Recent years have seen much of my childhood coming back to haunt me, “GI Joe” and “Transformers” have been given the big screen treatment, “Indiana Jones” came back for a new adventure, even “Doctor Who” has made a comeback. With these revivals there has been a lot of discussion of defacing my generation's childhood. It is with that in mind that I went to see the movie adaptation of one of my childhood's most treasured storybooks, a movie that has been in the works for over a decade and has been reportedly subject to a lot of executive meddling; Maurice Sendak's “Where the Wild Things Are”.
“Where the Wild Things Are” is the story of Max (Max Records), a creative and energetic child who is in desperate need of some Ritalin, a shrink, and a spanking. His dad is out of the picture, his sister is too busy with her friends to spend time with him, he seems to have no friends of his own, and his mom doesn't have enough time between work and trying to start a new relationship to give Max the attention he thinks he deserves. Of course this gives Max all the excuse he needs to act like an unholy terror. Within the film's first fifteen minutes Max destroys his sister's bedroom, disrupts his mother's date (which she has at home rather than going out and leaving the kids home alone), and runs away from home.
That's right, he runs away; he's not sent to bed without supper, we do not get to see his room turn into a jungle, he just runs away, steals a boat, and sails to the island of the Wild Things. Alright then, you have to expect a few changes, right? I mean this review is already longer than the entire book the movie's based on, and they had to stretch this out to ninety minutes, so this is not a total surprise.
Once on the island we get to see the film's strongest feature, the Wild Things themselves. Sendak's drawings are brought to life with a blend of old fashioned people in costumes and seamless high tech CGI faces. Of course it would still all fall apart if they were not given good voices; James Gandolfini (“The Sopranos”), Lauren Ambrose (“Six Feet Under”), Catherine O'Hara (“For Your Consideration”), and Forest Whitaker (“Vantage Point”) provide this final ingredient to make those old drawings into living, breathing creatures.
If it seems like I am gushing about the visuals of this film, it is because it is simply its strongest point. The creatures and the sets will make you gape in awe, which is good because it's all downhill from there.
From the get-go you can tell that this is a Spike Jonze film. From the very first scene the whole things screams “independent film”. You mileage may vary on this, but I found Jonze's choice to film most of the movie on hand held cameras to get very old very fast. I know it was meant to bring you into the action of the film, but there were times during the action sequences where I was left thinking “Wow, I wish I could actually see what is going on”.
The movie's soundtrack is, I imagine, supposed to sound light and imaginative. It's supposed to make me think of my childhood days of building snow forts and having dirt clod fights. It didn't. I couldn't stand the music which, like Jonze's hand held camera work, made me think of an independent film, and not a particularly good one. Of course the fact that the original music was performed by Karen Orzolek, Jonze's then girlfriend, doesn't help dispel this feeling. Spike, you had a huge budget for this film; you could have hired people to make good music to score your film with, not this simplistic screechy nonsense.
There's only one more thing I have to criticize about this film, and that's the story, or lack of one. Admittedly, the strength of the book, “Where the Wild Things Are”, is its art, not its story, and the same can be said for the film. The whole thing kind of meanders around for the bulk of the movie showing off the fantastic work of the people who made the costumes and sets while only touching on the film's main story, which is essentially Max discovering things about himself. The majority of this self-discovery is handled in the films final fifteen minutes or so.
Maybe I just had a bad case of Phantom Menace Syndrome going into this film, but it largely left me cold. I loved the visuals (if not the camera), and would say it's one of the most beautiful films I've seen this year, but it's just not very good. There are scenes in the film that are probably too scary for younger audiences (the ones most recently familiar with the books) due largely to just how real the Wild Things look, but I fear that older kids who wouldn't be bothered by this are going to be a little bored.
To truly appreciate the visuals in the movie, I think you really do need to see it on the big screen, and if it weren't for that I would not recommend seeing this in the theater. The problem is that I think the sets and the Wild Things themselves deserve to be seen on the big screen to get the full effect of them. The other problem is that the story to justify going out to a theater just isn't there.
Ultimately, I left feeling like Jonze is trying to create something on the level of “The Wizard of Oz”, and he succeeds with the film's visuals, but fails in the story and soundtrack departments. If you decide to take the kids to this, just be aware that you may have to hold them during some of the scarier parts (there were kids crying in our theater), and just try to enjoy the wonderment of seeing the Wild Things moving on screen.
Hopefully time will provide us with a director's cut of the film that puts everything back the way it was before Warner Bros decided that it wasn't “family friendly” enough, and maybe then Spike Jonze will be vindicated, but until then we are left with this beautiful but disappointing production. The wild rumpus starts in theaters on October 16th in theaters nationwide.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
"The Invention of Lying"
Imagine living in a world with no concept of fiction; no one has ever thought to tell a lie, there's not even a word for it. Of course when you have no concept of fiction you also have no fictional books, no acting, no art, no sarcasm, and even no religion (I'm sure some people will froth at the mouth over this). You have a world where everybody is as good as their word, and if someone says it, it must be true. Now imagine that you learn how to lie, and you have the basic premise of “The Invention of Lying”.
Mark (Ricky Gervais: “Ghost Town”, “The Office”) lives in this fiction-free version of the modern world, and is the standard Gervais character; he's a sad little pudgy loser, and no one likes him. There are a couple of things that set Mark apart from previous rolls though. First of all, everyone lets Mark know what they think of him to his face with no problems because even lies of omission do not exist in this world. It's like a world full of young children who still say what they think, and believe anything they are told, no matter how outrageous.
Like all Ricky Gervais characters, Mark is getting older, is a failure at his job, and is alone, but the other thing that sets Mark apart from Bertram Pincus or David Brent is that he's not the worst person in the film; he's not even a bad person. Mark really is the good guy, and with the exception of his friend, Greg (Louis C.K.: “Lucky Louie”) and his neighbor, Frank (Jonah Hill: “Superbad”) it is pretty much everyone else in this movie that are the horrible people. For once Gervais plays the victim that his former rolls perceived themselves to be.
“The Invention of Lying” is a romantic-comedy, so naturally there must be a love interest; her name is Anna (Jennifer Garner: “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past”, “Alias”). Anna is a successful executive (at what the film never says), and she's certainly friendly enough, but she is so shallow that even when she sees Mark for the great guy he is, she doesn't care. Anna is basically a self-absorbed teenaged girl for most of the movie, and that goes a long way to making her very unlikable. I found myself rooting for Mark to simply give up on her.
I will admit that I went into this movie disliking the concept; it seems like an idea for a “Saturday Night Live” sketch grown to horrific proportions, and parts of the film do feel like they were sketch ideas. Some scenes, like scene in the trailer where Mark tells a random blond woman that the world will end if they do not have sex, are almost standalone gags that demonstrate the relative innocence of the people in this world, but do little to add to the overall story.
That said though, I really wanted to like this movie. The cast is fantastic, with appearances by Tina Fey, Rob Lowe, Jeffery Tambor, Christopher Guest, Stephen Merchant, Jason Bateman, John Hodgeman, and more. It's like the movie is one giant in-joke to have attracted all of these actors, many of which only appear in one or two scenes, and all of whom are fantastic. In the hands of less talented performers this movie could have been truly dreadful.
It is almost impossible to not want to like this film, but I just didn't. It felt like a movie that had been made on a dare, or perhaps it was someone's idea of a joke that was taken as a serious idea and then got out of hand. The premise is just too flimsy to carry the film for a full hour and a half. T is just too hard for me the believe that the world could advance to this point without anyone lying, or even not voicing their opinions about everything.
One thing that really does make make this movie stand out to me is that it does provide a chance for Gervais to step outside of his normal awkwardness and have a little genuine emotion. I cannot recall ever seeing one of his characters show anything more than disappointment or annoyance before, but he pulls it off convincingly. I'm not saying that Ricky Gervais should start doing heavy dramatic roles, but it is nice to see that he does have some range.
Compared to Gervais' last Rom-Com outing, “Ghost Town”, this movie falls a little flat as it wanders around exploring the effects that the world's first liar has on the people around him, the film industry, and the concept of an afterlife. The romantic aspect of the film is seemingly forgotten for long stretches of time between sketches, and it isn't until around the last fifteen minutes that we get to the standard boy-has-to-get-girl-back portion of the story. Perhaps if the story had kept its focus a little bit better, it wouldn't feel so much like it was missing something at the end.
“The Invention of Lying” is fresh, quirky, funny, and entertaining, but it left me feeling a sense of dissatisfaction as I walked out of the theater. I could never get past the flaws inherent in the premise, but the parties involved deserve a lot of credit for making it work as well as it does. If you're not the sort of person who thinks critically about films, then you will probably like it. If you like Ricky Gervais, you will probably enjoy it. If you don't fit in one of those two categories, then you will probably want to wait for the film to hit DVD.
Maybe sometimes honesty is not the best policy, but if you want to find out for sure, you can when “The Invention of Lying” fibs its way into theaters on October 2nd.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
Mark (Ricky Gervais: “Ghost Town”, “The Office”) lives in this fiction-free version of the modern world, and is the standard Gervais character; he's a sad little pudgy loser, and no one likes him. There are a couple of things that set Mark apart from previous rolls though. First of all, everyone lets Mark know what they think of him to his face with no problems because even lies of omission do not exist in this world. It's like a world full of young children who still say what they think, and believe anything they are told, no matter how outrageous.
Like all Ricky Gervais characters, Mark is getting older, is a failure at his job, and is alone, but the other thing that sets Mark apart from Bertram Pincus or David Brent is that he's not the worst person in the film; he's not even a bad person. Mark really is the good guy, and with the exception of his friend, Greg (Louis C.K.: “Lucky Louie”) and his neighbor, Frank (Jonah Hill: “Superbad”) it is pretty much everyone else in this movie that are the horrible people. For once Gervais plays the victim that his former rolls perceived themselves to be.
“The Invention of Lying” is a romantic-comedy, so naturally there must be a love interest; her name is Anna (Jennifer Garner: “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past”, “Alias”). Anna is a successful executive (at what the film never says), and she's certainly friendly enough, but she is so shallow that even when she sees Mark for the great guy he is, she doesn't care. Anna is basically a self-absorbed teenaged girl for most of the movie, and that goes a long way to making her very unlikable. I found myself rooting for Mark to simply give up on her.
I will admit that I went into this movie disliking the concept; it seems like an idea for a “Saturday Night Live” sketch grown to horrific proportions, and parts of the film do feel like they were sketch ideas. Some scenes, like scene in the trailer where Mark tells a random blond woman that the world will end if they do not have sex, are almost standalone gags that demonstrate the relative innocence of the people in this world, but do little to add to the overall story.
That said though, I really wanted to like this movie. The cast is fantastic, with appearances by Tina Fey, Rob Lowe, Jeffery Tambor, Christopher Guest, Stephen Merchant, Jason Bateman, John Hodgeman, and more. It's like the movie is one giant in-joke to have attracted all of these actors, many of which only appear in one or two scenes, and all of whom are fantastic. In the hands of less talented performers this movie could have been truly dreadful.
It is almost impossible to not want to like this film, but I just didn't. It felt like a movie that had been made on a dare, or perhaps it was someone's idea of a joke that was taken as a serious idea and then got out of hand. The premise is just too flimsy to carry the film for a full hour and a half. T is just too hard for me the believe that the world could advance to this point without anyone lying, or even not voicing their opinions about everything.
One thing that really does make make this movie stand out to me is that it does provide a chance for Gervais to step outside of his normal awkwardness and have a little genuine emotion. I cannot recall ever seeing one of his characters show anything more than disappointment or annoyance before, but he pulls it off convincingly. I'm not saying that Ricky Gervais should start doing heavy dramatic roles, but it is nice to see that he does have some range.
Compared to Gervais' last Rom-Com outing, “Ghost Town”, this movie falls a little flat as it wanders around exploring the effects that the world's first liar has on the people around him, the film industry, and the concept of an afterlife. The romantic aspect of the film is seemingly forgotten for long stretches of time between sketches, and it isn't until around the last fifteen minutes that we get to the standard boy-has-to-get-girl-back portion of the story. Perhaps if the story had kept its focus a little bit better, it wouldn't feel so much like it was missing something at the end.
“The Invention of Lying” is fresh, quirky, funny, and entertaining, but it left me feeling a sense of dissatisfaction as I walked out of the theater. I could never get past the flaws inherent in the premise, but the parties involved deserve a lot of credit for making it work as well as it does. If you're not the sort of person who thinks critically about films, then you will probably like it. If you like Ricky Gervais, you will probably enjoy it. If you don't fit in one of those two categories, then you will probably want to wait for the film to hit DVD.
Maybe sometimes honesty is not the best policy, but if you want to find out for sure, you can when “The Invention of Lying” fibs its way into theaters on October 2nd.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
Friday, September 18, 2009
"Zombieland"
You know how it starts; a strange disease appears turning normal people into violent murderous cannibals. Humans respond badly, and rather than contain the infection and destroy the infected, they let it spread. Before you know it a couple of months has passed, and America has become the United States of Zombieland.
If “Shaun of the Dead” was a tribute to Romero's zombie classics, then “Zombieland” is a love letter to the modern “running zombie” (which is to say that not all of the zombies are undead, many are just infected living people) genre of films like the “28 ___ Later” films, and the “Left 4 Dead” games. A lot of people have been comparing this film to SotD, but a better comparison would actually be 1992's “Dead Alive” (or “Braindead”, depending on where you are), as both rely very heavily on violence and extreme gore to punctuate their humour.
To survive in “Zombieland”, you need to follow the rules, and Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg: “Adventureland”) is a man whose rules range from wearing seatbelts and doing cardio (it was the fatties that died first, so I'm screwed) to avoiding bathrooms (this make sense in context) and not being a hero. All he wants to do is get home and see if his parents are still alive.
On his journey, Columbus meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson: “No Country for Old Men”), a man whose lack of discipline and rules is made up for by his sheer insanity and brutality. He enjoys breaking things, whether it be inanimate objects or zombie skulls. Columbus and Tallahassee join up, and do okay together for awhile, until they meet up with Wichita and Little Rock.
Wichita (Emma Stone: “Superbad”), and her sister, Little Rock (Abigail Breslin: “My Sister's Keeper”) survive by their own set of rules. After some initial problems, the two pairs eventually end up traveling together to California in search of the Pacific Playland amusement park and Twinkies.
The acting in this film is more than adequate. Harrelson plays the insane redneck that he is so good at, and steals many of the scenes from the other actors. Eisenberg seems to be channeling George Michael Bluth for much of the movie (the fact that he's stolen Michael Cera's hair contributes a lot to this, I think), but it fits the cowardly former Warcraft-and-Mountain-Dew addict character of Columbus well. Stone and Breslin both also give great performances, but they do come across as secondary to the male leads.
One of the brightest points of “Zombieland” is the appearance of Bill Murray. To tell you anything about these scenes would be to spoil what is one of the funniest parts of the film. I'll leave it by saying that it is great to see Murray in such a funny role after the more serious bit parts in films like “The Darjeeling Limited”.
If I were to have anything negative to say about this film it would be that it is maybe too gory in parts. I actually found the first ten minutes of the film to be uncomfortably disturbing for a comedy; these scenes are still funny, but the sheer amount of gore in them did bother me. After these scenes the gore stopped bothering me, which isn't to say that it's toned down any; there is still plenty of blood and guts in there just for the sake of having blood and guts, but I guess I got used to it.
The other criticism would be the film's climax. Again I don't want to spoil anything, but we suddenly find Wichita and Little Rock forgetting what genre of film they are in, and doing things that are incredibly stupid. In fact, this whole sequence is full of stupid, illogical, and highly improbable events, although it would make for a fantastic “Left 4 Dead” level. You may find it helpful to simply ignore all of the logic flaws in the climax, because if you can do that the sheer amount of awesome in it are very rewarding.
“Zombieland” is a overly gory, foulmouthed, violent film that uses way too many slow motion shots, but it is also exciting, well acted, and incredibly funny. If you like zombie films, even if you dislike running zombies (or “zoombies”) like I do, you owe it to yourself to go see this movie in the theater. There is something about being in a group of people laughing and cheering that adds a lot to this raucous roller coaster ride.
If you like violent gory comedies, then you're going to love “Zombieland” when it infects theaters on October 2nd, just remember not to take it all too seriously. If you sit there trying to nitpick this movie, you'll just spoil it for yourself.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
If “Shaun of the Dead” was a tribute to Romero's zombie classics, then “Zombieland” is a love letter to the modern “running zombie” (which is to say that not all of the zombies are undead, many are just infected living people) genre of films like the “28 ___ Later” films, and the “Left 4 Dead” games. A lot of people have been comparing this film to SotD, but a better comparison would actually be 1992's “Dead Alive” (or “Braindead”, depending on where you are), as both rely very heavily on violence and extreme gore to punctuate their humour.
To survive in “Zombieland”, you need to follow the rules, and Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg: “Adventureland”) is a man whose rules range from wearing seatbelts and doing cardio (it was the fatties that died first, so I'm screwed) to avoiding bathrooms (this make sense in context) and not being a hero. All he wants to do is get home and see if his parents are still alive.
On his journey, Columbus meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson: “No Country for Old Men”), a man whose lack of discipline and rules is made up for by his sheer insanity and brutality. He enjoys breaking things, whether it be inanimate objects or zombie skulls. Columbus and Tallahassee join up, and do okay together for awhile, until they meet up with Wichita and Little Rock.
Wichita (Emma Stone: “Superbad”), and her sister, Little Rock (Abigail Breslin: “My Sister's Keeper”) survive by their own set of rules. After some initial problems, the two pairs eventually end up traveling together to California in search of the Pacific Playland amusement park and Twinkies.
The acting in this film is more than adequate. Harrelson plays the insane redneck that he is so good at, and steals many of the scenes from the other actors. Eisenberg seems to be channeling George Michael Bluth for much of the movie (the fact that he's stolen Michael Cera's hair contributes a lot to this, I think), but it fits the cowardly former Warcraft-and-Mountain-Dew addict character of Columbus well. Stone and Breslin both also give great performances, but they do come across as secondary to the male leads.
One of the brightest points of “Zombieland” is the appearance of Bill Murray. To tell you anything about these scenes would be to spoil what is one of the funniest parts of the film. I'll leave it by saying that it is great to see Murray in such a funny role after the more serious bit parts in films like “The Darjeeling Limited”.
If I were to have anything negative to say about this film it would be that it is maybe too gory in parts. I actually found the first ten minutes of the film to be uncomfortably disturbing for a comedy; these scenes are still funny, but the sheer amount of gore in them did bother me. After these scenes the gore stopped bothering me, which isn't to say that it's toned down any; there is still plenty of blood and guts in there just for the sake of having blood and guts, but I guess I got used to it.
The other criticism would be the film's climax. Again I don't want to spoil anything, but we suddenly find Wichita and Little Rock forgetting what genre of film they are in, and doing things that are incredibly stupid. In fact, this whole sequence is full of stupid, illogical, and highly improbable events, although it would make for a fantastic “Left 4 Dead” level. You may find it helpful to simply ignore all of the logic flaws in the climax, because if you can do that the sheer amount of awesome in it are very rewarding.
“Zombieland” is a overly gory, foulmouthed, violent film that uses way too many slow motion shots, but it is also exciting, well acted, and incredibly funny. If you like zombie films, even if you dislike running zombies (or “zoombies”) like I do, you owe it to yourself to go see this movie in the theater. There is something about being in a group of people laughing and cheering that adds a lot to this raucous roller coaster ride.
If you like violent gory comedies, then you're going to love “Zombieland” when it infects theaters on October 2nd, just remember not to take it all too seriously. If you sit there trying to nitpick this movie, you'll just spoil it for yourself.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
Friday, September 11, 2009
"The Informant!"
I see a couple of problems with speaking critically about movies that are “based on a true story”. The first problem is knowing where fact ends and fiction begins; exactly how much of the story has been altered to make it more suitable for the screen? The other problem is that the characters represent real people; people who actually exist in real life, and lived through some version of these events. To that end, let me get this out of the way now; when I refer to characters in this film I am referring to the fictionalized version of the on the screen and not the real person.
“The Informant!” is a movie partly about the lysine price fixing scandals that Archer Daniels Midland found themselves in the center of back in the 90's, but mostly it's about one of the key figures in that scandal, Mark Whitacre. The film is based on the book “The Informant” (no exclamation point) by journalist Kurt Eichenwald, and is directed by Steven Soderbergh (“Oceans Eleven”, “Erin Brockovich”).
Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon: “The Bourne Identity”) is a lot of things. He a biochemist, a PhD, a vice president at Archer Daniels Midland, a husband, and a father. He's also an idiot, a liar, and possibly mentally ill. His internal dialog frequently overruns important things that people are telling him, and ranges from such interesting topics as designer ties to Japanese vending machines to the German word for “pen”. I suppose he is meant to come off as lovable in spite of his actions, but he mostly comes across as too stupid to live.
When confronted with problems in his lysine production division, Whitacre goes to his superiors with a story about a saboteur and an extortion attempt by a Japanese competitor. The FBI becomes involved, and, at the urging of his wife, Ginger (Melanie Lynskey: “Two and a Half Men”), he tells FBI Agent Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula: “Quantum Leap”) about a price fixing scheme between ADM and other lysine manufacturers around the world.
Agent Shepard and Agent Bob Herndon (Joel McHale) convince Whitacre to turn informant for the government and help them build a case against ADM. Unfortunately Whitacre is incapable of keeping it a secret, telling various people, including his secretary and gardener, about his involvement with the FBI.
“The Informant!” is an interesting, quirky, and unique film, but not a good one. It seems like Soderbergh was trying to recapture the dark dry humour of the “Ocean's” series , but ultimately ends up creating the mentally disadvantaged younger brother of movies like “The Insider”. You get neither an adventurous comedy, nor a corporate espionage thriller, you just get awkward humour as his bigger lies to cover his earlier lies snowball out of control.
For me, the part of the movie that I found the most fun was trying to spot all the cameos in it. Tom Wilson (“Back to the Future”), Tom and Dick Smothers, Clancy Brown (“Carnivale”), Patton Oswalt (“The King of Queens”), and Tony Hale (“Arrested Development”) all make appearances in this film, but they are not enough to save it from mediocrity.
With all the movies that are out and that are coming out, you can do better with your movie-going dollars that this. “The Informant!” is quirky, occasionally clever, and well cast, but it never lives up to its potential. Unless you make it a point to see anything starring Matt Damon, are really interested in the price fixing of lysine, or just like seeing bad movies, skip this; it is a rental at best.
“The Informant!” hits theaters nationwide on September 18th, but really, go see “Julie and Julia” again instead, or stay home and read a book, or go feed the pigeons in the park. Any of those things would be a better use of your time.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
“The Informant!” is a movie partly about the lysine price fixing scandals that Archer Daniels Midland found themselves in the center of back in the 90's, but mostly it's about one of the key figures in that scandal, Mark Whitacre. The film is based on the book “The Informant” (no exclamation point) by journalist Kurt Eichenwald, and is directed by Steven Soderbergh (“Oceans Eleven”, “Erin Brockovich”).
Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon: “The Bourne Identity”) is a lot of things. He a biochemist, a PhD, a vice president at Archer Daniels Midland, a husband, and a father. He's also an idiot, a liar, and possibly mentally ill. His internal dialog frequently overruns important things that people are telling him, and ranges from such interesting topics as designer ties to Japanese vending machines to the German word for “pen”. I suppose he is meant to come off as lovable in spite of his actions, but he mostly comes across as too stupid to live.
When confronted with problems in his lysine production division, Whitacre goes to his superiors with a story about a saboteur and an extortion attempt by a Japanese competitor. The FBI becomes involved, and, at the urging of his wife, Ginger (Melanie Lynskey: “Two and a Half Men”), he tells FBI Agent Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula: “Quantum Leap”) about a price fixing scheme between ADM and other lysine manufacturers around the world.
Agent Shepard and Agent Bob Herndon (Joel McHale) convince Whitacre to turn informant for the government and help them build a case against ADM. Unfortunately Whitacre is incapable of keeping it a secret, telling various people, including his secretary and gardener, about his involvement with the FBI.
“The Informant!” is an interesting, quirky, and unique film, but not a good one. It seems like Soderbergh was trying to recapture the dark dry humour of the “Ocean's” series , but ultimately ends up creating the mentally disadvantaged younger brother of movies like “The Insider”. You get neither an adventurous comedy, nor a corporate espionage thriller, you just get awkward humour as his bigger lies to cover his earlier lies snowball out of control.
For me, the part of the movie that I found the most fun was trying to spot all the cameos in it. Tom Wilson (“Back to the Future”), Tom and Dick Smothers, Clancy Brown (“Carnivale”), Patton Oswalt (“The King of Queens”), and Tony Hale (“Arrested Development”) all make appearances in this film, but they are not enough to save it from mediocrity.
With all the movies that are out and that are coming out, you can do better with your movie-going dollars that this. “The Informant!” is quirky, occasionally clever, and well cast, but it never lives up to its potential. Unless you make it a point to see anything starring Matt Damon, are really interested in the price fixing of lysine, or just like seeing bad movies, skip this; it is a rental at best.
“The Informant!” hits theaters nationwide on September 18th, but really, go see “Julie and Julia” again instead, or stay home and read a book, or go feed the pigeons in the park. Any of those things would be a better use of your time.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
Friday, August 28, 2009
"Adam"
Most movies are fairly easy to pigeonhole into one category or another; horror, romantic comedy, chick flick, science fiction, etc. Sometimes a movie comes along that is not so easy to label. “Adam”, starring Hugh Dancy (“Confessions of a Shopaholic”) and Rose Byrne (“Damages”), is one of those movies; it's a little bit romance, a little bit comedy, and a little bit drama, but it's not enough of any one of those things to properly give it one of those labels. Romantic Dramady maybe?
“Adam” is the story of Adam Raki, a young man with Asperger's Syndrome who has just had his carefully organized life turned upside down. His father, the man who clearly kept Adam anchored, has just passed away and now Adam has to learn how to live in the world on his own. Not being socially adept or able to cope with high stress situations, Adam has a hard time adapting to all of the new disruptions to his daily routines.
One of the new disruptions in his life is his new neighbor, Beth Buchwald (Byrne). Beth is a teacher and a writer of children's books, and at first she isn't sure what to make of Adam's curious mannerisms, behaviour, and what she perceives as rudeness until he explains his disorder to her (and the audience). The two become friends, then more than friends, and discover that they both have a lot to learn about themselves from each other.
Ultimately it is not really the romance between Adam and Beth that the movie is about; instead it is about Adam learning to live with the changes going on around him. I'm not saying that the romance is not a huge part of the story, just that it is not the film's true focus.
Dancy does a fantastic job portraying Adam, and creates a character that you can believe has Asperger's instead of becoming the over the top parody that a less skilled actor might end up presenting. Byrne plays off of Dancy's Adam well, and the pair of them create a real sense of chemistry between the characters.
Also look for appearances by Frankie Faison (“The Wire”) as a friend of Adam's father who is also the only person Adam can really call a friend of his own, and for Peter Gallagher (The O.C.) as Beth's somewhat jerky father who has been indicted for fudging the books as an accountant. Both actors add a lot to the texture of the film through their interactions with Adam and Beth.
I would not say that Adam is a sad film or a happy film, but it is a hopeful film, and one well worth seeing if you can find a theater near you that is playing it (there's only one in my area). It is a nice change from the shallow romantic comedies Hollywood generally churns out. If you can't see this in a theater then you owe it to yourself to check it out on DVD, as it is a film you should be hearing about again come award season.
Rated PG-13, “Adam” does contain some mature themes and language that may make it inappropriate for younger viewers, but then this is not really a movie that children are likely to be interested in. This is a fun, touching, and quirky film that you will be glad you experienced it. “Adam” is currently in limited release nationwide.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
“Adam” is the story of Adam Raki, a young man with Asperger's Syndrome who has just had his carefully organized life turned upside down. His father, the man who clearly kept Adam anchored, has just passed away and now Adam has to learn how to live in the world on his own. Not being socially adept or able to cope with high stress situations, Adam has a hard time adapting to all of the new disruptions to his daily routines.
One of the new disruptions in his life is his new neighbor, Beth Buchwald (Byrne). Beth is a teacher and a writer of children's books, and at first she isn't sure what to make of Adam's curious mannerisms, behaviour, and what she perceives as rudeness until he explains his disorder to her (and the audience). The two become friends, then more than friends, and discover that they both have a lot to learn about themselves from each other.
Ultimately it is not really the romance between Adam and Beth that the movie is about; instead it is about Adam learning to live with the changes going on around him. I'm not saying that the romance is not a huge part of the story, just that it is not the film's true focus.
Dancy does a fantastic job portraying Adam, and creates a character that you can believe has Asperger's instead of becoming the over the top parody that a less skilled actor might end up presenting. Byrne plays off of Dancy's Adam well, and the pair of them create a real sense of chemistry between the characters.
Also look for appearances by Frankie Faison (“The Wire”) as a friend of Adam's father who is also the only person Adam can really call a friend of his own, and for Peter Gallagher (The O.C.) as Beth's somewhat jerky father who has been indicted for fudging the books as an accountant. Both actors add a lot to the texture of the film through their interactions with Adam and Beth.
I would not say that Adam is a sad film or a happy film, but it is a hopeful film, and one well worth seeing if you can find a theater near you that is playing it (there's only one in my area). It is a nice change from the shallow romantic comedies Hollywood generally churns out. If you can't see this in a theater then you owe it to yourself to check it out on DVD, as it is a film you should be hearing about again come award season.
Rated PG-13, “Adam” does contain some mature themes and language that may make it inappropriate for younger viewers, but then this is not really a movie that children are likely to be interested in. This is a fun, touching, and quirky film that you will be glad you experienced it. “Adam” is currently in limited release nationwide.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
"Shorts"
One of the biggest problems that I tend to have with children's movies is that they don't respect their audience. Kid's films tend to talk down to children in an attempt to talk at their level; the problem is that they usually miss and assume that kids are stupid. “Shorts” seems to pretty evenly hit that 10-12 year old groups that it is aiming for without talking down, and that's largely because it seems like it was written by an actual 10-12 year old instead of Robert Rodriguez.
When you first arrive in Black Falls, home of Black Inc, maker of the iPhone killer the Black Box. You're going to recognize a lot of the town's residents including Jon Cryer (Two and a Half Men), Leslie Mann (17 Again), William H. Macy (Fargo), Kat Dennings (Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist), and James Spader (Boston Legal) all play prominent roles, but it is really the kids the film focuses on.
The main focus of the movie is Toby “Toe” Thompson (Jimmy Bennett: “Star Trek”), who serves as the narrator for the disjointed series of vignettes that tell the story of the wishing stone and the effect it had on his hometown. Toby is a bit of a loser; he plays cards with imaginary friends, and regularly gets bullied by the children of his parents' boss, Carbon Black (Spader). It is this torment by Cole Black (Devon Gearhart) and Helvetica Black (Jolie Vanier) however that leads him to discover the stone that grants any wish, even if they are wrong.
“Shorts” is easily the best film I've seen this year that features a giant booger monster. The film masterfully weaves together a series of connected stories (although not in chronological order) to lead to a climax featuring a fifty foot tall man, a mecha, an army of alligators, a giant wasp and dung beetle, a fleet of little green men, and two kids having a staring contest.
It's hard and somewhat pointless to look at a movie like this critically. As I have already said, it feels like it was written by a 10 year old, and features a lot of gross out humour, silly jokes and puns, and people falling off of/running into things. There were however a couple of things that bothered me.
First off, and I acknowledge that this is kind of dumb on my part, there is a scene in with Loogie (Trevor Gagnon: “The New Adventures of Old Christine”) and his brothers “playing” “Fable 2”. I have a number of problems with this scene, all petty; 1. They are not using XBOX 360 controllers to play it, 2. They are playing it on four screens that are basically just showing random clips from the game, and 3. It is an M rated title, and none of these kids appears to even actually be teenagers. This has no bearing on the movie, it just bugs me as a gamer.
The other problem I have is with the story's moral. This movie in no way attempts to handle it's moral with any sort of subtlety, but instead out and out bashes you over the head by plainly stating a couple of times how all of our advanced communications technology (cellphones, texting, etc) actually leaves us more disconnected than we would be otherwise. This moral could have been left unstated, and the movie would have been that much better for it since it only really relates to two of the shorts anyway.
Other than those things, “Shorts” is a fun movie whose out-of-order manner of story telling sets up some funny jokes. There is more than enough gross humour, slapstick, and action here to keep all but the most ADD riddled kid entertained for the film's 89 minute duration; plus Helvetica's theme song is just a little bit of awesome.
“Shorts” is rated PG, so unless you really object to booger jokes and mild violence there is not likely to be anything in this film that is objectionable. If you are looking for something to take the kids to that is neither a sequel nor an hour and a half long toy advertisement, you could do a lot worse than this. “Shorts” wishes its way into theaters on Friday, August 21st.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
When you first arrive in Black Falls, home of Black Inc, maker of the iPhone killer the Black Box. You're going to recognize a lot of the town's residents including Jon Cryer (Two and a Half Men), Leslie Mann (17 Again), William H. Macy (Fargo), Kat Dennings (Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist), and James Spader (Boston Legal) all play prominent roles, but it is really the kids the film focuses on.
The main focus of the movie is Toby “Toe” Thompson (Jimmy Bennett: “Star Trek”), who serves as the narrator for the disjointed series of vignettes that tell the story of the wishing stone and the effect it had on his hometown. Toby is a bit of a loser; he plays cards with imaginary friends, and regularly gets bullied by the children of his parents' boss, Carbon Black (Spader). It is this torment by Cole Black (Devon Gearhart) and Helvetica Black (Jolie Vanier) however that leads him to discover the stone that grants any wish, even if they are wrong.
“Shorts” is easily the best film I've seen this year that features a giant booger monster. The film masterfully weaves together a series of connected stories (although not in chronological order) to lead to a climax featuring a fifty foot tall man, a mecha, an army of alligators, a giant wasp and dung beetle, a fleet of little green men, and two kids having a staring contest.
It's hard and somewhat pointless to look at a movie like this critically. As I have already said, it feels like it was written by a 10 year old, and features a lot of gross out humour, silly jokes and puns, and people falling off of/running into things. There were however a couple of things that bothered me.
First off, and I acknowledge that this is kind of dumb on my part, there is a scene in with Loogie (Trevor Gagnon: “The New Adventures of Old Christine”) and his brothers “playing” “Fable 2”. I have a number of problems with this scene, all petty; 1. They are not using XBOX 360 controllers to play it, 2. They are playing it on four screens that are basically just showing random clips from the game, and 3. It is an M rated title, and none of these kids appears to even actually be teenagers. This has no bearing on the movie, it just bugs me as a gamer.
The other problem I have is with the story's moral. This movie in no way attempts to handle it's moral with any sort of subtlety, but instead out and out bashes you over the head by plainly stating a couple of times how all of our advanced communications technology (cellphones, texting, etc) actually leaves us more disconnected than we would be otherwise. This moral could have been left unstated, and the movie would have been that much better for it since it only really relates to two of the shorts anyway.
Other than those things, “Shorts” is a fun movie whose out-of-order manner of story telling sets up some funny jokes. There is more than enough gross humour, slapstick, and action here to keep all but the most ADD riddled kid entertained for the film's 89 minute duration; plus Helvetica's theme song is just a little bit of awesome.
“Shorts” is rated PG, so unless you really object to booger jokes and mild violence there is not likely to be anything in this film that is objectionable. If you are looking for something to take the kids to that is neither a sequel nor an hour and a half long toy advertisement, you could do a lot worse than this. “Shorts” wishes its way into theaters on Friday, August 21st.
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
"The Time Traveler's Wife"
In a summer filled with testosterone soaked action sci-fi movies like “Transformers 2”, “GI Joe”, and “Star Trek” there's a hole out there for something a little softer, a little more feminine, a little more SyFy meets Lifetime. Well pack your Kleenex, because coming to fill that hole is “The Time Traveler's Wife”.
“The Time Traveler's Wife” is a fantasy/sci-fi romance about Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana: “Star Trek”), a man with a genetic disorder that causes him to time travel without warning, and the love of his life, Clare (Rachel McAdams: “The Notebook”) who is left waiting for him in her present. Now if this sounds like a familiar plot to you, you may remember NBC's 2007 series “Journeyman”; however this movie is based on a novel of the same name by Audrey Niffenegger which was published in 2003.
Henry works in a library, and is a loner and an alcoholic until he meets Clare Abshire, an artist who already knows him well. It turns out that Henry in his future travels back to visit Clare as a child, so while she has known him for most of her life he is only just now meeting her.
Clare and Henry fall in love, and, with the help of her friend Gomez (Ron Livingston: “Office Space”) manage to pull off a wedding (which is easily my favourite part of the film) and start a life together. Things don't stay sunny for long as Clare quickly realizes how hard it is to be married to someone who disappears sometimes for days at a time.
I found the ads for this movie to be somewhat misleading. I went into this expecting 90 minutes of watching Clare seethe about being left alone, but it's not that at all. The movie follows both characters pretty equally, and is actually quite lighthearted, marital strife aside, until about halfway through.
At about the halfway point the film decides to get dramatic by tipping its hand to you about how the film ends. The rest of the movie, even the humourous parts are then overshadowed by the ticking of a countdown clock that you cannot see . This is not necessarily a bad thing, but as the end draws closer more details are revealed infusing the whole movie with a sense of dread.
Like many movies based on books, this film does jump around a lot and tends to feel disjointed. Unlike a lot of movies where it feels like this is a result of cutting things from the book, it works here. A movie where one of the characters keeps jumping from one place to another would almost have to have this feel to it.
The actors all do a good job of bringing their characters to life, and Bana in particular does a great job of not seeming creepy as he is appears naked (when he travels his clothes do not go with him) in the bushes near a young girl and proceeds to spend years of her life setting her up to marry him. A different take on this story could make Henry seem like a manipulative pervert instead of a man pursuing true love.
While I would not describe “The Time Traveler's Wife” as a must see, it is a well made and pleasant film that will make you cry at the end if you are the sort that cries in films (I am not). I will however say that the film is a lot better than the trailers I have seen make it out to be. Unless you really like the actors, or really want to see a tearjerker this weekend, I would just wait for this to hit DVD.
“The Time Traveler's Wife” leaps into theaters on August 14th, and is rated PG-13. The film contains swearing, some blood, sexual themes, and some nudity (mostly Eric Bana's rear end).
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
“The Time Traveler's Wife” is a fantasy/sci-fi romance about Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana: “Star Trek”), a man with a genetic disorder that causes him to time travel without warning, and the love of his life, Clare (Rachel McAdams: “The Notebook”) who is left waiting for him in her present. Now if this sounds like a familiar plot to you, you may remember NBC's 2007 series “Journeyman”; however this movie is based on a novel of the same name by Audrey Niffenegger which was published in 2003.
Henry works in a library, and is a loner and an alcoholic until he meets Clare Abshire, an artist who already knows him well. It turns out that Henry in his future travels back to visit Clare as a child, so while she has known him for most of her life he is only just now meeting her.
Clare and Henry fall in love, and, with the help of her friend Gomez (Ron Livingston: “Office Space”) manage to pull off a wedding (which is easily my favourite part of the film) and start a life together. Things don't stay sunny for long as Clare quickly realizes how hard it is to be married to someone who disappears sometimes for days at a time.
I found the ads for this movie to be somewhat misleading. I went into this expecting 90 minutes of watching Clare seethe about being left alone, but it's not that at all. The movie follows both characters pretty equally, and is actually quite lighthearted, marital strife aside, until about halfway through.
At about the halfway point the film decides to get dramatic by tipping its hand to you about how the film ends. The rest of the movie, even the humourous parts are then overshadowed by the ticking of a countdown clock that you cannot see . This is not necessarily a bad thing, but as the end draws closer more details are revealed infusing the whole movie with a sense of dread.
Like many movies based on books, this film does jump around a lot and tends to feel disjointed. Unlike a lot of movies where it feels like this is a result of cutting things from the book, it works here. A movie where one of the characters keeps jumping from one place to another would almost have to have this feel to it.
The actors all do a good job of bringing their characters to life, and Bana in particular does a great job of not seeming creepy as he is appears naked (when he travels his clothes do not go with him) in the bushes near a young girl and proceeds to spend years of her life setting her up to marry him. A different take on this story could make Henry seem like a manipulative pervert instead of a man pursuing true love.
While I would not describe “The Time Traveler's Wife” as a must see, it is a well made and pleasant film that will make you cry at the end if you are the sort that cries in films (I am not). I will however say that the film is a lot better than the trailers I have seen make it out to be. Unless you really like the actors, or really want to see a tearjerker this weekend, I would just wait for this to hit DVD.
“The Time Traveler's Wife” leaps into theaters on August 14th, and is rated PG-13. The film contains swearing, some blood, sexual themes, and some nudity (mostly Eric Bana's rear end).
Check out ”Mallville – A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse”, my free ongoing blognovel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)