GANGS OF GOTHAM

The Dark Knight Raises (Questions it Can’t Answer)

Article by Steven Lewis

SPOILERS ABOUND

Coming over a month after its release, this piece should in no way be thought of as a “review” of “The Dark Knight Rises”. Everyone who’s gonna see that movie has already seen it (maybe not twice or three times yet, but seen it) and judgements have already been made. Overall, I think it would be fair to say that the popular response to this one has been a good deal more muted and less ecstatic than for “The Dark Knight” (or even for “The Avengers” earlier this summer). I’m reminded here, in fact, that seven years ago the popular response to “Batman Begins” was appreciative (and certainly profitable) but not overwhelming. Perhaps in years to come, once we’ve gotten a little more distance on it, the entire Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy will be thought of in the public mind less as an entire piece, and more along the lines of “The one with Heath Ledger in it as Joker, and the other two.”

Mr. Ledger’s presence certainly hangs over this series in a way that is more potent and powerful than any other one-off character I can think of in any other multi-part saga. Expectations were raised so high for this movie largely on the audience’s supposition that “Well, hell – if that’s the villain they came up with for the middle story of this series, think how epic the final, bring-down-the-curtains bad guy is going to be!”

Didn’t happen. I don’t think there can be any debate about that. No matter what your feelings about the latest movie are, the idea that Bane (or Ra’s al-Ghoul’s daughter for that matter) is in any way as sinister or as memorable as The Joker is just not a claim I see being made by anyone.

Personally, I enjoyed the latest movie more than I enjoyed “The Dark Knight” – but then, I was never one of TDK’s biggest supporters anyway. I found it overwrought and self-important – a movie seemingly embarrassed to be about a superhero, and so it aimed to be a re-make of “Heat” instead (during the first part), and then finally a Statement On The Human Condition. Hmmm. . . pretentious, much? Also, Mr. Ledger’s brilliantly creepy performance notwithstanding, I didn’t find The Joker to be that well-conceived a character: a bad guy who was simply bad for bad’s sake, but who the filmmakers sought to imbue with greater importance and profundity by using his random acts of badness to make some larger point about. . . I don’t know, the very notion of randomness, I guess. Something like that, anyway.

I knew, of course, that with the runaway success of that movie, Christopher Nolan was going to feel emboldened to up his game. And so indeed he has. Whereas “The Dark Knight” wanted to re-do “Heat”, “The Dark Knight Rises” attempts, finally, to be “Gangs of New York” in superhero garb. I mean really! An urban revolution plopped dead center in the middle of a caped crusader film? If it was anyone else but Nolan I wouldn’t have believed it.

But at least I was ready for it. Over the course of three movies, this particular writer-director has instructed me in his visual and thematic terrain, and I know now that a certain level of Armageddon is just how the guy rolls. Within that structure, I found the action to be much more involving and well-choreographed than the other films, with a strong and sympathetic cast of lead characters. In fact, somewhat amazingly, though the Dark Knight is the title character, the movie is truly an ensemble piece, and it’s just as much about Commisioner Gordon, and Selina Kyle (a very fun performance from Anne Hathaway), and that new character played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who was awesome, by the way – when he was introduced at the beginning I wasn’t expecting to like him or welcome his presence, but I totally did) – their struggles and catharses, just as much as it is about our boy Bruce Wayne. I thought that was a very brave conception, and very adroitly handled.

[Oh and, almost incidentally, I think the movie definitely represents the best use of the "Our hero's missing, where has he gone to?" trope. Yes, Batman seemingly abandons Gotham in its hour of greatest need. But why? Is he canoodling with Lois Lane in the Fortress of Solitude? Does he give up his powers so that he can be with Mary Jane? No. HE'S STUCK IN A FUCKING HELLHOLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT WITH HIS GODDAMNED BACK BROKEN!! So take a chill, citizenry - he's making his way back to you just as quickly as he can. And of course those sequences of Bruce struggling to "rise" out of his place of captivity are among the most stirring in the film. Exceptionally well done.]

What isn’t so well done – and which frankly threatens to sink this film into insignificance once the initial appreciation of its technical virtues wears off – are the revelations housed in the final act. I’m thinking of two major things here, and they both strike me as being deeply discordant:

1) The film really muffles its villain(s)’s Master Plan – and to the point of clouding and watering down whatever dramatic resonance it has. Think about it: if the intention from the beginning is simply to blow up Gotham – then why the hell don’t they just BLOW UP GOTHAM?! Why stage this bogus “uprising” of the criminals and the lower classes in order to do it? (I mean really, decimating a football stadium where a whole bunch of Gotham’s inhabitants are, only to tell them “Hey, we’re giving the city back to YOU!” – that’s not exactly the most hospitable way of getting their attention, is it?)

But the bigger question is this: at what point in their story conception did the filmmakers cop out and make the class warfare uprising NOT what the whole plan was about? What a different movie it would be (would it not?) if Bane really was a social revolutionary, and wanted the 99%-ers of Gotham to rise up against their overlords? What a fascinating rock and a hard place to put Batman between – and not just Batman, but all the “good guys” of our tale (Gordon, Lucius Fox, the Joseph Gordon-Levitt character, etc.). To be on the side of “law and order” they’d have to come to the rescue of the greedy fat cats, and work to quash the people’s uprising. Maybe in such a scenario, one of the “good” guys would even wind up defecting to the other side (maybe the Gordon-Levitt character – hell, maybe Commissioner Gordon himself, who has reached critical mass in his disgust at the hypocrisy of holding up Harvey Dent as a model of law and order). Moral gray areas would abound all over the place! Which is supposedly what Christopher Nolan wants for this entire series. It’s how he’s staking his claim to be different from all those other simplistic, one-dimensional superhero tales out there. Guess not, huh?

I mean, I have no idea how you’d satisfactorily resolve such a dilemma for our friendly neighborhood Dark Knight, but by raising the spectre of justified urban rebellion, then backing off into a pose of “no, the villains are really pure bad guys who are only using the rhetoric of class warfare to further their aims” – well, you’ve pretty much pegged yourself as someone who likes to play with big themes, but who actually has no true thoughts on the matter.

2) The “death” of Batman is handled very poorly. A considerable degree of frisson coming into this movie was generated by the knowledge that this was indeed “it” – the final installment. No new chapters in this particular saga would follow. This left room for the contemplation that truly ultimate and terminal things could happen – to anyone! . . . Yes, even our hero.

Well, they sure muffed that one.

Oh sure, we got to see that oh so poignant final shot of Michael Caine espying Bruce Wayne from afar across the open-air cafe in Italy and say to ourselves “Hey – look, it’s like that image they showed us at the beginning of the movie. You know, when they were detailing Alfred’s dream of ultimate happiness for his beloved Master Bruce? Well it came true! And we’ve got the matching shot to prove it. I’ll be damned! Those genius filmmakers and their impressive use of visual foreshadowing – what ever will they think up next?!”

Unfortunately, that “beautiful” shot totally cuts the balls off of Bruce Wayne as a character – and makes us retroactively not care about his entire story.

I mean, if Bruce has always been about fixing up Gotham and being there for his city, why would he fake his death so that he can run away with Selina to cavort in the Mediterranean in perpetuity? By so doing, he becomes precisely the type of idle rich (that we were always on his side because) he resolutely wasn’t (and the type, incidentally, who Bane would have had it in for – that is, if his character had actually had any credibility!) And how exactly is Bruce Wayne living now – what’s he living on? It was established earlier in the movie that his life savings were totally wiped out in the Bane-influenced crash of Wall Street. Are he and Selina simply robbing and fencing their way through Europe? (An interesting idea for a separate movie, of course – but not one about Bruce FUCKING Wayne!)

Wouldn’t the obvious thing to have done be to either: A) Have Bruce/Batman really and truly die transporting that nuke over Gotham River [and then maybe have the Alfred scene still be there, but make it clear that he only has a hallucination or dream vision of seeing Bruce -- he rubs his eyes, looks again, and realizes it is a completely different person] . . . or else B) Have it so that Bruce successfully ejected himself from the plane, but keep that a secret and maintain the illusion that “Batman” died in saving the city. So then it’s no more Batman, that identity gets permanently retired – but Bruce Wayne himself is still alive and kicking (further throwing anyone off the scent that he was ever Batman in the first place) and is now set to do all he can AS HIMSELF to help Gotham in its rebuilding.

Either option would have been a better way to resolve it than they did. Instead they opted for the “having their cake and eating it too” approach of making the audience experience and expect tragedy, only to reveal triumph in the end – and a promise too (through the final shot of the Joseph Gordon-Levitt character) of the continuation of the Batman and his mythology. I thought your superhero trilogy was supposed to be above that kind of cliche crap, Christopher. Guess not, huh?

But hey – that Heath Ledger was really something as The Joker! Right?

ON TARGET

Brave

***

Review by Paul Preston

“Brave” is being marketed as “From the people who brought you “Wall-E”, “Toy Story 3” and “Up””, they’re making specific effort to let you know that this will be aligned with only the highest pedigree of Pixar release. You won’t hear “Brave” as coming “From the folks what brung you “Cars 2””, the studio’s only stumble in thirteen movies. It’s good to know that some of Hollywood’s best filmmakers can pick themselves up and dust themselves off so quickly.

“Brave” tells the story of the Scottish Princess Merida, who has a thirst for independence from her parents, King Fergus, and Queen Elinor, who are forcing her into marriage with one of the many colorful dopes that inhabit funny, fantasy Scotland. They also want her to act more “princess-y” and be demure, and all she wants is to sword fight and run through the woods on here horse, practicing her archery.

Anyway, Merida’s desire to live her own life leads her to the woods and there’s magic in the woods! ‘Cause…isn’t there always? A witch who lives in the forest conjures up a spell that will change Queen Elinor’s attitude towards Merida conforming to the ideal concept of a princess. So she takes the spell back to the castle and…well, here’s where the whole story becomes very…Pixary, which is a good thing.

Up to now my plot description has been pretty routine. This story is the tried and true formula of Pixar’s parent company Disney – disgruntled princess who doesn’t want her suitors (Jasmine), wants more than this provincial life (Belle), under the thumb of an overbearing parent (Ariel). But take the conventional Disney princess tale and put it in the hands of the best filmmakers out there (Pixar) and the results aren’t necessarily fresh, but they’re handled very well.

But once the spell takes hold, the whole story changes, and becomes something truly original, and takes a turn not alluded to at all in the trailers. So, quick tip, do yourself a favor and don’t read or listen to any other reviews that may give away what up till now has been kept secret by the marketing campaign. I guess they figure Pixar’s first female heroine, a teen longing for freedom from tradition would be enough to get everyone to see the film, they could keep everything else secret, and that works to the film’s benefit.

Pixar has set it’s own bar so very high, that it’s a little disappointing for them to do anything that’s routine. I mean think of the plot of “Up” – has there EVER been anything made like that movie EVER? “Ratatouille”? So if it feels like you’ve seen it before, hold out until half way through when Merida invokes the spell on her parents. That’s when real danger, outlandish comedy and original action scenes develop that are nothing you’ve seen before.

There’s great voice talent on display here – Emma Thompson as the Queen, Kelly MacDonald as Merida and Billy Connolly and Craig Ferguson are easily cast as Scottish guys.

The film handles its mother-daughter relationship intelligently, it’s the core of the movie. Merida and The Queen have a challenging, complicated relationship, but Merida isn’t without flaws and doesn’t always make the best decisions, which is also a mixed bag ‘cause you want to root for her, but she’s often covering up her mistakes, yet, you have to admire her passion. And at least, here is a spoiler alert, she’s not sitting around waiting for a GUY to come and save her. At least that part seems handily updated.

Throughout, the animation is stellar, as you would come to expect. Even just Merida’s hair alone should get some special Oscar.

This one doesn’t quite hit the bullseye, but it certainly washes the taste of “Cars 2” out of your mouth.

Directed by: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman & Steve Purcell
Release Date: June 22, 2012
Run Time: 93 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG
Distributor: Pixar Animation Studios

OFFICIAL TRAILER

The Movie Guys bring you original videos about nothing but movies, movies, movies. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

PIRANHA 3DD – THE MOVIE GUYS’ TRAILER BREAKDOWN

PIRANHA 3DD, the new comedy/horror/thriller film, gets a thorough once-over from Movie Guy Paul Preston, Lee Kias and special guest Shelly Martinez. Quick, sharp and funny, we’ll tell you what it’s all about.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

SNOW WHITE AND WHATEVER

Snow White and the Huntsman

**1/2

Review by Paul Preston

A couple of months ago, my wife Karen sang the praises of “Mirror Mirror” as a funny fairy tale romp in and out of the woods with funny Nathan Lane, funny Armie Hammer and funny Julia Roberts hamming it up. I think it’s safe to say Karen would not like “Snow White and the Huntsman”, where serious Kristen Stewart, serious Charlize Theron and serious Chris Hemsworth serious their way through the Dark Forest. This is not unlike last year’s “Red Riding Hood”, another fairy tale serious-ed up for the “Twilight” audience.

Disney has ingrained in our heads this light and frothy, sing-songy Snow White tale, but this film is more in line with the original Grimm’s fairy tale that I’ve never read. The Evil Queen is actually Snow White’s stepmom. All this time, I thought Snow White needed a prince to wake her from her sleep, but turns out SHE’S royalty, a princess with a new mom to hate on. The Queen has to literally suck the life out of young girls to maintain her beauty and youthfulness, all the while conquering the fantasy land of Wherever with her army of soldiers made of shattered glass. Seriously.

Did you know in the in the original Grimm story, when the Queen is vanquished, she is forced to wear heated iron shoes and dance until she drops dead? Yeah, not here, when we could instead have an action scene with special effects! I think that’s the gotcha scene when the kids are asked by their parents if they read the book, when in fact, they only saw this.

There’s a lot of whatever going on in this movie. The evil Queen kinda shouts her powers out as she goes along. “I can do this! But I can’t do this”, etc. Whatever. The Magic Mirror she talks to walks around while they have a conversation, looking like the T-1000 in “Terminator 2”. Seems like a special effect to do just cause they can. Whatever. There are eight dwarves. Whatever. And to the notion that Kristen Stewart’s Snow White would ever be fairer or hotter than Charlize Theron – WHATEVER.

The dwarves are played by an all-star cast of British character actors – Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Eddie Marsan, Nick Frost, many of them speaking a nearly-unintelligible thick British/Cockney/Scottish mix. But sadly, the great Bob Hoskins can’t save his character, a blind dwarf whose job it is to say stuffy movie lines with a straight face like “She’s the One” and “This Cannot Be”. That’s kind of the problem with the script overall. It’s an interesting concept to see the original world the Brothers’ Grimm imagined up on the screen, but it’s coupled with dialogue that’s not very special and devoid of any real charisma. Kristen Stewart has a rather by-the-numbers army-rallying speech that doesn’t help with her stuck-in-“Twilight” delivery. In contrast, Theron has a blast being evil and twisted and somewhat tortured, too. There’s also a great archer in the film, which is all the rage – “The Hunger Games”, “The Avengers” and the upcoming “Brave” – archers are the new meteor-headed-towards-earth, everybody’s doing it.

I’m always a fan of a movie taking itself seriously, and not goofing around. I’ll take “Casino Royale” with Daniel Craig over any of the late Roger Moore James Bond films. But this one may have gone too serious. There is an abundance of slow motion photography to remind you of the prestigiousness of the battle you’re watching.

Surprisingly, this is NOT in 3D. Anytime I hear now that a film will take place in a “magical world”, I’m ready for that world to come tumbling into my lap, but not in this case.

I sat through the end credits, and with all the locations and special effects on display, the credits go on for quite some time, but in the end it’s A LOT of credits to a make a movie that’s OK. Whatever.

Directed by: Rupert Sanders
Release Date: June 1, 2012
Run Time: 127 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Universal Studios

OFFICIAL TRAILER

The Movie Guys bring you original videos about nothing but movies, movies, movies. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

TRAILERS FOR THE BLIND – “SAFE”

The Movie Guys aren’t just about goofing around, we also provide a service. Evidenced in each month’s “Trailers for the Blind” segment, this month focusing on the Jason Statham action film “Safe”.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

Excited about upcoming movies? You will be. Or, you’ll be frustrated by how much trailers give away. Either way, they’re all here for your enjoyment.

As ever, we recommend our WEEKLY MOVIE PREVIEW to tell you the real deal about every weekend’s releases. Plus, we’re funnier.

BERNIE (opening 4/27/12)

THE BROKEN TOWER (opening 4/27/12)

GET THE GRINGO (opening 5/1/12)

HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET (opening 9/21/12)

JESUS HENRY CHRIST (opening 4/20/12)

KATY PERRY: PART OF ME 3D (opening 7/5/12)

LOOPER (opening 9/28/12)

PIRANHA 3DD (opening 6/1/12)

RISE OF THE GUARDIANS (opening 11/21/12)

THAT’S MY BOY (opening 6/15/12)

The Movie Guys bring you original videos about nothing but movies, movies, movies. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

MIRROR MIRROR – THE MOVIE GUYS’ 2-MINUTE TRAILER BREAKDOWN

MIRROR MIRROR, the new Julia Roberts fantasy film, gets a thorough once over from Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe. Quick, sharp and funny, we’ll tell you what it’s all about. In and out, nobody gets hurt.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

The Movie Guys LIVE!

Couldn’t make the latest Movie Guys show in Hollywood, CA? Check out exclusive clips here and be sure to make the next show at The Second City Hollywood, the 1st Thursday of every month. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

“THE LORAX” PREVIEW

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, March 2012, Movie Guys Paul & Karen preview the movie “Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax” while trying not to break rhyme.
Inspired by the March 2012 movie “Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax”

AN OPEN LETTER TO ANDREW STANTON

John Carter

***1/2

Review by Mark Tucci

Dear Andrew Stanton,

It amazes me how much pre-release hoopla has been made over your new movie JOHN CARTER, and not in a good way. For all the negative articles that littered the internet, I would have thought you had waltzed into Disney studios with heavy firearms and held key studio executives for ransom.

Why else would so much negative ink be spilled regarding your passion-project had you not somehow duped one of the largest movie studios in Hollywood into giving you $250 million dollars to make a movie that’s been languishing in development hell for the better half of 75 years, and then failed to deliver the typical, bombastic, over-the-top, plot-devoid, idiotic, 2-hour toy commercial / happy-meal tie-in for a safe, familiar product?

Was it too much for these reviewers and audiences not to be treated to the typical popcorn movie fare they’ve come to expect lately? Have we fallen that far as a movie-going society that everything we see must fall into that same bucket of expectations, and when we’re suddenly treated to something different and out-of-the-ordinary, we rebel against it and secretly hope for it to fail? Is it job security? Do the risk-averse studios fear they might have to change their green-light policies if something not based on a known property is somehow successful? Ah well, better to pan it beforehand then, lest we’re proven wrong.

My condolences to you, Andrew, and the rest of the audience members like me, who long to see great throwback spectacles like JOHN CARTER. If the early returns are any indication, the negative press and botched marketing campaign may have condemned us to the realm of wishful thinking, should we hope to see something so wondrous and original ever again. Instead, we’ll be cursed to endure more lack-luster creations based on board games, children’s toys, bad teen novels and increasingly obscure comic heroes. Memorable characters will take a back seat to more explosions and wiz-bang effects, and any semblances of narrative will seem like it was spit out of a random story-generating computer.

That most reviewers complained of getting lost in the details of JOHN CARTER’S plot is testament to the fact that movie-going audiences are getting ever more stupid. Having read this complaint on many a review, I was prepared for a confusing mess. What I witnessed, however, was far from that. I saw a science fiction movie that was both rich in detail and layered with plot. Did I see the same film so many others said they couldn’t follow? Was I biased and/or better informed having read the books as a kid? I asked my wife, who also saw the film and had no familiarity with the 100-year-old source material. She followed the story just fine, and couldn’t understand where that negative thread had come from. It bothers me that this has become a frequent complaint with your movie, Andrew. I fear it will only further relegate movies toward the lowest, most simplistic form of story structure, or eschew it altogether in favor of a higher effects budget. Indeed, one need only look at some of the more recent big-budget summer movies to see this is already becoming a trend. Really, how hard was it to understand this film people? I know the trailers made it look like a mindless action flick, but it’s not. I’m sorry you couldn’t waltz in 10-minutes late with your face full of popcorn and your butter-stained fingers endlessly fumbling over your cell phone, and not be able to figure out what’s going on. It’s called attention. If you pay it, you’ll get it.

I know I used the word “original” up there earlier. I can already see the Steves and Kathys of the world pig-headishly objecting to that, falling all over themselves to scroll down to the comments section to voice their complaint. I’m sure they’ve skipped on down, not even bothering to read the rest of this, but I wanted to thank you, Andrew, for taking the time to realize something original on the big screen. Going to see JOHN CARTER is like seeing history. It’s original in that it allows moviegoers the chance to see the origins of just about everything they’ve come to love in pop culture over the past 100 years. Upon the dusty plains of Barsoom we get to see the birth of Superman. We understand the lineage to Flash Gordon, and we see the inspiration for “Star Wars”. That these characters and movies have all borrowed heavily upon your source material for decades shouldn’t deter anyone from seeing it. It doesn’t make it any less enjoyable, and it certainly doesn’t deserve the vitriol of uniformed bloggers and dismissive reviewers who fail to appreciate the historical value and connections your movie’s main character has to the very things they often hold it up against. JOHN CARTER is the true “Star Wars” prequel – by definition and by principle. Without him, there could be no “Star Wars” fanboys to endlessly argue JOHN CARTER’S derivative nature (do you see the irony there?) It’s also original in that this is a world we’re seeing for the very first time. Most of today’s movie-going audiences will not have read the books. They’ll have no idea or anticipation as to what the world of Barsoom holds. Everything must be created and built up from scratch. That’s both a tall and challenging order. I can’t imagine how difficult it must have been for you, Andrew, to convince Disney to move forward with a project that many viewers would undoubtedly not be familiar with. It has none of the built-in audience and pre-sold expectations most other films have these days. There are no toy tie-ins, no video-game tie-ins, no rabid teen fanbase, no former TV show ties, and no big name marquee movie stars, just a 100-year old series of pulp novels and a few lost comic books from the 1970s. The fact you were able to get it made at all, much less to the degree that you did, speaks volumes.

“Big deal, the same thing can be said about “Avatar”,” Kathy says. To which I must point back to the fact that Edgar Rice Burroughs’ JOHN CARTER also heavily influenced “Avatar”. Again, without JOHN CARTER, there would be no “Avatar”. Show a little respect and appreciation for history. Like “Avatar” and “Star Wars”, JOHN CARTER brings to life many new creatures, characters and settings that simply weren’t technically possible to achieve even a few short years ago. Barsoom is a fully realized environment. And while JOHN CARTER might not have delved as deeply into the culture or the flora/fauna like “Avatar” did for Pandora, it’s still a wondrously imaginative place. Again, that comparison doesn’t make the experience of this movie any less enjoyable.

“Yeah, but so what? All this rhetoric doesn’t make it a good movie,” Steve says. “I read the reviews. Most of them said the movie sucked.” Well, I saw your movie, Andrew, and I disagree. Maybe I saw something different than everybody else, but I liked what I saw.

I liked that you took your time with the story and the characters. I liked that you spent time in 1800s New York and Arizona providing insight and background into the main character before getting us to Barsoom. I loved the Tharks and the incredible job you did pulling them off. George Lucas should take a serious lesson from you. You’ve managed to create some incredibly detailed and believable characters with the likes of Tars Tarkas, Sola and Woola. If Jar Jar Binks even dreamt of being half as realized and likeable as Woola was, he should wake up and delete himself.

I liked that you used real sets on real locations and didn’t shoot everyone in front of a giant green screen (another lesson George should learn from you). I loved how you were able to seamlessly integrate all those CGI characters into those real-world locations and make them look like they belonged there. Sure, we’ve seen it tried before, but I don’t think ever done this well. Yeah, “Avatar” did a great job, but in Pandora everything was CGI with the real-world elements composited in. You went the opposite way, which managed to make everything look that much more real.

I liked the fact that Dejah Thoris wasn’t afraid to get her hands dirty and wasn’t the typical whiny damsel you so often see in these movies. I really liked the music, too. Michael Giacchino’s score evokes the same wonder and excitement of the great swashbuckling Hollywood adventure films of yesteryear. The great white ape and Warhoon battle scenes were fantastic, but above all, I really liked the ending. For once we’re not treated to the typical Hollywood ending we all see coming a mile away. For once the ending of a movie actually works. For once we have a film that perfectly closes the loop on itself in a way that is both emotionally satisfying and credible, and not at all forced, obvious or overblown like so many other movies we see. It may not be the ending that everyone wants, but it works perfectly.

“You’re just biased because you’re a fan. We all know you loved the books and have been waiting for this movie for years,” Steve retorts. That’s true. Like you, Andrew, I’ve been waiting for this movie for a long time. And though you did an excellent job realizing this incredible world on the big screen, it wasn’t a perfect film. But who says it has to be perfect for you to enjoy it? What movie is ever perfect? Yeah, some of the dialogue and exposition is a little stilted, but come on; it’s way better than anything in “Phantom Menace” and that didn’t stop people from seeing it. Besides, I can’t displace the fact that it’s based on pulp fiction novels from the early 1900s. You can’t be true to that kind of source material that old and not come off sounding a little silly. That’s what gives this movie a lot of its charm. You know, I’ll often hear viewers scoff at critics who’ve given bad reviews to movies they want to see. “So what,” they say. “I don’t go to the movies to think or to be blown away by powerful acting and a well-written script, I go to be blown away by the spectacle of it. I go to be entertained.” Well, if only measured by those small standards, Andrew, your movie succeeds quite admirably. This is a highly entertaining film. Why then are so many people buying into this bad buzz and avoiding it? Could it be the marketing, perhaps?

Actually, the biggest complaint I have about your movie is its marketing (big surprise, huh?) I could lament about the campaign for pages on end, but I won’t. Anyone who sets their expectations based on those trailers has no idea what they’re in for. Summarily, those bloggers and reporters out there whose reviews were written based on those expectations missed the finer points of this movie as well. The film has some real heart to it. There are some wonderful moments of humor and also of loss. There’s excitement, but also sadness. There are fantastic battles but also great romance. That the marketers saw fit to excise any hint of the romantic nature of this film bewilders me, especially coming from Disney. For dog’s sake, this movie fits Disney’s MO perfectly: there’s a beautiful princess who has a father but no mother. She’s strong willed and opinionated. She refuses to wed the man her father promised her to. She runs away and falls in love with a scrappy newcomer / commoner. And it’s all based on a novel called “A Princess of Mars”. I can’t see how or why they overlooked that, and they’ve managed to do your film a disservice by only targeting it toward 17 year-old boys. With all those comparisons being done to “Star Wars”, I’m surprised no-one’s made the connection to “Aladdin”.

Regardless, what you managed to pull off though is about the best I could ever have hoped to expect. There were a million different ways this could have been done wrong, but you somehow managed to make it work. Even for a live-action film released under the Disney brand (something I’m always wary of) it managed to satisfy me. It doesn’t feel like a 2012 movie. Sure it’s got all the bells and whistles of one: plenty of CGI special effects and it’s in 3D and all, but watching this movie made me feel like I was back watching some of the more memorable movies of my youth. JOHN CARTER is a great throwback to films like Planet of the Apes (the original 1968 version) and Spartacus (the 1962 film). Indeed, it certainly evokes the feel of both those films, with a little bit of “Lawrence of Arabia”, a pinch of “Flash Gordon” and even “Clash of the Titans” (again, the original 1981 version) thrown in as well. You just don’t see films like that getting made very often anymore.

I must say that I am disappointed by the reception and the general reviews your movie is getting, Andrew. I think it deserves better. I was only a few years younger than you were when I first discovered the Martian tales of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Like you, I have fond memories of these books as a kid, and sat up many nights reading about the adventures of John Carter and the incredible beasts of Barsoom. I’ve followed the lengthy saga this movie has taken to the big screen, and I’m hopeful we’ll get to return to Barsoom again in future films. But it seems like everyone out there is hoping this movie will fail. My wife warned me not to get my hopes up too high because she didn’t want me to be disappointed if it wasn’t successful. But after reading a number of interviews with you, Andrew, I came to the realization that it didn’t matter to me if the movie was a hit or not. It didn’t matter if it would spawn additional sequels or spur new generations of readers into becoming fans. It didn’t matter if there weren’t Thark action figures or video games or countless other merchandise intrusions into popular culture. What ultimately mattered to me was after 30 years of waiting, someone like you got this movie made, and I finally got to see it. There may not be another, but I enjoyed this one. It lived up to my expectations as a fan and as a moviegoer. While the lightsaber fetishists might disagree, I think it was better than any of the Star Wars prequels, and certainly better than most of the similar slam-bang action extravaganzas I’ve seen recently. If that’s not true for anyone else, then I guess I must ultimately thank you, Andrew Stanton, for making this movie just for me. I think it was money well spent.

Directed by: Andrew Stanton
Release Date: March 9, 2010
Run Time: 132 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

OSCAR RANT 2012

(Honoring the films of 2011)

Rant by Paul Preston

“I think I can safely say that despite the quality of some of the year’s best movies, it was not a great year”.

This is the sentence I used to start last year’s Oscar Rant, referencing the films of 2010. So…it suitably starts this year’s rant as well. Things haven’t gotten better. I remember specifically, in the middle of the summer, I was awaiting all the great summer movies that were going to come out. Sad thing is, they already had, and I was moving into a latter-half of the summer with the only bright spot being “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”.

Same thing happened at Christmas. Usually, by year’s end I get excited to see all the award-worthy films as they expand to more theaters in January. This year, I had already seen everything by December 31st, and I was not impressed. I had not felt like I was in the throws of holiday movie-time. I suppose we can only take solace in the fact that the third installment of the “Alvin & The Chipmunks” franchise only made half of what the other films did…

Did I mention bright spots? Let’s talk about ‘em. My list of the Top 10 Films of 2011:

10. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS – This is the kind of year it’s been. The “prestige projects” on the whole were so underwhelming, they’ve left room in the Top 10 for a summer action movie. But “X-Men: First Class” is a very deftly-handled period actioner beefed up with great actors. This film could easily have been Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens-ed, but, wisely, the producers used the talents of Oscar nominee Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult (“A Single Man”) as young mutants coming under the wing of Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr. This is another film in a phenomenal year for Michael Fassbender, who really shines as Erik, the young Magneto. Kevin Bacon also steps up for one of his best performances in years, showing what can happen when you throw him a substantial role. Politics, teen angst, and ambitious action sequences all get thrown into a mix held together well by director Matthew Vaughn.

9. PUSS IN BOOTS – Why shouldn’t the film I’d pick for Best Animated Film also be one of the best overall films of the year? Pixar, up till 2011, was batting .1000. All the while, DreamWorks Animation had been improving their game slowly and steadily. They’ve delivered a real winner the year Pixar stumbled with “Cars 2”. “Puss in Boots” is anchored by the best script yet of the “Shrek” universe films, and it certainly ranks among the funniest films of the year, if not the funniest, as we follow a pre-“Shrek” Puss as he attempts to clear his name over crimes he didn’t commit. Antonio Banderas’ hilarious gravitas-laden voice-over carries a light and nimble plot, happily devoid of a slew of modern references. The action scenes are well-imagined and the animation is very impressive, even (gulp) the 3D.
Click here for a full-length review.

8. MY WEEK WITH MARILYN – There’s an interesting story here about an A.D. working on the production of “The Prince and the Showgirl” who had a flirtatious affair with Marilyn Monroe. But once things get going on the set, that’s where my interest was really peaked. Pill-popping head case Monroe annoys the SHIT out of Laurence Olivier, and it is entertaining as HELL! Kenneth Branagh’s slow burn as Sir Larry is priceless, and Michelle Williams’ portrayal of Monroe is in every way deserving of its Oscar nomination.

7. RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES – Saw this one twice. Here’s a summer movie that proves that if you bring the brains, the audience will follow. I’m tired of origin films (we really need to see how Spider-Man was created AGAIN?), plus I get tired of overuse of CGI characters, so for this film to work on me was quite a surprise. WETA Digital proves they are some of the best in the business, creating ALL the apes in this movie, who grow weary of their mistreatment by humans and, thanks to drug experiments, gain the wherewithal to fight back. If you’re having Andy Serkis fatigue because he is used nearly EVERY time motion capture is required, keep watching him. They keep using him ‘cause he’s the best in the business. His portrayal of Caesar is so expressive, he’s the film’s best actor. And the end credits are a stroke of genius.
Click here for a full-length review.

6. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS – There’s something on display here for every kind of Woody Allen fan. Do you love wacky Woody? It’s in there. Heady, literate Woody? It’s in there, along with his recent passion for Europe and the usual top-notch production team you’re used to seeing in a Woody Allen film. Owen Wilson is at his charming best as a Hollywood writer visiting Paris who magically is transported to the 1920s, where he meets his literary and artistic heroes. There are loads of laughs as Wilson is tempted with an affair and he can’t explain what’s happening to him when he’s dumped back in present day. No surprise this is Woody’s highest grossing movie in twenty-five years, it’s easily his most widely appealing in that amount of time, too.

5. MONEYBALL – As an L.A. Angels fan, I can get behind any movie about an MLB team owner who has to do everything he can to combat the N.Y. Yankee’s inflated budget. You can’t deny The Evil Empire their desire to win, the real problem is Major League Baseball’s desperate need of a salary cap. “Moneyball”’s brilliant writers Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian (two of the BEST out there) have expertly adapted Billy Beane’s book about putting a competitive team together in an unusual way. They, with director Bennett Miller, have made “Moneyball” very satisfying for the baseball enthusiast as well as understandable and exciting for someone who doesn’t follow the sport regularly. Anchored by a making-it-look-so-easy-he-can’t-possibly-be-acting lead performance by Brad Pitt, the film is adept at comedy and drama, but also gets very engrossing as a dramatic, suspenseful sports movie when Oakland starts playing well. And as an Angels fan, I loved the ending.

4. 50/50 – Yes, the cancer comedy is THAT GOOD. I think Seth Rogen’s been nothing but hilarious for six or seven years now, but he’s acquired this bad rap, probably due to overexposure. As a producer, he wisely never creates projects beyond his capabilities. Remember “The Green Hornet”? (Think hard) Rogen was a hero, but wasn’t a bad-ass bad-guy-whalloping machine. He left the heavy lifting to Kato and smartly did what he’s good at. Strange comparison to “50/50”, which is leagues better and nothing like “The Green Hornet”, but here’s another case where Rogen never tries to fool you into thinking that this film about a twenty-something journalist in Seattle faced with a harsh cancer is the drama to end all dramas. The script is still a stoner comedy, but there’s a convincing humanity at the heart here, delivered with style by director Jonathan Levine.

3. THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO – Gotta admit I never read the book or saw the Swedish film adaptations before this, and I was blown away. Story carries the day here, and the timing couldn’t be better for Fincher to direct, because his keen eye and dazzling production value really build a tone, but he also seems to have moved past any show-off moves that littered a film like “Panic Room”, and he lets the story rise to the top. And what a story! A self-proclaimed insane goth-lesbian computer hacker teams with a journalist to investigate forty-year-old murder mystery in a story of rape, torture, fear and Nazis. Sign me up! The film wisely doesn’t update the Swedish story to All-American, and the cast is full of good actors. Rooney Mara’s daring portrait of Lisbeth Salander is one for the ages and I can’t wait to see what trouble she gets into in the next film. Christopher Plummer caps off a great year by delivering a captivating performance as the patriarch of the family that hires the journalist, and he ends up providing the film’s heart. Yes, this mad thriller can tear-jerk! There’s gripping suspense on display here coupled with things you’ve never seen before – a killer one-two punch for what I hope is a very successful franchise.

2. THE DESCENDANTS – In a year filled with bloated spectacle (‘Hugo”, “War Horse”), Alexander Payne’s strikingly truthful drama proves once again that less is more. George Clooney plays a land baron in Hawaii, and as if you can’t feel bad for that guy, his wife goes into a coma after a jet ski accident. This event leads to discoveries that complicate relationships, leaving things muddy, even at the end. The actors (and Payne) are obviously more interested in playing the TRUTH with this story, as opposed to doing anything “film-y”. As we’ve said before at The Movie Guys, anything George Clooney does is worth watching, and he’s FANTASTIC here. It may be time to put him on the list of the best actors in town, a list usually reserved for posh-er performers like Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hanks and Kevin Spacey. But Clooney’s certainly more consistent. After Pixar and Jason Reitman slipped up this year, Payne remains the only filmmaker whose every film I have enjoyed.
Click here for a full-length review.

1. THE ARTIST – This is a movie in love with movies. Here at The Movie Guys, WE LOVE MOVIES! So, liking “The Artist” was easy. Actually, I’d be hard-pressed to find anyone with a heart cold enough to dislike this film. If you don’t like it, you’re dead inside. At least dead to me. In a year wrought with pretentious offerings (“Melancholia”, “The Tree of Life”, anyone?), “The Artist” wins by being straight-up enjoyable. And wildly so. As the silent film star who has a tough transition into “talkies”, Jean Dujardin is mesmerizing with his seamless ability to channel Clark Gable swashbuckling to great heights one moment, and Gene Kelly whisking a girl across the dance floor the next. Paired with the radiant Berenice Bejo, they’re one of the best screen pairs in years. As technology advances, it’s amazing to see a film TAKE AWAY tech aspects and triumph.
Click here for a full-length review.

RUNNERS-UP:
Truth is there are only about six movies I’d really put on a year-end BEST list, so even expanding to ten was a chore. However, these films are good, too:
THE IDES OF MARCH – Is this better than “X-Men: First Class”? Probably. It’s pretty damn good, but it was fun to go super-hero movie for my top ten.
THE HELP – Solid drama with good actors top to bottom.
J. EDGAR – This movie got shit for being “Oscar-bait”, but the script is one of the best Eastwood’s worked with in years, and DiCaprio is as solid as ever.
THE MUPPETS – Back and hilarious.
BUCK – A documentary about a horse whisperer that truly uplifts and inspires.

THE WORST
PRIEST – Paul Bettany crapping away promise, determined to switch genres from dramas and comedy to action. Stay where you’re needed. Ask Eddie Murphy.
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES – This franchise has totally lost its way, and its sense of fun. Another interminably LONG movie that’s one of the worst 3D offenders yet.
THE HANGOVER, PART II – It might be OK to repeat the exact same plot if the characters were likeable, but they’re NOT. At all.
CONAN THE BARBARIAN 3D – This film is hugely OVERDONE. More is not better (see “The Descendants”)
BAD TEACHER – Number of jokes that work in this film – zero.
ALBERT NOBBS – The biggest disappointment. Why was this story told? The lead character is creepy, the lead female unworthy of any affection, and the ending left the whole story feeling irrelevant.

THE OSCARS:

Actor in a Leading Role
Demián Bichir in “A Better Life”
George Clooney in “The Descendants”
Jean Dujardin in “The Artist”
Gary Oldman in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”
Brad Pitt in “Moneyball”

Glaring Omission: This was a year brimming with great lead performances, so any number of actors could have been included – Leonardo DiCaprio for his bombast in “J. Edgar” or Ryan Gosling for his understatement in “The Ides of March” (like Christian Bale, his Oscar’s coming). I’m a little surprised to see the raw emotion Michael Fassbender brought to “Shame” didn’t net him a nomination. Perhaps the film itself was a little off-putting.
Runners-up: Joseph Gordon-Levitt in “50/50”, but the BALLS would have come out if The Academy took a risk on nominating Andy Serkis for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”. Sadly, it doesn’t look like he’ll win an Oscar if the film wins for Visual Effects, either. They’ll thank him like they did for “King Kong”. Maybe a special Oscar is due somewhere down the line?
Great Inclusion: Brad Pitt. I called his performance making-it-look-so-easy-he-can’t-possibly-be-acting. That beats the showy roles he was nominated for previously (“Benjamin Button”, “Twelve Monkeys”). Good to see him here.
Will Win: Dujardin. It used to be a bigger race with Clooney, but Dujardin has pulled ahead with wins at the BAFTA and SAG awards.
Should Win: Both deserve it, but Clooney broke my heart. I’d go with him.

Actor in a Supporting Role
Kenneth Branagh in “My Week with Marilyn”
Jonah Hill in “Moneyball”
Nick Nolte in “Warrior”
Christopher Plummer in “Beginners”
Max von Sydow in “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”

Glaring Omission: Albert Brooks in “Drive”. Now, I’m the world’s biggest Brooks fan, but I don’t think he’s totally right for this role. I dug the expansion beyond the type he normally plays, and he did a solid job, but not quite award-worthy, if you’re gonna compare (and that’s what we’re doing here, right?). However, with the pre-Oscar film critics awards he picked up, I thought he’d be nominated.
Runners-up: I’d slide von Sydow to the side and make room for Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Moneyball”, who underplays to perfection. Also, John C. Reilly out-acted all the Oscar winners in “Carnage”, don’t know if that makes him better than these nominees, but it accounts for something. I’d also throw some love to Corey Stoll in “Midnight in Paris”, whose indelible Ernest Hemingway was SO much fun. And wasn’t Paul Giamatti in a movie? Yes, he was (“The Ides of March”). So he should be nominated. Bam.
Great Inclusion: Kenneth Branagh. Many dismissed Branagh’s witty performance as Laurence Olivier as another shallow piece of a trite movie. They’re wrong! He doesn’t get lost in an impersonation, and finds so much room to PLAY in this part as a legendary actor who must come face to face with an industry that values movie STARS instead.
Will win: Christopher Plummer. Hard to believe this is only his second Oscar nomination, but he’s been a lock in quality projects for years (“The Insider”). And his role in “Beginners” is one of two great roles he had this year (the other being “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”). It’s his year, and thank god it’s for a good performance in “Beginners”, not the standard career award.
Should win: That being said, I’d go with Branagh

Actress in a Leading Role
Glenn Close in “Albert Nobbs”
Viola Davis in “The Help”
Rooney Mara in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
Meryl Streep in “The Iron Lady”
Michelle Williams in “My Week with Marilyn”

Glaring Omission: Tilda Swinton. With Golden Globe and SAG awards, I thought she was on track. But The Globes have two categories, and the drama category is nearly identical to these nominees, but when someone had to make room at the Oscars for Michelle Williams, it was Swinton who got the boot. But I’m sure she’s crying all over her other Oscar. I thought Charlize Theron had a shot because she and Reitman are Oscar darlings.
Runners-up: Kristen Wiig? As ever, comedy is subjugated. Glenn Close is just creepy in “Albert Nobbs”. Maybe you slide her out of the way for Wiig.
Great Inclusion: Rooney Mara! This is the best nomination in any category this year. There’s a lot of subtlety going around, focusing on restraint and simplicity (see Oldman, for example). But Mara’s brash, risky performance in “Dragon Tattoo” is an all-out-there tour de force, and if you’re giving awards to the likes of Daniel Day-Lewis for “There Will Be Blood”, then Mara’s got just as much of a shot.
Will Win: Davis. This race has become the most interesting as time’s gone on. It used to be between Williams and Streep, right on through their split of awards at The Golden Globes. But with SAG and BAFTA wins, Viola Davis is making a run, and you can’t discount the actor’s vote, ‘cause it’s actors who vote in The Academy, too. Streep and Williams’ performances are at the core impersonations (excellent ones), and they’ll probably award the more original performance on Oscar Night.
Should Win: Mara, beating out Wiliams, who’s a close second.

Actress in a Leading RoleActress in a Supporting Role
Bérénice Bejo in “The Artist”
Jessica Chastain in “The Help”
Melissa McCarthy in “Bridesmaids”
Janet McTeer in “Albert Nobbs”
Octavia Spencer in “The Help”

Glaring Omission: Shailene Woodley. The acting across the board is so good in “The Descendants”, I’m surprised Clooney is the only acting nominee in the mix. The next best shot, I thought was Woodley’s complex performance as a complicated (perhaps spoiled?) teenager.
Runners-up: Shout out to Bryce Dallas Howard, who is great in “The Help” AND “50/50”. What I like about her roles this year is that they were very unlikeable. I guy like me gets bitter and wants to reject nepotism, but she’s really good and Howard could float through romantic comedies easily, but she played more challenging roles. Good on her.
Great Inclusion: Berenice Bejo, but there’s certainly an argument to make that she could be in the Best Actress category.
Will Win: Octavia Spencer, who is on a roll. Her character in “The Help” says everything you want to say in stick-up-your-ass 1960s America.
Should Win: Bejo, the heart of “The Artist”. But I love that fact that I didn’t know Bejo, Spencer or Chastain before the year started.

Animated Feature Film
“A Cat in Paris” Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli
“Chico & Rita” Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal
“Kung Fu Panda 2″ Jennifer Yuh Nelson
“Puss in Boots” Chris Miller
“Rango” Gore Verbinski

Glaring Omission: “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn”. It won The Golden Globe and had huge names attached. Oscar-winning names. But let’s be honest, it’s not a story that hooked America. And it’s a creepy animation style that I have no desire to see awarded. Three words sunk this nomination: Mars Needs Moms.
Runners-up: “Arthur Christmas”. I also had no desire to see Aardman Animation work with computers, having loved their stop-action animation for years. But “Arthur Christmas” is a delightful and very entertaining animated film with loads of heart and impressive animation.
Great Inclusion: Those two movies nobody’s heard of. And don’t try and fool me, you haven’t heard of ‘em either. Just be glad they’re here instead of the underwhelming “Cars 2”
Will Win: “Rango”. It’s got the momentum, plus a ton of Annie Awards. The dark horse could be “Kung Fu Panda 2”, which also won a handful of Annies.
Should Win: “Puss in Boots”, the only animated film in my Top 10.

Art Direction
“The Artist”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2″
“Hugo”
“Midnight in Paris”
“War Horse”

Glaring Omission: Nothing “glaring” here, although there is sometimes more love given to action movies in this category, with their big set pieces. Outside of “Potter”, maybe “Transformers 3” or “Thor” might’ve snuck in here, but these are good nominees.
Runners-up: It’s not unlike Roland Emmerich to bring quality production design to a film, but in “Anonymous”, they went to good use, as opposed to destroying the world AGAIN. Seamless use of effects and sets brought Elizabethan England splendidly to life. “J. Edgar” proved again the Clint Eastwood films are always solid re-creation of place and time.
Great Inclusion: “Midnight in Paris”. With an opening that rivals “Manhattan”, Paris looks lovely, and when it’s re-created for the 1920s, it looks equally lush and inviting.
Will Win: “Hugo”. But I thought the locations reeked more of effects than locations.
Should Win: “The Artist”, which did just as much as “Hugo” to show time period without it looking so cheesy.

Cinematography
“The Artist” Guillaume Schiffman
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Jeff Cronenweth
“Hugo” Robert Richardson
“The Tree of Life” Emmanuel Lubezki
“War Horse” Janusz Kaminski

Glaring Omission: “Midnight in Paris”. It had been nominated for pre-Oscar awards and damn, how gorgeous did Paris look as shot by Darius Khondji? A wonderful compliment to the art direction, which did receive a nomination.
Runners-up: “The Adventures of Tintin” didn’t make much of an overall impression on me, but there was shot composition in it that was on par with the best that Spielberg has done. Unfortunately, I was busy mostly focusing on how creepy the characters looked. Has animation ever been nominated in this category? Oh, yes, I see “Hugo” has been nominated. Never mind. There’s also something to be said for the great IMAX photography of “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol”, especially the cameras-and-actors-hanging-on-the-side-of-the-building, vertigo-inducing brilliance of the action scenes at Burj Khalifa in Dubai.
Great Inclusion: “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. I loved this movie, and it was mostly snubbed in major categories, so I’ll take nominations where I can get ‘em.
Will Win: “The Tree of Life”
Should Win: This is a really tough category, because when you look at the photography of “The Tree of Life”, it’s unreal. Even just the collection alone of shots is impressive, let alone the execution of capturing them so vividly. Now, what exactly do all these images bring to the story? That’s the problem. There ISN’T A STORY. So then we have a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. But man, the sound and fury looked fantastic. You probably gotta give it to Lubezki, even though I’m partial to “The Artist”, who even went out of the way to shoot in an 1920s aspect ratio!

Costume Design
“Anonymous” Lisy Christl
“The Artist” Mark Bridges
“Hugo” Sandy Powell
“Jane Eyre” Michael O’Connor
“W.E.” Arianne Phillips

Glaring Omission: What a surprise. All period pieces. I rant on this every year, but I suppose opulence will always win out in this category. Well, if you’re gonna go all period, where was “J. Edgar” and the awesome parade of G-Men outfits? Little back story here, too: All of DiCaprio’s outfits were built from scratch for him. Can’t get that watching the film, but to know there were no rentals for his eighty or so costumes is impressive. I’m sure something like “Water for Elephants” was great, costume-wise, but who wants to see that to find out.
Runners-up: There’s also no fantasy here. No “Harry Potter”? Perhaps they were wearing clothes designed for the previous movies. If I had my way, I’d nominate “Thor” for the outlandish costumes that didn’t give in to the pressure to tone down the “comic book-i-ness” of the characters. They still wear bright colors and capes where other comic book adaptations like to make everything black.
Great Inclusion: “Anonymous”, only because Roland Emmerich THOUGHT for two seconds and actually made a substantial movie, and he pulled it off, partially because of an authentic-looking 1590s London.
Will Win: “The Artist”
Should Win: “The Artist”. This movie looked like “Citizen Kane” at times.

Directing
“The Artist” Michel Hazanavicius
“The Descendants” Alexander Payne
“Hugo” Martin Scorsese
“Midnight in Paris” Woody Allen
“The Tree of Life” Terrence Malick

Glaring Omission: With the new stupid desire to increase excitement over The Oscars by having more than five nominees, that just means more directors who have apparently made a film worthy of year’s best, who can’t get an Oscar themselves. This leaves Stephen Daldry, Tate Taylor, Bennett Miller and Steven Spielberg in the lurch. Sorry guys, you’ve made a best-of-the-year-worthy film but you’re not one of the best-of-the-year directors. That’s just dumb, and The Academy’s decision to keep doing that is as lame as Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game meaning something.
Runners-up: David Fincher! From the tone to the direction of the actors to the look, feel, location and vibe, he nailed it. Terrence Malick did something great with “The Tree of Life”, but without him sitting next to me as I watch the film, explaining what exactly that is, I’m lost. So step aside, please and make room for a Fincher nomination here. Also, if Bennett miller keeps up the good work, he could be another no-miss director. He’s made two films (“Capote” and “Moneyball”) and they’re both good. I would’ve nominated him here. Also, I thought Martin Scorsese’s pacing was all over the place in “Hugo”, plus the whole piece was just way overdone. This might be mostly the script’s fault, but a movie like “50/50” connected more with me. Nominate Jonathan Levine here instead.
Great Inclusion: Alexander Payne, Mr. Doesn’t Make a Bad Film.
Will Win: Michel Hazanavicius. He won the DGA award. He’s the evening’s lock.
Should Win: Michel Hazanavicius. If you’re thinking, “Who?”, you’re not alone. What a breakthrough movie! To skillfully pull together an international cast, black & white, period piece, animal actors and SILENT FILM to such perfection was quite a task. Give him the Oscar.

Documentary (Feature)
“Hell and Back Again”
“If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front”
“Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory”
“Pina”
“Undefeated”

Glaring Omission: “Buck”. This movie had a lot of press leading up to the nominations and I thought it had a chance.
Runners-up: “The Tree of Life”. Wait, that wasn’t a NOVA PBS special?
Great Inclusion: “Pina” and “Undefeated”. “Paradise Lost” is about a murder trial, “Hell and Back Again” is about the Afghan War and “If a Tree Falls” is about environmental terrorists. So, I’m happy to see some uplifting stories in the mix. The only thing that scared the shit out of me was that I thought “Undefeated” was that Sarah Palin documentary (which is hilariously called “THE Undefeated”). If that got nominated, I was going to kill somebody.
Will Win: “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory”. The Academy loves to reward bodies of work (see “The Lord of the Rings”) and this film could win essentially for all three “Paradise Lost” docs.
Should Win: You’ll notice there were not documentaries in my Top 10. This is different than past years where I’ve had movies like “Sicko”, “Inside Job” and “Waiting for Superman” in the mix. This year, I didn’t see any of the nominees. I am a dick.

Documentary (Short Subject)
“The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement”
“God Is the Bigger Elvis”
“Incident in New Baghdad”
“Saving Face”
“The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom”

But you know what? I didn’t see any of these, either. Neither did you. Let’s move on.

Film Editing
“The Artist” Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius
“The Descendants” Kevin Tent
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
“Hugo” Thelma Schoonmaker
“Moneyball” Christopher Tellefsen

Glaring Omission: Nothing glaring, but The Academy does love Spielberg’s production team. Always has. So I thought Michael Kahn might’ve had a shot here for “War Horse”, even a long shot for “The Adventures of Tintin”.
Runners-up: Hey, there are no show-off nominees here! So let’s throw “Limitless” in there just for fun.
Great Inclusion: All the dramas. This category, practically re-birthed by “The French Connection”, loves action, but there’s none here this year. I appreciate the shout-outs from The Academy to modest piecing together of “The Descendants” and “Moneyball”.
Will Win: “The Artist”, part of a big night for the film. The pre-Oscar awards went to this and “The Descendants”, but I think The Academy will go for the showier piece.
Should Win: I’m gonna stick with “The Artist” here, too. But it brings up the question. Is it tougher to edit an original piece or a book adaptation? I imagine most of the editing of the adaptation was done in the script. But the challenge for an adapted movie is keeping the core intact, and not cutting too much? Don’t have an answer here, just riffin’.

Foreign Language Film
“Bullhead” Belgium
“Footnote” Israel
“In Darkness” Poland
“Monsieur Lazhar” Canada
“A Separation” Iran

….sigh. I’m horribly underversed in this category. When I’m done writing this rant, I’ll just go back and delete these categories so you don’t know I didn’t see enough of these films to make an informed decision.

Makeup
“Albert Nobbs”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2″
“The Iron Lady”

Glaring Omission: “J. Edgar”. Tough call here ‘cause Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts’ makeup was OK, but DiCaprio’s was GREAT! So, I guess for overall work, it’s tough to nominate the film, but for the one individual character, the work was outstanding.
Runners-up: I would say “Contagion”, but I think instead of putting makeup on the Hollywood actors to make them look diseased, they were simply filmed with no makeup at all. Ba-doom!
Great Inclusion: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2”
Will Win: “The Iron Lady”
Should Win: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2”. So the question is, will the movie benefit from a Body-of-Work Award or suffer from they-did-this-in-an-earlier-film-already-itis? If it’s the latter, that opens the door for the better of the two old age makeup jobs to beat the fantasy film.

Music (Original Score)
“The Adventures of Tintin” John Williams
“The Artist” Ludovic Bource
“Hugo” Howard Shore
“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” Alberto Iglesias
“War Horse” John Williams

Glaring Omission: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, two names that are SO much fun to say. More fantastic scoring of a David Fincher film (“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”). Perhaps their win last year kept them out of the running this year, but their work, two films in, seems to be setting up what will be a gloriously edgy, non-traditional film scoring career.
Runners-up: “Hanna” – The Chemical Brothers deliver a fantastic score to this action movie that is on par with the brilliant Daft Punk score for last year’s “Tron: Legacy”. I hope these techno-based scores get love from The Academy soon. Also, Cliff Martinez delivered a first-rate, Tangerine Dream-esque soundtrack for “Drive” that propelled the opening scene and many subsequent segments of the movie. I wish the songs were as good as the score. Martinez is a frequent collaborator with Steven Soderbergh, and had a good year, also providing a quality score for “Contagion”. I also loved the dream-like, guitar-notes-and-chords-dropped-lovingly-in-a-puddle music from “Moneyball”, great also for the choice to use unconventional movie like that for a sports film. Perhaps that sets you up for the fact that this is not a traditional sports film at all.
Great inclusion: “The Adventures of Tintin”. Williams proving he’s still the master.
Will Win: Ludovic Bource, “The Artist”
Should Win: Ludovic Bource. The score of this film is basically a character in it, equal parts playful storyteller and observer along for the ride as the plot unfolds. Bource had to nail it or the whole film could fail. He nailed it.

Music (Original Song)
“Man or Muppet” from “The Muppets” Music and Lyric by Bret McKenzie
“Real in Rio” from “Rio” Music by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown Lyric by Siedah Garrett

Glaring Omission: Three other nominees. We are not exactly in The Golden Age of Movie Music. The Disney animated movie musicals don’t dominate as they used to, most stage musical adaptations either don’t include original songs, or force one into the credits that is inferior to the other songs in the film. Only every once in a while do we get a “My Heart Will Go On” or “Lose Yourself”. So, I’m not too surprised that this category isn’t packed with winners, but I’m a little surprised it isn’t packed at all! No love for that Madonna song that won the Golden Globe? “Gnomeo & Juliet”? No?
Runners-Up: “Life’s a Happy Song” from “The Muppets”, clearly the only movie that was excited to cram it’s movie with original songs this year.
Will Win: “Man or Muppet”
Should Win: “Man or Muppet”. “Real in Rio” is a rousing song that introduces the film’s characters to the lively city in the film’s title, but it’s just not as clever as Bret McKenzie’s ode to self-reflective movie montages.

Best Picture
“The Artist” Thomas Langmann, Producer
“The Descendants” Jim Burke, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, Producers
“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” Scott Rudin, Producer
“The Help” Brunson Green, Chris Columbus and Michael Barnathan, Producers
“Hugo” Graham King and Martin Scorsese, Producers
“Midnight in Paris” Letty Aronson and Stephen Tenenbaum, Producers
“Moneyball” Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz and Brad Pitt, Producers
“The Tree of Life” Nominees to be determined
“War Horse” Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, Producers

Glaring Omission: “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. Well, glaring to me, at least. Glaring to the rest of the world is probably “Bridesmaids”, which people thought might be the upset card. I gotta admit, “Bridesmaids” is at least better than “Extremley Loud & Incredibly Close”
Runners-up: Referring to my Top 10, you know I would’ve found room for “50/50”, and I would stopped it at FIVE nominees. Even this year, just nominate “The Artist”, “The Descendants”, “The Help”, “Moneyball” and “Midnight in Paris” and be done. This whole ten nominees thing was done in the wake of “The Dark Knight”’s Best Picture snub to make sure that movies like “District 9”, “Inglorious Basterds” and “Up”, which were popular movies, could get in on the Best Picture nods and bring hype and eyeballs to the Oscar telecast. Do you really think “War Horse” did that this year? “The Tree of Life”? There are way too many nominees here. Just ‘cause they’ve made the list available for ten nominees doesn’t mean there NEEDS to be more than five.
Great Inclusion: “Moneyball”, which probably benefited from the thing I’m railing against above. If there were only five nominees, The Academy would’ve showered “Hugo” as they did ‘cause they saw Martin Scorsese’s name on it, and “Moneyball” would’ve stayed home.
Will Win: “The Artist”. It’s pulled away from “The Descendants” since The Golden Globes.
Should Win: “The Artist”. It’s strange to compare “The Artist” to “Inception”, my pick for Best Picture of 2010, but they’re both the year’s most ambitious films, and to make something so ambitious so successful deserves the award.

Short Film (Animated)
“Dimanche/Sunday”
“The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore”
“La Luna”
“A Morning Stroll”
“Wild Life”

Glaring Omission & Runner-up: Maybe Pixar’s “Toy Story Hawaiian Vacation”? Another laugh and heart-heavy short from the masters. But their entry “La Luna” here is more of what wins this category.
Great Inclusion: “A Morning Stroll”, a short with a demented sense of humor, and it’s good to see them rewarded for that.
Will Win: “The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore”, which looks great and has a whimsical feel throughout.
Should Win: However, I thought “Lessmore” was a bit disjointed. I think a simpler story could’ve been told. So I’d go with “La Luna”, just beating out “A Morning Stroll”

Short Film (Live Action)
“Pentecost”
“Raju”
“The Shore”
“Time Freak”
“Tuba Atlantic”

Great Inclusion: “Time Freak”. Year in and year out I watch the shorts and there’s routinely “important” films being celebrated. “Time Freak” is a comedy, and a goofy one at that. Coupled with good production, it’s a great nominee.
Will Win: “Raju”. But sadly, The Academy may still reward the “important” tale of child adoption in India. I swear there’s an India-based short nominated every year.
Should Win: “Time Freak”. Last year a comedy beat the important films, I hope that continues.

Sound Editing
“Drive” Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Ren Klyce
“Hugo” Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” Ethan Van der Ryn and Erik Aadahl
“War Horse” Richard Hymns and Gary Rydstrom

Glaring Omission: Animation. Usually there is some animated movie represented here because the creation of original sounds to be attributed to completely fabricated characters that do not exist in any plane of reality is TOUGH TO DO! I thought I might see “Rango” here or “The Adventures of Tintin”.
Runners-up: More animation like “Arthur Christmas” and “Puss in Boots”
Great Inclusion: “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”. I know, there really isn’t much good about this film (except for the 3D), but sound effect creation has to be 80% of this damn movie with all the twisting gears, explosions, falling metal and that “Buuuaaaooooonnng” noise that’s all over the trailers. Seems like a lot of work.
Great Inclusion: “Drive”. The sound in that film was hypnotic.
Will Win: “Hugo”
Should Win: Probably…sigh…”Transformers”…I feel gross SUGGESTING that this should be an Oscar-winning film…

Sound Mixing
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
“Hugo”
“Moneyball”
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon”
“War Horse”

Glaring Omission: Here’s another place where I expected more action and fantasy movies, because the challenge is so great to mix the real and unreal effects with the dialogue and music. Perhaps “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2” or “Captain America: The First Avenger”
Runners-up: “X-Men: First Class”
Great Inclusion: “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”, for reasons mentioned above.
Will Win: “Hugo”, ‘cause it’s an effects movie The Academy can get behind.
Should Win: “Transformers”…I’m gonna be sick…

Visual Effects
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2″
“Hugo”
“Real Steel”
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes”
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon”

Glaring Omission: Here’s a word you won’t otherwise hear at The Oscars: “Sucker Punch”
Runners-up: “X-Men: First Class”, and I liked the fast-paced, effects-filled chase scenes of “The Adjustment Bureau”
Great inclusion: “Real Steel”. It’s still hard to make organic objects like people and animals look real. But we can ACE making anything metallic look realistic, and the best thing about “Real Steel” is that you take for granted after a while just how seamless they are blended into the real world.
Will Win: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”
Should Win: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, for the best organic character creation yet. As opposed to fill-in-the-blank-with-whatever-Star-Wars-character-you-like, these CGI characters ACT.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
“The Descendants” – Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
“Hugo” – John Logan
“The Ides of March” – George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon
“Moneyball” – Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin Story by Stan Chervin
“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” – Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan

Glaring Omission: “The Help”. This seemed like a no-brainer in August, but somehow this nomination got snubbed. There are two films here not nominated for Best Picture that weaseled their way in.
Runners-up: “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. As you can tell by now, I love this movie, and the script is the movie’s greatest asset.
Great Inclusion: “The Ides of March”. Wonderful liberal claptrap that’s right up my alley!
Will Win: “The Descendants”, winning the “Goodfellas”/”Pulp Fiction”/”Fargo” Award for great movie that won’t win Best Picture
Should Win: “The Descendants”

Writing (Original Screenplay)
“The Artist” Written by Michel Hazanavicius
“Bridesmaids” Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig
“Margin Call” Written by J.C. Chandor
“Midnight in Paris” Written by Woody Allen
“A Separation” Written by Asghar Farhadi

Glaring Omission: “50/50”. If I haven’t made my case for how much I love this movie yet, just watch The Independent Spirit Awards Saturday on IFC. They got the nominations for this movie right.
Runners-up: I got nothing, except maybe “The Adjustment Bureau”.
Great Inclusion: “The Artist”. Yes, silent films need a screenplay, too!
Will Win: “Midnight in Paris”
Should Win: “Midnight in Paris”, a very creative and enjoyable effort from Woody Allen.

That’s it! Tune in Sunday, Feb. 26th for the awards. And hopefully the Coen Brothers make another movie next year.

-PP

CAINE MUTINY

Journey 2: They Mysterious Island

*1/2

Review by Dave Herbelin

“I hope it doesn’t like food with poop in its pants.”
- Luis Guzman as Gabato in “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island”

Yes, Michael Caine chose to be in a movie that included this line. It used to be that you could tell the quality of movies by the actors who chose to be in them. I should have been warned by the stars such as Dwayne Johnson, who probably learned comedy from watching ’90s episodes of “Full House”, or Vanessa Hudgens who seems to think she’s still filming sequels of “High School Musical”. But I thought if Michael Caine chose to do this, then there has to be a gem hidden somewhere in there between the overacting and the video game special effects. Afterall, the first one was so horrible, how could he not know already? Mr. Caine, you lead me astray, you dirty rotten scoundrel!

“Journey 2″, which was a big piece of Number 2 (yeah, I watched “Full House” too), takes place a short time after the first “Journey”, with Sean, played by Josh Hutcherson, as the only returning cast member (perhaps the first wise choice of Brendon Fraser’s career in a long time). No one really says what happened to Sean’s dad, except that he left and now his mom has a new boyfriend, Hank (Dwayne Johnson). Sean recieves an encoded message from his granfather, Alexander (Michael Caine) and the journey begins to the mysterious island.

One gaping hole in the relationships of this story is the history of these people. Sean’s mother and Hank are reluctant to let Sean search for the mysterious island, and Kailani, Sean’s love interest (Vanessa Hudgens), doesn’t think much of him. And once on this island (that was for you theatre nuts), Sean’s judgement is questioned. Why are we questioning the one person in the party who has been to, oh well… THE CENTER OF THE EARTH?! I think after journeying there, you pretty much have a backstage pass to the universe. “Sorry you can’t go in the White House.” “Oh, can’t I? I’ve been to The Center Of The Earth!” “What do you mean, I can’t have dessert? I’ve been to The Center Of The Earth!” “Hey baby, earth’s center… that’s me.” Did the writers really forget this small detail?

If the movie was a turd, Luis Guzman was the smell. Every line he delivered was either a girlish whine or a homo-erotic come on to Dwayne Johnson. I think he was using the script to “The Birdcage.” Each time he opened his mouth, I cringed. If you want to make a movie that would end all movies, just film Guzman having lunch with Rosie Perez, Fran Drescher, and Gilbert Gottfried. It would replace waterboarding.

Guzman’s character was one of many bad directoral choices; another being “popping pecks.” It’s in all the ads. You see Dwayne Johnson flexing his pecks while Hutcherson bounces berries off them. Johnson has done this move before. I couldn’t believe that they did it again and tried to pass it off as original. I didn’t understrand how it made it into the movie until I saw the end credits with Johnson as a co-producer. This, along with other moments, had to be Johnson saying, “You know what would be funny….” And those waiting to get paid saying, “Oh yes, Mr. Johnson. You are the god of comedy. The Carrot Top of Film” “You know what would be funny: giant bird poop.” Yes, that’s what Jules Verne would have wanted, Mr. Johnson. “You know what would be good: 3D effects for no reason.” Yes! You’re right: We learned nothing about 3D in the past decade. “You know what would be cool: filming everything green screen so the audience doesn’t buy anything they see.” Yes, Mr. Lucas Johnson.

This movie must have been made using a check list.
Over acting: check.
Pointless special effects: check.
Needless action sequences: check.
High school love interests: check.
Teen heart throbe removing shirt: check.
Main character injured for no plot reason: check.
No real investment in story: check.

It’s the same list used in many teen vampire movies. But they added one item…

Respectable actor which those who don’t know better may go to see: check ….and I fell for it.

To use a term a proud touting Christian told me, Mr. Caine, you are a “whore.” (Yes, she told me many times she was a Christian, then called my dog a whore.) Well, to use another Christian phrase. DAMN! Damn! Damn! Never again, Mr. Caine. You are off the list of reliable actors. You have lost your credit. I thought you were above doing it for the money. I questioned your choice when you joined “Miss Congeniality”, but after seeing it, you and William Shatner proved me wrong and gave short term credibility to Sandra Bullock. Short Term!! Now I’ve gone back and looked at your roster of movies and I see more money choices. “Gnomeo and Juliet”?!! You couldn’t have actually thought this was the ideal adaptation Shakespeare saw in his mind.

We look to A-list actors because we want to make a wise investment with our $12 ticket price. No name actors are a risk to the viewer, while an A-lister is to not lead them astray. A-listers are the bonds, while the no names are the stocks. We exepect the A-listers to do the research, know their fund completely before endorsing it for others to spend their hard-earned cash. The rewards may not be as high as the they can be when taking a risk on the no-name stock, but they are consistent. Michael Caine, you went Bernanke on me. You focused on your paycheck and not on how I spent mine. I’m not asking that you play the same consistent character. Explore and play all you want. But I do expect you to research the script and the production on which you are putting your name. And you can’t use the editor or any post-production as a scapegoat. “Food with poop in it’s pants” was delivered in a scene you were in, you… you (excuse my Christianity) whore!!!

Directed by: Brad Peyton
Release Date: February 10, 2012
Run Time: 94 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG
Distributor: New Line Cinema

OFFICIAL TRAILER

Excited about upcoming movies? You will be. Or, you’ll be frustrated by how much trailers give away. Either way, they’re all here for your enjoyment.

As ever, we recommend our WEEKLY MOVIE PREVIEW to tell you the real deal about every weekend’s releases. Plus, we’re funnier.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (opening 7/20/12)

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (opening 12/14/12)

PARANORMAN (opening 8/17/12)

PROMETHEUS (opening 6/8/12)

THIS MUST BE THE PLACE (opening March 2012)

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU’RE EXPECTING (opening 5/11/12)

WRATH OF THE TITANS (opening 3/30/12)

NOT A HOLIDAY SPECIAL WITH RUSSELL BRAND

Arthur Christmas

***

Review by Paul Preston

If you’ve never seen a Wallace & Gromit short or their feature “Curse of the Were-Rabbit”, then you’re missing a signature style of storytelling. One that is on fine display in Aardman Animation’s new film “Arthur Christmas”.

Arthur is Santa Claus’ son, one of two Santa has (there seem to be no daughters in the bloodline that goes back hundreds of years). Arthur is the purest believer in the spirit of Christmas you can find, and his brother Steve is a strict leader, guiding Santa through a gift-delivering expedition with military precision every Christmas Eve. This is a very clever, unique tale about how Santa delivers so many presents in one night, involving a little more cynicism than the Wallace & Gromit shorts, but the cynicism is purposefully set up only to be gleefully knocked down by an authentic sense of holiday magic, embodied 100% by Arthur.

Christmas is delivered every year by Santa acting mainly as a figurehead, while Steve coordinates an army of elves who get the job done in a giant sleigh that travels up to 150,000 miles per hour. During this operation, Arthur is roundly dismissed as a harmless but unskilled goof. There’s also a GrandSanta, who at one point did the same job with fewer tools, who wants to show up Steve’s overblown procedural. So as you can see, as with any holiday film, there are plenty of people here who stand to learn something.

There are virtually no flaws with Arthur, who is easy to follow as a main character. One kid’s present is forgotten on Christmas Eve, and it’s up to Arthur to make sure no child is left behind. As voiced by James McAvoy, Arthur speaks from a place of wonder with nearly every line. Also well cast are Hugh Laurie as the order-barking Steve and Bill Nighy bypassing his usual authoritative voice to play the loopy, damn-near-senile GrandSanta. The best work is Jim Broadbent’s, as a befuddled but sincere Santa Claus.

Outside of an annoying Justin Bieber song that’s more annoyingly present in an annoying pre-film music video, there’s little glomming on to pop culture drops, and more finding the comedy in every moment. This preserves the movie’s originality and prevents it from becoming another “Smurfs”/”Alvin and the Chipmunks”/You-name-it knockoff.

Aardman, in all the previously-mentioned projects as well as “Creature Comforts”, get laughs out of the well-mannered behavior of the British. So even though Santa and the gang are Icelandic or Greenlandian in location, they’re all perfectly British in speech and behavior. I don’t think Aardman has the means or desire to American-ize one of their projects, and we’re all better off for that.

Directed by: Sarah Smith
Release Date: November 23, 2011
Run Time: 97 Minutes
Country: UK
Rated: PG
Company: Aardman Animation

OFFICIAL TRAILER

The Movie Guys bring you original videos about nothing but movies, movies, movies. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ NOVEMBER MOVIE PREVIEW – “BRING THE KIDS”

Movie Guys Paul Preston, Stoney Westmoreland and Adam Witt give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in November. “Bring the Kids” covers the major releases of November 25, 2011, including ARTHUR CHRISTMAS, HUGO and THE MUPPETS.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

NOVEMBER 22, 2011
What was that middle thing?

With a recent deal going down getting MGM out of some of its financial trouble, John Cleese says the musical of “A Fish Called Wanda” is closer to getting mounted. In fact, he’s on the hunt for a director now. This is one of the funniest movies ever made, they better not muck things up with a bunch of fruity singing.

This, of course, is all according to The Guardian, a British news source, so they’ve gotta know what Cleese is up to, right?
-PP

NOVEMBER 21, 2011
Better days…

“Please… no doctors”
-PP

NOVEMBER 20, 2011
Moviefone has a fun interview with the cast of “The Muppets”, including Segel, Adams, The Frog and Piggy. It’s pretty loose, so they talk over each other a bit, but when they get to Miss Piggy doing impersonation, the bit is so easy and so fun, it’s surprising that they haven’t done it before! Enjoy:

-PP

BAD SHERIFF

The Killer Inside Me

1/2*

Review by M. Miller Davis

Small towns tend to be the worst at keeping secrets. So when your sheriff is revealed to be a long standing, sadomasochistic murder machine, it can come as somewhat of a shock.

Lou Ford (Casey Affleck) is a deputy in a dusty southern berg where he was born and raised. A trusted and upstanding member of the community, he unwisely starts up a relationship with a local whore (Jessica Alba) who he had been charged with running out of the city limits. The affair quickly spirals out of control leaving Lou to cover up his tracks the best way he knows how: a BIG-ASS pile of fashionably dressed, 1960’s corpses.

This film seems to only be 2/3rds complete. With an abrupt beginning almost totally devoid of an secondary character development and an even more disjointed ending, the films fails to make us care much about any character, including our protagonist. In most places it tries to make up for severe lapses in narrative explanation and relational interaction between characters by overdosing on atmosphere and mannerism. Everyone is excitingly dressed and twangs along with a lovely drawl or catch phrase but it’s all pomp and no circumstance. Without real motivation all the idiosyncrasies can’t help these flat and meandering characters.

The decision to add Affleck as a voiceover throughout the film could have been pre-determined but, I suspect, that is was added when the audience expressed it’s inability to follow even the most simple of interactions. Also, in one of the more disingenuous moves seen since “Twin Peaks”, his reliability as a narrator is called into question towards the end, making the entire exercise as unfulfilling as listening to a man mutter to himself on a street corner. The film maintains profoundly graphic violence throughout, which seems to replace the character’s growth as the source for climax and/or valley. I found these scenes gratuitous if only for their triviality to characters development or plot necessity.

I wanted to enjoy this movie. The cast is distinguished with supporting members including Kate Hudson, Ned Beatty, Elias Koteas, Simon Baker and Bill Pullman. But all are reduced to clunky, almost puppeteer-esque movements through the course of the film. Perhaps that was the intent of the director to again indicate the unreliability and skewed perspective of our anti-hero by making those around him somewhat one-dimensional, but if that is the case this film was even more poorly executed than I previously thought.

Summary: An interesting idea, executed as a patchwork of partially cooked personas and an even less directional story. All involved have done much better work. Skip this 60’s S&M love letter.

“STRAW DOGS” PREVIEW

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, September 2011, Movie Guys Paul & Lee try to preview the movie “Straw Dogs”, and are interrupted by hillbilly folk.
Inspired by the September 2011 movie “Straw Dogs”

NEPOTISM

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, September 2011, Movie Guys Paul & Karen are confronted by a doctor to determine their levels of nepotism and how dangerous they can be.
Inspired by the September 2011 movie “Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at The Second City Hollywood.

JEFF FANGSWORTHY

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, August 2011, The Movie Guys help you determine if your neighbor is a vampire, and they enlist the help of observational comedian Jeff Fangsworthy to find out if you yourself are a vampire.
Inspired by the August 2011 movie “Fright Night”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at The Second City Hollywood.

PLANET OF THE APES ROUNDTABLE

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, August 2011, three “experts” are brought together to discuss the plausibility of the mind to go from ape to human-ape so quickly.
Inspired by the August 2011 movie “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at The Second City Hollywood.

ANIMAL DATE

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, July 2011, from a segment called “What’s Eating Gilbert Gottfried”, a man gets his dating advice from animals, and the subsequent date doesn’t go well.
Inspired by the July 2011 movie “Zookeeper”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at The Second City Hollywood.

HARRY POTTER ENDING SPOILER

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, July 2011, The Movie Guys show their audience the climactic ending to the entire Harry Potter franchise.
Inspired by the July 2011 movie “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2″
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at The Second City Hollywood.

SPIELBERG/ABRAMS PITCH MEETING

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, June 2011, a Paramount Pictures executive finds it very hard to say NO to J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg.
Inspired by the June 2011 movie “Super 8″
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at The Second City Hollywood.

GREEN LANTERN PRESS CONFERENCE

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, June 2011, a Warner Brothers rep attempts to smooth over any confusion about the plot of “Green Lantern”.
Inspired by the June 2011 movie “Green Lantern”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at The Second City Hollywood.

THE SPRING INTO SUMMER MOVIE SEASON

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, May 2011, Paul attempts to introduce the show, and he is interrupted by arguing seasons of the year.
Inspired by the May 2011 movies and “Fast Five”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at The Second City Hollywood.

THE WEDDING MOVIE PLANNER

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, May 2011, Paul & Karen visit a wedding movie planner to assist them in planning their wedding movie.
Inspired by the May 2011 movies “Jumping the Broom”, “Something Borrowed” and “Bridesmaids”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at 8PM at The Second City Hollywood.

NATALIE PORTMAN – OVEREXPOSED?

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, May 2011, Paul & Adam enlist the help of resident medical expert Dr. Haku Matani to get to bottom of whether or not Natalie Portman is overexposed. Inspired by the May 2011 movies “Thor” and “Hesher”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at 8PM at The Second City Hollywood.

BLACK MEN DRESSING UP AS BLACK WOMEN HISTORY MONTH

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, February 2011, Patrick J. Pieters explains the historical significance of black men dressing up as black women in entertainment.
Inspired by the Feb. 2011 movie “Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at 8PM at The Second City Hollywood.

MEET THE JANUARY MOVIES

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, February 2011, The Movie Guys present a roundtable interview with the January 2011 movies to get to the bottom of why they were relegated to this lame movie-going month.
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at 8PM at The Second City Hollywood.

C’MON, C’MON! FLASHLIGHTS

In this clip from The Movie Guys LIVE!, February 2011, Movie Guys Adam, Karen and Paul send up the horror movie concept that technology is at its worst, when you are at your most stressed.
Inspired by the Feb. 2011 movie “Vanishing on 7th Street”
The Movie Guys LIVE! performs the 1st Thursday of every month at 8PM at The Second City Hollywood.

BEHOLD!

The Movie Guys bring you original videos about nothing but movies, movies, movies. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ SEPTEMBER MOVIE PREVIEW – “NO MORE SUPERHERO MOVIES”

Movie Guys Paul Preston, Lee Kias, David Beach and Jim Sloane give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in September. “No More Superhero Movies” covers the major releases of September 2nd & 9th, 2011, including SHARK NIGHT 3D, APOLLO 18, WARRIOR and CONTAGION.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ AUGUST MOVIE PREVIEW – “OUR IDIOT PREVIEWS”

Movie Guys Paul Preston, Lee Kias, Adam Witt and Karen Volpe give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in August. “Our Idiot Previews” covers the major releases of August 26th, 2011, including COLUMBIANA, DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK and OUR IDIOT BROTHER.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ AUGUST MOVIE PREVIEW – “SEQUELS AND REMAKES AND REBOOTS, OH MY!”

Movie Guys Paul Preston, Lee Kias, Adam Witt and David Beach give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in August. “Sequels and Remakes and Reboots, Oh My!” covers the major releases of August 19th, 2011, including CONAN THE BARBARIAN 3D, SPY KIDS: ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD and FRIGHT NIGHT.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ CONCERT MOVIE 3D

Movie Guys Paul Preston, Adam Witt, Lee Kias and David Beach give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in August. “The Movie Guys’ Concert Movie 3D” covers the major releases of August 12th, 2011, including 30 MINUTES OR LESS, FINAL DESTINATION 5 and GLEE: THE CONCERT MOVIE 3D

THE MOVIE GUYS’ AUGUST MOVIE PREVIEW – “THERE’S AN APE FOR THAT”

Movie Guys Paul Preston, Karen Volpe and David Beach give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in August. “There’s an Ape for That” covers the major releases of August 5th, 2011, including RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, THE CHANGE-UP and THE HELP.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ JULY MOVIE PREVIEW – “TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Lee Kias give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in July. Covered: TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON, a spectacle so big, it deserved it’s own preview show.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ JUNE MOVIE PREVIEW – “LATE JUNE WRAP-UP”

Movie Guys Paul Preston, Lee Kias and Steven Lewis give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in June. “Late June Wrap-Up” covers the major late-June movie releases GREEN LANTERN, MR. POPPER’S PENGUINS, CARS 2 and BAD TEACHER.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ JUNE MOVIE PREVIEW – “MAGICAL MYSTERY FILM”

Movie Guys Paul Preston, Adam Witt and Steven Lewis give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in June. “Magical Mystery Film” covers the closely-guarded SUPER 8. Oh, and JUDY MOODY AND THE NOT BUMMER SUMMER comes out, too.

THE MOVIE GUYS: FIRST CLASS

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Adam Witt give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in June. “The Movie Guys: First Class” covers the latest mutant adventure X-MEN: FIRST CLASS.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ MAY MOVIE PREVIEW, PART II

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Lee Kias give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in May. “The Movie Guys’ May Movie Preview, Part II” covers the sequels of May 2011, including: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, THE HANGOVER, PART II and KUNG FU PANDA 2.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ MAY MOVIE PREVIEW – “SAVE THE DATES”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in May. “Save the Date” covers the wedding movie releases of May 2011, including: JUMPING THE BROOM, BRIDESMAIDS and SOMETHING BORROWED.

THE BEAVER: A SPOILER-FREE PREVIEW

Movie Guy Steven Lewis previews the new Mel Gibson movie, “The Beaver”. He is enthusiastic…and slightly misinformed.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ MAY MOVIE PREVIEW – “HERO COMPLEX”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Adam Witt give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in May. “Heroes” covers the superhero releases of May 2011, including: THOR and PRIEST.

THE MOVIE GUYS’ MAY MOVIE PREVIEW – “INDIE JONES”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Steven Lewis give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in May. “Indie Jones” covers the major independent releases of May 2011, including: THE BEAVER, EVERYTHING MUST GO, HESHER and MIDNIGHT IN PARIS.

DISNEY’S THE MOVIE GUYS’ APRIL MOVIE PREVIEW

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Justin Bowler give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in April. “Disney’s The Movie Guys’ April Movie Preview ” covers the major film releases of April 29, 2011: FAST FIVE, HOODWINKED TOO!: HOOD VS. EVIL and DISNEY’S PROM.

TYLER PERRY’S THE MOVIE GUYS’ APRIL MOVIE PREVIEW

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Justin Bowler give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in April. “Tyler Perry’s The Movie Guys’ April Movie Preview” covers the major film releases of April 22, 2011: TYLER PERRY’S MADEA’S BIG HAPPY FAMILY, WATER FOR ELEPHANTS and APOLLO 18 (sort of).

APRIL MOVIE PREVIEW – “NEVE CAMPBELL – STILL CUTE”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Justin Bowler give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in April. “Neve Campbel – Still Cute” covers the major film releases of April 15, 2011: SCREAM 4, RIO and THE CONSPIRATOR.

APRIL MOVIE PREVIEW – “ANOTHER NATALIE PORTMAN MOVIE”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Justin Bowler give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in April. “Another Natalie Portman Movie” covers the major film releases of April 8, 2011: ARTHUR, HANNA, YOUR HIGHNESS and SOUL SURFER.

APRIL MOVIE PREVIEW – “THEY’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Justin Bowler give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in April. “They’ve Got to be Kidding” covers the major film releases of April 1, 2011: HOP, SOURCE CODE and TRUST.

NICOLAS CAGE: WTF?

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Justin Bowler give the “Career in Review” treatment to Nicolas Cage and wonder when things got weird.

MARCH MOVIE PREVIEW – “NOT SCREENED FOR CRITICS”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Lee Kias give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in March. “Not Screened for Critics” covers the major film releases of March 25, 2011, which had no press screenings: SUCKERPUNCH and DIARY OF A WIMPY KID: RODRICK RULES.

MARCH MOVIE PREVIEW – “EPONYMOUS”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Steven Lewis give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in March. “Eponymous” covers the major film releases of March 18, 2011: PAUL, LIMITLESS and THE LINCOLN LAWYER.

MARCH MOVIE PREVIEW – “ALIENZ N THE HOOD”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Adam Witt give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in March. “Alienz N The Hood” covers the major film releases of March 11, 2011: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, MARS NEEDS MOMS and RED RIDING HOOD.

MARCH MOVIE PREVIEW – “MARCH MADNESS”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in March. “March Madness” covers the major film releases of March 4, 2011: RANGO, BEASTLY, TAKE ME HOME TONIGHT and THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU.

TO & FROM: “THE KING’S SPEECH”

Join Karen Volpe and Vanessa Whitney as they share their feelings on “The King’s Speech” in this thinly-veiled love letter to Colin Firth, while traveling to and coming from a screening of the movie. Will the movie be worth its Best Picture cred? Will it be historically accurate? Those questions may not be answered, but Colin Firth will look good.

FEB. MOVIE PREVIEW – “3D OR NOT 3D”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Steven Lewis give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in February. “3D or Not 3D” covers the major film releases of February 25, 2011: THE LION OF JUDAH, HALL PASS & DRIVE ANGRY 3D.

FEB. MOVIE PREVIEW – “FUCK THESE MOVIES, PART II”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in February. “Fuck These Movies, Part II” covers the major film releases of February 18, 2011: UNKNOWN, I AM NUMBER FOUR, VANISHING ON 7TH STREET and BIG MOMMAS: LIKE FATHER LIKE SON.

BIG MOMMAS: LIKE FATHER LIKE SON: A SPOILER-FREE PREVIEW

Movie Guy Steven Lewis previews the new Martin Lawrence movie, “Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son”. He is enthusiastic…and slightly misinformed.

FEB. MOVIE PREVIEW – “FUCK THESE MOVIES”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Lee Kias give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in December. “Fuck These Movies” covers the major film releases of February 11, 2010, GNOMEO & JULIET, JUST GO WITH IT, THE EAGLE and JUSTIN BIEBER: NEVER SAY NEVER.

FEB. MOVIE PREVIEW – “HERE ARE THE MOVIES YOU DIDN’T SEE LAST WEEK”

Movie Guys Paul Preston and Adam Witt give you the lowdown and their thoughts on what’s happening movie-wise in December. “Here are the Movies You Didn’t See Last Week” covers the major film releases of February 4, 2010, SANCTUM, THE ROOMMATE and the wide release of FRANKIE & ALICE.

Capsule Reviews by Marc Berman, Peter Mayer, M. Miller Davis and Paul Preston

THE WILD AND WONDERFUL WHITES OF WEST VIRGINIA – **3/4

Meet the White family. They make the cast of ‘Swamp People’ look like Nobel Laureates who have trained at a conservancy for French butlers. With illustrious family tree that is well known to law enforcement, local governments and the whole of West Virginia, they rob, deal drugs, shoot one another and generally kick up a CRAZY amount of shit for everyone surrounding their ignoble genealogy.

The most notable of the clan is Jesco, the current ruling patriarch. He has made himself famous statewide in the perpetuation of his father’s unique style of Appalachian tap dancing*. His other three brothers met violent ends, leaving himself, his mother and his sister as the only remaining members of the original clan. Don’t worry though; there are innumerable cousins, nephews, uncles, and aunts all having children at such a rate that the White family genome is likely to make up the majority of the human race by the time Cthulhu rises again. (They’ll probably convince old Cthie to snort oxycontin with them).

While the characters are truly fascinating the documentary is difficult to watch in many sections, specifically when it veers into chronicling the children of the clan and the almost assured inference that none of them will live past 35. In one scene a mother begins snorting pills hours after her newborn baby girl is born (it’s implied that she didn’t stop throughout the pregnancy as well) and the baby is subsequently taken by Child Protective Services. Issues of rehab, imprisonment, family struggles, death and an almost unimaginable disregard for their general well-being has left most of the family looking and sounding 30-40 years older than their birth certificates would indicate.

This is one of the more compelling documentary’s I have seen, if only for the candor in which the family interacts with the film crew. Seemingly nothing is off limits as they are filmed talking about criminal exploits, future crimes, rampant drug use, terrible violence, and children beginning their decent into all of it around the age of 10. The film serves as an unwavering portrait of honesty as it entrances the viewer with images of an inconceivable lifestyle as well as some fascinating discussion by family members as to why they think their family exists as it does today.

Summary: For those of you that enjoy REAL DEAL human spectacle, this is right up your alley. The White’s are like a train wreck that has been picked up by a tornado and thrown into the bowels of hillbilly hell**.

*closely resembles a febrile seizure
**more whittlin’ than regular hell
-MMD

PAUL – ***

Where were you, nerds? Where were the NERDS when “Paul” hit the theaters? It’s not like it didn’t have things nerds like – Simon Pegg, aliens, the director of “Superbad”. If the nerds came out as they should have, we’d all be talking about “Paul”.

Does nerd appeal make this a great movie? No. But it’s more fun than you’d think, given a rather bland trailer that seemed more interested in having the character Paul do weird stuff than focusing on the geekdom surrounding Simon Pegg and Nick Frost’s characters.

Pegg and Frost play a British duo touring the U.S. in an RV, starting at The San Diego Comic-Con (hello, nerds?) and continuing on a western-U.S. tour that includes famous alien encounter sites like Area 51 and Roswell. Along the way, they get more than they bargained for when they meet an actual alien named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) and promise to return him to his mothership. Meanwhile, Paul’s being pursued by government types (led by Jason Bateman), and the whole gang meets a God-loving naïve girl who runs a motor park (Kristen Wiig) and inadvertently becomes a stowaway on their RV.

This comedy works best when the movie embraces its inner geek, especially in the last half hour when chase scenes are peppered with quotes from “Jaws”, “Back to the Future” and “Aliens”. The joke with these quotes isn’t much more than a “Hey, I’ve seen that movie!” familiarity, but when they pile on one after another, it’s hiarious. Even Bateman’s character’s name is “Lorenzo Zoil”, just ‘cause why not?!

I’m a big fan of Seth Rogen, he makes funny movies (including the under-appreciated “The Green Hornet”), but as I said, Paul isn’t the best part of this film. Sure he has odd alien conduct and shocking-solely-for-the-sake-of-shock behavior (He smokes! He’s naked!), but this movie belongs to Pegg and Frost (who co-wrote the script). After many collaborations, their relationship and ease with dialogue between each other is fun to watch.

Director Greg Mottola is on a roll with “Superbad”, “Adventureland” and now this. But the off-kilter spark of previous Pegg/Frost movies (“Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”) is missing that might’ve turned this into a hit, that being the presence of director Edgar Wright, who was off making “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World”, a completely unique comedy with an edge, pace and anarchy that “Paul” would’ve benefited from. And where were the nerds for “Scott Pilgrim”, come to think of it? Get a job, nerds and save up enough money to go to the movies, will ya?
-PP

THE SWITCH – ***

A single man, Wally (Jason Bateman), lives in NYC and spends all of his time with his female best friend, Kassie (Jennifer Aniston). After a string of bad relationships, Kassie decides that it is time to get a sperm donor and have a child. Little does she know that Wally is hopelessly in love with her. Kassie’s best friend Debbie (Juliette Lewis) decides to throw her an “I’m Getting Pregnant” party, which features the sperm donor giving his gift and Kassie ceremoniously inseminating herself. Wally’s drunk and high on pills when he stumbles upon the special donation cup in the bathroom, already filled with its precious cargo; that’s when the title of the film comes into place.

Shortly after becoming pregnant, Kassie moves away only to return to the city 6 years later with her son Sebastian. After spending some time with the boy, Wally soon begins to see some character traits that are very similar to his and realizes what he has done. Kassie begins a serious relationship with the now divorced “Donor” Roland (Patrick Wilson) and Wally confides more and more in his friend Leonard (Jeff Goldblum). Wally spends the rest of the time figuring out how to tell Kassie the truth….

This was a solid film with a solid cast. I am a huge Jason Bateman fan and he gives an outstanding performance as the peculiar Wally Mars. Aniston, I could take her or leave her and she basically plays the same character as always. Great supporting cast including Juliette Lewis (who doesn’t do that many movies because of her band) as well as Goldblum who also always plays the same role but you gotta love him. There are lots of hilarious moments that I laughed out loud, many uncomfortable situations as well. The great thing about this film it’s not a chick flick, it appeals to everybody. Check it out.
-MB

NEVER LET ME GO – **1/2

Based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, “Never Let Me Go” is at once a love story, an ethical drama and a morality play set in late 20th century England. But things are different. There have been radical scientific and medical breakthroughs. No more cancer. Life expectancy has nearly doubled. Although much of the film is set in the isolated world of Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, we can feel that this society is not necessarily our own.

The three children grow up in a secluded boarding school, where second-hand toys are scoured over as treasures. Young Kathy (a luminous Carey Mulligan) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) are quite keen on each other, but Ruth (that minx Keira Knightley) senses this and slips in between them. Fast forward a few years as their destiny becomes more concrete, and the triangle changes. Apologies are made and new understandings are reached.

Because of their standing in life, they have not many choices as to their fate. This forces them into a shortened life, but also it gives them clarity about meaning and love that others might never get. Mark Romanekʼs directing is as sparse as his palette, which reflects the charactersʼ circumstances but hardly their souls. Mulligan and Garfieldʼs connection is particularly gripping. Ultimately, “Never Let Me Go” asks the questions about love and life in a very tender and compelling way, even though it takes a while to get there.
-PWM

KINGS OF PASTRY – *1/2

There must be a certain genre of documentary that deals with competition, whether itʼs spelling bees or school lotteries. Compumentaries? Whatever we call them, they work when there are sympathetic participants and a worthy prize. For “Kings of Pastry”, the prize is the collar worn by members of the Meilleur Ouvrier de France (MOF). It seems simple enough to be recognized as one of the best pastry chefs in one of the best countries for pastry, but as you guessed it, these guys take it to another level.

First of all, the competition is held every four years, like the Olympics. To do it every year would seem, well, bourgeois. Second, taste is a consideration, but the art and craft of the confection–namely, the sugar sculptures, are really whatʼs being critiqued here. We see the chefs spend hours, days and weeks making the same structures over and over, trying to simulate competition atmosphere, planning the carry to the platforms, fully knowing that somethingʼs gonna crash.

Ultimately, the failure of “Kings” is that you really donʼt want any of them to win. The main guy, Jacquy, lives in Chicago with his American wife (who, if the accent wasnʼt enough, is from Chicago: “honey, just make some moore cressaahnts!”) He teaches at a pastry school, yet he acknowledges that the life he lives is but a lie if he canʼt become an MOFer. And heʼs not that good. Try as he does, heʼs just not MOF material. Phillipe, on the other hand, has his shit together. The judges know it (It needs to be said that this competition has judges who double as coaches for their participants. To me, this would be like a judge in a spelling bee giving someone clues like Vanna White). The denouement of the film exposed this conflict for me, and left the movie morally lacking.

Ultimately, you get the same thing on Ace of Cakes, or Cupcake Wars, or Iron Chef: Donut Edition. But if you want weasely French guys, a shady competition, and the chance to call the winners MOFers, this is your movie.
-PWM

THE TILLMAN STORY – ***

What is left to defend a man after he has died? His family, friends and the legacy he leaves behind can all compete to shape the narrative of what his life and his death mean. In the case of Pat Tillman, a well-paid professional football player who enlisted in the Army at age 25 and was subsequently killed in Afghanistan, his death was shaped by powers outside his control to write a life that never existed for very nefarious purposes.

When Tillman was killed in April of 2004, the insurgency in Iraq was gaining strength, many citizens had forgotten the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, and there was an election to win in seven months. As the best known soldier in the Armed Forces, Tillmanʼs death couldʼve been a major blow to President Bushʼs “war on terror”. Opportunistic politicians posing as public servants decided to shape a narrative about this soldier in order to sell U.S. foreign policy.

Pat Tillmanʼs mother, Mary, fought endlessly for over two years to get a proper accounting for her sonʼs death. At first, it was told to the country by the Army that Tillman was the victim of a Taliban ambush, shot in the head as he left his humvee. Then it was reported that he was in fact shot at 200-300 yards. Because of his motherʼs tenacity, more holes in the story were discovered and exposed. Soon fratricide (“friendly fire”) was suspected, and eventually confirmed.

What makes this movie soar is not only the incredible tenacity shown by Tillmanʼs family, but the opposing stubbornness and overt deceit on the part of the U.S. government. From the Masters of War (most notably here, Lt. General Philip Kensinger and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) who actively used Tillman as a recruiting tool, to the inept members of Congress who lacked the courage to call these men to account, they are as unwilling to face the truth as Mary Tillman is to let them walk free.

“The Tillman Story” should take its rightful place alongside “No End In Sight” and “The Visitor” as movies that explore what the United States became in the lost years after 9/11. It was surreal to live in Washington, D.C. at the time, to know that things were very wrong, and to have very little in the ways of checks and balances or media coverage to hold people to account. Fear ruled the day, and to a degree, it still does. Mary Tillman, as she represents herself, stands as a sentinel, not only for her son, but for the truth and for the founding principles of our country.

Also read Paul Preston’s review of “The Tillman Story” here.
-PWM

SALT – *

If you ever thought that Angelina Jolie was actually an orphan from an enemy power sent here to distract our menfolk with her eyes, lips, butt, Lara Crofts, and whatever else sheʼs got, while at the same time destroying our political infrastructure with mind- boggling assassination plots and implausible escapes, this movie is for you. In a mash-up of “24”, “Beyond Borders”, “Mr. & Mrs. Smith”, “Red Dawn”, “Hunt for Red October” and “Top Secret”, Jolie is Evelyn Salt. On the surface, she works for the CIA as an operative, married to a German arachnologist. But below the surface, well, thatʼs where things get a little…forced.

In a ploy to make the exploits of Jack Bauer seem mundane, the story follows Salt as she is implicated in an attempt on the Russian Presidentʼs life, on the run as she carries out said mission, and finally to the ship where she seeks revenge for the murder of her German arachnologist husband. Thereʼs more, but I canʼt bore you with the details except to ask ʻdid you see ‘The Happening’?ʼ

This came out as a summer 2010 blockbuster, and Iʼm sure it got some simple male cash hoping for a “Bauer with Boobs” piece. And I realize that “Munich”, this is not. But a little less crazy and a little more substance, please. This was thinner than Lara Croftʼs wet suit.

Also read Adam Witt’s review of “Salt” here.
-PWM

THE EDGE OF LOVE – **

As always, it should tell you something when the supposed lead character gets muscled out of the promotional poster by two supporting cast. In this movieʼs case, itʼs not exactly unwarranted, as Keira Knightley (as Vera) and Sienna Miller (as Caitlyn) play dueling lovers of the British/Welsh poet Dylan Thomas (played by Matthew Rhys). Thomas and Vera are childhood friends who never quite forgot that moment on the beach all those five years ago. The poet has since married the fiery Caitlyn who takes a shine to Vera, and a platonic threesome ensues. As this all takes place during the London Blitz, thereʼs bombings and blackouts and captains being sent off to war. Itʼs enough for a poet to write about.

John Mayburyʼs direction is as heavy as the Welsh dialects, but not quite as heavy as Knightleyʼs makeup. There are lots of visual cues of blurred vision and shattered memories to point one in the direction that the story really wants you to go. Thereʼs enough chemistry between the cast, who do a good enough job, but youʼre left with a real lack of connection to the sympathy of the story. Thomas is really a snot of a guy, with not enough heart to match either his talent or the chip on his shoulder. If your main character canʼt connect, the rest of the movie really doesnʼt stand much of a chance.

ANIMAL KINGDOM – ***

After his mother dies of a heroine overdose, the seventeen year old mild mannered “J” (James Frecheville) is forced to live with his Grandmother Janine (Jacki Weaver) and his uncles. Janine runs a family of criminals that includes her three sons, “Pope” (Ben Mendelsohn), Craig (Sullivan Stapleton), and Darren (Luke Ford); they are all drug addicts and insane in their own rights. The family dabbles in various criminal activities, but mainly armed robbery and Craig has recently found drug dealing to be particularly lucrative. The Melbourne Police, headed by Detective Nathan Leckie (Guy Pierce), are hot on the tails of the family, the unfortunate thing is that J and his girlfriend are right in the middle of the whole mess. A massive case of cat and mouse ensues as the police try and use J as their witness and Pope and the gang try desperately to prevent that from happening.

A great film from down Under, “Animal Kingdom” pleases in every way. An intricate story of innocence, betrayal, and bizarre personas tied together with beautiful cinematography and fantastic performances, including the Oscar-nominated Jacki Weaver. I thought all of the performances were great in his film, although the main character and narrator of the film is J, it is not his performance that stands out, but rather that of Pope. Mendelsohn creates a masterful and creepy madman that is creepy from his first scene. My wife watched this with me and it made her really agitated, so if you are watching with someone that might be sensitive to edge-of-your-seat weirdness, then I suggest they refrain from joining you.

Blu Ray Special Features:
- Audio Commentary
- Creating Animal Kingdom
- Q&A with Director David Michôd and Actors Jacki Weaver and James Frenchville
- Theatrical Trailer & more.

Also read Mary Gent’s review of “Animal Kingdom” here.
-MB

JACK GOES BOATING – * 1/2

Jack (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a introverted limo driver in New York City with a love of Reggae music, because it sounds happy. He is set up on a blind date by his only friend Clyde’s (John Ortiz) wife Lucy (Daphne Rubin-Vega) with her co-worker Connie (Amy Ryan). In an effort to overcome his fears, Jack is taught how to swim by Clyde so that he can eventually take Connie on her dream date of boating in Central Park. He also gets cooking lessons in an effort to cook the perfect meal for Connie who claimed that nobody has ever cooked for her.

This film is adapted from the play by Bob Glaudini and is the first film ever directed by Hoffman. This is one that was probably great on the stage. Unfortunately, as a film, it didn’t work very well in my opinion. Hoffman gives a great performance in the lead role and the supporting cast is also quite good, but the story is just kind of weak. I am not a particular fan of Daphne Rubin-Vega, I don’t find her particularly believable and she kinda reminds me of a Tranny, hence, she is not believable. Amy Ryan, who is probably most well-known for her recurring role on “The Office”, is really great in a role that had to have been challenging. There are a few moments that make the film almost worth watching, but not really enough to talk about. I suppose it is worth it just to watch Hoffman, who is just friggin’ great in everything he does.
-MB

CATFISH – ***1/2

Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman are the filmmakers behind this controversial documentary. Ariel’s brother Nev receives an e-mail from an eight-year-old girl (Abby) in Michigan who saw his photograph and wanted permission to make a painting of it. As the film progresses, Nev develops online relationships with Abby and her family, including her mother Angela and her Sister Megan. Nev and Megan began to form a romantic relationship and everything seemed to be going well until Nev realized that she was passing off other peoples’ music as her own. After this discovery, the plot takes a unique series of twists and turns that are truly remarkable.

What a friggin’ awesome film, I loved it from beginning to end. There are many who believe that the events of the film are fabricated, along the same lines of “The Blair Witch Project”, but the filmmakers all swear it is 100% authentic. It is very hard to describe what goes on after Nev realizes that something strange is afoot because it will kinda give away the whole thing; I think it is important to watch this with as little prior knowledge as possible.
-MB

CYRUS – ***

John (John C. Reilly) is a lonely divorcee who is completely out of the loop when it comes to dating. His ex-wife and best friend Jamie (Catherine Keener) urges him to come to a party where there will be lots of single women. After getting really drunk at the party, John meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) who likes John’s quirkiness while the other women at the party find him to be obnoxious. Molly and John really hit it off until he realizes that she resists his coming to her place and she never stays that long while at his place. One day, he follows her home only to find out that she has a grown son named Cyrus (Jonah Hill) with whom she resides. In an effort to keep his beloved mother all to himself, Cyrus has a plan to make sure it stays that way.

This film had a quiet charm that was endearing and really enjoyable. Reilly and Tomei are fantastic and have a strange chemistry that kind of worked in a weird way. Although I don’t think Hill is that versatile as an actor, he stretches himself in the role of Cyrus. Years ago, I saw John C. Reilly and Philip Seymour Hoffman in a production of “True West” on Broadway, and I remember being completely blown away by both performances, but Reilly stuck out to me as someone who had would eventually become an incredible star, although I think he will always remain an in-demand character actor.

Check this film out!

Blu-Ray Special Features:
- Deleted Scenes
- Q&A with Directors/Writers Jay and Mark Duplass
- Music Mash Up with John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill
- Behind the Scenes at SXSW with Jay & Mark Duplass
- Fox Movie Channel Presents: In Character with John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill
- Theatrical Trailer

Also read Mark Tucci’s review of “Cyrus” here.
-MB

GOING THE DISTANCE – ***

After his girlfriend leaves him, Garrett (Justin Long) goes out to his favorite watering hole with his roommate Dan (Charlie Day) and their buddy Box (Jason Sudeikis). In an effort to kill some time, Garrett heads over to the Centipede machine to see if he can beat the top score, only to find out that the top score initials (ERL) actually belong to the young lady currently playing named Erin (Drew Barrymore). They have some drinks and they hit it off and thus blossoms a relationship; the only problem is that she is in town for only six more weeks for her internship at a newspaper, then she heads back to San Francisco. Erin and Dan have the most amazing six weeks of their lives and then she does indeed leave town and they commit to having a long distance relationship. Erin lives with her sister Corinne (Christina Applegate) and her husband Phil (Jim Gaffigan) as well as their little girl, let’s just say that they don’t hit it off that well at first. Their plan is for Erin to get a job with a newspaper back in New York so that the two of them can live happily ever after, of course things are never that easy.

I guess it helps with the chemistry when the two lead characters are actually a real couple, and that is evident between Drew and Justin. This romantic comedy is filled with some laugh out loud hilarious moments thanks to a well written script and an incredible supporting cast. Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis are great as Garrett’s infantile friends, always making dick jokes and playing well off each other, Charlie Day especially. Applegate and Gaffigan are outrageous with some scenes that will literally make you piss yourself…kinda hard to describe any of this stuff without giving it away, so you are gonna have to rent it. Surprisingly good.

Blu-Ray Special Features:
- How to Have the Perfect Date
- A Guide to Long-Distance Dating
- The Cast of Going the Distance: Off the Cuff
- Commentary by director Nanette Burstein & Additional scenes
- Behind the Scenes of the Going the Distance soundtrack
-MB

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON – ****

A boy Viking named Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) is tiny as far as Vikings are concerned. The entire village lead by Hiccup’s father Stoik (Gerard Butler) is constantly fighting against hoards of dragons that steal all of the village’s livestock. In an effort to become more accepted in the village, the young and inventive Hiccup comes up with an ingenious invention to capture and kill the elusive Night Fury Dragon. Upon capturing the dragon, Hiccup bring himself to kill him and begins a friendship with the dragon whom he calls, “Toothless”. After a while he realizes that Hiccup has a part of his back tail that is missing which is preventing him from flying, he invents an attachment to put on his tail that he can control while he is riding on him like a giant winged horse. Together Hiccup and Toothless fight for the truth.

An all-star Voice cast that also includes: Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill, America Ferrara, Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Kristin Wiig. Dreamworks has done it again with a beautifully animated feature with an incredibly heart-warming story. It’s sometimes hard to believe that animation these days can deliver such an incredible punch in every possible facet of filmaking. I loved this film from beginning to end and plan on watching it again very soon. The main characters of Hiccup and Toothless are some of the most endearing I have ever encountered…get your tissues ready for this one. Everything about it is incredible, check it out ASAP.

Blu-ray extras include:
- Legend of the BoneKnapper Dragon: Hiccup and the gang return to search for a mysterious dragon in this all-new short
- The Animators’ Corner Enhances the Movie-Viewing Experience through Picture-in-Picture Storyboards, Behind-the-Scenes Footage and Insightful Interviews
- Pop-Up Trivia, Deleted Scenes & Viking Personality Test
- Author Cressida Cowell Shares Her Inspiration
- Learn to Draw Toothless and Build Your Own 3D Dragons

Also read Paul Preston’s review of “How to Train Your Dragon” here.
-MB

GROWN-UPS – **1/2

The death of their beloved basketball coach brings together childhood friends at the lake house where they once celebrated their biggest victory. Lenny (Adam Sandler), Eric (Kevin James), Kurt (Chris Rock), Marcus (David Spade), and Rob (Rob Schneider) come together under the veil of the death of their friend and mentor only to get reacquainted and reignite the spark of friendship that they all had so long ago. The film also co-stars Salma Hayek and Maya Rudolph.

Ever since “Billy Madison” I have always been a sucker for Adam Sandler’s childish style humor. As time has gone by, his films have become less lovable and more lame and this one is leaning towards lame with a few really funny parts and performances that make it tolerable. The all-star ensemble cast is what redeems this film, especially the performances of Kevin James and Rob Schneider, who are by far the funniest and have some truly hilarious moments. Sandler tends to use his friends in all of his movies and you see many familiar faces throughout the film. This movie is far from great, but it is fun and if you have some time to kill and want to chuckle..then check it out.

Blu-Ray Special Features:
- Commentary with Director Dennis Dugan
- Gag Reel
- The Lost Tapes of Norm MacDonald
and more…
-MB

THE EXPENDABLES – *

Church (Bruce Willis) hires a group of mercenaries led by Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) to overthrow General Gaza (Davis Zayas) on the island of Vilena. Ross assembles his elite group including Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Yin (Jet Li), Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) and Toll Road (Randy Couture) to overthrow Gaza and James Monroe (Eric Roberts) who is the drug dealer that essentially controls Gaza. Former “Expendable” Gunner Jenson (Dolph Lundgren) joins Monroe and his evil bodyguard (Steve Austin) in an effort to get back at Ross and the team for not hiring him back (because he’s unstable). The mission becomes more personal when Ross realizes that the General’s daughter (Giselle Itié) is being held captive by Monroe and his henchman. Tool (Mickey Rourke) is a former member of the team, but is not involved in the mission, he just stays back in his tattoo/Bike shop and, uh, does nothing.

I haven’t written a review in a while, one of the reasons is because the films has been disappointing as a whole, and this one is no exception. Stallone had a fantastic idea to bring together some of the greatest living action heroes and put them in one film. When I saw the previews I have to admit that I got excited at seeing Stallone (who was my childhood favorite) and Jason Statham (who is currently my favorite action hero), not to mention the long list of others. The script and the acting was disjointed and hard to follow. It is hard to believe that a sequel is currently under development, basically the thought makes me dry heave.

Blu Ray Special Features:
• Ultimate Recon Mode: An Interactive BonusView™ Viewing Experience (Blu-ray exclusive)
• Audio Commentary with Sylvester Stallone
• “Inferno: The Making of The Expendables” Documentary (Blu- rayexclusive)
• “From the Ashes: Postproduction and Release” Documentary (Blu-ray exclusive)
• Comic-Con 2010 Panel (Blu-ray exclusive)
• Deleted Scene, Gag Reel & Marketing Archive

Also read Paul Preston’s review of “The Expendables” here.
-MB

PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME – ***

When Prince Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) was a boy, he was adopted by King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup) of Persia. As he grows up, he becomes a strong warrior alongside his new brothers Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) and Tus (Richard Coyle) and his uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley). After the brothers learn that the holy city of Alamut has been forging weapons and selling them to the enemies of Persia, and an attack is ordered on Alamut. During the attack, Dastan finds a unusual and beautiful dagger. When the beautiful princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton) sees Dastan with the sacred dagger, she knows she must retrieve it back, as she was sworn to give her life to protect it.

Upon returning to the castle, Daston is called a hero, but soon he is accused of murdering his father, and he escapes with the Princess into the the desert. Dastan must use the dagger to prove his innocence and expose to Persia the real killer of the King……

This was another one that I really wasn’t looking forward to, I was kind of dreading it actually. Jake Gyllenhaal as an action hero seemed kind of silly to me, but I have to give him a bit of credit cause he pulled it off. I am somewhat embarrassed to say that the movie was pretty damn entertaining, an epic battle between good and evil. The film was visually stunning, shot mostly on location in Morocco. Gyllenhaal pulled off the role, Ben Kingsley is awesome, incredible battle scenes…it was really f’ing good. Check this one out (if you feel like you might be made fun of, then watch it by yourself cause your gonna have a good time).

Also read Paul Preston’s review of “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” here.
-MB

ROBIN HOOD – **

After King Richard (Danny Huston) is killed in battle, the crew of men that were chosen to return his crown to the queen are ambushed and killed by the evil Godfrey (Mark Strong). Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his band of men find the king’s horse and the crown in the saddlebag; they find the ambushed men and their leader, Sir Robert Loxley, who is is still alive. Longstride agrees to return Loxley’s sword to his father Sir Walter Loxley (Max Von Sydow) of Nottingham. Upon returning to England and bringing the news of the death of the king, Prince John is immediately crowned. In Nottingham, Robin brings the news of Robert Loxley’s death to his wife Marion (Cate Blanchett) and Sir Walter, news they are stunned to hear. In an effort to prevent the Kingdom from taking his land when he dies, Walter suggests that he continue to impersonate Robert. He agrees, and over time falls in love with the fair Marion. After many battles Robin and his “Band of Merry Men” are banished by King John and live in Sherwood forest with the hundreds of orphan child thieves, and so it begins…

Why did Ridley Scott want to make a prequel to one of the most beloved stories of all time, I have no friggin’ clue? This film takes forever to get going and is really hard to follow. I think that’s why it didn’t work so well with viewers or at the box office. It was visually amazing, almost all location work in the English countryside. It is well acted with some of the greatest in Hollywood, so what went wrong? What went wrong is the disjointed and complicated script by Brian Helgeland, you gotta pay some serious attention to understand what the F is going on. I’m glad I didn’t pay movie theater prices to see this but I am glad I sat through it cause as disjointed as it was I still liked watching Crowe and Blanchett. It is set up to make way for the real Robin Hood story, but I seriously doubt Universal will allow Scott to blow through another 200 million. If you have a good attention span, then check it out. If not, go watch some cartoons.

Blu-Ray Special Features:
- Deleted Scenes with Introduction and Commentary by Editor Pietro Scalia
- “Rise and Rise Again”: Making Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood”
- Director’s Notebook: Watch the theatrical version with behind-the-scenes footage, hand-drawn “Ridleygrams” and filmmaker interviews
- “The Art of Nottingham”: A portfolio of designs, including video introductions, galleries of conceptual art, costume designs, storyboards and other imagery.

Also read Paul Preston’s review of “Robin Hood” here.
-MB

CITY ISLAND – ****

Vince Rizzo (Andy Garcia) was born and bred on City Island in the Bronx. He lives there with his tough wife Joyce (Julianna Margulies), his fat-girl-obsessed son Vince Jr. (Ezra Miller), and his stripper daughter Vivian (Dominik Garcia-Lorido). Vince stumbles upon a prisoner named Tony (Steven Strait) that turns out to be his long lost son, and he decides to take him home to his family…without telling them the truth. Vince’s dream is to be an actor, but he is so afraid of telling his wife his dream that while taking acting classes he tells Joyce that he is playing poker. In class, he becomes very close friends with his acting partner Molly (Emily Mortimer). A hilarious variety of twists and turns eventually leads to this dysfunctional family to becoming closer.

This was seriously one of the best films I have seen in a very long time. An Incredible cast including memorable performances from everybody involved including Andy Garcia and his real life daughter. A highlight side plot was Vince Jr.’s obsession with watching and feeding obese woman, beyond hilarious. From beginning to end this film delivers….totally believable and creative characters, hilarious script, and great direction makes “City Island” a MUST SEE.
-MB

LETTERS TO JULIET – **

Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) and her Fiance’ Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal) travel to Verona, Italy for a pre-honeymoon vacation. Upon arriving in Italy, Victor is invited by a variety of food/wine purveyors to local events because he is opening a restaurant back in NYC. Sophie isn’t interested in Victor’s activities but they agree to do their own things. Sophie stumbles upon “The Romeo and Juliet Balcony”, where thousands of women come to leave notes to Juliet She sees a woman taking all the notes at the end of the day and follows her. The “Secretaries of Juliet” personally answer all of the notes left at Juliet’s balcony, Sophie goes with them to the balcony and finds a letter that was written by a woman named Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) nearly fifty years prior. Within a short amount of time, Claire and her grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) show up and Sophie joins them on the adventure of a lifetime as they try and find Claire’s long lost love, Lorenzo.

When I first saw this film advertised, my wife and I thought that it would be something we would enjoy (well, more my wife). I figured as far as sappy/girly films are concerned this one might compare to things like, “The Notebook” and “The Time Travelers Wife”. It started off really weak and boring and after about thirty minutes I was about to head to the other room for some reading, but I stuck with it, and it turned out to be pretty enjoyable as far as these type of films are concerned.

Nothing exciting as far as performances are concerned, although Seyfried is as usual nice to look at and Redgrave is a classic actress (and for an old lady she still looks beautiful). Bernal used to be one of my favorite actors, but he pretty much blows in this one. Certainly not a great film, but a romantic tear-jerker…watch it if you’re in the mood.

- Blu-Ray Special Features:
- Deleted and extended scenes
- Audio commentary with Director Gary Winick and Amanda Seyfried
- The Making Of “Letters To Julie”t: In Italia
- A Courtyard in Verona
-MB

THE GHOST WRITER – **1/2

The man hired as the ghost writer for the memoirs of former UK Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) has mysteriously died. The new Ghost (Ewan McGregor) is brought in to Martha’s Vineyard to complete the ultra-secret project. After only a few short days, things start to take a turn for the worse. The former prime minister is accused of war crimes and the island becomes filled with press and protesters. As things get strange with the The PM’s wife Ruth (Olivia Williams), the Ghost starts his own mini-investigation and stumbles upon things he wishes he hadn’t.

The latest film from controversial director Roman Polanski (based on the novel by Robert Harris) may be a little too smart for the American film goer: an extremely slow moving film that builds and builds but never truly delivers. I enjoyed this film, although I think the screenplay adaptation may not have been the best I have ever seen. McGregor gives a great performance as the Ghost, Brosnan and Williams are believable as well. Kim Cattrall plays the PM’s assistant and her dialect wasn’t very good, but she managed to pull off the role. If you are an avid film buff or Polanski fan then this one is worth checking out.

Blu-Ray Special Features:
- An Interview with Roman Polanski
- The Ghost Writer: Fiction or Reality?
-MB

BURIED – ****

Remember that scene in “Kill Bill, Volume 2” where Uma Thurman is trapped in a coffin, buried underground? Well, imagine that scenario, carried on for 95 minutes and you’ll have the given circumstances of the setting in “Buried.” The film stars Ryan Reynolds, who is also the only actor in the flesh throughout the movie. There are various voices used and a quick video from a camera phone but aside from that, this is a one-man show. Reynolds plays a contractor truck driver in Iraq, 2006. His name is Paul Conroy, and the last thing he remembers before waking up in a coffin is that his convoy was ambushed by IED’s.

When the film opens, we find Paul gagged and bound by ragged cloth. Paul has very few items at his disposal. Like Tom Hanks in “Cast Away,” Paul will have to get very creative with those items. Said items include a Zippo lighter, an Iraqi cell phone that’s not his own, a knife, a flashlight, some glow sticks, a booze-filled flask, and a bottle of anti-anxiety pills.

We find out who Paul is and how he wound up in a coffin through very well written conversations he has on the highly functional (given he’s buried in the desert in the Middle East) cell phone. I wish I had as good reception and I’m aboveground in a major metropolitan area. Who would you call if you were buried alive? Paul calls 911, which connects him to an emergency dispatcher in Ohio. There is a twisted humor to this part of the movie where he has to convince the people he is talking to that he is in fact buried AND has a cell phone, which is not his and just so happens to be buried with him. He calls his wife, who is not there, so he leaves a message. He tries to get in touch with his wife’s friend who gives him an attitude because she has to go food shopping. This is another dark humorous scene.

Eventually, Paul gets in touch with the State Department’s hostage group coordinator named Dan Brenner. We know that Paul’s a hostage because the other character in the film whose voice we hear in cell phone conversations is that of the person who has taken Paul hostage. He wants Paul to get him 5 million dollars in the next 90 minutes or else he will let him rot in the coffin indefinitely.

The interest in the film is not the destination, but the journey. The genius of it is in watching director Rodrigo Cortés’ creative use of camera angels and lighting. The scenes are lit by nothing more than either a Zippo flame, a malfunctioning flashlight, or even just by the glow of the cell phone. Cortés is a Spanish film director, and despite Reynolds and some other American actors who lend their voices (amongst them Kali Rocha, Samantha Mathis and the invaluable Stephen Tobolowsky who plays the slimy personnel director that fires Paul) this is “technically” a foreign film. It was shot in Barcelona and released as a Spanish import.

Reynolds shows off his some great acting chops here. A one-man movie is really, REALLY difficult to pull off, but Reynolds does it. He brings enough charm and vulnerability to be able to make you care about the character. After all, he is just an innocent contractor who is not in Iraq to fight the insurgents, only to drive a truck.

I loved the script (by relative unknown Chris Sparling) and especially loved the camera tricks Cortés employs. There are some shots that literally tear down the fourth wall of different sides of the coffin; its result is to make the audience feel as isolated as Paul does buried in the middle of nowhere.

There are obvious plot holes that can take you out of the film (e.g. The cell phone’s reception being as good as it is; the abundance of oxygen that Paul seems to have to breathe, despite constantly hyperventilating and constantly using the Zippo lighter). What kept my interest from start to finish is to see how everything would unravel.

I really thought I was going to be bored somewhere after the 60-minute mark, but I was wrong.

The tension and suspense are kept taut with the fact that the movie’s passage of time is in real time. As a viewer, it’s interesting to see just how Paul overcomes the obstacles that are thrown his way. There are times where I thought I knew where it was going, only to be proven wrong. I love when I’m wrong! The one thing I don’t think anyone can say about this movie is that it’s predictable. That is a good thing to see in this day and age of spoon-fed suspense movies. Alfred Hitchcock would be proud of Rodrigo Cortés.
-MT

DOGTOOTH – *****

Wow! Just wow. That is the lasting impression of the movie “Dogtooth,” a Greek drama directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. “Dogtooth” reminds me of a movie that Lars von Trier might have directed. The plot lines of the movie feel like “The Village” a tad, but that’s only on the surface level. It is unique, beautiful and shocking all wrapped into a not so neat little package.

The film exists as a case study of a mother and father who isolate their three children from the real world. The children (who are all adult age) are composed of the eldest daughter, a middle son, and the youngest daughter. They have no real concept of the outside world. The only outside they have ever been to is their sprawling backyard with a swimming pool. The title of the film “Dogtooth” refers to the upper incisors that all adults have in their mouth. The parents have the children believe that they are not ready to leave the house and start their life until one of their dogteeth falls out (which, of course, they don’t naturally do).

Their father keeps all outside things secret from them. He rips off all the labels of anything that comes into the house, such as bottled water. Their mother teaches the kids a warped vocabulary so that it doesn’t arouse curiosity as to the actual meaning of the word (i.e. The kids don’t know what a phone is because the mother described it as a salt shaker; a zombie is described as a beautiful flower; a vagina is called a keyboard, and so on).

The children are rewarded for good behavior with stickers and a choice of the evening’s entertainment. Although entertainment consists of watching a home movie that the children know the dialogue to verbatim or listening to a Frank Sinatra record and being told that it’s their grandfather who is singing as the father translates the English lyrics intentionally wrong to hide the original meaning of the songs.

The father is the only person who leaves the compound every day to go to work and pickup food and other supplies. He also brings back the security guard (named Christina) at his job to satisfy his son sexually. Soon she develops a curiosity for the eldest daughter. In order to get the eldest daughter to sexually satisfy her, Christina bribes her for personal items from the “outside world.” First it’s a headband, then it’s VHS tapes. The VHS tapes are particularly contraband and the eldest daughter knows this. We know what movies she watches behind her parents’ back (“Jaws,” “Rocky,” and “Flashdance”) because she starts to randomly quote from them. The father obviously doesn’t want any of her children watching a real movie as it would introduce them to ideas that are outside of the home.

“Dogtooth” is a movie that acts as a parable of how not to raise kids. The parents are shown as control freaks that try to manipulate every single aspect of their children’s lives. Their children, in turn, show signs of craziness. They play endurance tests such as breathing in ether and whoever awakes first, wins.

“Dogtooth” has scenes of very frank sexuality. We see full frontal nudity many times in the film and Lanthimos approaches sex very matter of fact like; there is no passion in it whatsoever. There are also some brutally violent scenes in the film (one of them reminded me of a cringe-inducing scene from “Cast Away”). The camera is unflinching when shooting these scenes, although I was flinching like an insomniac after drinking Red Bull.

“Dogtooth” is an amazing film. The camera work is as gorgeous as a painted landscape. Lanthimos plays around with the subtlety of a shot to put the viewer at ease, only to startle them moments later. It’s this technique that makes me think of Lars von Trier, who I’m sure played a heavy influence on him. The majority of the film, the camera feels like it’s invading the privacy of their home in the way a documentary feels.

The acting in this movie is as believable as can be. Aggeliki Papoulia (the eldest daughter) specifically is a revelation. Her character also goes through the most growth throughout the film. I don’t know what acting exercises the small cast went through during rehearsals, but it had to be surreal, I’m sure.

It’s worth noting that this film is up for an Academy Award for “Best Foreign Language Film.” Movies like this don’t come by very often. “Dogtooth” is an intimate piece of work and it should be watched by anyone who gets upset with a lot of mainstream American films because many tend to be predictable and boring. This indie Greek drama will keep your attention from beginning to end. Guaranteed!
-MT

LET ME IN – ****

This isn’t your Tween’s vampire movie. If you thought the “Twilight” franchise was simply divine, then this movie will probably not be for you. “Let Me In” is a patient film that unwraps slowly, but satisfyingly, too. It is also a period piece, which is not unusual for a vampire flick, but this one is set in 1983, in New Mexico, and focuses on a little boy, which is a little bit unusual.

The boy is Owen (Kodi Smit McPhee), a lonely and sullen 12 year-old who likes to eat Now and Later candy while reciting the commercial tagline to himself. He is a shy kid in school; he sits out during gym class; he also gets bullied. Soon he meets a new girl who moves in the apartment next-door named Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz, a.k.a. Hit Girl from “Kick Ass” as most may know her). Abby is also a shy pretty 12 year-old looking girl, so Owen takes a liking to her immediately.

Something is not right with Abby and the film doesn’t take too much time to explain this. She walks barefoot in the snow (who knew it snowed in New Mexico?), she pukes when she eats Now and Laters and… oh yeah: SHE CRAVES BLOOD! Spoiler alert! Well, if you knew a modicum of the plot to this movie, this isn’t really a shock.

Abby lives with an older man (played wonderfully by Richard Jenkins) whose name is not revealed. His relationship with Abby is a paternal one, and the screenplay cleverly and subtly reveals the reality of their relationship as the film progresses. His job is to find suitable bodies to drain of their blood for Abby to feed on. He also has to dispose of the corpses so that there is no trace.

The conflict of the film begins when multiple corpses start to turn-up in this small community. A cop (Elias Koteas) tries to piece things together to find the murderer. The movie begins with the cop interrogating an unidentified burn victim in the hospital in order to uncover the truth of the murders. The first half of the movie is a flashback leading up to that hospital scene.

“Let Me In” is a remake. The original is a Swedish film from 2008 called “Let the Right One In.” (Along with “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, Sweden seems to be a haven for great film ideas to rip-off). Having not seen the original Swedish version, I cannot say whether this remake is better, but it is a great movie on its own.

Director Matt Reeves (of “Cloverfield” fame) knows how to build a story delicately like a house of cards. The camera shoots mostly from the perspective of Owen. One interesting dynamic of the film is that Reeves never shows the face of Owen’s divorcee mother. Every scene she is in, we either get a disembodied voice, or at best a cropped profile or body shot. This makes me think of a lot of cartoons I watched growing-up that used the same style (“Tom and Jerry”, “Muppet Babies” and “Charlie Brown”, just to name a few). Reeves doesn’t shoot the same way for any other adult character, so without spoon feeding the relationship between the mother and son, Reeves uses this camera technique to show there is distance.

The screenplay (also by Reeves) is well written. I can’t tell you how many movies get ruined because of poor dialogue for children. Usually, it’s either condescendingly written, or it sounds like adults are talking in children’s bodies. Not here. Every scene accurately represents what kids say and do. Just for that achievement, Reeves deserves a lot of credit.

Visually speaking, there are not a lot of gory effects that fill the screen constantly, and that’s a good thing. Despite being a remake, the story of “Let Me In” is a unique direction for vampire movies. Youthful vampires are common, but usually they are teenagers (see “Twilight” and “The Lost Boys” for primary examples) and they tend to be predominantly male. A pre-pubescent girl is unassuming and that alone makes the movie that much more terrifying. So, if you have gotten jaded by the latest batch of vampire movies being too melodramatic (“Twilight”) or too mindlessly action-driven (“Blade” and “Underworld”, I’m looking at you) cleanse your palate with “Let Me In.”
-MT

LISTEN UP!

This page is devoted to all our excess blabbing on radio shows, internet shows and original podcasts and interviews. Prick up your ears and listen up!

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
AUGUST 23, 2011
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Adam Witt stopped in on LA TALK RADIO’s “Broad Topics again, reviewing “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and “Fright Night” (19 min., 54 sec.)

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
JULY 26, 2011
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe stopped in to LA TALK RADIO again for another episode of “Broad Topics”, reviewing “Captain America: The First Avenger”, “Horrible Bosses” and “Larry Crowne”. (17 min., 44 sec.)

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
JUNE 28, 2011
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Steven Lewis stopped in to LA TALK RADIO again for another episode of “Broad Topics”. This discussion covered “Cars 2″ and “Bad Teacher”. (18 min., 31 sec.)

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
JUNE 7, 2011
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Adam Witt stopped in to LA TALK RADIO again for another episode of “Broad Topics”. This discussion covered “X-Men: First Class” and the high level of geek-ery that seems to be popping up its head in summer films. (13 min., 46 sec.)

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
MAY 24, 2011
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Lee Kias stopped in to LA TALK RADIO again for another episode of “Broad Topics”. This discussion covered late-May films including “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” and random tangents! (12 min., 17 sec.)

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
MAY 10, 2011
The first appearance of The Movie Guys on “Broad Topics”, in what will be a routine visit to the show. In this segment, Paul Preston talks about what’s winning the box office, “Thor” and “Fast Five”. (12 min., 45 sec.)

LBC, LONDON, ENGLAND (PART 2)
FEBRUARY, 2011
Movie Guy Paul Preston checks back in with London’s Biggest Conversation from a very busy red carpet of the Oscars on LBC, 97.3, London (6 min.)

LBC, LONDON, ENGLAND (PART 1)
FEBRUARY, 2011
Movie Guy Paul Preston checks in with London’s Biggest Conversation from the red carpet of the Oscars on LBC, 97.3, London (6 min., 45 sec.)

KRLD, DALLAS, TX
FEBRUARY, 2011
Movie Guy Paul Preston gives his Oscar predictions for 2011 on KRLD, Dallas, TX; (2 min., 45 sec.)

KRLD, DALLAS, TX
NOVEMBER, 2010
Movie Guy Paul Preston goes over what holiday movies are best for adults in his latest appearance on KRLD, Dallas, TX; (3 min.)

KRLD, DALLAS, TX
OCTOBER, 2010
Paul Preston talks great horror movies on KRLD, Dallas, TX; (4 1/2 min.)

STEPHEN RANNAZZISI – THE TMG INTERVIEW
AUGUST, 2010
Stephen Rannazzisi is a series regular on FX’s “The League”. He first came on to the scene in MTV’s “Punk’d” and then landed film roles in “For Your Consideration”, “Imagine That” and “Paul Blart: Mall Cop”. He also continues to do stand up across the country. Season One of “The League” comes out on DVD & Blu-Ray Sept. 14. Season Two starts up again on FX on Sept. 16th. (18 min.)

THE A-TEAM – Audio Review by Adam Witt
JUNE, 2010
A review of “The A-Team”, recorded right after the screening, from Movie Guy Adam Witt. (6 1/2 min.)

THE ROAD – Audio Review by Joel Frost
MAY, 2010
A review of “The Road”, a grim thriller adapted from Cormac McCarthy’s novel, from Movie Guy Joel Frost. (8 min.)

A SERIOUS MAN – Audio Review by Joel Frost
FEBRUARY, 2010
A review of the Oscar-nominated “A Serious Man” from The Coen Brothers, from Movie Guy Joel Frost. (6 1/2min.)

STEVE LEMME – THE TMG INTERVIEW
NOVEMBER, 2009
Steve Lemme is a founding member of comedy troupe Broken Lizard, the minds behind “Super Troopers”, “Club Dread” and “Beerfest”. Our Movie Guy Joel catches up with him to talk about his career, what’s going on now (a comedy tour & a new movie on December 11, 2009 – “The Slammin’ Salmon”), and his humble beginnings. Oh yes, there was table waiting… (41 min.)

KRLD, DALLAS, TX
OCTOBER, 2011
Movie Guy Paul Preston talks horror movies for Halloween on KRLD, Dallas, TX; (4 min., 28 sec.)

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
FEBRUARY, 2009
Movie Guy Paul Preston discusses his short film “Superheroes: We Work for Tips” on LATalkRadio.com’s “Broad Topics”. (12 min., 51 sec.)

KTRH, DALLAS, TX
OCTOBER, 2011
Movie Guy Paul Preston talks about what makes a horror movie great on KTRH, Dallas, TX; (39 sec.)

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE CGI.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

****

Review by Marc Berman

Will Rodman (James Franco) is a scientist for a pharmaceutical company. He has been working on a project for over five years that holds promise for curing Alzheimer’s Disease, which incidentally his father Charles (John Lithgow) is also suffering from. A chimp named Bright Eyes exhibits incredible intelligence and he believes that the new drug is ready for human trials, until the chimp flips out and ruins the entire project; the boss, Mr. Jacobs (David Oyelowo), instructs the chimp handler Robert (Tyler Labine) to destroy all of the apes due to contamination. When doing his duties, he finds a newborn in Bright Eyes’ cage. Will brings him home.

Year after year passes and the chimp, now called Caesar, lives in the attic of Will’s home and is becoming more intelligent with each passing day. When Caesar gets hurt, he brings him to the zoo veterinarian, Caroline Aranha (Freida Pinto) and this starts a relationship between her and Will. Will also starts his father on the Alzheimer’s treatment drug and sees immediate changes in him.

Eventually Caesar ends up in a rescue center run by the shady John Landon (Brian Cox) and his sadistic son Dodge (Tom Felton). It takes Caesar some time to get used to being around other apes, but he eventually comes into his own and, with his intelligence, becomes the leader.

A bunch more stuff happens and all I have to say is Apes DO rise.

I have been awaiting the arrival of this film for sooo long, and it was worth the wait!! I am a huge fan of the original POTA films (not so much the Mark Wahlberg version) and the thought of an origin prequel really got my juices flowing. Although there are human beings in the film, they don’t so much matter, all of the performances are OK (Lithgow maybe a little bit better than others) but this is really ALL about the CGI and the incredible performance, once again, by Andy Serkis as Caesar. The emotion that is created by this CGI acting is breathtaking, truly beautiful to watch. The viewer really believes these animals are real, stunningly really.

If you haven’t had a chance to see this film yet, go to your local theater and watch it…it is friggin’ awesome.

Directed by: Rupert Wyatt
Release Date: August 5, 2011
Run Time: 105 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: 20th Century Fox

OFFICIAL TRAILER

THE HUMAN TORCH, JAMES BOND AND INDIANA JONES WALK INTO A THEATER…

Captain America: The First Avenger

***

Cowboys & Aliens

**

Dual review by Joel Frost

Spoiler Alert: “Captain America” is awesome and “Cowboys & Aliens” isn’t.

How can that be, you ask? Isn’t “Captain America” kind of obvious, while “Cowboys & Aliens” has vast potential as a genre-bending slice of kickass? One could suppose so, yes. One would be wrong. I know: your mind is blown. All summer you’ve been thinking that “Captain America” was buried in late July for a good reason, but C&A, despite being even more deeply buried in the last month of Hollywood’s summer, couldn’t possibly be anything but wildly entertaining. You knew Jon Favreau and Steven Spielberg were involved. You knew 007 was in it. You knew INDIANA effing JONES was in it too. What could possibly have gone wrong?

To explore that is to take a dive into the backwards world of summer movies. I’ve given up trying to predict which warm-weather blockbusters will turn out as good or better than they seem, and which will falter in droning dullness, mostly valuable as an excuse for air-conditioning. Every year there’s at least one welcome surprise and at least a few disappointments. For every “Iron Man”, there’s more than one Indiana Jones & The Crystal Skull.

It’s hard not to grasp for easy answers, when analyzing such successes and failures. Hubris can often seem to play a part, in that the most obvious summer films, with the biggest budgets and least to lose (sequels have inevitable audiences) frequently fail to earn their keep. Thrown together hastily for the cash-in and lacking in inspirado, a sequel is often a cruel joke on the eager viewer; we know you liked the first one, we know you’ll come to this one, we don’t have to try very hard, thanks for your money.

“Captain America”, while not a sequel, is one of several Marvel Comics-based films that have all been pointing to and leading up to next summer’s “The Avengers”. Easy to take it this way then – “Captain” could have been thrown together as the last obligatory link before the big one drops, next year. Marvel has garnered so much attention and general good will leading up to “The Avengers”, that it probably could have withstood a half-assed Captain America film. He’s not the deepest of Marvel characters, from a modern/cynical perspective anyway. I mean, he doesn’t brood like Wolverine or have the Freudian complexity of Tony Stark/Iron Man. Steve Rogers/Captain America is meant to be straightforward and simple, the embodiment of what is good about this country at its core. Captain America isn’t tortured by inner conflict about right and wrong, just like this country isn’t… right?

“Cowboys & Aliens” is the film that Jon Favreau jumped ship on “Iron Man 3″ to make. Again, STEVEN SPIELBERG and HARRISON FORD are part of it. When’s the last time those two hung out on a film set? Oh yeah, during the aformentioned fridge-nuker called “The Crystal Skull”. Well, never mind that. In this one, you see, Ford is a crotchety, no-nonsense cowboy, who comes into conflict with JAMES friggin’ BOND! Then, just when you thought things couldn’t get awesomer, ALIENS show up! WOOHOO! Right? I mean, in concept it’s a clear winner. Eviscerating the western genre by adding the spice of Independence Day-style madness has to be a good idea. We live in a world where Pride & Prejudice & Zombies is a best-seller (fast-tracking toward your local multiplex screen, too). Typical westerns and alien flicks have been done, over and over. Mashing these ideas together, with a cast like this, overseen by a reliable giant of movie awesomeness and a (relatively) young turk who so far hasn’t done much wrong all ought to have added up to at least an hour and a half of shimmering, giddy fun at the movies.

It just doesn’t shake out like that.

Perhaps the answer was in front of us all the time, though. Captain America was conceived in the 40s as an allegory about the rise of the underdog nation against a real, actual evil in the world. Steve Rogers was the little guy, literally, who rose up to beat down the bully. He needed a little help from the Government, but that aspect of the myth served to punctuate to a scared potential GI that Uncle Sam had your back. Between the never-say-die spirit of America and the coordinated assistance of the higher-ups, those damn Nazis didn’t stand a chance. Upon close examination, Captain America’s story stands the basic test, which is, in utterly stupefying simplicity: Does it work? Well, yes. It just does. This film displays the soul of a man, and therefore the best hopeful aspiration of a country, in easy fashion. For a patriotic ideal, it’s not bogged down with rah-rahing the flag. An audience member can relate to the guy, and really, that’s what a summer movie – or any movie – truly needs. The core of Captain America is likable, and Joe Johnston (director), Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely (writers) don’t fuck this up. This film is casually earnest, rather than earnestly earnest, which means there’s room for fun. Captain America is not taken too seriously – he’s a comic book character, after all – but he’s also given his due. Yes, he carries that big ol’ Stars n’ Stripes shield around with him, but he won’t beat you over the head with it. I mean, unless you’re a crazy super-Nazi, and those guys have it coming anyway.

At each moment that “Captain America” could run against a wall of way-too-seriousness, it adroitly dodges. In just about every similar moment in
“Cowboys & Aliens”, it trips and sneers.

Without getting too nit-picky, lest I geek us both into submission, let’s just say that somehow, “Cowboys & Aliens” isn’t much fun. How is that possible, you might wonder? Hell if I know. It’s as if the film doesn’t realize what’s actually going on in it. I mean, there are ALIENS from OUTER SPACE in the old west! Aside from a few long looks, mild confusion, and dropped-jaws, the cowboys in the movie don’t seem especially impressed by this rather obvious and inherently consternating development. Now sure, these folks haven’t spent any time at the movies, so they can perhaps be forgiven for not immediately understanding what they’re looking at (“demons” is a term that’s bandied about without much serious trepidation), but good grief, the relative and pervasive lack of alarm in our rag-tag posse of cowboys (and “indians”) is downright annoying. Sam Rockwell, often given to crazy fits of what-the-fuck-is-going-on-ishness in any number of his previous films, is about as casual and sober as you or I might be if Megatron tapped us on the shoulder in the popcorn line. Note to Sam: Freak out a little. Note to Jon Favreau: Why the hell didn’t Sam Rockwell freak out a little? Such over-the-top carrying on by a wacky pro like that helps to convey to an audience that, well, things are nuts, rather than just that there are some fairly standard ETs up there on that screen we all paid good money to sit in front of.

So yeah, “Cowboys & Aliens” had lots of ingredients for a crazy, wild ride. “Captain America” seemed to be a bit more narrow. That isn’t the way it works out. For every opportunity that C&A squanders, there was a cheer or laugh or gasp from the audience that I sat with during “Captain America”. It out-Indied Indy, easily. Next time, I’ll read a review or two before I eagerly submit to the next crazily-conceived summer flick. In the meantime, pass the flag Ma. I’m waving it
for “Captain America”.

Three stars for the Captain. One each for the Cowboys & the Aliens.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER
Directed by: Joe Johnston
Release Date: July 22, 2011
Run Time: 124 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Marvel Enterprises

OFFICIAL TRAILER

COWBOYS & ALIENS
Directed by: Jon Favreau
Release Date: July 29, 2011
Run Time: 118 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Universal Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

GO GET HAMMERED!

Thor

***

Review by Mark Tucci

Kicking the summer movie season off with a bang, or perhaps a clap of thunder, THOR hammers his way onto the big screen in the latest Marvel Comics superhero adaptation. Like most debut superhero movies, the filmmakers are tasked with setting up some kind origin story in order to provide character background as well as the hero’s motivations, powers, and whatever weaknesses that will invariably be exploited throughout the movie franchise (and let’s face it, almost every superhero movie released today is marketed as a franchise).

In the case of THOR, we’re faced with a bit of a challenge as far as his origin and background are concerned. Unlike most of the other heroes that make up the Marvel universe, Thor’s powers are not derived from advanced technology, mutation, genetic meddling, cosmic radiation, or radioactive bug bites. No, Thor is quite literally a god. What’s more, he’s a god borne out of ancient mythology. Had creator Stan Lee chosen to take his character from the Greek or Roman myths as opposed to Norse, we might just as easily have been blessed with a movie about Zeus or Jupiter.

The fact that we did endure a movie about Zeus, and several other Greek gods, in last year’s CLASH OF THE TITANS puts this year’s THOR in a delicate position. How do you make a superhero film whose main protagonist is the personification of a mythological character from ancient folklore? What’s more, how do you reflect on the origin story of this historic character, make it believable to today’s world, and pull it all off without seeming cheesy or over-the-top? The answer in THOR’s case was to hand the director’s job to Kenneth Branagh.

Branagh was the perfect choice to take a film with such fantastic challenges and mold it into a credible story that not only grounds the myth in plausible reality, but manages to fit it nicely within the film-based Marvel Universe brand that Marvel Studios has been building ever since the release of IRON MAN.

The fact that Thor’s back story is rather Shakespearian plays well in the hands of Branagh, whom you may recall as having helmed film adaptations of HAMLET, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, and HENRY V, along with several others of the Bard’s work. Branagh does a good job of balancing the work of his actors with all the glitz, glitter and action sequences that abound in Asgard, the fantastic realm where Thor and the other members of his family and friends reside, while injecting humor, emotion and humble humanity among his characters throughout the Earth-based scenes.

Chris Hemsworth plays the lead role with just the right mixture of bravado and humor. An almost unrecognizable but always fantastic Anthony Hopkins portrays Thor’s father, Odin, while Tom Hiddleston plays Loki, Thor’s brother and ultimately the movie’s main antagonist. I think Hiddleston has one of the more difficult roles in the movie, having to make the arc from beloved brother to backstabbing villain. He manages to do it in a way that’s both subtle and restrained, yet very effective.
It would have been very easy to lose sight of the story and the characters these fine actors create among all the CGI and special effects within the Asgard realm. Fortunately Branagh is even-handed enough to know when to pause and let the story take shape.

Have no allusions though, on paper the story does sound rather fantastic and much more far-fetched than most other superhero movies. The fact that Branagh and writer Ashley Miller (who also penned the upcoming X-MEN: FIRST CLASS as well as several episodes of TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES) were able to get us through it all without devolving into the ridiculous is a fine credit. I was skeptical as to how they’d pull it off. I was happy to see they were successful.

Equally as challenging though was the fact that THOR maintains two separate story lines, each within their own world. There’s the fantastic other-worldly realm of Asgard where Thor battles the Frost Giants and becomes embroiled with his brother Loki and his father Odin over the rightful heir to the throne; and then there’s the Earth realm, where scientists played by Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings struggle to make sense of several strange weather anomalies and the mysterious man they encounter in the New Mexico desert. The film bounces back and forth between the two realms, sometimes through flashback, sometimes real time, but I never felt lost as to where we were or what the focus was.

For me though, the movie was much more entertaining once things got grounded (quite literally) on Earth. I didn’t mind the scenes that took place on Asgard, but the Earth story line, since, you know, is on Earth, seemed more familiar. Indeed, some of the film’s better moments of humor came during these scenes, as did quite a number of cross-over references to other Marvel properties and even a few inside nods to other Marvel films currently in the works. One nice juxtaposition was the fact that the Earth scenes took place in a sparsely populated New Mexico town, contrasting nicely with the large, glittering cityscapes of Asgard. Had they plopped our hero in downtown New York or Chicago, I don’t think it would have worked as nicely.

Yes, the love interest between Hemsworth’s Thor and Portman’s Jane Foster seemed like one of convenience (if Thor had really been kicking around Asgard since 900-something A.D., wouldn’t he have managed to find a wife or at least a girlfriend or two in all that time?) And unlike Hulk, Iron Man or Spider-Man, Thor is never really faced with a marquee villain equal to him in power in this film. Loki has a lot of potential, but he’s really just getting warmed up here. Had Thor not been stripped of his powers while in exile, he would have barely broken a sweat at all in the film. Such is the case when creating a hero that is truly a god. It will be interesting to see how they deal with this in subsequent films, though I have a hunch it won’t be much of an issue in THE AVENGERS movie due out next year (can you say HULK SMASH?)

I’ll admit that I have never been a big follower of Thor in comics, nor have I ever done due diligence toward familiarizing myself with him as a character in the Marvel Comics Universe. Purists and die-hard Thor fans may be quick to point out ways in which this movie took liberties with the origin or deviates from the comics insofar as his character traits or supporting cast is concerned. If this is the case, please forgive me for not spending time covering that in this review. My bet is that diehard Thor fans will see the movie regardless, and the rest will just want to know if the movie is worth seeing or not.

As far as the latter is concerned, I say yes – go get hammered. THOR is a fun mixture of fantasy and superhero action that further proves Marvel did the right thing by creating its own studio to better protect their characters.

Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
Release Date: May 6, 2010
Run Time: 115 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures/Marvel Studios

OFFICIAL TRAILER

WIIGIN’ OUT

Bridesmaids

**1/2

Review by Joel Frost

Quick, name three actresses who got their starts on Saturday Night Live who have gone on to become Hollywood superstars. Too hard? Okay, name two. Still can’t do it? Hmm. Name one? Not easy, is it. Molly Shannon, Jane Curtin, Nora Dunn, Amy Poehler, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Ana Gasteyer… all funny, smart, talented ladies who have had varying degrees of success since they left the show. Not one of them has managed to insert herself inextricably into the fabric of Hollywood’s power structure. Not one of them has managed to – been allowed to, one might suggest – turn her considerable talent into the kind of gold that she deserves.

There’s Tina Fey of course, but as talented, popular, and respected as she is, it can’t be said that she’s reached the levels of fame and power that command Hollywood’s utmost attention. To many, Tina Fey is the one who does that great impression of Sarah Palin. She’s been in a few mildly successful movies. She has a great, under-appreciated TV show.

Okay, now name three actors who got their starts on SNL who have become world-famous, rich Hollywood moguls. Too easy? Okay, name five. Heck, I’ll name eight. Will Ferrell. Mike Myers. Eddie Murphy. Chevy Chase. Adam Sandler. Bill Murray. Dan Akroyd. Chris Rock. All extremely successful. Almost all of them are, plain and simply, huge moguls in the entertainment business.

There’s a larger discussion that arises from this, that has to do with sexism and the ways in which people process humor from women. It just isn’t the case that the women of SNL haven’t been as funny as the men, so it has to be something else, or many other things. It’s an undeniable trend, whatever’s behind it, to the point of injustice. For goodness’ sake, it can’t continue, can it? Sooner or later, hopefully sooner, some talented woman will spring right off the set of SNL and with Ferrellian power, bust on to the big screen with such undeniable force of talent and will that she’ll change the whole damn thing, right?

If anyone can do it, it’s Kristen Wiig. For a few years now, she’s been one of the best, if not the best reason to watch ‘Saturday Night Live’. She’s utterly fearless as a performer. Like any great comedian, she manages the likable out of the absurd and awkward. She’s versatile. She has charm and charisma. She’s funny as hell. The show at times seems to hinge on her, just as it did with most of the aforementioned male stars. SNL has always been an ensemble of course, and it’s best when everyone’s firing on all cylinders, but for brief portions of time, a performer will sometimes just about take over the show. Usually, soon thereafter, that (male, so far) performer has gone on to major success in Hollywood.

So, with all that, Kristen Wiig (along with Maya Rudolph, another SNL alumn) is front and center in “Bridesmaids”. You may have wondered what the ladies were doing and talking about while the men were horsing around in films like “Wedding Crashers”, “Old School”, and “The Hangover”. Turns out they’re not just there to help our funny heroes learn valuable lessons about finally growing up. They like to have their own fun, it seems. “Bridesmaids” derives its story and humor from the relationships, new or old, loving or rivalrous, between six ladies who are drawn together to help one of them (Rudolph) prepare for her wedding. In certain ways, it’s a lot like the recent spate of guy-films about thirtysomething dudes finally realizing they may have to grow up a bit. These women face a lot of the same issues and emotions and fart jokes, and manage it with giddy aplomb.

What made movies like “Old School” good wasn’t the mindless partying and crazy hijinks. Rather, the palm-on-face tension of watching aging men behave like boys because they still wanted to and could afford to, added a layer of subtext to the proceedings. These were men raised on “Animal House”, trying desperately to get in a little more fun before they gave in to middle age. It was social criticism in the form of slappy humor.

“Bridesmaids” has a few barbs and a vague undercurrent of subversiveness, but stops short of skewering the establishment. Perhaps, to keep the movie somewhat light and pleasant, the writers (Wiig and Annie Mumolo) made an effort to avoid pointing up too many of the double-standards that women face in life, careers, and comedy. Most of this kind of energy finds its release on one character, Ted, the dreadful “fuck-buddy” (as he exclaims) of Wiig’s character. In a master-stroke of casting, Jon Hamm gives us the modern-day douchebag anti-Don Draper, who scoots around in his Porsche and kicks Annie (Wiig) out of bed after their altogether unfulfilling nude encounters. Ned represents the nice girl’s conundrum: He’s good-looking, he’s rich, he seems to like me. Why does he have to be such a shit?

Fortunately for Annie, a nicer guy shows up. It’s a pretty predictable arc between the two. At no point during “Bridesmaids” is the outcome of their flirtation in serious doubt.

Actually, not much is in doubt during this film. It’s about as safe and easy as a film of this general genre can be. By now, fart, puke and poop jokes are de rigeur in the context. It’s perhaps a touch more shocking and even liberating to see women “getting away” with that kind of thing on the big screen, so there’s that, but bodily fluids and functions aside, the audience is not particularly challenged.

Perhaps that’s a good thing. If toning down the sardonicism, sarcasm and satire is what shoots Kristen Wiig into the stratosphere, so be it. I can’t help but hope that she’ll someday find herself in a position where she’s able to give audiences the very best, the very funniest of herself. “Bridesmaids”, even with plenty of funny moments and sweetness, isn’t it.

Wendi McLendon-Covey, Ellie Kemper, Rose Byrne, and the force-of-nature known as Melissa McCarthy round out the group. Paul Feig (‘The Office’, ‘Nurse Jackie’, ‘Arrested Development’) directs. Kristen Wiig’s hair-stylist deserves a mention for helping to add a touch of luminescence to this quite-ready-for-big-time player. With some luck, justice, and a good first weekend for this film, perhaps we’ll get to see more of Ms. Wiig on the big screen in the future. Cross your fingers.

Directed by: Paul Feig
Release Date: May 13, 2011
Run Time: 125 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Universal Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

MONKEY BUSINESS

Born to Be Wild 3D

***

Review by Paul Preston

“Born to Be Wild 3D”, narrated by Morgan Freeman, manages to toe the fine line between high-tech and old school. The filmmaking is state-of-the-art, featuring IMAX 3D, the biggest, most immersive movie format in the world. Add to this, storytelling that emulates sitting in front of The Wonderful World of Disney in the 1970s and you’ve got what will no doubt be a hit film for the IMAX format.

This film is easy to digest. If ever there was a movie “good for the kids”, this is it! Forty minutes long and full of cute stuff like this:

It tells the intercutting story of two women doing rescue work for orphaned orangutans and elephants in Borneo and Kenya. Running an Orangutan Care Center in the jungles of Asia, Dr. Birute Mary Galidikas nurses abandoned or injured orangutans into early adulthood and, eventually, into the wild. The cameras follow the good doctor as they bathe and feed the animals, and there’s even a surrogate-mom-type procedure in which female humans carry the babies around all the time, which I think would confuse a young monkey, but instead it works quite well, inundating the baby with quality of life that an orphan would otherwise not have. And, of course, there’s tons of cute stuff like this:

I was lucky enough to attend a press event where the filmmakers and subjects of the film spoke. Dr. Galidikas discusses here her relationship and respect with the orangutans. She sounds a little like Underdog Lady from The Howard Stern Show…if Underdog Lady were a genius:

Meanwhile, in Kenya, Dame Daphne M. Sheldrick is nursing orphaned elephants to good health and releasing them into the wild as well. She has amassed quite a staff to assist with the wrangling, movement and care of the pachyderms (Pachydermata?). One of the most interesting parts of the film is when an elephant is returned to the jungle, all the other former orphans come out to greet it. No one tweets or Facebooks them. They just know, and they show up to welcome the new family member into the wild. Yes, it’s as corny and magical as that last sentence.

Opening in the vicinity of the American circus-themed drama, “Water for Elephants”, Dr. Sheldrick had some comments about “training” elephants for our amusements. The doctor is no joke:

The obvious comparison for this movie is Disney. Especially since Disney has tried to recapture the classic nature films of days gone by with their recent spate of Earth Day releases that spawned a whole label, “Disneynature’s Earth”, “Disneynature’s Oceans” and “Disneynature’s African Cats”. Warner Brothers’ “Born to Be Wild 3D” matches the photography of those elegant films, but adds the human element of the two doctors. Then there are the “this little guy’s getting into a bit of trouble” moments, which are always a hit. The kids in the theater I was in loved all the use of the 3D, orangutans swinging through the trees elicited the best reactions. And unlike full-length features, the 3D here isn’t distracting, it’s useful (and not employed by Disneynature), and, as I mentioned before, it knows when it’s welcome might wear out, so the film is wisely clipped at 40 minutes.

Some of the shots, as in most nature films, create impressive, you-are-there moments. Director David Lickley discusses the 3D shoot:

Can this review even evaluate the narration by Morgan Freeman? He’s simply one of the best out there doing it. It’s no coincidence that the film he won an Oscar for (“Million Dollar Baby”) features a good amount of narration. He’s a trusting voice, worthy of taking us deep into the jungle. You know you’ll make it out. Here, he discusses why he finds this project valuable:

As the onslaught of summer movies descends upon us, “Born to Be Wild 3D” is a great movie for your kids and decent entertainment for the adults. When IMAX fills up with “Thor”, “Pirates 4” and more, “Born to Be Wild 3D” will stick around for early screenings at theaters and extended runs at city science centers. Look, it can’t hurt to get a young mind involved in conservation, harmony with nature and other liberal environmental issues. Check it out.

Oh, and just ‘cause it’s awesome to hear him talk, here’s another Morgan Freeman clip. He was asked if he’s been to the national parks in Africa that the film visits. He hasn’t, but he did visit Okavango Delta in Botswana, and tells this story:

“Born to Be Wild 3D” is playing at the California Science Center in L.A., Navy Pier IMAX in Chicago (see it before the Transformers destroy it), and other major science centers and IMAX theaters across the country.

Directed by: David Lickley
Release Date: April 8, 2010
Run Time: 40 minutes
Country: USA
Rated: G
Distributor: IMAX Filmed Entertainment; Warner Bros. Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

BATTLE OF THE SEXES

Water for Elephants

***

Review by Dave Herbelin

I had debates with myself if I was the right person to review “Water for Elephants”, directed by Francis Lawrence. I had read the first half of the book (which I liked, but lost it so I couldn’t finish it) and I was performing a circus-type show with bubbles (soap and WATER) 30 feet from a herd of ELEPHANTS at San Diego Zoo’s Safari Park. It seemed like I qualified. However, this was obviously going to be a chick flick, and I am a guy. Perhaps it should be reviewed by a woman. Realizing my wife says I’m secretly gay was my deciding factor to go forth with the review. So I’m writing this with my masculine and feminine selves.

Overall, my masculine side says this film is a blockbuster that you’ll quickly forget you saw. My feminine side says Robert Pattison is hot.

What drew my masculine side to the book was the story of what life was like in a circus during the great depression. In the book there was a cast of characters with diverse quirks and each character had an integral role in the production of the circus. Life was hard from all sides and one had to walk carefully to not anger any fellow work hands without threat of a fist to the head or being thrown out a moving train. My feminine side was drawn to the love story and animals.

The film miniaturized any importance of all the characters outside of the book’s love triangle (Robert Pattison as Jacob, Reese Witherspoon as Marlena, and Christoph Waltz as August). Circus life, hardship, and the stories of freaks of the extravaganza were thrown out to make room for more shots of Robert Pattison brooding over the teasing flirtations of Reese Witherspoon: Bad for the masculine, good for the feminine.

The story is told, a la “Titanic”, as it is bookended with an old man looking back and telling the story of great tragedy in which he found his true love.

Masculine side says, “If this is three hours like that other P.O.S., then I’m walking out now.”

Feminine side says, “Ohhhh! I hope Celine Dion has as song in this one too.”

When we get to the actual telling of the story, the flashback to the great depression, the direction makes a common error I’ve seen a lot lately in modern filmmaking. Directors of late assume you will like and empathize with the main characters just because they are the main characters. A far too quick back story, or life changing event may be thrown in to make us jump to the side of the hero. In “Water for Elephants”, the story opens with our hero’s parents dying in a car crash. The problem is, prior to this event, we only see the hero say two lines to the parents and one is in a foreign language we don’t understand. No investment is made establishing this relationship and therefore we have no investment in the main character when the tragedy happens. It took me half the film to finally feel anything for anybody on screen. This is a tragic mistake commonly made in films these days which leaves the audience outside the story instead of sweeping them away.

Masculine side says, “I want to love or hate someone now! Make it so, Number One.”

Feminine side says, “His parent’s died in a car crash you uncaring bastard!”

From there, the events seem to take forever. So many more events happen in the book that are intriguing and keep the plot moving as the book focuses on circus life. But as the film focuses on the love affair, we just have to sit there and wait while the affair is slowly brewing like a large pitcher of sun tea in the afternoon light.

Masculine side says, “Get me a Keurig and brew me some coffee.”

Feminine side says, “Oouuuu, Robert is brooding again! Yeah!”

Considering there wasn’t much subtext directed in this film, outside of, “I love you, but don’t look at me,” the actors do a decent job. Christoph Waltz acts circles around anyone in this film as he has done in many others. Instantly you are drawn to him and you want to watch the many layers he has to his character. While this role won’t garner him any awards, he proves that if someone one day made a film starring him, Gary Oldman, John Malkovich, and Alan Rickman, it would be the scariest mind trip ever. Reese Witherspoon holds up a close second in this film as she graciously portrays a slightly aging Main Attraction. She doesn’t look her best in this film, but her sweetness and depth come through in every shot. Robert Pattison shows potential, but that is all. He broods and he smiles. Occasionally he gets silently angry. But he doesn’t emote. He doesn’t think. I’m pulling for him to one day be the next Harrison Ford. He has the look, and there are moments in the film you think you are looking at a lost clip of “Raiders”. But he’s no Indy. Harrison Ford is an actor you like to watch think. He knows how to brood, but he also knows how to fight with words, actions, and emotions. Harrison also knows how to become humble without losing his status of downright cool. Robert has the potential to be all this, but he needs more direction. Perhaps less time should be spent on his hair, and more time spent on hanging out with a Wookie. As for the actors:

Christoph Waltz –
Masculine side says, “Yeah! Be evil!”
Feminine side says, “He’s way too old for Reese.”

Reese Witherspoon –
Masculine side says, “She’s not as hot, but I’d still do her.”
Feminine side says, “I wish I could look that good after kids.”

Robert Pattison –
Masculine side says, “Please leave your teen-heart-throb-ness behind you.”
Feminine side says, “Bite me please!! No, Really!!”

The visuals are beautiful without overwhelming or taking over the story. The score is a great fit. But that’s all I can say about the technical aspects, which, to me, is a lot. The cinematography and score are in sync with the storytelling process instead of fighting with it.

Masculine side says, “What do you mean that’s all you noticed about it? You’re not a true Movie Guy.”

Feminine side says, “Yeah, okay, sure, whatever. Robert looked good.”

Overall, the film is struggling with three main problems. Bad choices on what part of the story they put on film, not enough subtext in the scenes, and a star that gets through the film by just brooding. It showed solid film making skills, and allowed for a decent character arc. With a solid cast of A-list stars, it will probably be a box office success opening just below 20 million (18.8 is my guess). However, two months from now, it will be forgotten, placed on DVD, and debated over when you make your next Red Box selection. It’s another great book which will be lost to obscurity because of a film that just missed the beauty of the story.

Masculine side says, “Go see it if you want to get somewhere after a date.”

Feminine side says, “Girls, let’s go see why our guys aren’t like Robert.”

*** Three out of five stars because there ain’t much else out there.

Directed by: Francis Lawrence
Release Date: April 22, 2011
Run Time: 122 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: 3 Arts Entertainment

OFFICIAL TRAILER

BACK TO (SAVE) THE FUTURE

Source Code

***

Review by Mark Tucci

SOURCE CODE is a new science fiction film from director Duncan Jones, who continues to explore the genre as well as the human condition after his previous outing with MOON. While MOON was a claustrophobic and solipsistic examination of what it means to be human, SOURCE CODE takes those themes one step further and examines what it means to be alive.

The film starts off with Captain Colter Stevens (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) awakening on a commuter train bound for Chicago. While struggling to make sense of how he got there and why his reflection bears that of someone he’s never seen before, the train becomes the victim of a terrorist bombing, which subsequently kills everyone on board. Stevens then awakes in an even more bizarre environment to find he is a willing (or perhaps unwilling) participant in a top secret government experiment called the Source Code. The Source Code allows a specific matching candidate (in this case Stevens) to inhabit the body of dead person and re-live the last eight minutes of their life.

This is not time travel, it’s explained, but merely the shadow remnants of a person’s life – the fading afterglow of memories before they’re lost completely to death’s embrace. Or something like that. The science behind the film is never explained in much detail. In fact, the film often deliberately skirts the issue in order to keep Stevens in the dark, while treating what little explanation they do give to him on the same level as a parent would to a child. The fact that we, the audience, are treated with the same kid gloves is both effective and also somewhat frustrating when trying to understand the threads of what’s holding the story together.

Despite that fact, the film is quite good, and presents itself as a more serious alternative to a movie like “Groundhog Day”, with which it shares some similarities. As with Phil Connors, Captain Colter Stevens finds himself reliving the same day over and over again, though in the case of SOURCE CODE, it’s only eight minutes and the stakes are much higher as Stevens struggles to locate first the bomb, and then the bomber, responsible for the attack.

Jake Gyllenhaal redeems his career after the embarrassingly awful “Prince of Persia” and turns in a fine, heartwarming performance as Stevens, who is conflicted over the duty to his country versus the duty to his family and to himself. Michelle Monaghan (GONE BABY GONE, DUE DATE) plays Stevens’ love interest within the Source Code, while Vera Farminga (THE DEPARTED, UP IN THE AIR) and Jeffrey Wright (QUANTUM OF SOLACE, SYRIANA) are the progenitors of the Source Code experiment.

The story does a good job of keeping you on your toes by spending most of it’s time focused on Captain Stevens. The result will no doubt delight those film goers seeking to entertain their minds as well as their eyeballs. Most of the movie takes place in two locations – the train that’s about to explode, and the chamber where Stevens communicates to those in charge of the Source Code. While there is plenty of action that takes place on the train, sci-fi fans whose sole interest in the genre begins and ends with “Transformers” and “Skyline” probably won’t want to bother lest their heads explode from putting too many thoughts into it.

Besides the confusing science behind the Source Code device, the one other slight stumble this film makes is probably the way it ended. Without giving away any spoilers, I’ll just say that based on what the audience was presented, the ending didn’t really seem to adhere to the rules the film made for itself along the way. I think it would have worked better fading to black about a minute sooner. True, the movie keeps twisting and turning up to the end, but I think it could have done with one less turn.

As far as this being a science fiction film, as long as you’re willing to forgive the “science” aspects and simply enjoy the “fiction” of it, you’ll enjoy the movie. It’s not one that requires a lot of close attention to detail in order to keep up, but it is one that would probably offer a different perspective upon repeat viewings. Director Duncan Jones weaves a great deal of humanity into this film, and in the end accomplishes a rare feat for the genre by not only delivering a solid story, but raising questions about life itself and what it truly means to be alive or dead.

Directed by: Duncan Jones
Release Date: April 1, 2011
Run Time: 93 Minutes
Country: USA/France
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Vendome Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

GIVE IT AWAY, GIVE IT AWAY, GIVE IT AWAY NOW

“Trailer Trash”

THE MIDDLE SEAT: Column by Steve Matuszak

OK, so I went a little crazy last week by suggesting that there were some people who do not deserve to see movies. I then extrapolated that beyond film. And some of you added your own lists – tall and wide people, teenage boys who don’t shower and anyone who watches Fox News!

Well, I guess I should take it easy this week and cover something less controversial. But that can be dangerous for passionate folks like myself. The denouement after excitement can be debilitating, like Lawrence of Arabia trying to reenter society.

But, I shall try. Let’s focus our sites this week on movie trailers. Now, I called this week’s column “trailer trash” as a pun for movies, not to denigrate those who live in trailer parks.

I don’t have any issue with anyone merely because of where they live. I have an issue with blatant ignorance that, when wielded improperly, can cause harm to others. Like the time, when camping, my friends and I drove back to our campgrounds to see a guy (who had a permanent RV site) pouring motor oil on his fire to get it to burn.

But I digress to trash rather than trailers, although they can often be the same thing, hence my title. I would like to make a confession. I have been endlessly fooled by movie trailers to frequent films that ultimately were nowhere near as good as the trailers suggested. Has this ever happened to you?

And this is normally the case with Bruckheimer-like epic blockbusters full of action with no story. I just sometimes can’t help it. The trailers give me a tease of potential “awesomeness” and then I go, only to discover that the awesomeness ended at the end of the trailer.

But I fall for it every time. The deep voice over, the narrative that suggests the greatest story ever told, the quick cuts and mind-blowing special effects. Recently I recall the “Clash of the Titans” trailer and just a hint of the Kracken! Or how about the “Tron: Legacy” trailer? I believed my life would not be complete until I saw the light cycles one more time!

These false advertisements (trailers) ruin my movie-going experience and make me mad.

First, because they normally give away plot points that I do NOT want to know because they ruin the suspense of the story. They also give away the best (and sometimes only) laugh moments of the film. Seeing the trailer should not supplant seeing the movie.

My mother used to say “Give them a little and leave them wanting more!” Of course, I was in a middle school play at the time, but the adage holds true nonetheless. Stop giving everything away in the trailers.

Second, could you producers stop making the special effects seem so amazing that you suggest there are even more amazing effects in the film. Because, when it comes to “2012″, while there were some additional special effects beyond those shown in the trailer, they were so ridiculous that I LAUGHED!

Nobody wants to get a hamburger from a place whose advertisement shows giant juicy, mouth-watering patties only to find a limp, wafer-thin slice of meat and stale bun. Same for movies. Stop lying! Where’s the Beef? Stop putting the meat in the trailer and then not the film!!

OK, I want to hear from you readers – what film had a trailer that made you die to see the film only to be massively disappointed? See, guys (and by guys I mean any and all of you editing and producing the trailer), the trailer is supposed to make me see the film, yes. But, it is not supposed to be better than the film (recent “Star Wars”).

Trailer making has become a business itself. And yes, it’s a creative endeavor to get so much into 1-2 minutes or less. But how about a little truth in advertising? Here’s an example: “Couples Retreat: It’s a crappy little romantic comedy that is just like all the others but Vince Vaugh and John Favreau just wanted to do another movie together, and Faizon Love has no idea what comedy means, but otherwise, it’s fair to middling.”
There you go, now we know what we are getting and we can make our own decisions. It’s like a restaurant, when I ask the waitress about a special, or dish, I want an honest answer so I don’t spend a bunch of money on something I may not like.

Do you have any idea how many movies make initial big box office numbers and thus fulfill their financial concerns only to see the numbers drop significantly because word is out on how much the movie sucks? A LOT OF THEM! I consider that “stealing”.

It’s like those businesses that use language on their websites or brochures “We are the #1, industry leading, best, etc. etc.” Oh give me a break. Show me the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, the research, the PROOF! How about the truth for once: instead of I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter” the factual alternative “It’s Clear This Is Not Actual Butter, But as far as Substitutes Go, It’s Not Bad”.

Follow these simple rules and I may be surprised in your favor at the box office. And that would benefit us both in the long run. Because I personally think consumers are getting smarter. And we are beginning to see through your ruse and can now pick out the duds in a heartbeat. This means less initial profit on opening weekend and beyond.

So suck it up, suck it in and get honest. Or, here’s the real kicker, take the time to make better movies and then the trailer won’t really matter, we’ll just go because we know you and your movies are good. Unless, of course, you turn South and start to make duds (Shyamalan). Oops, did I forget to edit that? Just like some stuff you could have kept out of your trailers so I could once again enjoy the love of a good plot twist.

SHITTER’S FULL

Ed McBain’s 87th Precinct: Lightning

AND TO THINK THAT I SAW IT ON HULU STREET column by Zibi D. Cat

So your economic situation is such that you’re watching movies on Hulu for free? So you click on over and are inundated with a plethora of titles, some familiar, some ridiculous and some curious and you just don’t know where to turn or what to click? Worry no more, friend. Because I’m your guinea pig. I’m going to watch the unwatchable. I’m clicking the weird, the wonderful and the what the hell were they thinking when they coughed up a budget for this piece of raw moose dung. Not only am I sitting through the entire flick no matter how painful, no matter how soul numbing, no matter how much I have to go to the bathroom, but I’m writing it all up so you won’t have to make the same mistakes I did. So go forth and click that flick and don’t worry about being taken by surprise. They got me, but they won’t get you.

Tonight we take a look at “Ed McBain’s 87th Precinct: Lightning”
Dir: Bruce Paltrow
Starring:
Randy Quaid as Detective Steve Carella
Ving Rhames as Detective Artie Brown
And a bunch of other people

Apparently, this was a Made For TV Movie that aired back in 1995.

The movie starts in the rain. It rains a lot in this movie. And I’ve got to tell you that I love watching Movie Bad Weather. You know the stuff: it’s a torrential downpour but no one gets wet. Hair stays dry, and make up doesn’t run because the actors are exempt from the Laws of Nature. But they’re not exempt from the Laws of Entertainment. For me, there’s only one real rule for movies: Thou Shalt Not Be Boring.

This adaptation of an Ed McBain book is Guilty as charged and the sentence is an hour and a half of tedium.

And that’s a real disappointment. You see, I’ve actually read a bunch of Ed McBain (aka Evan Hunter aka Salvatore Lombino). The man is a writing dynamo who has written a whole hell of a lotta books including Blackboard Jungle, and enough tales of the 87th Precinct to fill the shelves of countless thrift stores. He’s been writing these Police Procedural Mysteries since the 1950’s and it’s fun to go back and read books from various decades to see how cultural styles and values have changed. But this isn’t a book review so I’m not going to elaborate or ramble on about how this is an author that real cops read because the police procedural details are so accurate and the characters are well written. Go to the library and find out for yourself.

I mentioned how great the books are because if you’re a fan, you might think that it would be fun to see a film version of one of those novels. And it would be fun. But this is not that adaptation. There’s no joy here. Just a lot of fake rain.

And a homicide. A woman is out for a jog and is followed by a man. When her body turns up the next day, with a noose around her neck, a small American Flag propped in her cold, dead hand, and a picture of a lightning bolt placed on her body, the detectives realize that they have a psycho killer on their hands.

Let’s backtrack for just a second. The murder weapon is a noose. It’s a big, ole rope noose. Is this a game of clue? Who the hell uses a noose when they’re not lynching someone? The woman’s neck has been broken because the killer used a rope noose and strangled her with it using his bare hands. Um, really? I might believe death by strangulation but not by a broken neck because it takes more pressure to snap the neck than to choke a person with a rope noose. That’s why hangings involve a dropping of the person’s weight because that force snaps the neck and death is pretty quick. But when there’s not enough force to snap the neck then the victim strangles to death and it takes longer and there’s more kicking and struggling. And doing this by hand just isn’t gonna snap a neck unless Superman has decided to take up homicide as a hobby.

And where, outside of a Dario Argento movie or The Muppet Show, are people strangled by someone carrying a rope noose? So far, we have a cast that is immune to the rain and now a murderer who kills with a noose.

But that’s not the real mystery here. The real mystery is how does a film from 1995 look like it was shot in the 1980’s? That’s what I want to know. Alex McArthur who plays Detective Bert Kling wears his hair like it’s 1985 and poofy feathering is still in style. The whole production just screams retro. I really thought that it was an 80’s film until I looked it up on imbd. Just weird.

And speaking of weird: who the hell thought it would be a good idea to cast Randy Quaid as Detective Carella. Quaid can be a great actor when he’s an Amish bowler in “Kingpin”, or even as Elijah C. Skuggs in “Freaked”. But playing a hard-boiled, straight shooting police detective? The performance looks phoned in at best. Quaid delivers a perfectly lifeless performance but then again, he isn’t given much to work with here. He delivers one of my favorite lines in the film when he’s struggling with a typewriter and correcting a mistake with some whiteout: “I can’t type worth beans.” Yeah, he’s a real hard-boiled cop. Tough too. You can tell because he has issues with paperwork.

Another gem of a line is when the detectives are reviewing the killer’s work. Thoroughly disgusted, Quaid gets another zinger of a line: “We got a real lunatic on our hands.”

Yeah, it’s that kind of keen insight that helps cops solve crimes.

The real heart of the movie is Quaid’s developing relationship with deaf witness, Teddy (played by Deanne Bray). The movie runs about 95 minutes so the relationship has to develop pretty quick. In one scene, Quaid is seen moving his fingers and speaking out loud as he studies his Sign Language ABC’s. That’s the equivalent of moving your lips while reading silently and thinking that you’re going to score with an English Professor. Well, don’t worry romance fans. Before the big finish, Quaid masters sign language and impresses the deaf witness enough to get her to go to dinner with him.

And here’s where Randy Quaid’s acting ability takes a vacation. He’s late for dinner because he has to work a case. Showing up at Teddy’s door with a bag of Chinese Food and an apology isn’t enough. Teddy doesn’t want to hear it from her suitor and she shows him the door.

Before he goes, Quaid delivers the following tough guy with a heart mini-monologue: “I’m sorry Teddy. I really wanted to be with you tonight. But sometimes other events take precedence over what I want. I’m a cop. It’s difficult for me. And it’s more difficult for other people to understand what my life is like. I guess the two of us have a lot in common.”

That’s right folks: he just compared being a cop to being deaf! Genius! And that’s all it takes to get into her bed. A little wooden dialogue delivered like a stillborn baby and blammo! Instant Made-for-TV sex.

As artificial as the dialogue is, it gets a run for its money in artificiality from the sets. The scenes in the Precinct House are hilarious. Doors slam and blow back a bit from the force because those doors are not made of wood. And you never see the ceiling either. You know why? Because sets don’t have ceilings. Now, I’ve seen some sets, and with a little effort and some decent lighting and camera work, you won’t really notice how fake the setting is. After all, the last thing you want is something like a cheap set to pull you out of the movie experience unless you’re watching an Ed Wood epic, of course.

Then again, considering how completely dull this adaptation is, maybe being pulled out of the experience early on is a good thing. After all, there are other flicks to click out here in Hulu-land. And that’s a good thing because it means that I’ve got plenty of reviewing to do.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering: Ving Rhames doesn’t do much of anything in this flick except run around with some white tape on the back of his head. Seriously.

To sum it all up, I’m going to take another of Randy Quaid’s great lines from this flick, “Sometimes life just stinks.” That’s right and for now it’s the movie stinking. Folks, please don’t confuse the movie stinking with life stinking. And don’t confuse deaf people for cops. It’s rude and it confuses them.

Until next time, keep on clicking!

“Ed McBain’s 87th Precinct: Lightning” can be watched at HULU.COM.
Hulu’s slogan is Watch Your Favorites. Anytime. For Free.

DRUGS AND OTHER DRUGS

Limitless

***

Review by Joel Frost

Any writer will tell you that there’s a fine line between genius and mundanity. One great paragraph can quickly lead into a mess of banal drivel. Getting started is a trick in and of itself; a fantastic idea that swirls, in-articulated, in a writer’s brain does not always find its way to the page. Even if it does, that idea may flatten and dilute out into a fairly dull narrative. False starts, re-starts, blocks and stalls; all standard parts of most writer’s work process. Trying to navigate an idea along while not losing its soul and all the while infusing it with brilliance is the trick. What was that line, or paragraph, or character, or scene, or idea again? Can’t remember, damnit. Well, anyway… gotta start somewhere.

“Limitless”, Neil Burger’s new film stars Bradley Cooper as Eddie Morra, an underachieving writer who finds his way with the help of a little pill full of clarity. Getting out of the starting gate is hard for our hero. He’s got an actual book contract, so he’s not a pretender, but he can’t seem to put together the actual book. He’s cluttered, a bit sleepy, and worried. There are hints of his promise, but the Eddie Morra that’s shown at the beginning of this film seems unlikely to overcome his limitations.

In that way, the film itself echoes the character. With stilted dialogue and little panache, “Limitless” is at first about as appealing as Brad Cooper with a three-day old beard, frizzy hair, un-showered and bumbling around like an ordinary loser. Failure isn’t much fun to witness, especially when the subject of the failure inspires glimmers of promise and sympathy. Early on, Morra stumbles around, delivering his expositional dialogue dutifully, and the film seems dead in the water.

Whether this is an intentional trick or merely evidence of how hard it is to make dullness interesting is hard to say. An argument could be made that the film cleverly sets up an audience by delivering a shabby first ten to fifteen minutes in order to represent and stress the contrast between the early scenes and the rest of the film. If it was a conscious decision, it’s a tricky one, but ultimately it doesn’t really matter, because around about the time that Eddie Morra meets up with an old friend who gives him a pill to take that is meant to give the user a kick of smarts, “Limitless” starts to wake up. As Bradley Cooper’s character does, the film becomes wildly more interesting, funny, clever, and generally appealing.

This is accomplished in a few ways. For one thing, Neil Burger (“The Illusionist”, “The Lucky Ones”) uses a kind of other-worldly starkness of color and movement in his framing that inspires giddy vertigo. That’s exactly what Morra is encountering himself; a rush of awareness and speed of perception that the pill makes possible. The pill is an appealing device, of course; who wouldn’t love the chance to be immediately transformed into the best version of him or herself with a little trick like that. Add the obvious connotation of danger that any drug brings to a story, and an audience is plopped into the whirlwind of vertiginous beauty that Neil Burger and the writers Alan Glynn (original novel) and Leslie Dixon (screenplay) create.

A film like this demands a charismatic and vulnerable lead actor, and Bradley Cooper is quickly establishing himself as the right guy for those jobs. He’s a better actor than his blue eyes and winning smile suggest on their own. Those things can actually be a hindrance to an actor; if he seems too perfect, he’s hard to root for. Cooper manages to sidestep his own good looks while still keeping his charm. It’s no easy trick, but those who do it best (see: Ford, Harrison and Depp, Johnny) usually find long, successful, and often interesting careers.

It’s an exclusive club. Even the great Robert DeNiro, here playing Carl van Loon, the kind of enemy to Morra that is sometimes said to be best kept closer than a friend, never had to overcome a classically perfect appearance. DeNiro does his usual fine work with a fairly thankless role in “Limitless”, one which really only earns its weight in a final scene which manages a twist that would perhaps have been harder to pull off if not for the presence of all the characters an audience can see on the aging actor’s face.

“Limitless” tries hard to carve its own space. In a time when sequels and re-boots rule the box office and it’s hard for an original script to get made into a film, this one is a brash upstart. At one point, Morra tells the two new security guards he’s hired, “Wear different suits. This isn’t The Matrix.” Thank goodness it isn’t. There are hints of and nods to those films, but “Limitless” has guts and cojones that owe more to the Coen brothers than the Wachowski brothers. In one particular scene, Brad Cooper practically drinks from the vein of “Blood Simple”. It’s delicious, and illuminating.

“Limitless” is a test for Bradley Cooper, I expect. If he can carry and sell this film with his natural talent and make it a box office success, plan on seeing a whole lot more of him. You will even if this one isn’t a wild box office smash, but if it is, his options in Hollywood will be… what’s the word… it slipped my mind. Wish there was a pill for that.

Directed by: Neil Burger
Release Date: March 18, 2011
Run Time: 105 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Relativity

OFFICIAL TRAILER

NO-SEE LIST

“Cinematic Litmus Test”

THE MIDDLE SEAT: Column by Steve Matuszak

This week’s column is an outrageous sidetrack of time, energy and thought – and an impromptu diatribe inspired by a response to last week’s column.

“Jay” suggested, in response to my raging and elongated epithet about people who don’t “get” movies, that we should create a list of those people so cinema houses don’t let them in.

Well, for this week’s column, I’d like to elaborate on that list as well as expand to other lists that might serve our industry, and many others, well.

First let me say I love the idea of an exclusionary list. And the precedent has already been set. No one thought anything of it when the TSA created a “no-fly” list. If we have prior knowledge you are a no-good, dangerous person – then you do not get to go on a plane.

Why can’t we make this work for movies? Sure, there are abuses to every system, and sometimes good people will get excluded, but that is the nature of human systems – they are imperfect yet, at times, effective.

Now, while many who read this may disagree with my methodology for how we determine who gets on the list, I am wide open for tweaks and improvements. My initial thought is, we come up with a basic questionnaire, designed by people who enjoy and understand the art of cinema, and anyone who fails it gets put on the list.

Here are some sample questions. Must a movie always have a happy ending where everything works out in the end?

If they answer yes – their name goes on the list and we are never again bothered by the intellectually and artistically disingenuous banter of these people ever again.

Or how about, “Is Keanu Reeves a multi-faceted, depth filled, layered actor?”

A yes gets you on the list. Or vice versa, “Is Javier Bardem a good actor?” If they have never even heard of Javier, they go on the list. See how this works?

Or, keep it simple – “I enjoyed Catwoman, In the Name of The King, Glitter, Boat Trip, Showgirls, Battlefield Earth or Gigli”. A yes to any of those (and many more – add yours in the comments below!!) puts you on the list.

While we are at it, I have always wanted a similar list for actors and actresses in general. When I was working as a professional actor in Chicago, one of the most annoying things I can remember is having to spend half of my day waiting at an audition for a commercial where, after paying $28 for parking and buying yourself a crappy lunch, you had to enter a cramped room and “bite and chew” for 6 seconds then leave. To those who have not experienced this belittling and unnecessary endeavor, it means you “audition” for a commercial in which all you have to do is bite into a sandwich and then smile.

I often asked, why can’t clients just look at headshots and choose the look they want? This is what they are going for anyway, a certain look. The casting agents would often say, “Well, to be honest, we need to be sure the particular actor/actress can pull it off.”

“What?” But, I must admit, they were right! I have seen actors and actresses who could not even handle appearing “real” at eating a sandwich, so the clients and agents couldn’t trust hiring off of the headshot alone. So, I say we need a list of capable actors that have proven they can handle smiling into a camera without looking like they are socially handicapped.

So, what do we do? Easy, we have ONE yearly audition in which actors and actresses must prove they have basic acting skills and then they get to go into the “pool” of trusted headshots that clients can freely choose from knowing the performer, who has the “look” they want, will also be able to handle the role. Just get some great acting teachers, agents, directors, etc. to watch everyone once a year and weed out the overacting, non-nuanced numbskulls.

And why stop there? Let’s make all sorts of lists! Now look, we are talking about the arts here, not politics. This is not McCarthyism, it is Darwinism, where we simply weed out the folks who have not genetically or creatively evolved are holding our art form back.

If we are wise enough to weed out the people that think Crouching Tiger was “unrealistic” from attending movies, let’s weed out every single person who produced and directed “Kazaam”!

Of course, with the advent of the internet and cheaper cameras and editing software, we have a Wild West of cinematic crap and crap-loving digital audiences to wrangle as well.

I want a list of customer service reps so that, when I call Verizon or any similar company on the phone, I get someone who is able to listen to my needs and respond accordingly. And how about a list for insurance people, and lawyers and toll booth operators and … Oh man, wait, how about REPORTERS and NEWS ANCHORS. If they engage in stupid, un-witty banter and lame attempts at transitioning to and from serious stories, they go on the list!

So, I want to hear from you – what lists would you like to create beyond “No-Fly” and “No-See” (for movies)? Any other genres or individuals you’d like to see the mighty hand of evolutionary forces choose for natural, artistic selection?

Bring it on because The Middle Seat just got hot and is burning the seats around it to make LESS ROOM for the culturally uninformed!

NOT A BEAUTY

Beastly

*

Review by Maria Markosov

One of my favorite words in the English language is the word “Beast”. It’s a delicious word that makes a strong impression. And that is all about the film “Beastly” that makes a strong impression. Adapted from the story of The Beauty and the Beast into a book written by Alex Flynn and subsequently a screenplay written by Daniel Barnz, Kyle Kingsbury, played by Brit import Alex Pettyfer, is a good-looking narcissist attending a neo-elitist high school in Manhattan and must learn humility when he offends a high school witch, played by Mary Kate Olsen. She takes her revenge with a bit of black magic and transforms him into a bald, scarred and tattooed ‘freak’ and sets him loose. He can only be turned back to normal when he can find a girl to tell him she loves him. He leaves high school and his father, an equally shallow prick played by Peter Krause, abandons him to his own private condo, leaving him a blind tutor, played by Neil Patrick Harris, and their Jamaican housekeeper, played by Lisa Gay Hamilton. Before his transformation, Kyle never betrays a kind moment. Despite Kyle’s arrogant and mean personality, miraculously Lindy, a girl at school played by Vanessa Hudgens, supposedly sees ‘something’ inside him, and we’re talking DEEP inside him that no one else has seen, including himself. Not sure what message that sends to teens and young adults that if you just try not to notice the abusive behavior, maybe there’s some grain of goodness deep down.

This is where movies can be smarter and where the ‘before’ could have at least shown us Kyle’s background. Maybe even if we understood his home life better. But the movie inconsiderately shows us no relatable storylines or characters and nothing real. We are to believe that Lindy lives in a bad neighborhood and feeds homeless people, yet never developed a New York attitude or style and amazingly maintains a hairstyle straight out of a Beverly Hills salon. It even asks us to accept a ridiculous but convenient plot point where Lindy’s father must send her away to live with Kyle in order to protect her and to avoid incarceration. Despite all the false notes, the dramatic stuff has so much potential. There is a scene where the beast Kyle discovers Lindy has put their picture, which was taken from a party before Kyle was transformed, on the desktop of her computer. Then he proceeds to grill her with questions about how she feels about this “Kyle” from school. A scene like this could have had a lot of romance, intrigue, humor and charm in the right hands. Though poetry is used generously in the film, the movie feels like a left-brain calculation of a right brain story.

‘Beastly’ was both directed and written by Daniel Barnz, and yet there is no subtlety, and the moments that should have heart and sweetness come off contrived and formulaic in an obvious way. As far as Kyle’s bewitchment is concerned, he looks so much more interesting as the beast that when he eventually transforms back, I missed the beast. Watching the filmmaking team’s decision-making process about what kind of look the beast would have would probably be much more fascinating than watching the movie. Pettyfer’s beast is body art, and the lines and scars accentuate and contour his features in ways that are appealing and appear like they could be an art project of something Mary Kate Olsen’s witch would have drawn in her notebook.

Neil Patrick Harris, a deft and entertaining actor, does his best to provide some wit and life to the otherwise contrived and graceless movie. The one and only charming moment of the film takes place at a dinner table when Harris pours himself a glass of water and feigns to keep pouring the water past the limit to provoke Kyle to stop him. Cute. And sadly cuter than anything that occurs between the two leads. Pettyfer and Hudgens are eye candy enough, but were not given time to cultivate any nuance or passion in their roles. Their love for each other is unconvincing. They have little chemistry, which is disappointing because there is little else to enjoy in a movie like this other than the sexy pairing of attractive young leads.

Mary Kate Olsen steps in every once in a while but the choice to have her dressed in commercialized goth, chronically pissed off and portraying a forced sexiness, while filming her as if she were in an 80s hair band rock music video, didn’t serve the film. Also even though Kyle kept calling her fat and ugly, she was the opposite – she looked as if she were in a high fashion ad, so this was confusing. For the character, it would have been nice to see a less obvious choice, such as a bookworm or even another popular girl. Why not? But goth girl, yet another unimaginative choice. This picture was a wasted opportunity to tell a very sweet and classic tale in a modern setting.

Directed by: Daniel Barnz
Release Date: March 4, 2011
Run Time: 86 minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: CBS Films

OFFICIAL TRAILER

BLOTTO: LOS ANGELES

Battle: Los Angeles

***

Review by Justin Bowler

Do you like movies with modern war?

Do you like movies with aliens?

Then you’ll love this modern war movie with aliens movie.

(See what I did there?) Boom.

This is my (Justin T. Bowler) review of Battlefield: LA (Los Angeles).

The first 15-20 minutes was character establishment of what seemed like 30 characters. IN reality, it was probably only 10 (but I’d and I’ve been drinking heavily and my perception of time is just a little bit off, but don’t give me that look, because I got the points of the movie and this is still an important review, so shut up). So, they killed off half of the characters 5 minutes into the mission. Did I mention it was an army movie? Although, no one was in the army, they were all marines. Except for the airforce person. She wasn’t in the marines. She was in the airforce. Remember in “Black Hawk Down”, how they had 20 minutes to establish all of the characters? Well, they had to because it was a real story and all of the characters were important. This story was fictional, so I don’t know why they needed to do that when so many of them died REALLY early.

Editor’s Note: Justin is quite obviously still hammered. I can’t be sure he didn’t drink DURING the movie. The grammatical and punctuation errors and inconsistencies are notable, but most important, I should interject to tell you the name of the film is “BATTLE: LOS ANGELES”, not “BATTLEFIELD: LOS ANGELES”, as he has mis-remembered. – PP

I went to a Cinemark Theatre so I had the choice of seeing it in normal dumbass mode or in supercool “experience, digital” or “XD” mode for $5 more. I laid down a fiver (that’s how I roll) (boom) and enjoyed all the Godlike bonuses (I just said bonuses) that the “experience, digital” (XD) had to offer. I don’t remember what it was, that made the “experience, digital” or “XD” better, but just know there was a lot of stuff, and I know there was, because they told me so.

Aaron Eckhart is a fine action hero, (I say that becAUSE WE HAVEN’T SEEN HIM AS one). (Well aT LEAST I HAVEN’T. HE’S BEEN DOING MOSTLY Romantic comedies and the like. Although, he was in the second batman movie. But, not really as an action star, just a victim and villain. If you haven’t seen the batman movies, you should. Remember Bill Pullman’s (awesome?) over the top speech in Independence Day. His delivery of “This…. Is your…. Independence…. Day!” It fit perfectly in the film for the style it was. And well,)

Never mind, I forgot where I was goin with that. Anyway, I’m happy to see Aaron Eckhart branching out to action hero. (Although, he was in Batman.) But, I’d like him to do a less dramATIC ACTION HERO ROLE.

Editor’s Note: Justin was belligerent about not changing ANY of his text, despite massive alcohol-addled miscalculations in sentence structure and use of parenthesis and capitalization. As with most opinion pieces, please understand that Justin’s views and grammatical prowess do not necessarily represent that of The Movie Guys. – PP

BATTLEFIELD: la (lOS aNGELES) HAS SO MUch non-stop action, that the poignant dramatic moments seem soooo long and uninteresting. At one point I couldn’t take it and had to let out an audible elongated “booooorrrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnnngggg” a la Homer Simpson. (Did I mention I was drinking heavbily before the film?)

I’m not entirely sure how long the boring part was. I stumbled to the bathroom to relieve myself.

It was gritty and full of tension. Not too much blood. And a lot of bullets. (I’m talking about movie and not my “experience, bathroom” (BD).) Oh, and Michelle Rodriguez was in it. And so was that guy from True Blood. That one guy, you know, not the main one, but the other guy.

It was really loud and lots of shooting. Destruction, destruction, destruction. For the same reason “Volcano” is fun, this movie is fun if you live in LA (Los Angeles), but not if you live in LA (Louisiana). (Or I don’t knOW, MAYBE IT IS REALLY GREAT IF YOU LIVE IN LA (LOUISIANA). (I’M NOT FROM THERE, SO I’M NOT FROM THERE.)

THE ALIENS ARE GREAT VILLAINS, BUT THEy aren’t as good as the Nazis (which are the best villains of all time), but they were really great for five reasons. 1st, their really evil. 2nd, they want only to exterminate us. Not just enslave, or peacefully co-exist, but they want to destroy all human kind (and probably monkeys as well) (what did the monkeys ever do to them? That’s what I want to know). C, the aliens are ugly, and I mean worse than that-old-lady-from-England-with-the-good-voice ugly. (you know the one I mean, her album was the biggest preorder of all time on Amazon., her name was Sarah, or Molly, Or Susan Brown or something. I’m pretty sure she was Irish. Being Irish, I salute her.) 4th, the villains were really evil. And that’s why they were good villains. Boom!

THE ALIENS ATTACK OVER 20 CITIES AND WE ONLY SEE THE LA (LOS ANGELES) BATTLE. (THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED BATTLEFIELD: LA (LOS ANGELES)). Editor’s Note: It is called “Battle: Los Angeles”) -PP SO WE HAVE AT LEAST 19 more sequels until we see the end of the war. This was a smart business move for Aaron Eckhart. 19 sequels is a lot. So, if he got paid 5 million for each one movie, after 19 movies he’d have at least 50 million of so. (BTW There is an awesome cantina next to the Cinemark that we saw Battlefield: LA (Los Angeles), the bartender was really generous with the shots in the margaritas. So, I highly recommend them.)

All in all, Aaron Eckhart is the man. He originally shot an elongated (I just said elongated) sex scene with (back when she was really hot) Katie Holmes in Thank You For Smoking. Sadly, for us, it was cut. But he got to live it. So, you should go see Battlefield: LA (Los Angeles).

3 out of 4 thumbs. See it. (Especially if you liked Black Hawk Down, but wished it was with aliens.)

And that’s my review. Boom.

Directed by: Jonathan Liebesman
Release Date: March 11, 2011
Run Time: 116 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

PLEASE EXIT THE THEATER…
YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

“Schwarzenegger or Sony Classics”

THE MIDDLE SEAT: Column by Steve Matuszak

Let’s face it, different people like different kinds of movies. Some people stick to certain movie genres, like Romantic Comedies or Science Fiction, while others, like myself, enjoy a wide variety. But, in my humble opinion, there are certain people who don’t “get” movies, and thus should not be allowed to view movies at all.

Now, before you accuse me of getting all “snooty,” let’s remember we are talking about an art form here. And just as there are many types of painting styles – Impressionism, Realism, Cubism, etc., so, too, are there many types of films.

And I also understand that there are times that your particular mood can determine the movie you want to see. That’s OK. But what irks me are those people that do not understand the entire basis of the art of cinema. These are usually the people breaking the “shut up” rule from my previous column.

Let me illustrate my argument with a specific, illuminating example. I was at a restaurant a few years back with a large group of people and we began discussing the latest releases.

At that time, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” was just finishing it’s run and was widely acclaimed. I mentioned it as an excellent choice for those who had not yet seen it and had this exchange with an ill-informed, should-not-be-allowed-to–frequent-movies woman,

Woman: “That movie was terrible! No one can fly or run on top of buildings. It is not real!”

Me: “But the writer, director and others involved created a world in which that was possible – again within the world they created.”

Woman: “No, it was on the EARTH!”

Me: “Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it fits within the world of the Earth they created. Did you ever see Star Wars?”

Woman: “Yes”

Me: “Well, see, there’s my point. Those worlds don’t really exist either. It’s not a ‘realistic’ film. We do not have space ships that can shoot lasers and carry light sabers and such.”

Woman: “Yeah, but that was in SPACE. Anything can happen in space, not on earth!”

Do I really need to drag this out any further? Is anyone else ready to vomit? And this could have easily been a man – gender is not an issue here. Then there was the time, in a GRADUATE LEVEL COLLEGE CLASS, a student got irate that I mentioned Harry Potter.

“That movie is just liberals trying to convert our Christian children into witches. It’s all about witches and the Devil!”

Ladies and gentlemen, a movie about any topic, if done well, is not a support for, or final arbiter of, that topic (and Harry Potter is about kids, dreams, being unique and so much more – it’s not about witches and the devil, although it does address “evil”). Movies are narratives that relay stories to us that we then, on our own, make choices about and explore emotions concerning.

For instance, “Leaving Las Vegas” does not support or celebrate alcoholism or prostitution. In fact, if anything, it shows us the tragic consequences of alcoholism and prostitution. “Dead Man Walking” did not say that the death penalty was wrong or right. It showed us both sides, from very human perspectives, of people dealing with it and allowed us, with that additional information, to make up our own minds about the topic.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of movies which are terrible and actually support things like teens having rampant sex with zero consequences and taking illicit drugs and partying until they drive and almost kill someone with their car – and think it’s funny (although that does happen). I have no love for those movies that force an opinion down your throat or superciliously support a ridiculous lack of any decency.

But, good movies simply tell you the narrative creatively and let you decide how it impacts you. I know someone who won’t watch movies “that don’t end right” – that everything doesn’t work out in the end (lovers stay together, etc.). What? How is that reflective of life? If movies are only suppose to make us feel good then why bother with art in the first place?

Life is a story. Movies are stories about life, whether real or imagined. And life is comedy and tragedy. It is good to do both – fantasize a little as well as steepen yourself in reality.

I understand moods change on certain evenings, but when I hear someone say “Oh, I don’t want to go see that it’s a (fill in the blank with movie genre – chick flick, Merchant Ivory, Suspense, Horror, etc.)” I want to scream and burn celluloid into their brain! I will see ANY film if it has the promise of being a good film.

Sure, there are films I have not seen nor will ever see. Now, how can I judge a book by it’s cover you ask? Because, well, sometimes you just know – but that statement is made by a person who “gets” what art is for. So sorry “Good Burger”, “Phat Beach”, “I Got The Hook Up” and “Starship Troopers 2″ – no chance!

Other than those rare grotesque duds, I am game for anything that has heart, art and/or soul – slice of life, high drama, comedy, tragedy, documentary and so forth. Give me a good story (script), good acting, good direction, good anything and I will take that journey. But don’t judge a masterpiece by whether or not people can really fly – or we’ll have to keep our kids from watching E.T. – which might actually satisfy the Harry Potter witch hater.

DON’T GO BREAKING MY HEART

Gnomeo & Juliet

***

Review by Patrick Garland

So you’re telling me you want a new twist on Shakespeare? Fine, but first you must ask yourself some basic questions. What hasn’t been done already? Where does your story take place? And most importantly…how do you avoid creating a terrible Baz Luhrmann version that does nothing but confuse the mind and fill the theater with the stench of over-the-top acting. It’s been fifteen years and I can still smell it…horrible. Hey, here’s an idea. How about a bunch of garden gnomes having a backyard feud because one group wears blue and the other wears red? If you’re thinking to yourself “Yeah right, that would never work”, then I say guess again. It can and does work in the film “Gnomeo & Juliet”. This highly entertaining animated film is exactly what Shakespeare geeks who also happen to love animation have been waiting for. If that doesn’t describe you, don’t worry, you’ll enjoy it as well.

The story is basically a loose retelling of William Shakespeare’s play “Romeo and Juliet”, which is pretty obvious by the title of the film. Gnomeo, played by James McAvoy, is a blue gnome who lives in Mrs. Montague’s back yard with the rest of his blue gnome buddies. The yard is ruled by Gnomeo’s mother Lady Blueberry. On the other side of the fence is the back yard of Mr. Capulet. That’s where Juliet, played by Emily Blunt, lives with her overprotective father Lord Redbrick and the rest of the red gnomes. Every day when the two homeowners leave, the gnomes come to life and the feuding begins. One of the main contests between the gnomes is lawnmower racing with Gnomeo racing for the blues and the fiery Tybalt leading the reds. Of course, just like in the original story, one thing leads to another and Gnomeo and Juliet fall in love. They are told their bliss is doomed since a blue and a red would never be allowed to marry. The gnomes love is so strong they must find a way to be together and since this is a cartoon, wackiness obviously ensues.

“Gnomeo & Juliet” is filled with an eclectic cast that includes Michael Caine, Maggie Smith, Jason Statham, Ozzy Osbourne, Dolly Parton, Patrick Stewart, Jim Cummings, Julie Walters, and Hulk Hogan. Everyone does a fine job and gets a chance at a few clever one-liners. “Gnomeo & Juliet” also does a nice job with its use of cultural references past and present. If you watch closely, you’ll notice a clever homage to Shakespeare’s other works throughout. The film’s music, which is made up of classic songs by Elton John, is also impressive. The use of “Bennie and the Jets” is particularly cute and gave me a good chuckle.

One thing you should be aware of when going to see “Gnomeo & Juliet” is that a lot of the humor skews towards older audiences. Little ones in the audience might become bored or lose interest quickly. But for older kids and adults, “Gnomeo and Juliet” is good clean backyard fun. Anyway, that’s the way I see it.

Directed by: Kelly Asbury
Release Date: February 11, 2011
Run Time: 84 minutes
Country: USA/UK
Rated: G
Distributor: Miramax Films

OFFICIAL TRAILER

MISSOURI: THE SHOW ME STATE.
SHOW ME YOU’RE CRAZY.

Winter’s Bone

**1/2

Review by Paul Preston

The biggest asset “Winter’s Bone” has is authenticity. The story goes beyond a world I know in exploring the depths of a culture of meth use and violence, but the starkness of a bleak, backwoods existence where hope and optimism are not so much in sight was on display in my Upstate New York upbringing for sure, so the film has an unsettling familiarity. That was a huge sentence. Let me be more succinct going forward.

“Winter’s Bone” is about a young girl named Ree with WAY too much on her plate. Her mom is in some sort of sick social withdrawal, she’s caring for her siblings, while estranged from her father, getting unwanted visits from the police and threats from the local meth underground for “snooping around”. There’s another long sentence. Let me just say that the people in this film don’t talk in long sentences. They are toughened, grim losers who you would never want to meet, and when Ree comes across them, their menace is palpable.

It seems Ree’s father was involved in this drug world, and the cops are after him. If they can’t find him, Ree could lose her family’s house. A lot of shit going down for a seventeen-year old. When Ree pokes around the locals looking for her dad, she’s intimidated and beaten.

“Winter’s Bone” does a fine job of creating a place and a tone, but I never entirely understood the intentions of the terrifying adults. Sure, I knew that sometimes their intentions were “beat” or “kill”, but they often acted as if they hid the town secret of the local werewolf, but no such wolf ever shows. The people just act creepy “because”.

I guess “Winter’s Bone” is a coming-of-age story about a young girl whose age will be to take her place with the scared, menacing adults populating the sparse woods. I say “I guess” not because I don’t understand the movie, it’s just that I wish I was describing this movie a little differently. I wish I was more involved.

One scene that did work for me was when Ree talks to an Army counselor about joining the service. He straight-up tells her that given how entrenched she is (already at 17) in her life with so many responsibilities that leaving to tour ‘round the world with the Army isn’t her best option. It’s the truth. And the truth hurts.

Breakout star Jennifer Lawrence gives a performance beyond her years for sure, and fellow Oscar nominee John Hawkes brings an assured sense of danger to his scenes as Ree’s uncle Teardrop, even when the character’s allegiance is a wavering for no real reason other than Ree needs SOMEONE on her side.

I think The Academy wanted to nominate this film for Best Picture because it was such a Sundance hit. Well congrats, Oscar, you have your indie cred. But the film isn’t as emotional as “Blue Valentine” or as scary as “Shutter Island”, two films I would’ve nominated instead. The best lesson to take from “Winter’s Bone”: Never go to Missouri.

Directed by: Debra Granik
Release Date: June 11, 2010
Run Time: 100 minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Anonymous Content

OFFICIAL TRAILER