, ultra-conservative parents (Mimi Kennedy and Kurt Fuller). While there, they run into Inez's former flame Paul (Michael Sheen), a pseduo-intellectual blowhard who arrogantly (and inaccurately) lectures them on Parisian art and history. Of course, Inez is smitten with him, which only enhances Gil's inferiority complex. After a night of drinking, Gil wanders the streets and is picked up at midnight by an antique car and driven to a party where he's magically transported to the 1920's. Given an opportunity to interact with major art and literary figures from his favorite era such as F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill), Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), Cole Porter (Yves Heck) and Pablo Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo), things get complicated when he falls for Picasso's mistress Adriana (Marion Cotillard). Now he must sort out his present relationship difficulties with Inez and reconcile them with these magical midnight experiences in the past.

Owen Wilson is tremendous in this and maybe the most likable he's been yet in a leading role. He always exudes a goofy charm but here for a change it isn't masked by the sarcasm or smugness of the character he's playing. He's one of those actors we want to like as a comedy lead but because the low brow material he's often chosen it just hasn't come together for him yet. Here it does as he kind of gets to play the same slightly off-kilter, dorky regular guy he has been but in a more sophisticated story and setting. Much of the film's success hinges on how likable, naive and easy to relate to Gil is and Wilson delivers on all fronts, making this one of Allen's more surprisingly inspired casting choices. Beyond seeing Wilson in this type of a role, there isn't a whole lot that necessarily seems fresh, but most of it works anyway, especially the scenes set in the past. The big standout is Corey Stoll, whose movie stealing performance as Ernest Hemingway, however brief, accomplishes the feat of somehow capturing how we'd imagine the author would talk (i.e. exactly how he writes), making it feel authentic rather than a parody. And as Adriana, Marion Cotillard is mesmerizing to the point we'd question why Gil would even want to return to his current life. While the present storyline represents the same old tired Allen material of clearly mismatched lovers fighting all the time, but it's saved by a hilariously bitchy, against type turn by Rachel McAdams and Michael Sheen turning on the sleaze as the ex. Though we're kind of nailed over the head with it, the film's simple message of living for the present is a good one and Allen and Wilson have no problems selling it in the final act.

If this seems like an unenthusiastic recommendation that's because it is. The film will probably play best with diehard Woody Allen fans, literary and history buffs and elderly Oscar voters whose fingers are probably ready to fall off right now from checking it off in every possible category it can be nominated for. But it's definitely NOT a giant leap forward creatively for Allen in any way and exactly the same thing he's been doing for the past twenty years but in more international, worldly locations instead of New York. It's kind of disappointing no one's noticed, or if they have, don't seem to care. Maybe that's because he does it well and his movies (even at their worst) tend to be really entertaining in the most harmlessly enjoyable, inoffensive way. So it's a little frustrating when each new Woody Allen picture is treated as this "big event" when nothing he's done since the late 70's or early 80's has lingered in the mind longer than 24 hours after the credits have rolled. This, despite all the praise it's gotten, doesn't either. But it works for what it is. A couple of times in recent years Allen's deviated slightly from his usual template, but not enough to say he's taken any kind of a risk, which could also help explain how he's avoided a steep decline. Midnight in Paris is mildly delightful, but anyone still hoping for that Woody Allen "comeback" might just have to keep waiting.

The Help

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:15:00 +0000

Director: Tate Taylor
Starring: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard, Octavia Spencer, Jessica Chastain, Ahna O' Reilly, Allison Janey, Emma Henry, Chris Lowell, Cicely Tyson, Mike Vogel, Sissy Spacek
Running Time: 146 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ¼ (out of ★★★★)

From a critical standpoint, The Help is underrated. It may seem like a strange comment to make about a decently reviewed awards contender beloved by many and that's grossed over $200 million, but it seems whenever the film's discussed there's always some qualifier belittling or explaining away its success. The most pointed accusation slung its way is that it's a "whitewashing" of racism, taking what's obviously extremely sensitive and important issue and sanitizing it for mainstream entertainment, even going so far as to filter it all through the eyes of a white protagonist. Accused of engaging in revisionist history, many have claimed it presents a Hollywood version of the Jim Crow South that fails to make everyone understand the true pain and suffering blacks experienced during that time. But could any film do that? Should it? Going into Tate Taylor's The Help (based on Kathryn Sockett's 2009 bestselling novel) I expected mainstream fluff, kind of a Hallmark greeting card or Lifetime movie of the week transported to the big screen. Something like The Blind Side meets Driving Miss Daisy. But it's instead a well acted, well directed drama that works as a snapshot of a time and a depiction of attitudes. This isn't pretending to be something it's not, and overlooking that is the biggest mistake that can be made critiquing it. And if it is fluff someone forgot to tell the talented array of actresses who carry it. If anything, it should be praised, not derided, for deftly handling a difficult topic with an intelligence uncommon among most mainstream movies.

It's the early 60's in Jackson, Mississippi and 23 year-old Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan (Emma Stone) is fresh out of college with a new job writing for the local newspaper, an opportunity frowned upon by her cancer-striken mother Charlotte (Alison Janey) who feels she should just find a man and settle down. Upon discovering their longtime maid Constantine (Cicely Tyson) had mysteriously quit then disappeared while she was away, Skeeter's eyes are opened to the racist attitudes her friends and neighbors have toward "the help." The worst of them is stuck-up socialite and Junior League president Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard) who actually proposes a "Home Help Sanitation Initiative" that would provide separate bathrooms for their black housekeepers. Having not been brought up racist, Skeeter starts questioning these injustices and comes up with the idea to write a book from their perspective, detailing the feelings of maids who've sacrificed own lives to raise white children who will more than likely grow up to become racists themselves. Two maids, the quiet, somber Abileen Clark (Viola Davis) and tough talking Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer) agree to participate. The former quietly soldiers forward while mourning the death of her son while the latter isn't afraid of telling it like it is, a trait that gets her fired by Hilly and eventually taken under the employ of social outcast Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain). With the deadline from her editor fast approaching, Skeeter must get as many stories from the help as she can, which proves difficult considering the potential consequences of the book's publication.

What really jumps out about the story are the hypocritical attitudes of these well-to-do white women who trust the help enough to let them essentially raise their children, but refuse to share a bathroom with them because of the color of their skin. While Skeeter is the first to notice this inane reasoning and sets in motion a plan to rectify it, the story really isn't about her. Those complaining the maids' histories are being dictated to a white person should consider the likelihood of any editor publishing a book by a black housekeeper during that era, not mention the chances they'd risk their lives trying to write one. The character of Skeeter actually makes the events seem more plausible, not less. So by even employing this narrative device (taken straight from the novel) the film's already operating at a higher level of realism than it's being given credit for. But the movie is all about the performances, which are just about as good as any from an ensemble cast this year.

As the narrator and centerpiece of the story, Viola Davis has surprisingly limited screen time and dialogue as Aibileen, but the the film never needs to go to the ugly places everyone's complaining it doesn't because all the pain, suffering and indignity these maids begrudgingly endure is visible on Davis' face. Given the opportunity to finally speak out against injustice she's justifiably filled with mixed feelings since it's the only life she knows, as awful as it is. Octavia Spencer steals the spotlight as the feisty Minny, role that was specifically written with the longtime character actress in mind. The special surprise she delivers to her former employer Hilly is easily the funniest moment in the picture, as an ignorant racist finally gets her comeuppance courtesy of an unusual dessert. That a movie covering this topic can even have funny moments and we don't feel guilty laughing should be proof enough something was done right.

Bryce Howard is brilliantly detestable as Hilly, and while she's the kind of villain you just want to reach through the screen and strangle, Howard's portrayal impressively avoids turning her into a one-dimensional caricature. As in her supporting turn in this year's cancer dramedy 50/50, she makes her character's deplorable actions seem real and sad, not manufactured for the sake of cheap drama. Sissy Spacek provides scene-stealing comic relief as Hilly's mother, who's losing her marbles but can still see what an annoying brat her daughter's turned into. Emma Stone is charmingly goofy and endearing as Skeeter, in a difficult role that most other actresses in her age range likely would have struggled with. She pulls off a surprisingly convincing southern accent, handles the more dramatic scenes well, and effectively conveys Skeeter's insecurity and outspoken bravery. Making her sixth or seventh screen appearance this year, 2011's biggest acting discovery Jessica Chastain disappears into Marilyn Monroe lookalike Celia, a social outcast who ends up having a lot more substance to her than it seems at first. On the outskirts and sheltered from the racist views of her peers, the emotional bond she forms with new employee Minny is one of the film's many surprising pleasures.

The big mystery and what her mother's been keeping from Skeeter is what exactly happened with their longtime help Constantine while she was away at school. It's a secret that's kept throughout the entire film, until being revealed in a flashback in the third act and without spoiling anything, I'll just say it's one hell of a scene. I can't understand how anyone can watch this powerful sequence and the heartbreaking performances of Allison Janey and Cicely Tyson in it and still claim this is just fluff. There's an indelible image that concludes this expertly directed and acted scene that's difficult to shake after it's passed, regardless of anyone's feelings on the film's treatment of history as a whole.

Is the movie meant to be a mainstream audience pleaser? Absolutely. And there's nothing wrong with that. While there are inherent limitations when you take this approach and the length of ten football fields separates the quality of something like this and the year's higher quality films like The Tree of Life or Drive, I still wouldn't begrudge the casual moviegoer--who maybe sees only a handful of features each year--for naming it one their favorites. To say it's "dumbed down" for mainstream audiences or they want to be spoon-fed a revisionist history isn't exactly fair since the presentation of the material never really backs that argument up. It's presented in a manner that definitely aims to make it feel more accessible, but it isn't dumb. If anything, it would hopefully get viewers unaware of the exact history to learn more about the actual events that inspired it or seek the kind of documentary some critics are complaining this isn't. And it shouldn't be punished for tackling a sensitive topic in more lightweight manner, especially if its intentions are clearly laid out from the onset and it doesn't waver in that approach all the way through. It was obvious from the first frame what the goal of the film was and it almost flawlessly delivers on that promise with just a few missteps, such as a poorly developed sub-plot involving Skeeter and her boyfriend (Chris Lowell), that's left dangling without any clear resolution.

Negotiating his way some tough tonal territory, relatively unknown director Tate Taylor keeps the pace moving breezily along for almost two and a half hours, while the production, costume design and cinematography succeed in creating a feel for the setting and period. Given all the complaints I heard before seeing it, you'd figure the film toppled Gone With The Wind in its stereotypical depiction of black maids in the south, but these two characters are way too well written and performed to even jokingly warrant such a comparison. They're strong, brave women trying to improve their situation, not helpless caricatures.

I know it's generally frowned upon for a critic to even react to the reaction of others to a film, but getting to it so late and hearing so many accusations beforehand, there really wasn't much choice. I'll admit it probably doesn't bode well for its shelf life that I had to work this hard defending it. Great movies should be enthusiastically praised without reservation rather than defended with a laundry list of excuses of why it isn't as bad as everyone says it is, followed by an apology. And because the filmmakers took this lighter approach it just simply won't stay in the mind as long as something with more substance to it. That's no one's fault, just an inevitability when the decision was made in the pre-production stage to remain faithful to the source material. I understand and even appreciate many of the criticisms leveled against it, but at the same time there's no denying the on screen results are above average in every possible category. The unusual rating above comes from sensing this is exactly the kind of movie I'll forget about it in less than a month, if I haven't already. Or maybe I'm just kind of disturbed only half a star would separate this from the very best, putting it on par with films that actually do dig deeper. Either way, it seems those most offended by The Help are more against the idea of it being made in the first place, which becomes another issue altogether. In this case, approaching a movie for what it is rather than what it isn't, is a tip some critics could have taken from audiences.

Young Adult

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:41:00 +0000

Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: Charlize Theron, Patton Oswalt, Patrick Wilson, Elizabeth Reaser, Collette Wolfe
Running Time: 94 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Young Adult is the sneakiest kind of great movie. The type that decides to stay and hang out a while. It doesn't seem like much while I was watching it or even a few hours after, but days later it crept up on me. I saw it a week ago and its been replaying in my head since. The plot can probably be summed up in a single sentence but the layers that can be peeled away from its main character seem endless. It's brave and gutsy, literally basking in its own pessimism since any other approach would just seem dishonest. A lot of viewers are going to have strong opinions about this protagonist who hits close to home in a very disturbing way. If you aren't her or at least possess a few of her less than desirable qualities, chances are you know someone who does. But as pathetic and despicable her behavior is, I can't remember a recent movie character I've felt deeper sympathy for or understood better. What happens with her is just awful and whether you can relate to her or not, there's no question this film ventures to uncomfortable, taboo territory most dramas, much less other dark comedies, refuse to go. Most will probably detest this character, but for me there were points where I wanted to reach through the screen and give her a hug. So it's a good thing the Juno team of director Jason Reitman and screenwriter Diablo Cody won't, remaining true to her cruel, funny, unsentimental journey of emotional self-destruction right up until the closing credits.

For many high school is remembered as worst time of their life. That divorced 37-year-old Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) is desperately trying to recapture it should give you a good idea how empty her present situation is. The ghost writer of a once popular but now canceled series of young adult novels spends more time in her Minneapolis high rise sleeping, drinking liters of diet coke and watching reality TV than she does writing. She might also be an alcoholic. With the deadline fast approaching on what will be her last book in the series she receives news that her old high school boyfriend Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson) is now married and his wife Beth (Elizabeth Reaser) just had a baby. So with only her small dog Dolce and a mix tape she gets in her Mini Cooper and embarks on a road trip back to her hometown of Mercury, Minnesota to try to break them up. Stopping at nothing to reclaim her man, she runs into former classmate Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt), who who was left permanently disabled by an attack in high school that made national news as a "hate crime" until it was discovered he wasn't actually gay. While he's as stuck in the past as she is, Matt isn't as delusional and seems to be the only one capable of seeing through her and telling it like it is. Even he knows her plan is a bad idea. But that doesn't mean there's anything he can do to stop her from humiliating herself and others.

The movie refuses to romanticize either side of the equation. It instead paints an unrelentingly sad and depressing portrait of failed dreams and small town life. Mavis' obsession with reclaiming her glory days (yes, like the Springsteen song) isn't presented as anything other than pathetically sad. There are no flashbacks presenting an idealized version of the past that would somehow justify her behavior to us. When she returns home to her old bedroom it's untouched since the early '90's. Any music used on the soundtrack from that era aren't obvious nostalgia-baiting choices and the ones that do pop up (like Teenage Fanclub's "The Concept" playing on a continuous loop during her drive) are meant to reflect the her delusion and obsessions more than anything else. Things back home aren't that great either. It would have been easy to show how exciting the locals' lives are so her actions would look worse and the issues would seem black and white. But nothing in this film is easy.

From Mavis' perspective we can kind of see how she'd view Buddy's life as "boring" from the outside looking in. Normal people living normal lives. Buddy never left his hometown, has worked at General Mills for years, married a cool girl who plays drums in a mom band for fun and changes diapers. Certain things are expected of you as you get older and most resemble what he's doing. Cody's script dares to ask why people make that choice and what happens to those who don't. Whether his life's exciting or not or whether she thinks he's happy is far from the point. He's moved on. So has her hometown. She hasn't. As mundane and unfulfilled she may think their lives are, the real problem is her inability to admit it's the life that slipped away. But doing that would mean actually coming to terms with her past instead of defiantly living in it.

Buddy's reaction to Mavis' return is odd and brilliantly ambiguous. We're not sure what he knows, or if he knows anything. Patrick Wilson's become an expert at playing "Mr. Nice Guy" and gets even more practice here. At various points we're not sure if he's pitying her, trying to be friend, completely repulsed, genuinely interested, stringing her along, or walking on eggshells with someone he thinks needs help. It may as well be all of them. Or none of them. The same could be said for his wife's reaction, which isn't one you'd expect considering her husband's old flame has just come charging back to town to steal him. Mavis' only friend and voice of reason turns out to be the kid whose locker was next to hers in high school, but she didn't bother talking to. Patton Oswalt's Matt is a lonely, but refreshingly honest character slightly reminiscent of the more tortured one he played a couple of years ago in Big Fan. Only when that film's curtain was pulled back, it revealed itself as nothing but a joke with his hapless protagonist serving as the punchline, despite his earnest performance. Here he provides better, even more essential supporting work in a black comedy that doesn't chicken out. While Matt shares certain similarities with Mavis, he possesses a self awareness she lacks and his straight shooting with her is where most of the film's dark humor comes from. He knows what his deal is and thought he accepted it. Her return opens those wounds up, but he's the only person who truly gets what she's going through.

This is a fearless, tour de force performance from Charlize Theron that's not just easily the best of this year, but on par with her 2003 Academy Award-winning performance as serial killer Aileen Wuornos in Monster that Roger Ebert famously called one of the greatest in the history of the cinema. Mavis is a different kind of monster but I think I appreciate Theron's work here even more because there's no physical transformation anyone can point to as an excuse. While ugly on the inside, she does change in and out of so many different outfits and tries out so many different hairstyles that they almost become costumes and masks, with the last being the most symbolic of all. There's a moment when Mavis eagerly waits at the bar for her reunion with Buddy in this sexy, low-cut black tank top, it's a credit to Theron that we can even somehow wrap our heads around how he wouldn't at least be tempted. Mavis' self-loathing, desperation and bitchiness pierce through Theron's eyes with every glance and eye roll. She cuts with every intentional or unintentional sarcastic put-down. At one crucial point when Mavis is told she's "better than this" we believe it's true because in even the smallest throwaway moments Theron still subtly hints at the potential lost. She's in bad shape but hasn't hit bottom. At least not yet. After a brief acting hiatus Theron comes roaring back with this and the sad thing is she probably won't even be nominated. Oscar voters can't ever seem to handle it when beautiful actresses take on ugly, challenging characters unless they physically disguise themselves. Otherwise it feels too real. Here's hoping they make an exception because she's nothing short of amazing.

Add this to the already long list of great writer movies, as this script really nails the painfully funny details. Whether Mavis is staring at the blank page only to opt checking her e-mail or taking her laptop to fast food joints to eavesdrop on conversations, this is the kind of troubled, messed-up, inside-her-own head character that could have only be an author. When she writes that a couple has "textual chemistry" you can't help but laugh knowing it's the same too hip and knowing dialogue that Diablo Cody was mercilessly mocked by the media for employing when she penned her Oscar winning script for Juno. When that opened casual moviegoers reacted as if they didn't even know what a screenplay was before and just realized movies are actually written by someone. She had a very specific, unique voice that turned off as many as it impressed. You'd figure that frustration had to weigh on Cody's mind when she created this character, supposedly inspired by all the probing media questions she faced about why a thirty-something woman keeps writing about adolescents. If this is her response it feels like a giant middle finger, this time using the protagonist's perceived coolness and cleverness as a mallet to club audiences. It's the anti-Juno. And for director Jason Reitman this is by a landslide his most compelling work yet, marking a full turn to the dark side after flirting with edgy satire in Thank You For Smoking and Up in the Air.

It seems every year people like to say a certain film "hits the zeitgeist." The term is so casually thrown around nowadays it may as well mean nothing. But finally here's one that hits it dead center. It feels so timely, targeting our culture's current obsession with nostalgia and convincing ourselves that things were better back when we thought we were better, whenever that was. Like the celebrities we simultaneously despise and idolize, Mavis functions as the mirror in which we view ourselves at our worst and it isn't pretty. But it's honest. Whether we want to admit it or not, there's probably some of her in all of us. It definitely strikes fear in me. Here's a character slightly older than I am, listens to the same type of music I did and went to high school during my era. I always say one of the weirdest things for me is seeing peers I've known since childhood as married parents. And you'd have to not be one to really understand why it seems so weird. This film fully articulates that feeling.

Most go to the movies to escape people like Mavis Gary, not find out what makes them tick. It's almost as if the homewrecking villain in a romantic comedy were made the lead, but given actual motivation and complexity. We expect certain things in films and a likable protagonist is one of them. And if they're not completely likable they at least need to experience growth of some sort by the end. While it might be a stretch to say she experiences none, it sure isn't much. Instead she's given a final act "pep talk" that further feeds her narcissistic delusion. It's clear her road to recovery will be a marathon rather than a sprint, if there's even recovery at all. And yet that's strangely reassuring. This isn't a coming-of-age story but instead a vicious, bracingly honest character study that goes for the jugular, creating some cringe-worthy moments that sting that much more because they feel so real. Proof that it's always the darker, riskier movies like Young Adult that cut the deepest, unafraid of going to the brutally honest places misplaced sentimentality too often prevents.

Warrior

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:32:00 +0000

Director: Gavin O'Connor
Starring: Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton, Nick Nolte, Jennifer Morrison, Frank Grillo, Noah Emmerich, Kurt Angle, Kevin Dunn
Running Time: 140 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Not exactly Rocky, but not quite The Fighter either, Gavin O'Connor's mixed martial arts drama Warrior failed to make much of an impact at the box office when it was released in September, despite some surprising critical acclaim. Now, only two months later the film gets a second chance on DVD and its defenders are proven right. The movie definitely deserved better. Fully embracing genre cliches while also subverting them, it's the rarest of competitive sports movies, telling its story with intelligence and restraint. It's preposterous to believe a schoolteacher and marine could enter a mixed martial arts tournament with professional fighters and make it past the first round, much less to the finals. It's even more preposterous to believe that both could. And it's downright implausible that those two men would be estranged brothers with a grudge. But Warrior makes you believe. I never doubted any of it for a second because the film's so upfront and honest about its intentions. It doesn't cheat or play games, supplying instead the kind of implausibility we hope to experience when watching movies.

Tommy Riordan (Tom Hardy) and Brendan Conlin (Joel Edgerton) are two estranged brothers who share certain similarities, but mostly seem to be cut from a different cloth. Their father Paddy (Nick Nolte) is a recovering alcoholic who physically abused their late mother and neither are ready to forgive him for it. Now sober and seeking redemption Paddy returns home one night to find Tommy on his doorstep back from the Marines and in Pittsburgh to train for Sparta, a winner-take-all single elimination mixed martial arts tournament taking place in Atlantic City. He asks his father to train him under the condition that their arrangement remain strictly professional and he makes no attempt to reconcile their fractured relationship. In Philadelphia, older brother and retired UFC fighter Brendan is barely scraping by as a high school physics teacher, facing foreclosure on his home despite he and wife Tess (Jennifer Morrison) working three jobs to support their two daughters. Much to his wife's chagrin Brendan starts fighting again and hires his old friend Frank (Frank Grillo) as his trainer to come out of retirement and enter Sparta, knowing the winning purse could get them back on their feet. It's not a spoiler to reveal that the two brothers will clash in the finals and settle their differences in the ring. The most welcome aspect of the script is how it makes no attempt to hide that. It just builds and builds, raising the stakes until we finally arrive at the inevitable confrontation. And what a confrontation it is.

The movie is remarkable for just how little is revealed about what exactly happened to this family. At some point there was clearly a major sibling rift with Brendan eloping with Tess at a young age and Tommy staying to clean up their parents' mess and take care of their ailing mother. They never forgave each other, or their father. Something happened with Tommy in the Marines, the details of which become clear later. Details are unimportant here and other than a brief, heated argument on the beach the brothers are kept apart the entire film and little is actually discussed. There's too much pain in this family to even try that. They do all their talking in the cage. Tommy, the former high school wrestler, is a silent monster. No entrance music. With a single blow he knocks his opponents out and it's over within minutes. Brendan's the scrappy underdog. Beethoven is his entrance music. Every fight is a struggle, taking a brutal beatings until somehow finally squeezing out a submission victory. The dichotomy of their fighting styles couldn't possibly differ more and tells more about them as individuals and their past than any line of dialogue could. Director Gavin O'Connor knows this, wisely holding back to let the matches tell the story. And we do see a lot them. Arguably so many that you'd think you ordered a pay per view. With appearances from real life MMA fighters like Nate Marquardt and Anthony Johnson and pro wrestler Kurt Angle the movie seems like it should be watched with friends at a bar instead of at a theater or on DVD. And if any sport is prone to upsets and shockers it's this one, making the far-fetched scenario of the central premise actually work in the story's favor.

Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton look like they belong in the cage with them, especially Hardy who looks to have bulked up beyond belief for this part and could step in and challenge Brock Lesnar right now. Both he and Edgerton bring an intensity that perfectly compliment and inhabit their characters. Nick Nolte is given his most meaningful role in ages, a performance highlighted by an emotionally uncomfortable but riveting scene in the film's third act that's bursting with sadness and regret, showing the toll this entire situation has taken on him. Jennifer Morrison turns in above average supporting work in what's usually the very average, thankless role of a disapproving wife. But the film's smarter than that. Far from the screaming nag or shrinking wallflower we're used to seeing sports wives depicted as in movies like this, it never feels like she's around for the convenience of the plot. She legitimately fears her husband could be killed and intelligently argues why. And she's right. He could. Even the principal (Kevin Dunn) at the school Brendan works is presented and portrayed with an intelligence uncommon to the genre. He suspends a good physics teacher because it's his job, not because he wants to. And with each victory Brendan racks up, he's cheering as loud as anyone. Who wouldn't think it was cool their teacher's an ultimate fighter? All the little details are spot-on.

If someone told me they couldn't keep it together and tears flowed in the final minutes I couldn't say I'd blame them. All the emotion is earned. O'Connor expertly stages the final fight, where the built-up tension finally comes to a head and explodes like a powder keg when the two brothers face off. It's a prime example of how you tell a story with action. Every move and blow means something and besides being legitimate doubt as to who will win, we're not even sure who to root for. The film takes the well-worn cliche of the "big game" or "final fight" and flips it on its head, presenting a contest between two combatants equally deserving of a victory. How often does that happen? Like Moneyball, the other successful sports film this year, the actual outcome is irrelevant. These guys just have to just get out this out of their system, expressing themselves the only way they can, and with that comes the possibility of moving on. Warrior couldn't be a more accurate title, and the movie lives up to it.

Horrible Bosses

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:30:00 +0000

Director: Seth Gordon
Starring: Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell, Jamie Foxx
Running Time: 98 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

There's a great premise powering the laughs in Horrible Bosses and the best news is that the movie mostly delivers on it. But the main reason to see it are for the wildly entertaining performances of the three stars playing those bosses. Two of them have never played parts even closely resembling the ones they do here while the third may as well be considered an expert at it by now. Once you get past that the plot becomes kind of disjointed, but it's to director Seth Gordon's credit that he doesn't hold back or wimp out like so many other interchangeable R-rated comedies released each summer. At least it feels like a dark comedy and holds firm in that approach throughout. If it's true that the most effective kind of comedy comes out of the absurdity that is everyday life than this already has a leg up since it's likely many will feel it strikes a comical nerve even before the opening credits start rolling.

Office Space meets Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train (or Throw Mama From The Train as one character hilariously refers to it as) when three longtime friends Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day) and Kurt (Jason Sudekeis) plot to murder their bosses. While all three have wildly different superiors, Nick easily has it the worst. His boss at the financial firm is Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey) who cruelly dangles the carrot of an unattainable promotion in front of his face while emotionally abusing him. Whether he's berating him for being exactly two minutes late or tricking him into drinking liquor on the job, Nick's had about about all he can take. Dale, who's dream in life has always been to become a husband works as a dental assistant to Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston), who sexually harasses him all day and threatens to tell his finacee they slept together unless, of course, he actually sleeps with her. Kurt is an accountant in a dream job until his beloved boss (Donald Sutherland) suddenly dies and the company is entrusted to his cokehead son Bobby (Colin Farrell). After consulting a hitman (played by Jamie Foxx) he suggests they kill each others bosses making the deaths appear to be accidents. Things don't go nearly as well as planned.

The screenplay faces a bit of a problem once all the cards are on the table and we meet the bosses and the convoluted murder scheme gets under way. Spacey, Aniston and Farrell are so entertaining and their antics so outrageously over-the-top we almost don't want to see them killed since it'll spell the end of their screen time. The movie cleverly works its way around this problem and as complicated as the entire plot gets the one thing that can't be said is that it's predictable. It's difficult joining three different sub-plots, cross-cutting between them and making sure each gets equal attention but for the most part it's successful. Spacey's performance as the tyrannical Harken is phenomenal because he's smart enough to know to go at it completely straight and deadly serious as if this were no less dramatic a part than the similarly abusive boss he played in 1995's Swimming With Sharks.

Aniston has never been better in a comedy than here, completely letting loose as this vulgar, oversexed maneater, while seemingly relishing the chance to finally play a role that betrays her bland, cook-cutter image. It's a much needed change of pace and the biggest surprise is how comfortable she appears to be doing it. And kudos to the writers for openly acknowledging Dale's situation is awesome rather than "horrible," with his friends understandably wanting to trade places with him. Usually it's Jason Bateman who makes every comedy he's in better (and he still does as Spacey's hapless victim), but It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Charlie Day who gives the film's best comedic performance, an impressive feat considering the talent of his co-stars. With a squeeky voice and a horrified expression, everytime Aniston disrobes or comes on to him Day makes you believe this is a truly horrible experience for naive, loyal, man-child Dale. Earning huge laughs with every line, Day proves he's more than capable of headlining a comedy on its own if it comes to that at some point, and it probably will. Unrecognizable with a beard, comb-over and pot-belly, the biggest complaint you can make about Colin Farrell and his sleazebag character is that we don't get to see nearly enough of him. A scene in which forces Sudekeis to choose between firing two employees is a real keeper.

As funny as many scenes are, it could have been even better constructed. The plot does start to fly off the rails once the scheme gets going and it's hard not to think a more solid result could have come out of a set-up this clever. But at least it doesn't hold back or wimp out in a year where it seems nearly every comedy, good and bad, have. The teacher in Bad Teacher really wasn't all that bad. The competing Bridesmaids in Bridesmaids become best friends. So on and so forth. All this has signaled the mainstream "wussifying" of American comedy, reinforcing the belief that audiences need to be sent home with a positive, life-affirming message in order for the movie to make money. That might be okay for a drama, but it's more problematic for a raunchy comedy. I just want to laugh. That's it. The tone here is spot on. Upbeat, but still retaining a spirit of anarchy. Horrible Bosses wisely doesn't shy away from depicting its title characters as unredeemable and one-dimensional, which is precisely why it works.

Captain America: The First Avenger

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:05:00 +0000

Director: Joe Johnston
Starring: Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Dominic Cooper, Neal McDonough, Derek Luke, Stanley Tucci
Running Time: 124 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Captain America: The First Avenger is Marvel's final puzzle piece in building toward next year's The Avengers, a movie everyone but me seems to be greatly anticipating. Perhaps if they hadn't botched every other film leading up to it by treating each as a full-length trailer I'd have taken a more optimistic view. As it stands, Captain America (I refuse to refer to it again by its clunky sub-title) is probably the best of the bunch. Or rather the least worst. Or at least better than Iron Man 2 and Thor. Yet something still seems to be missing, despite an effective lead performance and a decent story from which to draw from. But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 1990's hilarious direct-to-video Captain America (starring J.D. Salinger's son!) is better. It's worse in every possible way. But given the choice of inviting friends over and having a bad movie viewing party featuring that forgotten stinker or watching the new version again, you can take a guess which I'd choose. One was clearly made with passion (and maybe a special sense of humor) but is dreadful. The other is a slick, safe, well-oiled, special effects machine that isn't completely passionless, but is kind of an empty spectacle with little re-watch value. Pair both up and you'd have really interesting double feature.

This story takes place in 1942 during World War II with underweight asthmatic weakling Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) dreaming of enlisting in the Army to serve his country. He's patriotic and motivated but his physical limitations are too big an obstacle to overcome. That is until he encounters Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) whose latest scientific experiment to create a "super soldier" turns him into a much stronger, buffer Steve. His full transformation into superhero gets underway when he goes from selling war bonds under the guise of the costumed "Captain America" to battling the sadistic Johann Schmidt A.K.A. Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), the leader of a Nazi-like organization called HYDRA that plans to influence the outcome of the war and take over the world. Or something like that. At his side fighting the good fight is best friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), British agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) and Col. Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones).

By far the most intriguing aspect of the film is everything before Rogers actually becomes Captain America, especially the impressive CGI work that was done to believably make Evans look like a 90- lb. weakling for the movie's first act. This is the kind of special effects work that shows what happens when digital technology is used effectively to suck you into a story rather than take you out. If I didn't know who Evans was I probably wouldn't have been able to detect that this was anyone but a really skinny actor and it's a testament to that technology that when Roger's transformation arrives it feels important and substantial. Then everything goes completely downhill from there as the story evolves into a more common action adventure with poorly realized characterizations and a sanitized Hollywood version of World War II that feels like it takes place in the present rather than the 1940's. Granted we don't to superhero movies expecting historical accuracy, but is it too much to ask that the film at least looks like it takes place in the past? It's just strange seeing what's so obviously modern special effects and sets when we're supposedly in another era.

That this was directed by Joe Johnston who brought us 1991's classic superhero adventure The Rocketeer, is a surprise. It had an authenticity and old fashioned sense of fun this lacks. But in his defense, that's the problem facing all current comic book/superhero movies. They want to stay true to the story, but at the same time everything has to be streamlined to make money and cater to the masses, causing certain elements to be sacrificed. It has to be PG-13. It can't be too violent. Supporting characters can't be too developed. That's how I'd explain what goes wrong in the second half and why it feels so goofy. Very few movies in this genre can achieve that balance and of recent ones only The Dark Knight (and to a far lesser extent Iron Man) have been able to have their cake and eat it too, though an argument can be made both had richer source material from which to draw.

Chris Evans does a commendable enough job as the lead, even if there's a certain blandness to him that's hard to describe (part of me still thinks the alternate choice of Jon Krasinski would have been more interesting). That the success of the movie doesn't even seem to rest on his shoulders is only indicative of how many other problems there are. Tommy Lee Jones collects a paycheck as the underdeveloped Col. Phillips while Hugo Weaving's Red Skull doesn't get nearly enough face time or attention considering his character's supposed to be the lead villain. I guess we should be grateful he at least has a cool look to him this time around. Hayley Atwell seems to have gotten a lot of attention for her role as generic love interest Peggy Carter and I haven't a clue why since she brings little in the way of charisma to a part that feels tacked on to begin with. I get what the writers were going for in trying to make her a modern military woman in a 1940's action-adventure but since the setting feels inauthentic and the casting is off it ends up not registering at all. What does make a lasting impression is Rick Heinrich's production design and Shelly Johnson's cinematography, both of which make the movie look way better than it actually is. From a technical standpoint, there's no denying everything is top-notch. Whether it needed to be, or it even helps the film, is an another debate entirely.

Even with all its faults Captain America still positions its title character well heading into The Avengers and this is the first Samuel L. Jackson/Nick Fury cameo that seems to exist as part of the narrative rather than as a cheap plug. Even the appearance of a young Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) seems organic to the story. With Rogers' awakening in the present-day after a 70-year cryogenic nap, there's at least a time capsule, fish-out-of-water aspect to this character that makes for a compelling cliffhanger, differentiating him from the other Marvel superheroes. Though I had to laugh at the third act development of Fury trying to convince the time traveling Rogers he was still in the 1940's. It couldn't have taken much considering the retro clean version of that period the film presented seemed so modern anyway. As a prequel to what should be an overwhelming popular superhero gathering next year, this gets the job done. But therein lies my problem. Every one of Marvel's features feels like a prequel to whatever comes next rather than any kind of standalone achievement. We'll find out next spring if that strategy pays off.

The Descendants

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:10:00 +0000

Director: Alexander Payne
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Judy Greer, Beau Bridges, Matthew Lillard, Robert Forster, Nick Krause, Amara Miller
Running Time: 115 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

It's rare to see a movie as informed by its setting as Alexander Payne's The Descendants. Watching, you get the impression the story couldn't have taken place at all if it didn't take place in Hawaii. The characters wouldn't feel what they feel, do what they do and the entire mood, atmosphere and pacing would seem off. The Hawaii we're presented with here isn't one we've been made aware of before, at least in movies. The opening voiceover even let's us know that much. It's more depressing than exotic, so unlike the vacation destination we've seen on postcards that it doesn't even register as the same place. If only Hawaiian locals only went to the beach all day, rode waves and had drinks with little umbrellas in them like we we've been told they do for years. This is the first time it hasn't been depicted as pure paradise and in doing so Payne fittingly humanizes this film's setting as much his characters, showing real flaws and imperfections that somehow lead to a greater appreciation of both.

While people who live in paradise still have problems, hopefully they're not as big as the ones plaguing real estate lawyer Matt King, played by George Clooney in a dialed down performance sure to net him another Oscar nomination. With his wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) laying in a coma after a boating accident, the wealthy lawyer has been entrusted to a large, lucrative piece of land passed down from his ancestors. With the state and his family waiting on pins and needles he must decide as sole trustee whether the family should sell to cash in or hold on to the property. Coming off the bench as the "back-up parent" he has to deal with his two daughters. 10-year-old foul-mouthed Scottie (Amara Miller) is acting out at school and at home while her angry, rebellious 17-year-old sister Alex (Shailene Woodley) returns from boarding school, giving Matt the shocking news that their mom was cheating on him.

Moving at a methodical, appropriately laid-back pace for most of its running time the story really starts finding its rhythm when the big revelation about Elizabeth's infidelity arrives. That's the turning point. From then on the story takes some twists and turns with the land sale figuring into the personal story in a way that's unanticipated without feeling forced. What's interesting is that despite being on life support in a hospital bed the entire and never even being seen in flashback the narrative forces the viewer to form strong feelings about Elizabeth as we watch those closest to her react to the news of her betrayal. It wouldn't be off base to say that the more we learn about her the less we like, to the point I could honestly say I hated her. That's a strange declaration to make when the offender in question is already laying in a coma but that feeling seems to be exactly what Payne is going for since the characters struggle with that as well. Matt is in shock, plagued by the insatiable urge to track down the man she was cheating with, a sleazy island realtor named Brian Speer (Matthew Lillard, a long way from Scream). Or rather it's assumed he's sleazy from a single fact and it's kind of funny how it seems we know everything about him before the actual introduction, or want to believe we do.

The quest to find Speer turns the movie into a road trip with Matt, Scottie, Alex and her dim-witted boyfriend Sid (Nick Krause), who shoots off wildly inappropriate comments at the worst moments. They have to contend with Matt's grumpy father-in-law Scott (Robert Forster) who blames him for his daughter's accident just as he faces increasing pressure from cousin Hugh (Beau Bridges) and his extended family about the land sale. Anticipation builds for the family's eventual encounter with Speer, a meeting that somehow surpasses expectations. That's when things really get crazy. And I haven't given anything away. It all could have easily played like a soap opera (which it kind of is) but there's a brutal honesty and truthfulness to the scenes that keep it from going into shallow territory. It's a thin line to walk but Payne never crosses it, nor do his actors.

Sad and weary-eyed, wearing old man khakis and flowery shirts, Clooney downplays (as he did in last year's The American) the movie star charisma he's famous for. As a parent completely defeated by life he brings a depressed vulnerability and hangdog physical presence to Matt we're not used to seeing from the actor. If it's not his best performance, it's sure way up there and will easily net him another Oscar nomination. And if he wins I can't say I'd have a problem with it. For all the jokes about his popularity and "Mr. Hollywood" persona these past few years, he's been taking on more meaningful projects and pushing himself in different directions as an actor, refusing to ever take the quick payday when he very easily could. But if he does win, he can probably give cut the statue at its waist and give half to Shailene Woodley who rises to the near impossible task of making us not only understand Alex, but see how her actions could actually be justified under the circumstances. Saddled with the film's most emotional scenes, she slowly peels the layers away to reveal Alex is far from just the spoiled brat we'd assume from her initial introduction. Equally strong and vulnerable, she gives a beyond her years performance that never tells the audience what to think or feel and seems in perfect harmony with the script. That she's only been known until now for starring in ABC Family's "The Secret Life of The American Teenager" stands as proof that undiscovered talent can come from anywhere at any time, and sometimes all it takes is one performance in the right project.

Lillard's cheating Brian Speer doesn't build up as much disdain as comatose Elizabeth, at least until we meet his wife. Then viewers will want to wring his neck. That's because she's played by Judy Greer. Unarguably the most underrated, instantly recognizable actress working today, she's finally freed here from the shackles of the "best friend" in romantic comedies as she steps up to the plate in a third act dramatic role that isn't necessarily any larger than those those, but ten times more complex. It's difficult to get into without spoilers but you can argue the story doesn't fully register until Greer arrives, going toe-to-toe with Clooney and turning what could have been a cliche of the scorned wife into the character I walked away caring what happened to most. Here's hoping this part helps break her through into the leading lady ranks where she's belonged for a long time. I'd say I wished the entire movie were about her, but it in many ways it actually is. Or rather it's about how sometimes a life situation gets so bad you're left with no choice but to let go, rather than risk the anger completely consuming and destroying you.

It's becoming increasingly difficult going into a movie knowing it's a big awards contender and hearing about Oscars even before seeing the results on screen. While the problem should be that it puts more pressure on the film and sets unreasonable expectations I instead frustratingly find that the opposite is true. These movies almost seem to have an unfair advantage from the start in my mind since it's common knowledge that the best films are usually reserved for the final two months of the year. This makes it easier for the movie but a bigger challenge for the critic who has to throw out all that other information to fairly evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. The Descendants isn't perfect, but it's close. Coming from someone who thinks voiceovers often get a bad rap, I still have done without Clooney's over-explanantory narration since it just doesn't point out anything we can't see for ourselves. Also, a noble attempt to develop the Sid character doesn't seem to register like it should. This is the first film to use exclusively authentic Hawaiian music in lieu of a traditional movie score and it makes a big difference in terms of conveying mood and atmosphere, even if there's this small part of me that wanted one huge music moment. For some reason it seemed like a classic Cat Stevens song would have fit in perfectly. It's just that kind of movie.

It's still unclear how it ranks against Payne's previous efforts like Sideways, Election and About Schmidt but it already feels weightier than those and more substantial. There's something about it's style and approach that stays with you even though the story, with a few surprise exceptions, is fairly universal and basic. Given it's been 7 years since his last film, it's a credit to how skilled he is at telling human, truthful stories that the wait felt even longer than that. In a way this is my favorite type of film: an intimate writer driven piece interested in exploring real people dealing with real problems. It sounds like a cliche, but in the right hands it can be the most satisfying form of entertainment because the best ones linger in your mind long after you've left the theater. It's easy to see what all the fuss is about. The Descendants is the kind of intelligent adult drama that's increasingly hard to come by.

The Muppets

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 04:35:00 +0000

Director: James Bobin
Starring: Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Chris Cooper, Rashida Jones, Jack Black
Running Time: 103 min.
Rating: PG

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

I knew within the first ten minutes of watching The Muppets that co-writer, star and lifelong Muppet fan Jason Segel nails it, putting to rest any doubts a new movie couldn't capture the true spirit of Jim Henson's original creation. Segel plays Gary and it makes perfect sense he would have grown up with a puppet brother named Walter. Of course they'd still live together as adults. And of course Gary would have a girlfriend named Mary who couldn't be played by anyone other than Amy Adams. And she'd worry that he still shares his bedroom with a puppet. This is the Muppets universe and Segel nails it even before they show up. A genuine joy from start to finish, the film asks whether there's still a place in our cynical world for the Muppets. Have we moved on? While the question is kind of horrifying, it's sadly not without merit considering how long they've been absent.

Attributing any favorable reaction exclusively to nostalgia would be kind of silly though, considering that's exactly what the movie's plot is built on. While kids will probably love this the movie's central concept leaves little doubt the primary audience just may be grown-ups who remember what it's like to be kids. That feeling is brilliantly conveyed through the new character of Walter who gets to tag along with Gary and Mary on vacation to Muppet Studios in Los Angeles. Now run-down and dilapidated, it's discovered the studio is being purchased by greedy oil tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) who plans to tear it down and drill unless the Muppets can raise 10 million dollars to buy it back. So now Walter, Gary and Mary have to track down Kermit and the gang and convince them to reunite for a telethon.

When we do catch up with Kermit, Fozzie, Gonzo, Animal and Miss Piggy it's relief to find out find out they return with their Henson era Muppet Show personalities intact. After Henson's death the property lost its way in the 90's with Muppets in Space and Muppet Treasure Island failing re-capture that magic, instead shoehorning them into parody. They've really been gone a lot longer than anyone's willing to admit. It was never that the public didn't want them anymore but rather they didn't want many of the misguided latter projects in which they appeared. What was always most endearing about the Muppets was how life-like each seemed, easily recognizable by not only their names, looks and mannerisms, but individual characteristics. As strange as it sounds to say of puppets, they seemed to have personalities that reminded us of ourselves at our best and worst, and that's where much their appeal came from. Those later movies took that away, and once you do that, there really isn't much left. Segel and Stoller bring it back, which becomes clear when we see Kermit again, reacting to news of a potential reunion exactly how Kermit should and would. Always the ringleader of the group and rallying the troops, this is the first time we've ever seen the character in a state of total hopelessness. In an empty, secluded mansion reminiscing of fun times with the gang that seem long gone (poignantly realized in the musical number "Pictures in My Head"), it's Kermit in need of inspiration this time. As for the rest, Fozzie's a failed comic, Animal's in anger management therapy, Gonzo's selling toilets and Miss Piggy is a fashion editor in Paris. It all seems in the spirit of how we remember them.

It's one thing to be true to the original characters, but it's another for director James Bobin, Segel and co-writer Nicholas Stoller to somehow all these years later be able to recapture the exact tone and humor of the Muppets, which is very distinctive and fairly difficult to duplicate. It's a mistake, if not an outright betrayal, to have them be edgy or cynical, but the humor can't seem too juvenile either, as it's always featured inside jokes aimed at adults. Here the entire plot practically demands it. As was done in the original variety show and movies the fourth wall is broken to let the audience in on the fact that the characters get it. Early on, in response to Kermit's refusal of a reunion, Amy Adams remarks it's going to be a really short one. When it's time for a montage Segel's more than happy to let us know we're getting one. Chris Cooper's sneeering villain verbally brags (and at one point even raps) that he's the sneering villain. It's exactly that self-awareness and sense of fun that most of the post-Henson projects lacked and what made the 80's era projects such a communal viewing experience.

The Muppets being rooted in past provide some of the best in-jokes such as Kermit flipping through his old Rolodex looking for a celebrity guest and Walter being told it isn't 1978 anymore. And I'd say it's about time everyone be re-introduced to the awesomeness that is Starship's "We Built This City," as a pop song long derided as soulless corporate rock is redeemed here as the exact opposite, finding its place as an inspirational Muppets anthem and finally sounding like the nostalgic guilty pleasure it was meant to be all along. Segel and Adams, while ceding much of the spotlight to their puppet co-stars, seem to effortlessly slide right into this world. Not only does it feel very natural seeing them act alongside them (which can't be easy) but they're great together and look like they're having the time of their lives, especially during the many musical numbers. Segel has stated being able to make and act in this is a childhood dream come true for him, but what caught me off guard was just how much the performance reflected that. He's like a giant kid in a candy store and doesn't once hit a false or insincere note. Chris Cooper may own an Oscar but now he can say he played the villain in a Muppet movie. Take a guess which I think is the bigger accomplishment. There are many guest appearances and cameos, with two key roles going to Rashida Jones as a TV exec who thinks the Muppets are yesterdays news and Jack Black playing a version of himself.

If I have a complaint about the film (and it's admittedly a really small one), it's that I expected bigger stars to cameo from what I read and heard about the production. Whether they weren't available, didn't want to appear or certain scenes were left on the cutting room floor I have no idea, but the filmmakers did the best with what they had, as many were cleverly placed and completely in sync with the Muppet tradition. But what's most in in sync with that tradition are the original songs written and produced by Flight of the Conchords' star Bret McKenzie, that meet, if not surpass, the standard of excellence set by classic Muppet songs like "The Rainbow Connection" (which of course also shows up). The two real standouts and likely Oscar nominees for Best Song are the infectiously catchy "Life's a Happy Song" and "Man or Muppet," the latter featuring a musical number so subversively hilarious it wouldn't seem out of place as an SNL Digital Short.

While we all know the two characters who will ultimately take center stage, and justifiably do, I have a feeling the puppet creation that may be most remembered from this movie is Segel's original one. It's a risky move introducing a new Muppet, but it's even riskier making him, not necessarily Kermit or any of the others, the protagonist of the story. Walter's no Jar Jar Binks. Performed by puppeteer Peter Linz and providing many lump in throat moments, he's a brilliantly realized character that not only stands in for all Muppet fans, but children and adults who must overcome a lack of self-confidence to face their fears. One of the more interesting aspects of Walter is his age, or lack of it. That's not a coincidence. He seems to be teetering between childhood innocence and adulthood, with the resolution of that struggle coming to a head emotionally at the end. It's the sophisticated writing of this character's journey that really takes this film to the next level making it a benchmark in family entertainment that should be enjoyed for years to come. And the finale actually warrants discussion in that it isn't exactly what you'd expect, but in a good way. I think. The final few minutes kind of reverses expectations to a point that it almost becomes confusing. Is it happy? Sad? Both? I don't know and it doesn't matter. What does is that this feels like The Muppets and it's great to have them back.

10 Movies That Could Be Re-Released in 3D

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:52:00 +0000

Note the title of this piece. The key word is"could," not necessarily "should." With the 3D craze in full swing with the recent successful re-release of The Lion King, and Titanic and Star Wars still on the way, more studios are jumping on the bandwagon, releasing and re-releasing every other film in three dimensions because they smell cash. And now even acclaimed directors like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese are dipping their feet in the water (with The Adventures of Tintin and Hugo respectively) and and in the process maybe trying to lend the format more legitimacy. I have little doubt their motives are pure and the films may even be good, but what about us? We have to pay $15 to see it. I could care less if these guys are having a great time experimenting with the technology. It has to be worth it for audiences. At that steep price you REALLY have to show me something and even then I'm still not sure I'd be interested.

To date, I've only see one 3D movie in theaters, Tron: Legacy, which I enjoyed immensely for reasons that had more to do with its story and visuals. Re-watching it on blu-ray recently further solidified that opinion, but even when I first reviewed it I conceded the use of 3D technology was "defensible" due to the immersive nature of the story (i.e. being sucked into a computer program). This got me thinking what past titles could benefit from a 3D re-release. Of course, this still doesn't mean I'd consider seeing them, especially when I could just pop in the DVD at home, which is cheaper, not to mention a whole lot more comfortable. But in the following cases below (some obvious, others not) I can see where a 3D conversion and re-release in the format is more than just a cash grab, and even somewhat excusable for one reason or another. There's probably many more, but it's a start.

10. Citizen Kane (1941)
Though I've strangely never met a single person who holds this view, Orson Welles' Citizen Kane is widely regarded by many as "The Greatest Film Ever Made." Much, if not all, of that adoration comes from its groundbreaking technical achievements. With its deep focus photography, details in the foreground and background would really pop out in 3D, making it seemingly the perfect fit for the format. A re-release could also help shake its stodgy stigma as a homework assignment. It won't happen though. Supposedly Welles' dying wish was that his film not be colorized or tinkered with. This definitely qualifies as "tinkering." Even a full fledged remake seems likelier.

9. Crank 2: High Voltage (2009)
If ever a film was made for the format it's this. That's not to say the 2006 original (a superior effort) isn't, but the sequel takes everything the first did and jacks it up (remember the race track sex scene? the guy's head being kept alive?). It's more over-the-top, more nonsensical and more ridiculous, thus making it an even better fit for 3D. For some reason when I think back on the movie I remember it in 3D, which has always been the gift of the Crank series. So they may as well just go ahead and do it. With Crank 3D already in the works they should convert the first two and roll the trilogy into theaters together. That's something I might actually pay to see.

8. Jurassic Park (1993)
Here's a no-brainer. Given the technology kick Spielberg's been on lately it wouldn't surprise me if it's the works already. Supposedly there are already plans to film the impending JP4 in 3D so a re-release of the 1993 original in this format is a definite possibility. And I'll admit it isn't a half-bad idea when you consider a T-Rex getting right in your face. As a theater experience it couldn't get much better than this. It's basically what 3D was created for.

7. Twister (1996)
Another no-brainer. I remember seeing this in the theater opening week and thinking nearly all of its impact would be diluted if seen on the small screen at home. As a story there really isn't much there (a bunch of scientists chasing tornadoes) but there doesn't need to be. A big effects movie of the highest order that would benefit immensely from a 3D conversion, literally taking you into the storm with debris, houses, trucks and cows flying right at you.

6. Inception (2010)
There were supposedly studio discussions with director Christopher Nolan about shooting this in 3D but he rejected the idea. While I can't say I disagree with his decision and the finished product was amazing, it could have worked. Would it have enhanced the experience? I'm not sure but down the line if they converted and re-released it the decision would at least make some sense. Like that year's Tron: Legacy, the narrative revolves around being transported into another world and you can't help but wonder how that extended sequence with Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page would have played with those buildings and streets unfolding in your lap.

5. Enter The Void (2009)
Here's the only selection on the list where 3D technology can actually draw attention to an overlooked, difficult film that wouldn't get it otherwise, perhaps even improving its mainstream prospects. I'm betting very few people have even seen it and those who have are probably too traumatized by the experience to talk about it. Challenging and inaccessible beyond belief, Gasper Noe's 2009 psychedelic nightmare defies any sort of formal explanation. I still don't know what I think of it, but I do know it would look incredible in 3D. It's 2001's trippy Stargate sequence stetched over 2 hours, boasting some of the most awe-inspiring visual effects produced on an independent budget, and a first person P.O.V. that throws you head first into life, a death and beyond. A 3D conversion would only complete the process, taking you all the way in.

4. Speed Racer (2008)
While it has its few supporters, anyone who was able to sit through 2008's underwhelming Speed Racer will have to admit it got one big thing right: The visuals. 3D can give this critical and commercial flop a new lease on life with a fresh presentation that plays to its biggest (only?) strength. When watching it at the time I thought a 3D release was more than justifiable and still do. The question is whether it'll still be a mind numbing bore. There's no way to know for sure but this is the film's best chance at survival.

3. The Matrix (1999)
You knew this would show up on here. It had to. Of the films listed it's the most likely to happen. And I'm betting soon. As someone who's no fan of The Matrix at all and thinks it only offers impressive visual effects, it's of little surprise I'd offer it up as the perfect 3D conversion candidate. And if we're lucky maybe everyone will be so dazzled they'll forget how awful its two sequels are and they'll can convert those too. 3D will never fix the huge story flaws in the trilogy but it could get us so lost in the Matrix we'd at least maybe temporarily forgive them. Going in this direction could only result in improvement.

2. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Speaking of twisters. The wicked witch, the yellow brick road, flying monkeys, falling houses. It says a great deal about the quality of a film released in 1939 that it could be re-released today and the images and effects would benefit--and perhaps be enhanced-- by 3D. And that's not even taking into account the story, which also seems to be the perfect fit for this technology. It's yet another example of the viewer being transported to another world, making the use of the format defensible. The unforgettable transition from Kansas to Oz can now not only go from black and white to technicolor but from 2D to 3D. There's also that added bonus of getting to see a classic film we've experienced many times over in a whole new way. Should they do it? Of course not. But if they did, I'd have to at least acknowledge they picked the right movie to experiment on.

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The ultimate trip indeed. We absolutely shouldn't do this but there's no denying the temptation. And as much as I hate to admit it, there's no question this would work. Among films considered classics you're unlikely to find one that inspires as divisive a reaction. People either love this or hate it, and while I consider myself firmly in the former camp, it's possible what supporters appreciate most about Kubrick's classic will only be enhanced in 3D while naysayers' complaints (such as its pacing) would likely diminish. It doesn't "need" it since it's an experience either way, but it would be nice if a glorious 3D presentation that accentuates even more of the film's visual strengths could sway those who never got on board. The Stargate sequence alone justifies the idea.

Bridesmaids

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:18:00 +0000

Director: Paul Feig
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, Melissa McCarthy, Wendi McLendon-Covey, Ellie Kemper, Chris O'Dowd, Jill Clayburgh
Running Time: 125 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Dubbed "The Hangover for women" when it was released to much box office success this spring, Bridesmaids resembles that comedy as much for its weaknesses as its strengths. To be fair, it is slightly superior to The Hangover, even if that film at least extended us the courtesy of not crossing the two hour mark. No comedy should be that long. Ever. It's just unnecessary. I should really just go ahead and not recommend it for that miscalculation alone, as it joins the likes of Wedding Crashers and Knocked Up in biting off more story than it can chew and occasionally struggling with tone, but the writing and performances (namely one) ultimately save the day here. It's a slight notch above those other comedies and though I giggled more than I busted a gut, it definitely entertains the whole way through.

As with other Judd Apatow productions it faces the problem of trying to mine laughs from real life situations that sometimes feel too real, uncomfortably flirting with dramatic tragedy. That's certainly the case here as single, thirtysomething Annie (Kristen Wiig) is asked by lifelong best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) to be maid of honor at her wedding. Still reeling from her bakery business going belly up and regularly sleeping with sleazebag Ted (a hilarious Jon Hamm) the exciting announcement of her best friend's nuptuals only rubs salt in Annie's wounds, bringing all her insecurities to the surface. Making matters worse is the arrival of Lillian's prissy new best friend Helen (Rose Byrne), the trophy wife of the groom's boss who's threatening to displace her in the wedding and in Lillian's life, sparking a bitter feud. They're joined by the other bridesmaids: Frustrated housewife Rita (Wendi McClendon-Covey), goody two shoes Becca (Ellie Kemper) and Lillian's future sister-in-law Megan (Melissa McCarthy).

The movie's at its best when it's most ridiculous, not taking itself too seriously while reaching for the crassest laughs. A scene in a bridal shop when the bridesmaids suddenly and uncomfortably feel the after effects of a Mexican meal they had earlier is hilarious, as is a plane trip to Vegas where a drugged Annie unintentionally jeopardizes the well being of everyone on board. Most of the film deals with the feud between Annie and Helen, which is comical, until the movie dramatically overreaches, sugarcoating it with life lessons and trying to wring sympathy for an overly pitiable protagonist. It really didn't need to do that. The movie's funny and the characters likable so less would have definitely been more in terms of spelling out how we're supposed to feel and sending a message, but this is an Apatow movie so no surprises there.

Up until now the jury's been out on Kristen Wiig as a leading lady who can carry a film and after this I'd say the jury's still out, which isn't to say she did a bad job at all. There's no question she's a gifted physical comedienne and possibly even a great actress but it does take some getting used to seeing her as a romantic lead in mainstream comedy, which could be attributed to the goofy persona she's perfected all these years on SNL. She kind of carries that over to this so it was hard to escape the feeling I was watching a highlight reel of her best sketches strung together over a two hour period with some drama thrown in. The movie really belongs to Melissa McCarthy who deserves every bit of praise she's been getting for her award-worthy supporting performance as Megan, a butch, brash government employee with an unsatiable sexual appetite. To say she steals every scene she's in would be an understatement. I wondered how infrequently we see a female character like this in a comedy. Keeping us unsure of what this woman will say or do from one moment to the next, McCarthy creates this unusual, one-of-a-kind persona from the ground up. Most impressively, she doesn't turn Megan into a joke, but a cool lady, finding the humanity and motivation behind her outrageous behavior. The rest of the bridesmaids are dispensable with the exception of Byrne's Helen, who's essentially a snobby, arrogant stereotype, albeit a very funny one. But a braver comedy wouldn't have attempted to redeem her. Chris O' Dowd brings a likable charm and sincerity to Officer Rhodes, a local policeman whose fledgling relationship with Annie might just be the one dramatic element in the story that's a home run, mostly due to his skillfully understated performance and natural chemistry with Wiig.

Although this was co-written by Wiig, it's surprising to learn it was directed by Paul Feig, who created TV's brilliant, short-lived Freaks and Geeks. This definitely isn't that. There's no mistaking it's a mainstream comedy primarily aimed at women, to the point that it could easily be considered a "chick flick," and that's fine. I can see where it also definitely has appeal for both genders and it's unlikely any guy would be complaining that they were dragged to it. Every year there seems to be a comedy everyone falls head over heels for and I'm left scratching my head wondering what the big fuss was about. Expectations can be a funny thing. Bridesmaids works, but doesn't when it occasionally forgets to be a comedy and plays it too safe, hammering home the truth that each successful comedy released these days seems the same as the last. But at least this is mostly a good one.

Bad Teacher

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:31:00 +0000

Director: Jake Kasdan
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, Jason Segel, Lucy Punch, Phyllis Smith, John Michael
Higgins, Eric Stonestreet, Thomas Lennon
Running Time: 92 min.
Rating: Unrated

★★ (out of ★★★★)

If Bad Santa took place in a classroom and was unfunny it would be called Bad Teacher. It goes without saying Cameron Diaz is no Billy Bob Thornton but after watching this I'm starting to wonder if that would have even helped. While her performance as disgusting, repulsive middle school teacher Elizabeth Halsey isn't anything to write home about, she can't shoulder too much of the blame. The film refuses to fully commit, merely going through the motions of a premise that should be smart and edgy, but instead becomes boringly repetitive. It's okay to have a depraved female protagonist carrying a comedy, but you better make her funny. And if she isn't, you better not try to redeem her. That's the worst offense right there.

After being dumped by her rich fiance, gold digger Elizabeth is forced to resume her teaching job at J.A.M.S. (John Adams Middle School) with the hope of earning enough for a boob job. Classes consist of her showing movies, smoking pot, cussing at students, napping and trying to get her claws into new, but somewhat goofy substitute teacher Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake). Appalled do-gooder Miss Squirrel (Lucy Punch) teaches across the hall while gym teacher Russell Gettis (Jason Segel) is clearly smitten with Elizabeth, but has no shot. Sweet, naive faculty member Lynn (Phyllis Smith) seems thrilled someone's hanging out with her. Principal Wally Snur (John Michael Higgins) has a chronic dolphin fetish and is completely clueless as to anything that's happening.

The trailer for this (which oddly seemed to feature scenes not even present in the final cut) promises something that doesn't quite materialize. It promises Bad Santa. It delivers Bad Santa Lite. This isn't the the first time commercials made a crude comedy look edgier than it is but that doesn't make it any less disappointing that it's so by the numbers. Part of me wants to commend Diaz for diving into a project that deviates from your conventional female driven rom-com but the truth is this doesn't really differ from that at all. It's the same blueprint, just a little meaner. The character's motivations are so shallow and pointless, her schemes so unimaginative, that after a while I just lost energy rooting for a comeuppance that isn't in the cards. Though it's likely Lucy Punch's screechy Ms. Squirrel caused me to lose energy way before that.

The movie's saving grace are the other supporting players, especially a hilariously geeky Justin Timberlake, whose musical talents (and opinions on slavery and sharks) are put to good use. He's just as funny here as on SNL and supplies the few laughs there are. Jason Segel's role as Elizabeth's suitor is immensely underwritten and unrealized but at least he's good, milking it for all he can with limited screen time. They deserve better than this. So does the usually charismatic Diaz, even if she seems to be scraping the bottom of a barrel with her choices lately. You can probably count on one hand the number of actresses capable of creating laughs and rising above material like this (only Tina Fey, Ana Faris and Kristen Wiig come to mind) so she doesn't exactly need to hide her head in shame. The director, Jake Kasdan (Orange County, Walk Hard), has made some quality comedies in the past but Bad Teacher just feels thrown together and pedestrian. There are a number of nods to inspiring teacher movies like Stand and Deliver and Dangerous Minds, which only serve as a reminder that my time may have actually been better spent watching one of those preachy educational dramas. When those fail they're just painlessly cheesy. But when comedies do, it can be painful.

X-Men: First Class

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:10:00 +0000

Director: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Rose Byrne, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon, January Jones, Nicholas Hoult, Zoe Kravitz
Running Time: 132 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

I've never read an X-Men comic, never saw any of the previous movies and have no familiarity with any of the characters in the superhero franchise. So saying that, the highest compliment I can give (and it's a big one) to Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class is that it made me care and want to see more. For a while I even forgot I was watching a superhero movie and by the time it fully morphs into that by its finale, it's a transformation that's well earned and impressively handled from a technical standpoint. The origin story it weaves is compelling, making especially excellent use of its time period and setting to convey an atmosphere that makes the film play more like a lost James Bond entry (back when they were fun) than another cash grab for Marvel along the lines of Iron Man 2 or Thor. It's good to make money and build a franchise but you need a foundation to do it on and Vaughn gets that, crafting an entertaining, often mature PG-13 rated adventure that doesn't insult audience's intelligence and delivers thrilling action when necessary.

The origin story goes all the way back to to the swinging early 60's to show how young mutants Charles Xavier/Professor X (James McAvoy) and Erik Leshner/Magneto (Michael Fassbender) become allies when they're recruited by CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) to stop the villainous Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon). Seeking revenge on former Nazi doctor Shaw for the death of his mother years ago, Erik's bloodthirsty obsession and cynical outlook clashes with Xavier's decidedly more peaceful worldview, planting the seeds for an eventual feud between the two friends. We also meet Xavier's blue-skinned adopted sister Raven Darkholme/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) struggling to accept to her identity. She's joined by Dr. Hank McCoy/Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Angel Salvadore (Zoe Kravitz), Sean Cassidy/Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), Alex Summers/Havok (Lucas Till) and Armando Munoz/Darwin (Edi Gathegi), all outcast mutants with special gifts they've yet to find the ability to fully control or understand.

The script juggles multiple storylines as the story jumps between settings and time periods with what seems to be little effort at all, making the over two-hour running time fly by in a flash. There isn't a dull moment to be found and given how many characters there are a suitable amount of attention is paid to each one that goes beyond just exploring their powers. Setting the action against the backdrop of the Civil Rights movement and social unrest of the 60's could have easily been a clunky device but the story of these mutants being ostracized and used by the government resonates since it only enhances already existing themes.

Three performances are legitimately superb and they're the three most crucial to the film's success. Best known for his breakout supporting turn in Inglourious Basterds, Michael Fassbender kills it in his first mainstream starring role, simmering with low-key intensity and bitter, pent-up anger as Erik and believably selling his character's slow building transformation into Magneto. When the climactic encounter with Shaw arrives it's a testament to Fassbender that it not only feels epic, but its result earned. As a hard-partying womanizer turned peacemaking humanitarian McAvoy's in a far different mode here than we've ever been used to seeing him while Oscar nominee Jennifer Lawrence is the heart and soul of the film, bringing needed depth to Raven in showing how she gradually loses her innocence. Kevin Bacon chews scenery even speaks German at one point, having a blast as the villainous Shaw. Casting the physically striking but emotionally vacant January Jones as diamond-skinned ice queen Emma Frost was a stroke of genius considering it's her only big screen role so far that's efficiently covered up all her weaknesses as an actress, or at least has given her a convenient excuse for them. If she's the weak link, it doesn't show for a change. As the only non-mutant, Rose Byrne makes MacTaggert seem essential rather than the odd woman out.

Vaughn stacks the film with many memorable scenes taking full advantage the retro time period and setting, incorporating impressive production design and clever musical choices, such as a recruitment montage set to Gnarls Barkey's "Run" and the use of Freddy Cannon's "Palisades Park" during a club sequence. This is how a intelligent comic book movie should be made and it wouldn't be a stretch to say it raises the bar, especially for those still feeling burned by X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. If my average rating seems to betrays my enthusiastic reaction that's only because I still have my doubts as to whether the film will be worth returning to repeatedly if you weren't a fan to begin with. Here's hoping I'm wrong, and that's certainly possible given how much there is here to appreciate. It's fun seeing back stories of characters I've only heard about and seen pictures of play out in ways more interesting than I suspected. Whether a sequel can build on that remains to be seen, but at least I'd be looking forward to it. X-Men: First Class proves to be just the shot in the arm the superhero genre needs.

Hanna

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:10:00 +0000

Director: Joe Wright
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana, Tom Hollander, Olivia Williams, Jason Flemyng, Jessica Barden
Running Time: 123 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

For as many story plots get recycled and movies remade it's at least reassuring to know there's still new and surprising ways acting performances can blow you away. The one given by Saoirse Ronan as a 16-year-old assassin in Hanna is proof of that. It's one thing for an actress her age to summon up enough poise, confidence and physical presence to believably portray a trained killing machine but what stuck out most for me out when it ended were all the other scenes where she's also called upon to play a scared, awkward teen. Comparisons have already been made to last year's Kick-Ass, which featured Chloe Moretz as a tween aged, foul-mouthed superhero killer named Hit-Girl but that character was was more satirical in nature. Director Joe Wright is deadly serious here, and takes a huge gamble in the process. But when it ended I was left with the feeling I had witnessed more than your routine action thriller, even if no one could be blamed for thinking that when evaluating the plot on paper. Half action movie, half beautifully twisted fairy tale, it's not for everyone and will probably put off as many as it thrills, but it's still difficult to claim you've seen anything exactly like it.

Raised and trained in the woods of Finland by her father, ex-CIA agent Erik (Eric Bana), 16 year-old Hanna Heller (Ronan) is ready to go out on her own. With just the flick of a switch, a transmitter alerts the government to their location, setting their plan into motion for Erik to escape and Hanna to eventually meet up with her dad following a trek through Germany. Getting in the way of that reunion and leading the charge in their capture is the calculating Marissa Zeigler (Cate Blanchett) an obsessive CIA operative with a personal connection to the case who clearly wants Erik taken dead, but also harbors a strange fascination with the girl. Moving at a deliberate pace that effectively builds tension and suspense, Hanna's journey at times more closely resembles a road trip than a manhunt as she falls in with a married couple (Olivia Williams and Jason Flemyng) on vacation and forms a friendship with their teenage daughter (Jessica Barden) but Marissa's always lurking in the shadows, as is her flamboyantly sadistic henchman Isaacs (Tom Hollander). Trained to kill but emotionally unprepared for the real world around her, Hanna must evade capture long enough to reunite with her papa in Berlin.

While the plot of Hanna may seem bare bones on the surface, but that's to its credit as the discoveries come in the details. Beyond the exciting action, this is really coming-of-age character study interested in exploring the psychological implications of an isolated young girl suddenly thrust into the real world without a life raft. Trained only to kill and protect herself the most memorable sequences occur when she's confronted with everyday life. This is a kid who can shoot someone in cold blood, but is scared to death of an electric kettle, giddily jumps up and down at the sight of an airplane, and has no idea how to work a remote control. She's been taught multiple languages and history by her father and is given a rehearsed back story to tell strangers, but there's no substitute for actual experience, which is why her journey is so scary. So far ahead of any child her age in terms of physical capabilities and even certain levels of intelligence, what stands out is how far behind she is emotionally. Because the script is deeply interested in getting into the protagonist's head space it becomes more than your standard action outing, which could turn off some viewers expecting only chases and kills (not to say there isn't plenty of that also). There's an artistry at work that we're not used to seeing in a mainstream thriller in terms of the editing, performances, visuals and most memorably, an adrenaline fueled, pulse pounding score from the Chemical Brothers that couldn't possibly provide a better backdrop for many of the brilliantly choreographed action sequences.

Ronan's performance is flat-out unbelievable for precisely how impressively she handles Hanna's duality, shifting from scared little girl to trained assassin and back again at seemingly the drop of a hat. The underrated Eric Bana's greatest asset as Erik is his ability to invisibly slide into the fatherly role and not mind being upstaged by his younger co-star. As their nemesis, Cate Blanchett looks to be having the time of her life hamming it up as the "wicked witch" hunting the little girl, giving the kind of villainous performance that isn't too far removed from her work in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a few years ago (albeit this time in a quality film). Even while struggling a bit with what I think is supposed to be a southern accent, she makes Marissa Zeigler a cold, calculating perfectionist and I loved the small details that were put in to show that, like her obsessive dental hygiene and sterile apartment. She's a villain with an edge in a movie that not only feels edgy but also more "R" than "PG-13." Part of that could just have to do with the subject matter, though more of it probably has to do with presentation, visual style and tone. And also one brief, but masterful performance that hijacks the movie and turns it into something darker and meaner. As Marissa's right hand man Isaacs, Tom Hollander almost seems to be channeling A Clockwork Orange's Alex if he were creepily reimagined as an effeminate tennis tracksuit wearing owner of a transvestite disco club. And how many villains have ever get their own catchy theme song, much less one so catchy even they whistle it? Hollander's total screen time probably doesn't even exceed 5 minutes but he makes each one of them terrifying, leaving the kind of indelible mark that deserves to be remembered come awards time.

If there's one small mistake hampering the script it's in revealing a key piece of information about Hanna that would have been better left unrevealed. One of the story's biggest strengths right from the gripping opening sequence was it's realism so there's disappointment in having a plot device introduced that's more common in a superhero or sci-fi movie, which this strives to be much more than. There's a thrill in believing for 2 hours that a young girl could be trained from an early age to do this stuff so providing a scientific explanation robs that notion of some of its mystique. If it's okay with the filmmakers I'll just pretend they never went there since that slight slip-up hardly hampers the enjoyment of the whole experience, especially with when you have an ending that not only makes ingenious use of an unconventional setting, but provides real closure. You can almost hear the book closing shut on the movie, concluding almost exactly as it began. But the best thing about Hanna is how it never seems to be wimping out in any way, taking risks while challenging the audience to appreciate details that push it out of the comfort zone we've come to expect from most mainstream action thrillers.

Scream 4

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:10:00 +0000

Director: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Marley Shelton, Adam Brody, Rory Culkin, Erik Knudsen, Alison Brie
Running Time: 111 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

I'll say this for Scream 4: It gets its most miscalculated sequences out of the way early. In its first few minutes to be exact. Opening with a movie within a movie within a movie, it's a self-referential stab (literally) at parody that ends up being a parody in itself as a number of characters bite the dust before the opening credits roll. Of course, we're not sure if they're actual victims or actresses in the fake "Stab" sequels inspired by Scream. But does that even really matter when you've already exposed the killer four times with nearly eight murders before the "real" movie begins? So when our old friend Ghostface does eventually show up it induces unwanted giggles and when he starts killing people "for real," I started doubting if it was. Part of the problem is highlighted in that crazy opening, as the film descends so far into parody that it's unclear whether they're even in on the joke. Director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson must have understood why their classic opening scene with Drew Barrymore in 1996's Scream worked. Right? If a really crappy sequel were released today it's easy to think Ghostface probably would be text messaging. Are they trying to make fun of movies that would do that by actually doing it? Do their intentions even make a difference? It's almost maddening trying to distinguish this film from one of the Scary Movie sequels at points, except for the fact that this is might be unintentionally funnier and boasts what's easily the craziest ending the series has seen yet. At least I wasn't bored.

When bestselling self-help author and Ghostface survivor Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns home to promote her latest book she finds the town overrun with many more residents (i.e. potential victims) than when she left, as well as a new Ghostface slashing away on the fifteenth anniversary of the Woodsboro murders. So many new characters that a manual could probably be handed out before the film and it would still be fairly difficult to keep track of who they are, where they are, and all their various sub-plots. There's Sidney's cousin and the film's protagonist Jill (Emma Roberts), who along with her ex-boyfriend Trevor (Nico Tortorella) and pals Kirby (Hayden Panettiere) and Olivia (Marielle Jaffe) are the first to experience Ghostface's menacing phone calls. We also have the school's cinema club geeks Charlie (Rory Culkin) and Robbie (Erik Knudsen), basically assuming the Jamie Kennedy role from the first two films by explaining how the killer is now playing by the new horror movie "rules" established in the past decade involving reboots, remakes, torture porn and found footage. Of course, there's the return of Deputy (now Sheriff) Dewey (David Arquette) and his wife, struggling author Gail Weathers-Riley (Courtney Cox). Their relationship is strained not only by her desire to break the case before him to resurrect her journalism career but by Deputy Judy's (Marley Shelton) crush on Dewey. There's also Sidney's overbearing publicist Rebecca (Alison Brie) who's determined to exploit her client's tragedy to become the next Gail Weathers. Needless to say, all these characters are set up as suspects.

Over-plotted and needlessly complicated, this script was reported to have some major issues in pre-production and after watching what unfolds onscreen it isn't difficult to see how. Throwing an entirely new cast of young, fresh faces into the mix with the originals had to be done but the execution seems way off, with everyone fighting for screen time and more than a few characters not making much of an impression at all. One of them is unfortunately Campbell's Sidney, the supposed linchpin of the series who plays more of a mopey supporting role until the film's (admittedly exciting) climax. The psychological trauma of her coming home to face her past demons is touched on briefly, then discarded simply because there's just too much other stuff going on and the kills are occurring at a mile a minute. The increase is reasonable given the new "rules" but that doesn't change the fact that so many of them happening in such rapid succession lessens the impact and tension. The idea of the killer recording the murders this time around is a really good one, but clumsily introduced and not developed with enough consistency to pack the punch it should, which is a shame considering the interesting places they could have gone with it.

Say what you want about Campbell as an actress (and I happen to think she's an underrated one) but there's always been a strong, tough presence about her, along with with just the right amount of vulnerability, that seemed to make her the ideal scream queen. Maybe that's why Emma Roberts seems like such a lousy choice for the lead. Much more believable as Julia Roberts' niece than Sidney Prescott's cousin, she just doesn't have that presence Campbell had and looks to young for the part. Supposedly Twilight's Ashley Greene was originally considered for her role and with no familiarity of her work I'd still go out on a limb and say she could have possibly been a better fit. But it's of little difference since Hayden Panettiere feels like the true lead as Kirby, owning every scene she's in and out-acting everyone else in this enormous cast by just simply being real, which might be the hardest thing to do in this genre. The movie's biggest surprise might just be how much of an impact she makes with her limited screen time and the firm grasp she has on the material, especially evident in one sensational scene toward the end. Almost single-handedly saving this entire movie, I started to wonder if they'd actually be dumb enough to kill her off since her presence is clearly the best shot this series has at another installment. It's difficult recalling another character in the Scream saga I wanted to pull through more, knowing that the second she dies this franchise is probably going with her.

As for the rest, Arquette and Cox slide back into their old, familiar roles with relative ease, even if Gail Weathers seems a bit more irritating than I remember. In addition to Shelton's deputy (undeniably a comic highlight) you can count Culkin and Knudsen's film geeks as two of the new characters that work well enough to wish even more could have been done with them. Much of the new cast isn't a disaster, with the exception of Tortorella's Trevor who's so bland he actually makes you miss Skeet Ulrich's Johnny Depp impersonation from the the original. Anthony Anderson and Adam Brody also show up as two bumbling cops and it's kind of a shame nothing is really done with the latter since Brody could have easily been set up as the logical successor or sidekick to Arquette's character if the series continues (a big "if" at this point). Then again, with a running time of only 111 minutes it's almost impossible to squeeze all these characters in with speaking parts. Two big name actresses provide an early cameo and I still couldn't help but think it was a total waste of their talents, even by cameo standards.

The ending's a hoot that's for sure. As far as the revelation of the killer(s) it stands among the more clever surprises in the series in that it holds up, partially eliminating some of the bigger story problems up until that point, with one performer somewhat redeeming themselves with an over-the-top turn I didn't think was in them. But the script jammed too much in until then and was already lost in meta nonsense to such a point that it eventually grows indistinguishable from what it's parodying by the finale. Count me among the few looking forward to a Scream reboot, anticipating enough time had passed for a fresh shine to be put on the franchise, especially if the key original cast members were to return, which they did. While I still think this was a great idea and it's not the weakest entry in the series (see the third), it's the first where the tone seems off, alternating unevenly between comedy and horror throughout. It strangely disappoints in a fashion similar to J.J. Abram's Spielberg throwback Super 8 from earlier in the year in that both films had massive built-in nostalgia that could have yielded greatness if only small mistakes were corrected at the screenwriting stage before they became bigger ones on screen. More closely resembling a limp third sequel of an ailing horror franchise than a full-on revitalization, Scream 4 is an entertainingly jumbled mess that had me wishing for more and wondering what should have been.

Pearl Jam Twenty

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:52:00 +0000

Director: Cameron Crowe
Starring: Eddie Vedder, Stone Gossard, Jeff Ament, Mike McCready, Matt Cameron, Chris Cornell, Neil Young
Running Time: 109 min.
Rating: Unrated

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Airing as part of PBS's American Masters series and available October 24th on DVD, Pearl Jam Twenty, Cameron Crowe's new documentary chronicling the journey of America's greatest alternative rock band, is all about the blurry line between art and entertainment. It's one group's tireless, twenty year quest to not "sell out." And even though those within the music industry and even many fans detest the term, count me among those who believe that "selling out" is real and that many bands do it. Remaining relevant in a constantly changing industry while continuing to grow as an artist is a delicate balance that seems almost impossible to achieve so they shouldn't be begrudged for using whatever means they can to stay afloat. But there's a reason this movie isn't about any of them and Pearl Jam's the last band standing from the early 90's Seattle grunge movement. They played by their own rules and refused to compromise, in the process redefining their group's identity and what they wanted to accomplish. Few could have guessed when they first broke that Pearl Jam would be running a marathon instead of a sprint, somehow meaning more now than they did then. You'd probably assume I'm a huge fan, but the truth is that even my admiration for them had to grow slowly over time, to the point that it was shock for me to discover just a couple of years ago that their music took up as much space on my ipod as Led Zeppelin's or Bob Dylan's. This film does a great job capturing why and explaining how their music has a cumulative effect that can't be measured by merely hit singles or album sales.

Crowe starts at the very beginning, taking us to pre-1990 Seattle and showing how Jeff Ament and Stone Gossard formed the band from the remnants of Mother Love Bone after the death of their charismatic frontman Andy Wood. Credited as the founding father of the 90's alt rock explosion, a lot of time is spent discussing Wood's influence (accompanied with some mind-blowing archival footage) before getting to the addition of a shy, distant lead singer named Eddie Vedder, who along with Ament, Gossard, guitarist Mike McCready and a revolving door of various drummers would make up Pearl Jam. Documented is the chart-topping early success of their debut album Ten, which spawned a huge hit single ("Alive") and a groundbreaking music video ("Jeremy") just as Vedder was starting to come out of his shell as a frontman. After forming a tight bond with Soundgarden's Chris Cornell, appearing in Crowe's 1991 Gen-X film Singles, jamming with Neil Young and being thrust into a "feud" with Kurt Cobain in the press, the band's popularity grew, along with accusations that they were selling out. It was a stinging allegation echoed by Cobain and one Vedder took very seriously, haunting him throughout his career and informing the band's future. Refusing to release singles or release videos, the band famously went head-to-head with Ticketmaster for their unreasonably high prices in 1994, becoming the faces of a major anti-trust lawsuit. Facing tragedy and becoming more involved in political activism in the following decade, they've managed to persevere, outlasting their contemporaries by rejecting fame and establishing themselves as an unpredictable cult band.

They'll be those who criticize Crowe for spending so much time on the band's formative days in Seattle, perhaps at the expense of the some of their post-2000 work, which is admittedly skimmed over with some excellent live footage. But try as you might to explain it away, where Pearl Jam eventually ended up is very much entangled in what happened then, as the specters of Wood and Cobain seem to hang over the band throughout, a constant voice in Vedder's ear keeping them honest and focused. When Eddie performs Mother Love Bone's "Crown of Thorns" as a tribute to Wood at their tenth anniversary concert in 2000 and it sounds every bit as Pearl Jam as any other Pearl Jam song (if not more so) it's clear why Crowe spends so much time on the early days. While Vedder never met Wood and was never really friends or enemies with Cobain (although lost footage of them slow dancing backstage at the MTV VMA's is perhaps Crowe's greatest find), you're still left with the impression that they're inseparable in music history. That influence manifests itself most in the second phase of their career which saw rock fall out of favor with the mainstream around the time they released 2000's Binaural (the first featuring Soundgarden drummer Matt Cameron) and the tragic incident at Denmark's Roskilde Festival where nine fans were crushed to death rushing the stage. Rightfully, this is depicted as the defining event for the band and the moment they decided they would abandon all pretenses of what's defined as success or failure to instead make the music an experience for those loyal enough to have hung around.

It's only when Pearl Jam fell out of the public conciousness and rock's popularity took a nose dive that they grew into the band they were meant to be all along with their crazy live set lists, experimental sounds, bootleg cds and political activism. Of everything, I'm glad Crowe didn't dwell on the latter, electing instead to just show the clip of Vedder's infamous 2003 Nassau Coliseum performance of "Bu$hleaguer," in which he impaled a flaming President Bush mask on his mic stand, grossly misjudging the audience's reaction. Political context aside, what's lost amongst the silliness of the event but shines through now is just how creepy and demonic the song is, as radical a departure from anything else they've previously done. Many recording artists have pushed politics into their music but they're are amongst the few to incorporate it in such a way that at least doesn't damage the work or detract from what they do. If an argument can be made that the second half of the feature isn't as in depth, it doesn't feel like anything that couldn't be supplemented with a couple of bonus interviews or clips on the special features. If I was slightly disappointed it didn't go on longer, it's not necessarily for a lack of depth, but just simply because I didn't want the thing to end. We do get some alone time with the other members and in what seems like an impromptu moment at home, Mike McCready confirms on acoustic guitar why "Given To Fly" is just about the most awesome PJ song there is.

What really sets this documentary apart from so many others isn't necessarily obvious in form or presentation, but rather in seeing the 90's music scene portrayed with the kind of reverence usually reserved for the 60's in documentaries like Martin Scorsese's Bob Dylan: No Direction Home or his recent George Harrison film, Living in the Material World. Eddie Vedder emerges throughout this as a reclusive, almost Dylan-like figure in terms of his approach to his craft and denouncement of fame. With his unmistakable trademark baritone he's also always been criminally underrated as a vocalist, to the point that a legitimate case can be made for ranking him among rock's all-time greats. And that not enough people know that, or even know what Pearl Jam's done, is why this film feels so fresh. Watching the recent Foo Fighters documentary Back and Forth it occurred to me that besides tracking that band's history, it also spent as much time promoting their latest album. And why not? Where else can they promote it? Hardly any radio stations play rock music. MTV doesn't play videos. They really did have to make a movie for the public to even just pay attention. Vedder, Dave Grohl and Chris Cornell are the only three guys left carrying the torch and for those lucky enough to have been alternative rock fans during that era, it's an emotional release seeing the journey treated with such respect by Crowe, who's the perfect director for the job. His movies have always existed to service the music, making it next to impossible to envision one without the other. This feels like the project that's been waiting on him and the fact that it plays as an unabashed love letter to the band, abandoning all objectivity, only increases the impact. Whether PJ20 will convert the uninitiated or those who never cared for Pearl Jam's music is anyone's guess, but it sure is a thrilling celebration of why that shouldn't matter.

TV on DVD: Dexter (The Complete Fifth Season)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:23:00 +0000

Writer/Producer: James Manos, Jr.
Starring: Michael C. Hall, Jennifer Carpenter, Desmond Harrington, Lauren Velez, David Zayas, C.S. Lee, James Remar, Julia Stiles, Jonny Lee Miller, Shawn Hatosy, Peter Weller, Christina Robinson, Preston Bailey
Original Air Date: 2010

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

How do you follow up one of the most exciting seasons of television to air in years? That's the challenge facing the writers of Dexter as they head into their fifth season. It would seem after the creative peak that was season 4, there's no where to go but down and while this is a step down it's at least not nearly as big of one as I expected. The cliffhanger ending of season 4 was shocking to say the least as they made a brave but necessary decision in killing off a major character who definitely ran her course. We're now just starting to see the results of that risky choice and it's still fair to say after viewing these 16 episodes that it was the right one. No one could argue John Lithgow's chilling guest performance as the Trinity Killer was the key to last season's success. The only problem with huge guest starring arcs is that we know the actor can only stick around for a season so their fate is practically predetermined, even if last season pushed the boundaries of that theory as far as possible. And when the performance is as brilliant as Lithgow's, a void is left that needs to be filled and the writers are faced with the unenviable task of topping themselves. Luckily, they knew the best thing to do in that situation was not worry about that and just focus on crafting an entirely different season that makes sense, but also advances the show's overall mythology. The only season that didn't do that was the third, which was mildly entertaining, but essentially a complete throwaway. If I were forced to rank the all the seasons from best to worst it would probably look something like this:

Season 4
Season 2
Season 1
Season 5
Season 3

That's totally bizarre and a testament to just how you really never know where things are going. And of all of them, this is the most convoluted from a narrative standpoint and takes the longest to get going. It's more an observation than a criticism (even if the first few episodes had me a little worried), but once it gets going it doesn't stop and reaches a more than satisfying conclusion. When we last saw Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall) he had discovered the lifeless body of his wife Rita (Julie Benz) in the bathtub as baby Harrison sat crying in a pool of her blood, painfully recalling Dexter's childhood experience of he and his brother witnessing their mother's death. Trinity's gone, but not without claiming one last victim and the person most important in Dexter's life. As expected, he doesn't handle it well, or really even at all at first. In a cringe-inducing early scene in the season, he insensitively breaks the news to step-children Astor (Christina Robinson) and Cody (Preston Bailey) they're shipped off to live with their grandparents. It makes sense someone who spends most of his spare time killing serial killers wouldn't be able to grasp how anyone else deals with death. Of course, the only way Dexter can deal with death is killing people so it isn't long before he's back at it for therapy and an encounter with a creepy pest control expert (Shawn Hatosy) leads him to runaway Lumen Pierce (Julia Stiles). The sole survivor of a series of rapes and murders, Dexter may have finally found his soulmate, and someone just as emotionally messed up as he is. The challenge is trust each other long enough to pick off the killers and get her justice, before Dex's sister Deb (Jennifer Carpenter) and his co-workers at the Miami Metro police department follow the blood trail to them.

Julia Stiles is an interesting choice of actress to be burdened with the responsibility of following Lithgow. Skeptics will probably read her character as some kind of a replacement for Rita but that's completely inaccurate since we're not exactly sure she's being set up as a love interest. One of the best things about her story arc is that it takes a very long time to be sure and it could reasonably go either way. The connection between the two is definitely more psychological than sexual and is as much about Dexter exorcising his own demons and coming to terms with Rita's death by helping her. This is far different than the Miguel Prado nonsense from season 3 that served little purpose other than to give Dexter a friend to hang with in the kill room and on the golf course. Watching Stiles is a reminder we've seen too little of her lately and it's an understatement to say this is the most complex role she's ever been afforded the opportunity to play, big screen or small. She's always been at best when inhabiting strong-willed characters and Lumen is definitely that, though the most compelling part of her story arc is how she starts the season as a fragile basketcase, but ends it as someone far different. As a rape victim, murderer, sidekick and runaway she gets put through the wringer in a challenging part, but Stiles nails it with an emotionally raw performance, more than earning her Golden Globe and Emmy nominations. Comparing to Lithgow are pointless especially since it's delightfully creepy Jonny Lee Miller as motivational speaker and suspected murder ring leader Jordan Chase who has the pressure of following in his footsteps as the season's antagonist.

As usual, anything concerning the sometimes laughably incompetent Miami Metro police, lead by Lt. Maria LaGuerta (Lauren Velez) and her new husband Sgt. Angel Batista (David Zayas) holds the least amount of interest, specifically when it's unrelated to Dexter, who spends much of the season on leave from the department. The season's other less involving investigation exists solely for the purpose of creating a feud between potty-mouthed Deb and LaGuerta, who inexplicably still has a job after some of the wild, borderline illegal decisions she's made in command, none more over the top than in this season. Give the writers credit for finally giving us the permission to hate her we've been waiting for all along, but what's great about Velez's performance is that as bitchy as she makes the character she still finds a way to ground it in reality and make her crazy behavior seem at least somewhat believable for a woman in her position. More interesting is Deb's partner and new boyfriend Quinn's (Desmond Harrington) season-long obsession with implicating Dexter in Rita's murder and linking him to Trinity, even going so far as to hire a slimy, crooked cop (played by Peter Weller) to help him do it.

It seems at the end of each season of Dexter I'm telling myself that there's no way the writers will be able to close everything out and tie up all the loose ends so it ends on a satisfactory note, but somehow they're always able to pull through and make it come together. This season is no exception and the more I think back on how it concludes the more sense it makes, and even though many could be disappointed by how Stiles' arc ends, it's the only way it could have ended if you want to move forward. Whether Lumen she makes it through alive or not, I won't reveal. This season (its highest rated yet) has also given the great Michael C. Hall a chance to show a more somber, contemplative side to Dexter in the wake of Rita's death, continuing his struggle to exorcise his "Dark Passenger." As much as I hate to say it, we're at the point now where it's time to start thinking about how this all will end, as it's tough to imagine the series continuing at this pace for much longer than two seasons. At the emotional core of the series has always been the big question of how Dex's sister Deb would react to his dark secret and whether she'd still accept him for who he is. This season cleverly gives us our first tease of what that reaction could be. Even though there's this inescapable feeling the series peaked with season 4's finale, Dexter's writers have shown enough ingenuity to inspire confidence that more surprising developments are on tap before we reach the conclusion.

Thor

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:25:00 +0000

Director: Kenneth Branagh
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba
Running Time: 114 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ (out of ★★★★)

Even if writing Thor off as a complete waste of time is probably something I should wait on doing until officially viewing The Green Lantern or Captain America: The First Avenger, the fact still remains that it's pretty underwhelming. It's yet another 2-hour commercial for Marvel Studios, who still seems more interested in promoting their other superhero properties than focusing on the task at hand. At this rate, considering the amount of time and effort they've spent promoting next year's The Avengers, that movie could turn out to be the second coming of The Dark Knight and no one outside its core fanbase would even care since it's been shamefully shoved down our throats for three years. They're at it again here, indulging in silly clues and distracting cameos. It's a big misstep, but hardly the worst of Thor's problems. Not when you have a sleep-inducing backstory for the protagonist, an overabundance of distracting CGI effects and a charisma deficient villain. Things get a little better once the story starts to play out and at least the most prominent role is well cast, but Marvel really needs to get its act together moving forward. As a mix of action-comedy and fantasy, Thor's somewhat original in its approach, but a disappointment just the same.

Most of the first hour is spent on Thor's origin story, and it's a drag. Information that could have easily been dispensed via voiceover or even a brief flashback over the opening credits feels like it's given nearly half the running length of the movie, in addition to those voiceovers and flashbacks. I understand the desire to give a detailed backstory so we care and it's commendable (it definitely worked for Christopher Nolan in Batman Begins), but the problem is that Thor's is silly. It's a weird and not entirely successful mix of mythology and comic books, with a Shakespearean style family feud thrown in for good measure. That the director is Shakespeare veteran Kenneth Branagh explains a lot, as does the presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins as King Odin of Asgard, father to Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston). When the quick-tempered Thor stages an attack against Laufey, the Frost Giant King, breaking a long-standing peace agreement, Odin banishes his arrogant son to Earth. He's discovered in the New Mexico dessert by scientists Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). As he adjusts to life on Earth S.H.I.E.L.D agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) is brought in to investigate, while back on Asgard Loki looks to benefit from his older brother's misfortune, scheming his way to the throne.

The scenes on Earth work much better than those on Asgard, if only because there are some decent comic moments with Thor trying to get used to life in 21st century America and Hemsworth's performance, while not as spectacular as everyone's been claiming, is solid. He looks the part and has surprisingly decent comic timing so it's difficult coming up with alternative actor choices that could have worked any better. Hemsworth (known primarily for his brief role as Captain Kirk's father in 2009's Star Trek) does what he can with the material he's given, even if there's no escaping the fact that a lot of the lighter Earth-bound scenes contrast in tone to the mythological fantasy nonsense it's interspersed with. Hiddleston's Loki comes off as more of a whiner with daddy issues than any kind of serious threat and the intended love connection between Thor and Portman's Jane falls flat and feels thrown together and underdeveloped. If they really wanted to go in that direction it would have been better to eliminate Skarsgard and Denning's characters to narrow the focus on Jane, but considering Denning delivers the film's best one-liners, she may have been indispensable. Given how much she's improved as an actress over the past few years, it's a shame to see Portman take on such a thankless role, but a relief that it likely would have been just as forgettable in anyone else's hands.

On the plus side, he involvement of S.H.I.E.L.D.(Avengers plug #1) Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson wasn't quite as distracting as I expected, but still kind of insulting when you realize we haven't been made to care about Thor to begin with. As for the inevitable Samuel L. Jackson cameo (Avengers plug #2) as Nick Fury, it at least takes place after the film, avoiding the nightmare that occurred at the end of The Incredible Hulk a couple of years ago when a huge, showboating cameo in the final scene nearly upstaged the entire picture, pissing on the title character for the sake of promoting you know what. But there is a cameo during this film from an Oscar nominated actor (Avengers plug #3) that I won't reveal, but that I had to check what character he was and why he was there probably doesn't bode well for the impact it had, at least for more casual viewers who actually want to see a movie about Thor.

Over the closing credits there's actually a message (Avengers plug #4) reminding viewers to "See Thor in The Avengers." Thanks for the heads up. I'm willing to bet most of the people reading this review (and many others) don't even know what The Avengers is. If Marvel really wanted to promote that film a good start would have been to make this one as good as possible so we'd actually look forward to seeing Thor in it. This does some things right, but there's this inescapable feeling of it being just a teaser for something else, which isn't okay since that's what trailers are for. All movies are made to make money, but I shouldn't be able to tell that while watching them and those decisions shouldn't adversely affect the product on screen. The downside in the entertainment industry to the economic crisis is that everyone's playing it safe, not looking how they can creatively improve the movie they're working on, but promote the next one they haven't gotten to yet. And that, despite some inspired direction by Branagh, is the main problem with Thor. It feels like it exists to generate revenue for the studio rather than excitement for audiences watching it.