FLYPAPER (2010) (a review)

FLYPAPER (2011) (a review)

A heist movie and a detective movie and a romance all in one. Stars Ashley Judd and Patrick Dempsey.

The story: Tripp (Dempsey) flirts with a cute teller, Kaitlin, who is about to be married (Judd) when two groups enter the bank to rob simultaneously. But then things start to go wrong and now Tripp, who is eccentric and obsessive tries to figure out who really set up the heist and what plan they have for all of them.

Was it good?

In parts. As a heist movie it isn't that interesting or exciting. As a romance, it isn't that convincing. And as a comedy it wasn't very funny. However, there is something charming about it. Between Tripp and Kaitlin's flirting, everything going wrong and Tripp's attempts to figure out what is happening it is constantly entertaining. Unfortunately, a lot of the explainations don't really hold and the movie at times veers off into the silly/unbelievable catagory. In a lot of ways it reminded me of a silly (and not as good) version of the episode "Bad Breaks" on BURN NOTICE. In that episode Michael is trapped inside a bank during a robbery and he has to try to stop the robbers by sabatoging them while pretending to help them. This movie isn't as clever or as funny and some of the twists are obvious and even the ones that aren't just never really surprise you.

Still, for all the ways in which is doesn't succeed, it is consistantly entertaining and almost always charming. I wouldn't recommend it at theater prices, but for a light/fun movie with a little robbery throw in, it's definitely worth a rental.

*** RENTAL ***

NEVERLAND (syfy channel movie)(2011) (a review) *** RENTAL ***

NEVERLAND (syfy channel original movie) (2011)( a review)

The latest in the Syfy channels series of reinventing classic fairy tales (following TIN MAN, their take on Wizard of Oz and ALICE, a sci-fi retelling of Alice in Wonderland). All of the movies have been written and directed by Nick Willing. This movie is a prequel to the classic story, telling how Peter and Captain Hook can to be in Neverland. This movie stars: Anna Friel, Rhys Ifans and more.

The story: 1906 London. Peter is a thief and part of a gang run by James Hook. During a heist, they find a magic orb that transports them (and several other boys) to Neverland. Peter is found by the indians, incluidng Tiger Lily. Hook and the other boys are found by pirates, including the beautiful lead pirate Elizabeth Bonnie. Now the pirates, led by Bonnie and Hook, will try to find the magic orb and the secret of the indians while Peter tries to decide who he should be loyal to.

Was it good?

In parts. It was interesting enough that if you are a fan of Peter Pan then it will make for an interesting watch. The beginning in London isn't interesting and goes on for WAY too long. However once they get transported to Leverland things get interesting. What makes this section work is the way peopel seperate into two sides. Peter and Hook used to be allies, but now Hook with with the pirates and Peter is with the indians, and no one really is a villain yet. They both have goals that make sense (finding the others, getting home), but because of how each side operates they are set against each other. The best part of this is the relationship between Bonnie and Hook, the two pirate captains (Anna Friel and Charlie Rowe), which at times is manipulation and at times genuine attraction. Unfortuantely, as the show goes on the dynamics become less interesting. It becomes about chasing people and burning things. And the goals that people have keep changing. At one point they want to go home, then Hook wants the fairy magic (that allows Peter to fly), and then they want to go home but come back...I don't know. For the 2nd quarter had a wonderful feel to it, a sense of fun you'd expect from a Peter Pan story, but as it went on it seemed to lose that becoming darker and less engaging. (The beginnign is pretty dark too, but I was okay with it starting like that.) Eventually all the things come to pass -- Peter gets to fly, Hook loses his hand, but by then it just didn't feel like a prequel...I just didn't believe that these characters would turn into the Peter Pan and Captain Hook we know. Which wouldn't be bad if this was meant to be a different interpretation, but when it is set-up as a prequel it makes for a disappointing last hour.


Still, if you skim the first half hour, the second hour especially has a lot of great things in it and the relationship between Bonnie and Hook is worth watching too. Of course, it's the Syfy channel, so it's done on the cheap and there are definitely scenes that get hurt by that. It's not a story I would watch again or give as a gift, but it was good to watch and I'd recommend it for free or a cheap rental.


*** RENTAL ***

REAL STEEL (2011) (a review) ** RECOMMEND ***

REAL STEEL (2011) (a review)

Yes, I am recommending this movie and yes I am as surprised as anyone. However, if you can get past the silly concept and put your cynicism on hold, the first 3/4 of this movie are as good of a feel good film as anything I've seen in a while. It's a blatant Rocky with robots, and for the most part it works. There are just a couple moments in the final 1/4 that don't ring true that stall this from being just a great, great film. Considering how dumb I thought the trailer was, I can't believe how much I liked it. I liked it a lot.

The story: in the future, boxing match will be held with robots instead of people. Charlie (Hugh Jackman) was a boxer and now prowls the underground boxing circuit with his robot trying to make money and win. Except he keeps losing and ends up owing people a lot of money. Then he gets word an ex-girlfriend has died and Charlie now has custody of his son, whom he has never seen. However, the woman's sister wants custody of the boy instead so Charlie works out a deal with her husband -- $100,000 and he'll give up custody of the boy after looking after him for the summer. After his next robot gets killed in a match, Charlie goes looking in a junkyard and the boy finds an old model sparring robot. charlie helps fix it up and together them go on the underground robot fight circuit, with the boy believing in this old robot and Charlie desperate for money to keep his creditors away, until they work their way up and get a shot at a real title.

Was it good?

Yeah. The concept is silly and if you are cynical parts of this will be ridiculously stupid, but if you can put it aside it is just a fun, fun film with a great underdog story. From Charlie losing his robots and deep in dept to the boy who has become a pawn and who just wants something to believe in. The fight scenes were a little disappointing and the last one didn't work for me at all (is rope-a-dope really a good strategy for robots?), but overall it was just a good feel-good movie with a lot of heart and enough humor to make it a solid film.

*** RECOMMEND ***

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011) (a review) ** RECOMMEND ***

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011) (A review)

The directorial debut by Sean Durkin that stars Elizabeth Olsen (younger sister of the Oslen twins).

The story: a girl (Olsen) goes to live with her sister after escaping from an abusive cult. However, just because she is out of the cult doesn't mean she can put it behind her and as she struggles to return to "normal" life she becomes increasingly paranoid that the cult is coming back for her.

Was it good?

Yes. Very good. Almost excellent, but a few things hurt the final film and prevented it
from being an alsolutely A+++ film. First the good. The story is interesting from the start as it begins with the girl having escaped and calling her sister, who hasn't heard from her in two years. Things are immediately tense and awkward and we can see the girl having trouble in this new setting (her sister's boyfriend's home). As she struggles to adjust we begin to flashback to her experiences in the cult, from her first entering to the escalating abuse and violent behavoir.

Where the movie falters is both the beginning and the ending. We never see Martha's life before that made her join the cult and while much of it is implied by her time at her sister's house. While this is okay for most of the film, prevents the main character from having a strong arc and stops the second half of the film, as she struggles with her nightmares, to have quite the impact it should have. And the ending...well, it just didn't work for me. The problem is you spend all this time watching to see if she is going to escape from the psychological damage of the cult and it just doesn't give you that final answer. Now this isn't bad if you are doing a "Lady and the Tiger" story where there is a deeper question, but because there really isn't anything else here so the ending for me felt more like a cop out.

Still, overall a great film. If you are looking for a creepy psychological thriller that is more about character than cheap scares, this is a good one to check out.

*** RECOMMEND ***

THE THING (2011) (a review) *** RENTAL ***

THE THING (2011) (a review)

A prequel to the classic John Carpenter film of the same name. That movie starred Kurt Russell. I have no idea who the director or actors were in this one. (I mean, I do because I checked Wiki, but I'd never heard of them before and don't really care about them now.)

The story: People find an alien frozen in the ice in the arctic. Turns out it is still alive and it begins grabbing people and turning into them. They have to figure out who is human and who is alien as they try to survive.

Was it good?

Depends. The story is basically a mediocre telling of the exact same story from the original. If you've seen the o- there's no reason to watch this. It's the same movie, just with a few bigger scenes and a bunch of sillier stuff. If you haven't seen the Carpenter film, then it might be worth watching.

Still, by staying close to the original they are staying close to a formula that works and there are a few scenes with some genuine tension. It was worth a cheap rental, and a genuine if you didn't see the original.

*** AVOID ***

30 MINUTES OR LESS (a quick review)

30 MINUTES OR LESS (a review)

An action-comedy by the director of ZOMBIELAND starring Jessie Eisenberg (also from Zombieland as well as Social Network). Zombieland was a big, surprise hit. This movie...not so much.

The story: a pizza delivery guy is ambushed and gets a bomb strapped to him and is told to get $100 grand in nine hours or they will blow him up. You see, the guys that bomb-strapped him want to hire a man to kill their dad so they can inherit money to open a tanning salon/prostitution ring. The boys pull off the heist, but then everything starts to go wrong.

Was it good?

It was okay. The beginning I guess is supposed to be clever and funny, but it didn't work for me at all. None of the banter or relationships landed for me. Once things get in motion it picks up a bit and there were a few laughs, but it was just too little, too late and the ending didn't add anything. Comedy is subjective. For me this was miss.

Still, I can see where some people would like it. If Jessie Eissenberg in a bumbling criminal movie sounds funny you might like it. If the idea doesn't do anything for you immediately...I'd avoid it.

*** AVOID ***

ANOTHER EARTH (a reivew)

ANOTHER EARTH (2011) (a review)

By first time director Mike Cahill, this sci-fi indy movie was a hit at Sundance and generated a lot of buzz. Starts William Mapother (Ethan on LOST) and Brit Marling. The movie was co-written by Cahill and Marling. It was made for $200,000.

The story: high school student, Rhoda (Marling) is accept into MIT, but gets into a car accident where she kills a woman and young boy. She is sent to prison. When she gets out she gets a job as a janitor at her old high school and then seeks out John, the man whose wife and son she killed (Mapother). She begins to work for him without telling him who she is, but as they grow closer and closer her guilt grows as well. At the same time, a planet is discovered that is an exact replica of the Earth -- everything from the buildings, to the people, to the history -- everything is an exact replica of this Earth. People begin to communicate with this "other Earth" and plan to fly a space ship out to it. Rhoda wins a spot on the ship, but will she go or will she stay with John and will she tell him she is the one who killed his wife and son?

Was it good?

It was pretty good. For a sci-fi film, there isn't any actual sci- in it. The story focuses on the relationship between Rhoda and John as she begins cleaning his house as a way to deal with her guilt and as they grow closer. The "Other Earth" is mainly a metaphore -- the idea of a second chance, of a life where Rhoda hadn't made that one tragic mistake. This is both the strength and weakness of the movie. The movie isn't really sci-fi -- it's just the story of a woman who caused an accident and then tries to make up for it while not telling the person who she is. It's almost identical to the relationship in THE TOWN (Ben Affleck), MANON OF THE SPRING and countless other movies. And while everything is well done, the realtionships really just hit all the beats you would expect -- the initial lie, growing closer, will he find out, etc. There's just nothing new in the movie, except for that idea of the Other Earth. But since the OA is just a metaphore, it doesn't feel nearly enough.

Still, I thought everything in the movie was well done. This is a slower, more character focused movie, but still enjoyable. Maybe not worth theater prices, but if you are in the mood for more of a character piece, then it can be worth a rental.

If you want something more story to it, I'd recommend THE TOWN over this. In fact, even if you don't want more story, I'd still recommend THE TOWN over this. But if you have already seen THE TOWN, then this movie is worth watching too.

*** RENTAL ****

TERRI (a review) *** indy rental ***

TERRI (2011) (a review)

This is an indy comedy, one of those teen angst sort of things. Features John C Reilly (Step Brothers), Creed Bratton (The Office) and a bunch of teens.

The story: Terri is an overweight loser/outcast in his school who has so stopped trying that he now comes to school in his pajamas. He starts to meet with the school councelor (Reilly). When he sees the hot girl he has a crush on getting fooling around with a guy during class he accidentally gets them in trouble. However, it is when he helps stop her from getting expelled and then acts nice toward her while everyone else is trying her like an outcast that they develop something that might be a friendship or might be something else.

Was it good?

Almost. Which isn't to say there aren't good parts. There are some fantastic parts that really cut into the dynamics of teen life, especially the life of an outsider teen. However, there also is a lot that is boring or cliched, and the ending especially is unsatisfying, making you feel like the writer/director had one or two key scenes in mind for the story but didn't really know what to do beyond that. Still, for those good scenes alone the film is worth a rental. It's just a shame because with more work to the script, making it dig deeper, this could have been a great film.

The start with Terri as an outcast is fine, but nothing special. I actually thought him going to school in him pajamas was pretty cool -- I know people that did that in college! Also a lot of time is spent on his relationship with his uncle (Bratton). Now this isn't horrible, but it's not that interesting and it isn't really the thing that drives the movie forward, which is him being an outcast. This also is the problem with his relationship with the councellor. It just doesn't feel central to what is going on in his life. Almost all of it could have been cut and the movie would have been better and more focused without it.

Where the movie works is the teen dynamics, especially the character of the girl Terri has a crush on, . Terri who likes the pretty girl and is shocked/dissappointed when he sees her letting a boy feel her up during class is a classic scene. And later as the girl loses her spot in the social status and starts to hang out with Terri as the one guy who is nice to her has something both honest and dream fullfilling. All this builds to her coming over to his house, which is friends want to crash so they can be around the hot girl too. It's another great scene and the centerpiece of the movie.

However, the filmmaker doesn't seem to know what to do with it. While the scene builds and builds well, the ending feels more like the filmmaker trying to avoid cliches (like the boy gets the girl or the girl crushes the boy and goes back to the popular kids) than in actually having something to say. So while the movie has a couple great scenes, the ending feel hollow. It's a shame because when the movie really is willing to deal with the kids it gets into some interesting spaces. The character of the girl, who Terri seems to idolize, but really is just a normal girl with all the normal girl desires for fun and excitement, is one of the best drawn characters. Maybe if the w/d had thought more about BREAKFAST CLUB and less about indy character study this movie would have been really special.

Still for those scenes the movie is worth checking out, especially if you are up for an indy teen angst movie.

*** RENTAL ***

I.C.U. (2009) (a review)

I.C.U. (2009) (a review)

A low budget horror movie from Austrailia. Well, not so much a horror movie as a direct rip off of DISTURBIA with all the good stuff taken out and replaced by bad dialog, bad acting and poor story construction.

The story: three teen visit their dad to bond except he gets called out (he's a cop). They sit around and begin spying on the neighbors. The girl goes for a swim. They sit around some more. There are clips of the city and of someone who is committing murders. Then, finally, the teens witness a man attacking a woman and now try to convince their father to help.

Was it good?

No. And even my description doesn't reveal how bad it was. LAME, LAME, LAME.

Look, I understand seeing a cool movie like DISTURBIA and wanting to do something like it. I can even understand seeing it and thinking you could do it better. But either way, you'd think you would either (a) copy all the cool stuff to make sure your movie is cool and/or (b) find cool things the other movie didn't do that would make your movie better.

Fail and fail.

There is one nice moment when the teens try to explain to the father what has happened and it becomes an argument about their relationship -- he has never been there for them and he doesn't believe them now (from the kids pov) vs he is trying to make up for it and so he will go investigate (father's pov). Unfortunately, those ideas come too little, too late and nothing is ever done with them later on. There are a couple lame plot twists and that's it.

I could go on -- there is the whole voyeur thing and they make a big deal of the apartment the kids are in having cameras, but except for allowing them to show PG shots of the girl changing into her swim suit, I don't see what they had to do with the story at all.

Just lame all around.

*** AVOID ***

ARENA (2011) (a review)

ARENA (2011) (a review)

Yikes. Just...yikes. Stars: Kellan Lutz (Twilight: Breaking Dawn, 90210, Immortals), Samuel Jackson, Nina Dobrev (Vampire Diaries) and Daniel Day Kim (Lost). Written by Robert Martinez and Michael Hultquist. Directed by Jonah Loop.

The story: a man's wife and unbron child are killed and he goes on a drinking spree where he gets kidnapped and forced to fight in various to-the-death matches that are being shown over the internet. At first he refuses, but then a man he befriends is killed and he agrees to fight to win his freedom and get the chance to kill the executioner who killed his friend. Additionally, the fights are all different with various computer generated settings.

Was it good?

No. No, no, no, no, no. It wasn't even so-bad-it's-good bad. It was just bad. First, the fight scenes. This is an action movie and the fight scenes need to be cool as hell. And they weren't. They were worse than in the tv show Spartacus. They're not as good as you'd see on Buffy or Alias either.

The rest of the movie isn't any better. If you've ever sat through bad action movies you know they all have a lot in common -- over-the-top acting, bad stories that don't really make sense, 1-dimensional characters, plot twists that don't really make sense but are supposed to be cool. This movie has all of them. It's just that bad.

*** AVOID ***

MESKADA (2010) (a review)

MESKADA (2010) (a review)

An indy crime movie that focuses on more than just the crime and the cops. Stars" Nick Stahl (T3), Kellan Lutz (Twilight, Immortals, 90210), Rachel Nichols (GI Joe, Conan the Barbarian), Jonathan Tucker. Written and directed by Josh Sternfeld.

The story: A boy in an affluent town is murdered during a robbery. The detective suspects the murderer came from an adjascent town where people are struggling to find work. Complicating matters, the town (Caswell) is also trying to get a large corporation to move in which would mean hundreds of jubs and save the town.

Was it good?

Sort of. There is a lot of good and a lot of bad. Overall the acting is okay. What works best is the approach -- the focus on these two towns, one affluent and one struggling. Unfortunately, we don't get enough of that. All of it needed to be developed in a more powerful way. For instance, there is a scene (a very good one) where two people from Caswell are presenting their plan to the commissioner's office. However, the meeting doesn't go well. You see, the mother of the dead boy was a County Commissioner. It's a great scene that works because there are so many threads tangled together -- the town wants the jobs but it's a small town that doesn't like the police coming in and is stilling to protect its own, but then the mother of the murdered child is on the commission and it is clear they are not happy with the town and are ready to punish them by denying them the money for infrastructure they need to bring the corporation to their town. Because of this it spins everything with the town -- they want to protect themselves, but they need to find the killer, but they also lash out at the police blaming them for bringing the town under suspicion. It's great stuff. Unfortunately, it isn't set up nearly as strongly as it should have been. We don't know enough about the town, we don't have a good enough feel for the characters yet. They say the town will die without the company jobs, but that feeling just isn't there yet.

It's a problem that is grounded in the first act, where they show the murder of the boy and then focus on the two men responsible going back to their town and the detective who will try to track them down. Nothing is particularly bad about it, but it doesn't lay the ground work that is needed for later on -- namely the town's need for those jobs. What the movie needed was to move away from the structural of a procedural and focus more on the conflict between these two towns -- one affluent, one struggling.

As it is, the movie is okay, but it could have been something special. There's just too much that we have seen before, too much that isn't gripping. And as a detective story, the actual detective work is pretty boring. It needs more conflict within the small town -- the characters should each embody a philosophy that put them at odds with each other (one person is for the jobs, one person against an outside company coming into their town, one person wants to help the police find the people that murdered those boys, one person doesn't care about someone from that town getting killed, etc). This is important because you need to be able to explore the small town mindset in a clear way with as few people as possible and having the people each embody a different attitude will do that. Unfortunately, while interesting it never really reaches the dramatic heights that it could.

It's still a movie worth watching. It's a movie that tries to do much more than most crime stories and definitely has some interesting moments. It just also has stretches where you can safely go make a snack without missing anything. I wouldn't recommend it for theatrical, but if you are in the mood for something a little different, something that tries to do a little more, it's worth a rent.

*** RENTAL ***

DRIVE (2011) (review)

DRIVE (2011) (a review)

This is the hot new movie among cinephiles at the moment. Directed with a lot of style by Nicolas Refn and starring well respected actors Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan, with a supporting role by Albert Brooks that has people predicting Oscars. Also stars Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), Ron Perlman, and Christina Hendricks (Mad Men).

The story: Drive (never named but that's what I'll call him, aka Gosling) is a mechanic/stunt driver for the movies who is in love with the woman in the apartment next door (Mulligan). Her husband gets out of jail, but owes people money so to protect the wife and son, Drive agrees to be his wheel man while he robs a pawn shop. However the heist goes bad and the husband is shot and how Drive has to figure out who is behind it while protecting the woman that he loves.

Was it good?

Sort of. I can understand why some people seem to love it even though I didn't.

The first half I thought was very effective. It starts off with a cool cat-and-mouse car chase with Drive avoiding cops and then we get into his regular life as a mechanic and stunt driver. And, of course, his relationship with his neighbor Irene (Mulligan) and her son. It isn't much of a relationship -- they barely speak, but there clearly is an attraction and a bond. While this is happening his boss borrows money to buy a car so they (he and Drive) can compete on the race circuit and make big money and at the same time, Irene's husband gets out of jail, throwing a wrench into their relationship. While some people have called this part slow, there actually is a lot going on and I liked the focus on character. This, I think, was the strongest part of the film. It isn't done in a gritty fashion -- there is something lyrical and romantic about Refn's approach that makes this work.

Then the plot kicks in. The husband owes people money. Driver agrees to help with the heist. The husband is killed and Drive realizes that they had been double crossed. While he is trying to find there people and find a way out of it, the people of course are looking for him and looking for Irene.

Now some of this is good and some is bad. A lot doesn't make sense. Drive goes from not knowing who is behind it to walking right up to the guy. They present some mystery (who is behind it), but then skip over all the detective work. And it turns out Drive is not only a good looking guy and a brilliant mechanic and brilliant stunt driver, but he is also a killing machine as he tears his way through the bad guys.

All of which was kind of interesting, but the longer it went on the further the movie got from the things in the first act that really pulled me in. The relationship between Drive and Irene never develops or changes. The movie felt less like a story in the second half than a wind up toy -- they wound it up for the first half and then it just winds down until it is empty.

Part of the problem is that while the first half is effective, it is also pretty empty. The relationship between Drive and Irene works at first, because you can see why there two nice good looking people would like each other. However, as the movie descends into violence (and it does get really violent) you realize there really isn't anything to their relationship. A couple looks. Is he really doing this because she is pretty? I felt like we were supposed to feel that these were two lonely people who found each other and now Drive would do anything to save her...and yet that really isn't in the movie. She's a cute girl next door who he hangs out with twice. Is Drive supposed to be this lonely figure? We don't see him with other people, but we don't see him getting rejected by other people either.

So that emotion that is supposed to be pushing him through the second half just wasn't there for me. It felt like they were trying to do something like MAN ON FIRE or THE CROW, almost a revenge film where instead of revenge he is trying to save the girl, but the emotional core just wasn't there.

The first half I thought was really interesting. By the end, I felt like it had been an empty experience, one that had lots of cool stuff but didn't deliver on the emotion or depth that the director seemed to want by making a slow, character focused first half.

I think if you like more European art films, you might like it. Heck, you might even love it. But I think for most other people the movie is going to be a real let down. Still, the first half was strong enough that I think it's work seeing for a lot of people...

*** RENTAL ***

ELEKTRA LUXX (2010) (a short review)

ELEKTRA LUXX (2010) (a short review)

Written/directed by Sebastian Gutierez (Gothika). It features an amazing cast with Carla Gugino (Sin City, Spy Kids) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Batman 3, Inception, 500 Days of Summer) and in smaller roles Emma Bell, Julianne Moore, Emmanuelle Chriqui (Entourage), Malin Akernam (Watchmen, 27 Dresses), Adrianne Palicki (Friday Night Lights, Red Dawn remake), Marley Shelton (Death Proof, Sin City, Scream 4), Josh Brolin (Milk, True Grit, Jonah Hex), Timothy Olyphant (I Am Number Four, Rango, Justified).

The story: a porn star's life is turned upside-down when she finds out she is pregnant.

Was it good?

No. It's one of those slice of life comedies without any real plot. Unfortunately, the bits aren't funny. I like these actors a lot, but watching them trying to make this unfunny, unfocused script work was painful.

*** AVOID ***

ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) (a review) *** RENTAL ***

ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) (a review)

A Brittish horror-comedy from the studio behind SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ and SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD.

The story: after robbing a young nurse new to their neighborhood, a group of street thugs on the verge of becoming drug dealers realize their block is being attacked by space aliens and struggle to defeat the monsters and save their neighborhood.

Was it good?

Kind of.

Honestly there was a lot I liked. The space aliens as monsters were pretty cool (kind of like the Iz in THE MAXX). There was a lot of comedy and once they start having to deal with the aliens it was all really good. There was just one big problem -- the kids.

The basic arc is that these kids start out as street hoods and then become heroes, but for me nothing they did later made up for who they showed themselves to be early on. These weren't good kids in a bad gang or kids who needed money to pay some bills -- these were kids that were taking pleasure in terrifying other people. Especially with the nurse, not only robbing her but trying to frighten her and enjoying it. And the whole "redeem" arc just didn't work for me. I didn't believe they had changed, I didn't think they deserved to be forgiven, and honestly I was hoping the monsters would kill them all.

Another weird thing, when the nurse was attacked it was the cops who came to her aid and tried to help her. But later (as we're supposed to side with the kids) the cops are portrayed as bad guys and I just never felt that.

Now if the movie had just let the kids be real anti-heroes instead of trying to turn them into "good" kids/redeem them, then it might have been more interesting. The aliens attack but the kids fight them off not because they are really good kids, but because they are more vicious and sadistic than the aliens...that might have been interesting.

So this is a tough call for me. There's a lot to like and if I just cut off a bit from the beginning and the end, it would have been a great film and a strong recommend...but as it was once I could feel the filmmakers pushing me to be sympathetic to the kids, I just couldn't accept it. However, there's enough here that it might be worth a look for some...

*** RENTAL ***

APOLLO 18 (2011) (a review)

APOLLO 18 (2011) (a review)

This is a found footage movie, kind of like BLAIR WITCH PROJECT in space. It's about a secret mission to the moon where the astronauts encounter deadly aliens.

The story: astronauts on a secret mission to the moon encounter aliens.

Was it good?
No.

First, it was boring. Which is bad. And boring in a found footage movie is even worse. It begins with this secret mission, but why it is a big secret? It's about placing something on the moon in case the Russians launch a missile attack. Why keep that secret? I don't know. Then they get to the moon and they see weird things and assume it's the Russians because of course they assume the Russians have launched a secret mission to the moon.

Now look, maybe in 1969 that stuff would have been kind of cool. Today the Russians are a group that can barely work a can opener much less send secret ships to the moon. So this idea of the super-secret Soviets just has no oomph to it, and even worse, while everyone is talking about the Russians, the Russians, even though it is obvious to the audience that it is NOT the Russians, it just makes the astronauts sound dumb. And dumb is fine for a naked blond in a horror movie -- it's bad for an astronaut.

Then, after a LOOOONG time, the movie shifts to a monster movie. Now the idea that we encountered aliens on the moon and that's why we haven't gone back it kind of cool, but why not just tell the story straight? What does this "found footage" effect give you? Nothing. And to make matters worse, they don't really even try to stick with it. One of the cool things about these found footage movies is the way they limit POV and force you into the space of the protagonist. Here, they switch cameras whenever they need to so you don't even get that effect. And the story itself doesn't have anything where it makes sense to do it as a found footage film either.

The other thing those better FF movies do is that they realized one thing that happens with a FF movie is that since you are stuck with the protagonist, the audience becomes closer to them which means you need a real emotional element. Most of the good FF movies have a kind of parallel built into them. CLOVERFIELD is about a guy who realizes he loves a girl and is about to run out to get her when a monster attacks and now he has to run out to save her. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY has a young couple suffering problems with their house; the wife wants to call a professional but the husband wants to fix it himself -- and what's the problem? They are haunted. BLAIR WITCH has a group that go hiking and get lost and turn on each other, except it is worse because they are under the curse of the witch.

Here there is no story, there is no emotion, there is no parallel. Which is why even when the cool alien stuff kicks in the movie is still boring. We haven't gotten connected to the characters. The aliens isn't an extension of what they are really going through. The movie doesn't feel like a story so much as a much of stuff.

*** AVOID ***

SHARK NIGHT 3D (2011) (a review)

SHARK NIGHT 3D (2011) (a review)

First the was PIRANHA, now another movie about water creatures killing students on spring break. Stars: Sara Paxton, Alyssa Diaz, Dustin Milligan, Katharine McPhee (American Idol runner up), Joel David Moore.

The story: a group of friends go to a girl's house for spring break on a private lake in Louisiana where they are attacked by a shark. They try to go for help but are attacked by more sharks. The girl's ex-boyfriend comes to help them and they are attacked by more shark. Then a big reveal and it ends.

Was it good?

No.

It's all just crap. I don't even know why they bothered with a script for this. The whole plot elements are stupid -- from being on a lake and attacked by sharks, which doesn't make the sharks more scary or anything (Louisiana gives tax breaks to film there...we can assume that's why they did it). There's this whole love interest but it never really seems important and most of the story is focused on the girl and not on the guy trying to get the girl and by the end you really don't care. The whole plan with the bad guys (because of course this isn't just random sharks and there has to be a big reveal even though they really don't try to build a mystery leading up to it so it pretty much is a useless plot twist) is stupid and lame.

Again, it's amazing when you watch something like this to see that much money spent on people who don't know what they are doing. PIRANHA got it. It wasn't a great film, but it knew the audience. They got that horror movies are the anti-Oprah art form. It's about all the stuff that parents want to keep from their kids -- sex and death. Not only is it sex and death, but it's the fact that we LIKE sex and death. Sex and death are fun! It's fun to watch people screw (or get naked at least) and it's fun to watch them get killed!

PIRANHA didn't do much, but it got that. Spring break with strippers and giant monster fish. Get naked. Have fun. And then get ripped apart. Add a story about a nice kid who likes a girl who may or may not like him who he then has to save and the movie basically writes itself.

This movie just missed everything. There's no fun. There's some death, but they are pretty lame. There's no fun sex. There's no humor to it. It takes itself seriously which would be okay if it was genuinely scary or if it had something to say...but it doesn't.

Massive fail.

*** AVOID ***

EVERYTHING MUST GO (2011) (a review)

EVERYTHING MUST GO (2011) (a review)

This is another of Will Ferrell's serious, only slightly comedic roles (ala STRANGER THAN FICTION). The movie was written and directed by Dan Rush.

The story: after losing his job, a man comes home to find he is locked out of the house and all his stuff is on the lawn. He has no money and his credit cards are declined, so he decides to stay there and have a 5-day yard sale to get rid of his stuff and figure out what to do.

Was it good?

No.

The movie was just too slow and if there was supposed to be something deep and powerful in it, it didn't come through at all. LOST IN TRANSLATION is slow, but it has some powerful emotional moments and a great ending. This one didn't.

There are a few weird choices. For instance the lead (Ferrell) is supposed to be an alcoholic who had a relapse and that's why his wife threw him out. Except we never meet his wife. We never see their relationship. He could have been a single guy getting thrown out of an apartment. Why make him married? Why bother if you aren't going to exploit it? I thought the idea of selling his stuff was a metaphore for moving on, but since we don't know the wife we have no idea what he is moving on from or why he would have trouble letting go. I mean, the only thing we know about her (at the beginning) is that she locks him out and tosses his stuff and destroys his credit cards and bank account...so she seems like a real b*tch! He's lucky to be rid of her! He shouldn't be sulking, he should be out celebrating that the witch is gone!

This is just such a fundamental problem and it's something I see all the time -- writers not setting up their stories properly. Often its because they move too fast, which is just as bad as moving too slow. In this case it guts the entire metaphore.

Now that can be fine if the focus of the movie is on something else. However here there really isn't anything else. There's no deep insight. No powerful relationship. And the main character isn't actively working toward anything.

The other angle is that he is an alcoholic. That's why he got fired and why his wife locked him out. And he spends a good amount of time drinking, and yet there really isn't anything in the movie that deals with alcoholism or anything like that. He might as well have just been bouncing a ball, because that's all they did with the alcoholism -- use it as a way to keep time.

Even the supporting characters don't have much. There's a kid who helps him who doesn't really have a story and a pregnant woman he befriends who doesn't really have a story...

I appreciate that this isn't just a typical Hollywood movie and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the script made good use of the metaphore and maybe had some powerful moments, but they just didn't translate onto the screen.

This movie wasn't horrible, but there are plenty of character driven movies out there that are a lot better.

*** AVOID ***

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

This is the new movie by Kevin Smith (Clerks, Jay and Silent Bob, Dogma, Cop Out). Unlike many of his movies that fall in the View Askew universe this is more of an action/horror movie. The movie stars John Goodman, Kevin Pollack, Michael Parks, Melissa Leo, and Stephen Root.

The story: a couple kids drive out into the woods to meet a woman for quick sex, but are taken hostage by religious cult who plan to kill them. The cops arrive and leads to a stand off between the FBI and the fundamentalists.

Was it good?

Kind of. It was interesting, but I'm not sure I would call it good.

The first half is a pretty standard horror movie. There's some humor and some odd little moments, but it's played much more grounded than, say, a Friday the 13th. The kids are taken hostage and one of them is killed and the others struggle to survive. The religious people are a cult full of wackos and the kids are kind of a-holes, but they don't deserve to die.

Then, around midpoint is when the FBI arrive and that's when the movie gets odd. Up until them it's pretty clear we root for the kids and are against the religious/anti-gay/people killers. However, the FBI isn't actually good. And even more oddly, the kids that we have been following virtually disappear from the story. It becomes a stand off between two sides that no one would really root for.

Now this might work if the story was told in a realistic way and wanted to really explore both sides of a difficult situation, but that's not the case. Both sides are so exaggerated they become parodies at times. And the loss of any character or storyline where there is anything really to root for, it leave you (or me or whoever the audience is) feeling adrift. It's like the story was designed not just to end badly (which a lot of horror movies do...people tend to die at the end of them) but it's meant to end in a way that make you feel useless.

Still it was an interesting movie. For cinephiles and fans of indy movies maybe this will work too. It's just not a movie I could recommend for most. Still, there's enough good here that if you are looking for a rental it might be worth your time.

*** RENTAL ***

WONDER WOMAN PILOT (2011) (a review)

WONDER WOMAN PILOT (2011) (a review)

This was a very high profile pilot made for the 2011 fall season. It was written by David E Kelley (Ally McBeal) and starred Adrianne Palicki (Friday Night Lights) and Elizabeth Hurley. It didn't get picked up. Lots of negative buzz. So how was it? Bad, but let's talk about it.

The story: Wonder Woman, aka Diana Prince (Adrianne Palicki) is a vigilante who is accepted and even loved by the police. She finds out people are being filled with illegal steroids to try to give them super-powers and she tries to take down the woman behind it.

Was it good?

No. And there are a lot of things we could talk about at being bad -- especially the first scene where she is running down the middle of the street which just looked ridiculous -- but let's start with the big one: story.

The idea of her hunting down someone giving people superpowers is interesting, but that never seems to be the focus. The big thing is never that someone is trying to create their own superheroes, it's just illegal steriods. Yawn. They had a cool idea and just didn't sieze it. And it goes to that other big question -- What's this about? If the external side is fighting the bad guy, then what's the internal...and I really couldn't say. There are some weird things in here -- like a long conversation where she while discussing a line of Wonder Woman dolls complains about the size of the breasts on the doll even though her boobs are being pushed up to her chin by her costume. There are other things pointing to the idea of her feeling alone, that being famous and loved isn't all that, but again none of that really seems to be the emotional focus.

So you watch the pilot and just think why??? Why make it, why bother, why was this interesting??? I don't know.

There are a lot of other things wrong. People complained about the costume, but that could be fixed. The acting wasn't great and the fight scenes were lame, but again there's a possiblity those could be improved over time. The humor doesn't work and it's a weird mix when they are struggling to get the drama to work. They also don't talk about WW's origin or anything -- they just throw her out there as a woman who runs down the middle of the street and is cheered by people and makes toys based on herself. Why not have an origin story? Why not start at the beginning?

I've seen good pilots that didn't get picked up (Global Frequency was pretty cool), but this one wasn't close.

*** (actually you don't have to avoid it since it was never picked up) ****

SCREAM 4 (2011) (a review)

SCREAM 4 (2011) (a review)

This is the restart of the SCREAM franchise that re-teams the original writer (Kevin Williamson) and director (Wes Craven). It also brings back Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette and brings in a new group of teens -- Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettierre, Rory Caulkin. This is a movie that was plagued with problems -- apparently they brought in other people to rewrite Williamson and Craven was unhappy about a number of things. The original SCREAM was a big hit. This one wasn't.

The story: Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) comes back to Woodboro to promote a book only to have a new Ghostface killer killing off high school students.

Was it good?

No.

Look, there were a lot of problems but for me it came down to something simple. The first movie worked because it had a brilliant idea -- it has a young girl unsure if she should have sex with her boyfriend and then externalized it in the context of a horror movie to being a story about a young girl not sure if her boyfriend is a killer. Yes, the movie had some scares and a lot of humor and the whole deconstruction thing, but the reason it worked, why we rooted for her and became involved with that simple parallel. It's the Buffy method -- understand the emotion your character is going through and find a cool way to externalize it.

This movie had none of it. Sydney really isn't dealing with anything -- in fact none of the characters seemed to be dealing with anything -- and the eventual reveal was kind of boring. The original is all about trusting the boyfriend so when they reveal that he is the killer...well, that was pretty cool. Here, when it is finally revealed it just comes out of nowhere and feels lame. In fact, it would have been better to reveal the killer from the beginning. That at least would have added some tension that was lacking since every scene with them we would know they were the killer planning the next crime right in front of the people trying to stop them.

But this was just lame.

*** AVOID ***

HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN (2011) (a review)

HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN (2011) (a review)

A crime story. Stars Dave Bautista (WWE champion), Amy Smart, Dominic Purcell and Danny Trejo. Based on the novel by Chuck Hustmyre. Directed by Brian A Miller.

The story: an ex-con has to go on the run to prove his innocence after he is blamed for the death of his boss' son as both the cops and the mob close in on him.

Was it good?

No. There are a lot of things wrong with it -- the acting is pretty bad and the directing isn't what you would call good. But the big problem is there just isn't any cool. The idea is fine, but we've seen stuff like this a thousand times. So what's the thing here that's unique? What's the thing that's new? And I just couldn't tell you. The lack of anything new makes you feel like you are watching something you have seen before. Add to the fact that the writing is flat and the acting flatter, and this is a pass. One thing I did like was Amy Smart. She's an actress I like who never seems to get material that fits her, and while this material wasn't a great fit for her either it was better for her than a lot of movies (like MIRRORS). Unfortuantely, that's not enough to recommend it.

*** AVOID ***

THE HIDDEN 3D (2011) (a review)

THE HIDDEN 3D (2011) (a review)

This is a Canadian/Italian horror film. Don't know much about the people. Didn't feel like looking it up.

The story: A woman finds a way to take people's addictions and make the physical so they can be removed, but once removed they take on a life of their own. Cut to twenty years later and she is dead and her son inherits her mansion (because of course she would never do experiments in something as boring as a lab) and brings his friends there to check it out even though he doesn't want to be there. One of the friends is a girl he likes, I guess. At the mansion they encounter weird insects and mutant children in the basement and have to try to survive.

Was it good?

Huh? Serious? You read the story and thought that it might actually have a chance at being good??? No. No, no, no, no, no, no. Nothing here makes sense. The idea of making addictions physical might be interesting, but they never do anything with it -- the children (or anyone/thing else for that matter) never act like the physical embodiment of any addiction. For that matter there's the whole idea that the addictions can live outside people so why do they become mutant children? And why do they just act like flesh hungry zombies instead of something addiction-like? And what was with the weird insects again, or was that just because they had money to kill on special effects?

It also doesn't work on a character level. Empty, boring, no story, no arc...nada. The characters didn't even need to have names because there is nothing to differentiate them. It's one of those movies where it feels like the filmmakers didn't care. Just throw in some weird children and special effects and people will like it.

Wrong. It sucked.

*** AVOID ***

THE WARD (2010) (a review)

THE WARD (2010) (a review)

The latest horror movie by John Carpenter, the horror master behind HALLOWEEN, THE FOG, THE THING (remake), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and more. The movie stars Amber Heard (Drive Angry, Zombieland, Friday Night Lights (the movie)).

The story: a girl burns down a farmhouse and is taken to an insane asylum. The doctor seems to have another agenda and there is a girl who died and now is a ghost coming back to kill people off. The girl must discover the mystery of the ghost before she is killed off too.

Was it good?

No.

The problem is two-fold. First, the twist is something I've seen before and to be honest didn't like the first time. (I won't say the name of the movie but it stars an actor named John C--).

The second problem is there isn't anything there other than the twist. There isn't a compelling up front, non-hidden, non-twist story. In HALLOWEEN (the original), you have Jamie liking a guy but being too embarrassed to do anything about it or to let her friends do anything about it, while as the same time being envious of them having boyfriends. Here there are girls in a psych ward and...well that's just it. There are just there. There's nothing really relatable, so there's no take-away from the movie.

I'm a Carpenter fan, but this was a miss.

*** AVOID ***

8213: GACY HOUSE (2010) (a review)

8213: GACY HOUSE (2010) (a review)

DYLAN DOG: DEAD OF NIGHT (2011) (a review)

DYLAN DOG: DEAD OF NIGHT (2011) (a review)

A movie based on an Italian horror comic book by Tiziano Sclavi. Stars Brandon Routh (Superman).

The story: The world is filled with supernatural creatures. Dylan Dog (Routh) is a detective who specializes in paranormal cases that the police won't take. His partner dies and becomes one of the undead. He has to solve a case involving vampires. Or something.

Was it good?

No. I saw it a while ago and didn't bother writing about it right away and honestly I can't remember almost anything about it. It tries to be a horror/comedy/noir/thriller, but it all falls flat. These hybrids are incredibly tough to really nail and this one just doesn't work. The horror isn't scary, the noir doesn't add anything, the humor isn't funny, and the detective story just isn't interesting.

I don't want to rip on it too much. It wasn't that was movie was particularly bad, it just felt empty....passionless...like everyone was going through the motions, from the actors to the writers to the director, even though I know they weren't. It's one of the worst things to happen to a movie. A movie that feels ambitious, that tries to do something great and fails, well, that's understandable and at least they tried. The worst is when a movie feels like it just isn't trying at all and that's what happens here.

*** AVOID ***

MARS NEEDS MOMS (2011) (a review)

MARS NEEDS MOMS (2011) (a review)

The lastest from Robert Zemekis (Polar Express, Back to the Future). This is a motion caption animation where actors act out the movie and the computers translate it into animation. Seth Green (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Family Guy, Robot Chicken) acted as the lead child, but they brought in a child to voice it.

The story: A boy gets mad and wishes he didn't have a mom right when aliens come down and capture his mother. See, the martians don't have moms and they need them so they capture them from Earth but then kill them. Now the boy (who got onto the alien space ship), has to save his mom from the aliens.

Was it good?

No.

And the problem comes down to story. The whole reason the martians are stealing moms is because the matians have no maternal instinct so they need to steal moms to program nanny-bots to raise children. Huh? How does that make sense? And even moreso, is it even interesting? When you think of martians capturing humans does that really sound like a cool reason for them to be taking them? And then of course it turns out they used to have moms and then just gave it up or something. Which, of course, has nothing to do with the relationship the boy and his mom so it's almost like the real drama should be between the martians and maybe the boy shouldn't be the protagonist at all.

So...yeah. There's a lot I liked about the movie. Others have compained about the animation, but I actually liked it more than Pixar where the people look oddly plastic to me. And there are a lot of fun stuff. I like where the boy wishes he didn't have a mom and then his mom is stolen. That was a nice beat. However, most of the stuff that happens on Mars just wasn't interesting.

Normally, I would give it a rental rating because I did think the animation was cool, but really there are so many other better animation projects out there, you should just pass this and go to something better.

*** AVOID ***

THE BEAVER (2011) (a reivew)

THE BEAVER (2011) (a review)

This reteams Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster (who were in Maverick together). Jodie Foster also directed.

The story: Walter (Mel Gibson) is a chronically depressed man who is disconnected from his family and finally sick of it his wife (Jodie Foster) throws him out. Walter then finds a puppet that he puts on and begins to talk to him. He cedes control of his life to the puppet and the puppet begins to turn his life around. During this time his son, who has deep resentment toward him, begins a relationship with a girl who is the class valedictorian who is paying him to write her graduation speech. Everything gets better until people want him to put the puppet aside at which case the puppet decides it isn't going anywhere.

Was it good?

Um...yeah. It was good, but not great. It feels like a movie that wants to be a twisted AMERICAN BEAUTY, with a depressed, miserable family that finds a way to reinvent itself and find happiness. However, where A-B starts miserable, but gets happier and has moments of real honesty and a simple, powerful message -- if you are depressed just find someone to screw and you will be happy -- this movie keeps turning dark and obsessive and is lacking both the romantic optimism of A-B and those painfully honest moments that made that movie really connect with people.

There's still alot to like here. Mel Gibson gives a great performance. And for the first half most of the movie works. However, it's actually with the best moment of the second half (where the puppet claims to be alive!) that also signals when the movie becomes dark and violent that loses all the uplifting momentum it had built. The ending does find a positive moment, but it's too little too late. So while I wouldn't recommend it for theatrical, as a rental -- if you don't mind a movie that gets a little darker than most -- it's worth a watch.

**** RENTAL ****

THE ROMANTICS (2010) (a review)

THE ROMANTICS (2010) (a review)

Based on the novel of the same name by the same guy who wrote the screenplay and directed the film. Kind of a modern day BIG CHILL but with a wedding at the center of it instead of a death. Stars: Anna Paquin, Katie Holmes, Josh Dumel, Adam Brody, Malin Akerman, Dianna Argon, Elijah Wood.

The story: a group of close friends (well, the girls are clase at least) gather for a wedding which is complicated by the groom and the maid-of-honor having been in love. After a rehersal dinner that goes badly, the bride to be goes to her bed and the rest of them get drunk. The groom goes missing and they pair off to find him. Lots of talking and some fun playing around.

Was it good?

Not really. It was pretty boring to be honest. These movies need one of two things -- shock or honesty and this movie didn't shock and the honesty just didn't work.

I can see why it would attact such a strong cast -- there was a lot of good to it. A great idea, lots of potentially funny set pieces, all the characters got to do interesting things, and it didn't have robots or anything stupid like that. And it did have some honest moments. The confrontation between the gilted maid of honor and the groom who gilted her and started dating her best friend had some nice stuff in it. So why didn't it work? Two reasons: the cast and the director.

The cast, up and down, is wrong. Everything seems forced for them. None of them have that real feeling, that live-and-breath connection to the charcters, so when they are trying to say those honest moments, those moments that are supposed to connect and just floor the audience...they come off as being meh. And it isn't that the cast isn't game for it, but that connection just isn't there.

Which brings us to the director, or in this case the writer, adaptor and director since he did all three. Clearly he has a lot of talent. Like I said there is a lot of good stuff here. But he just doesn't seem to get how to translate what works on a page into working in real life. There is a way we read and interpret things in our head when we are reading a book or script and it is just fundamentally different than the way we watch and listen when we are watching a movie. He picked the wrong cast (talented though they might be) and just didn't get them where they needed to to make the scenes that had to work work.

Still it wasn't horrible. There will be some people that connect to it and really like it. If I were younger I might even give it a borderline recommend (rental), but since I'm over 30, I'm going to have to...

**** AVOID ***

BLOODWORTH (2010) (a review)

BLOODWORTH (2010) (a review)

One of those slow, depressing character movies that is supposed to be powerful because it reaches some human truth you can't get in Transformers. Adapted from the novel PROVINCES OF NIGHT by William Gay. Stars: Hilary Duff, Val Kilmer, and Kris Kristopherson.

The story: EF Bloodworth returns home after forty years. The three sons he left behind are angry and bitter, but he forms a friendship with his grandson, a naive but handsome man who falls in love with the daughter of a whore (played by Hilary Duff). Unfortunately it turns out she is already pregnant and everything begins to fall apart.

Was it good?

No. At least not to me. I sometimes like quiet character pieces, but this one just did nothing for me. The only interesting part was the relationship between the grandson and the girl, but even that doesn't have any depth to it. They go out. He's a nice guy, but then she's pregnant and he has to figure out what to do. Meanwhile the grandfather is killed. Um...okay.

I'd guess the book gets to go into a lot more with the characters, the sons dealing with the pain of the father having left them, the grandson falling for the girl and all the trapped and painful feelings the characters have to work through. None of that really came through for me.

Probably the biggest bright spot was Hilary Duff. I know a lot of people rip on her for her acting (and no, she isn't great), but in a movie where every other character acts in the same grim manner, she was a natural bright spot that helped the movie from drowning in monotony. It reminded me some of Amy Adams in JUNEBUG (although not as good).

Unfortunately, that isn't enough for me to recommend the film.

*** AVOID ***

PLAYING HOUSE (2011) (a review)

PLAYING HOUSE (2011) (a review)

A thriller by writer/dictor Tom Vaughn. This appears to be his directoral debut.

The story: newlyweds struggling with their mortgage ask a friend to move in and pay rent. He begins a romance with a woman who then sets her sights on his married best friend and the house.

Was it good?

No. There are some good parts and some good elements but there are a lot of things that sabotage the movie, and unfortunately for the actors two of the biggies are the writing and the editing, two things totally out of their control.

First, the writing. What a mess. The idea is basic enough, but they never get beyond it giving the movie a very cardboard-n0t-making-sense feel to it. The big motivation seems to be that the femme fatale wants a house (not a condo) and when she finds a guy who owns a house she is willing to kill for it. Really? She's never met a man who owns a house before? Is that really that hard to do? I could understand if it was the middle of Manhatten, but they are off in the suburbs -- everyone owns a house!

Now it would be more understandable if she fell in love with that specific guy or if they made it clear that she wanted that house and no other houses...but they don't. Also, if she's so coco for a house then why did she start dating the houseless friend in the first place?

Now, to give some credit, for a lot of the movie they make things interesting. The first half is less about house-crazy than about the relationship stuff. The friend seems to have a thing for the wife, the girl has a thing for the husband, the couple is fighting about stuff...will they won't they...there is a lot of entertainment to it. The problem is that many of those elements aren't well set up and there is almost no follow through for any of it, except for the girl wanting the husband, so you spend a lot of time bringing up questions (is the friend making a play for the wife, for instance) that just go nowhere and you realize were wastes of time.

Better (to me at least) would have been to pick exactly what the woman wants. Does she want that specific house? Does she want that specific husband? Maybe they both (the friend and the girl) want to switch (and go for the wife and the husband)? Either of those could have been a compelling movie if the story were really well structured around that concept. Instead we get bits and pieces of all three which are brought up and dropped at various places.

Of course, there are obvious comparisons to HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE and, unfortunately, this movie isn't in the same league. The story structure for that is head and shoulders above this one and one of the problems this movie has is that it feels like a poor man's rip off of a better movie. Just compare -- this movie has a woman who wants a man with a house and begins to seduce and kill for get him. HTRTC is about a woman whose husband commits suicide after being accused of sexually molesting a patient and then the women sets out to destroy the woman who made the accusation, taking away all the things she has lost -- her husband, her home, her baby.

The other thing that hurt the film was the editing. It was really bad. Where it's most noticable is in the arguement scenes. Normally a good editor will pre-roll or post-roll dialog to help tighten a scene and keep the tension up by eliminating a lot of the unnecessary pauses. This editor didn't do it. Because of it some of the scenes that are supposed to have the most tension become almost comic with these extra beats. It's may not seem like a huge thing (we're talking a fraction of a second), but in how a scene plays it ends up having a huge effect.

Still, for all the problems it wasn't a horrible film. If you feel like watching a poor-man's version of HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE, you could do worse. The real shame is that if they had just structured the movie better and gotten a better editor the movie might have been actually good instead of just not bad.

*** RENTAL ***

HORRIBLE BOSSES (2011) (a review)

HORRIBLE BOSSES (2011) (a review)

A black comedy starring Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell, Jamie Foxx.

The story: three guys hate their bosses and make an agreement to kill each other bosses. However, after doing some recon, one of the bosses kills one of the other bosses and now they the chief suspects in a police investigation and while trying to get the killer boss to admit to what he did they he now is after them to knock them off as well.

Was it good?

Not really. The problem is that the central idea -- these three guys wanting to commit murder -- just wasn't funny. The best parts are when the bosses are being abusive. The three main characters were annoying. So I wasn't rooting for the main guys and I wanting rooting for the bad guys and that means I was just kind of there.

That said it wasn't horrible. If you get into the concept or are a fan of any of the actors maybe you'd be able to get into it more than I did. The movie keeps moving and they work in plenty of jokes. I just wasn't into it. So for me I can't recommend paying theatrical money, but would tell people that are interested to check it out on video.

*** RENTAL ***

BAD TEACHER (2011) (a review)

BAD TEACHER (2011) (a review)

An R-rated comedy starring Cameron Diaz, and co-starring Justin Timberlake and Jason Segal.

The story: Elizabeth (Diaz) is a bad teach. Doesn't care about the students or teaching or any of it. She is on the verge of quitting her teaching job so she can get married to a super-rich guy and be set for life, but gets busted that she's just marrying for his money and the wedding gets called off. She decides she needs money for breast implants so she can attact a rich guy. Then she meets the new substitute teacher (Timberlake) who is both cute and rich. Now she will pursue him while trying to raise the money for implant, however he is kind of a dork and instead she will become attacted to another teacher (Segal) who is just as much of a jerk as she is.

Was it good?

Yeah. It was good. Lots of funny parts and it was nice to see a woman in an outrageous comedy for a change. But there were also a lot of things that didn't work which stopped it from being in the same class as movies like FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL.

First, the story doesn't really make sense. She wants implants to attact a guy, but the guy she is going after doesn't seem to care if she has them or not. So the implants are to attact a guy like that one who doesn't care if she has implants or not??? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

And of course the second half loses its funny as she begins to realize the rich guy isn't for her and the other guy is the one she likes. Yawn. One of the things about these irreverent characters is that they are fun when they are bad and once they stop they become boring. Luckily that when the movie ends, but it's more of a limp-to-the-finish ending than a great rousing finale.

The best parts are when Diaz gets to be bad. Let her rip on some kids, be crazy, be sexy, be bad. That's the fun parts and those (along with some good lines by the supporting cast) are what make the movie worth watching.

*** RECOMMEND ***

ARTHUR (2011 remake) (a review)

ARTHUR (2011 remake) (a review)

This is a remake of the classic Dudley Moore movie about a constantly drunk millionaire who is forced to choose between his money (and marrying a woman he doesn't love) or the woman he loves. This version stars Russell Brand in I believe his 1st starring role in a big American film after having small roles in movies like FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL and hosting the MTV awards and marrying Katy Perry.

The story: Arthur (Brand) is a child-like billionaire, who avoids work and responsibility and anything remotely not-silly or un-childlike. His mother wants the family to continue running their company and clearly he is incompetant for it, so she wants him to marry some corporate woman who will be able to take over. Arthur doesn't want to -- he doesn't like the woman although I believe he has already slept with her before -- but his mother threatens to cut him off financially so he agrees. And then he meets a woman he actually connects to and falls in love with her. That starts the central question -- love or money -- who will Arthur marry?

Was it good?

No. The biggest problem was Brand as Arthur. The weird silly child thing combined with the playboy sex addict just wasn't interested. And it just wasn't funny. I'm too tired to write more. There really just wasn't anything that worked for me here. There's this idea (I think) that some childhood trauma made him now reject the grown-up world and pursue childhood fantasy...except he doesn't really do that in any real way. He is childlike and they want to make it seem like he has more going on, but really he's just kind of a selfish dick. I mean, with his money -- if he wanted to pursue the childlike sense of wonder -- he could be entertaining children or doing children's theater or running a play group. In fact, a story where he is running an elementary school that emphasizes play and imagination but his mom wants him to take over the company would have been much more interested. Here, he's just a brat. And really not even love redeemed him of that.

*** AVOID ***

GREEN LANTERN (2011) (a review)

GREEN LANTERN (2011) (a review)

This is the big budget ($200M+) comic book adaptation. It's the first big superhero movie by DC that wasn't Superman or Batman. It starts Ryan Reynolds with Blake Lively as the girlfriend. Directed by Martin Campbell who directed Mask of Zorro and the sequel...which I never even knew existed before I just looked it up.

The story: Hal Jordan (Reynolds) is a test pilot who finds a crashed alien ship. Inside the ship, the alien gives him the Green Lantern ring which gives him the power to create anything he can imagine. However, he needs training so he goes off into space to learn about the Green Lantern Corps, a whole bunch of Green Lanterns from around the universe who fight evil, and to learn to not be afraid. Back on Earth, this other guy has been infected by a bad space alien and he has mutated into this weird dude and taken Jordan's girl hostage so he has to save him, but then an even bigger space alien appears and now Jordan has to fight this final alien that could destroy the world, and he has to do it without the help of the Green Lantern Corps who are worried that they will lose.

Was it good?

No.

It wasn't horrible-horrible, and I'm sure kids would like it, but as a movie that might also appeal to adults the way the Batman or Spider-Man or Iron Man or X-Men or even Thor did, it's really bad.

First, I didn't like Reynolds as the superhero. Reynolds, for me, is basically a smart ass. Which is fine for a comedy like THE PROPOSAL or his role in SCRUBS, but for this movie, where he occasionally has to give dramatic superhero lines at key moments...well, none of them worked for me.

Then there are a lot of things that didn't connect. Like Hal Jordan is a fearless fighter pilot. Then he gets the ring and suddenly he is afraid? How does that make sense? Or the whole idea of the Green Lanterns is to not give in to fear, but the reason why the Lanterns won't help Hal fight the big bad evil is because they are afraid of what will happen if they lose. Huh? Aren't they supposed to be the ones without fear?

I also didn't get the love story. I mean, they know each other and maybe used to be an item, but then aren't and why? Then he's a superhero so they are a couple again? Really? That's all there is to it?

The Marvel movies work when they take a person with an interesting problem (can't get the girl, manufacturing weapons, etc) and then find a way to externalize it into a superhero story. Here, I don't know what the story of Hal Jordan was supposed to be. It wasn't about not being afraid -- he wasn't afraid before! It's not about the girl. It's not about anything.

It's part of the reason why the movie, for all the action and special effects feels so hollow.

It's a shame. I was hoping to like this. I was hoping that DC had figured out how to make movies out of their characters so we could get a Flash movie and Wonder Woman and all the other cool DC characters. Instead, this looks like a huge step back for them.

Still, for kids it's good enough to see. For adults, if you are interested then you can wait until it's out in dvd.

**** RENTAL ****

SUPER 8 (2011) (a review)

SUPER 8 (2011) (a review)

The kids version of CLOVERFIELD. A modern ET. The sci-fi version of GOONIES. This movie is a bit of a hodgepodge of classic Spielberg from the 80's and modern day JJ Abrams. It's no surprise that is was directed by Abrams and executive produced by Spielberg.

The story: Four months after his mom is killed in an industrial accident, a boy and his friends witness a train crash while making a Super 8 movie. It wasn't an accident -- one of their teachers deliberately drove his car onto the tracks to make the train crash. The air force comes in to clean it up, but strange things begin to happen -- power outages and disappearing animals and electronics. The kids realize that something got off the train -- something alien -- and now they and the Air Force are trying to find it.

Was it good?

It was good. Almost very good. This is definitely a movie I'm recommending, but it was also frustrating because I kept feeling that it should have been better.

The story starts out both slow and strong, telling the story of these kids. A boy who lost his mother but now has a crush on the daughter of the man people blame for her death (he called in sick because he was drunk so she had to go into work the day she was killed). The group of kids who are outcasts who are making this movie. It's simple but has some wonderful stuff. In fact one of the best scenes happens before the first big thing -- the train accident.

Oddly enough, while the train crash is exciting, afterwards everything goes almost back to normal. For another 10 minutes there's no tension to the story. The biggest question is whether or not one boy will let his friend blow up his model train for the movie. During this there is some conflict with the Air Force who are hiding things and weird power outages and things going missing, but they always take a back seat to the kids.

The problem is that none of these elements really mesh and it feels like Abrams is trying to force all these elements together -- the big mystery...the Air Force hiding something from the father...the kids making a movie...the boy dealing with his mother's death -- but none of them really mesh.

Compare that to two of the movies SUPER 8 is going to be compared to:

CLOVERFIELD -- after a girl run out from a party, a guy finally admits that he loves her and goes to get her back, but a giant monster attacks New York City and now he has to run out to save her life. He will save her and they will be together, only to find out it is too late.

ET -- a boy who feels lonely and friendless finds and befriends an abandoned alien. The boy helps him get home, losing his new friend, but the adventure will bond him with other kids, thus gaining the friends he always wanted.

What you can see from both these movies is that they have a wonderful parallel -- the interior stories (man loves woman and wants to save a relationship, a lonely boy who wants a friend) and the exterior stories (man trying to save woman from monster, boy helping an alien get home).

This is what SUPER 8 lacks. I'm not really sure what the interior stories for these kids, and the main kid especially is supposed to be. It's kind of a love story, it's kind of him getting over his mother's death...these just isn't a strong central question for him. And similarly, I'm not sure what the big external question is either. Because Abrams tries to hide the monster for so long, it just doesn't seem important. Even when all the backstory is revealed, it just doesn't feel like it matters because we haven't been engaged with the monster at all. We don't know it. We don't like it. We don't fear it. It's just this weird thing in the background that suddenly everyone is acting like it is incredibly important.

Maybe this is Abram's downfall. The man is one of the best in the world at the use of mystery to engage the audience, but he it feels like he sacrifices story for mystery and it throws everything off. The big climatic third act feels more tacked on than a natural extention of the movie. And the lack of parallel between the inner emotions of the characters and their outer events surrounding them, make the ending feel less like a powerful moments, then just a rehash of a more (emotionally) successful Spielberg film.

Still, there are a lot of wonderful moments here. The kids themselves are fantastic and Abrams finds lots of small moments that are incribly satisfying. This is a movie where you definitely get your money's worth...but because the parts seem greater than the whole, you also might feel like the movie was disappointing compared to what it could have been.

Still, for all the good stuff in it I'm still going to give it a...

*** RECOMMEND ***