Archive for November, 2009
490 – An Education (**)
An Education tries hard but is ultimately a pointless bore. It’s hardly entertaining to watch pretentious, better-than-you Brits fall madly in love despite treachery and criminal intent. In the end, you don’t really feel sympathy toward any of the characters, which makes the whole enterprise a meaningless distraction.
Young Jenny (Carey Mulligan) aspires to go to Oxford and study English, under much pressure from her dad (Alfred Molina). Suddenly, into her life comes a much-older man, David (Peter Sarsgaard), who’s worldly and rich and just plain wonderful in every possible way. Soon he’s swept Jenny off her feet, thus replacing her ambitions with visions of living in Paris and having fun. At first her family will have none of it, but David smooth talks them into going along.
I’m not sure exactly when the movie started to lose its luster for me, but it didn’t take very long. The trouble is that neither Jenny nor David is particularly likeable, when you get right down to it. Take Jenny, our protagonist. She’s super smart – getting high marks in everything but Latin – and full of poise and maturity, but she’s a complete and utter moron when it comes to David. Making bad decisions won’t gain my sympathy unless those decisions seemed logical for the character at the time. For instance, we can see how Jenny would make the decisions she made if she were in love (which she was) and kind of dumb and naive (which she was not). The fact that she was presented as an intelligent, mature-for-her-age classical cellist (albeit one in high school) should have precluded her bad decision making to some degree. I won’t dare give away what decisions she makes, but there are a few of them, and they seem ludicrous.
David’s pals, Danny and Helen, are also rich knuckleheads to whom there’s more than meets the eye. But once you see what’s beneath their sneering veneer (not really, that just sounded nice), you realize the characters are too shallow for you to care about, in any event. Helen’s character in particular is meant to be sort of a foil to Jenny’s (i.e., she’s secretly jealous of the ingenue), but this simple premise is barely hinted at, let alone followed up on. And get this – Helen is supposed to be the comic relief of the crew (she’s dumb), but her jokes are entirely unfunny and inconsequential.
Few things are as dull as seeing well-off people whine about their lives, or play smug cads. Instead of really drawing me into the world of Jenny and her family and friends, I was completely put off by the vapid, predictable story. Mulligan (who looks a lot like Katie Holmes) is not bad at all, although her scenes with Sarsgaard (she’s 22 in real life, but she’s playing a 16 year old here) come off pretty creepy. Alfred Molina easily steals every scene he’s in.
An Education: **
489 – Fantastic Mr. Fox (***)
Posted by frothy in Fantastic Mr. Fox on November 27, 2009
Wes Anderson’s adaptation of Roald Dahl’s book is clever, audacious, and a lot of fun. Shot using stop animation, this one-of-a-kind movie has the elegance of both The Nightmare before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach with the quirkiness you’d expect from an Anderson film. George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, and Bill Murray lend distinctive voices to a witty, delicious script.
Mr. Fox (Clooney) is an unrepentant thief until he makes a promise to Mrs. Fox (Streep) that he’ll quit for good (after he informs him that she’s pregnant) if they escape a farmer’s trap. They do, and he makes good on the promise, moving the family from their underground home to an isolated tree near three vicious, desperate super farmers. But it’s not long before Mr. Fox is pining to pull off One More Job, which turns into several more jobs, with the help of Kylie the opposum.
However, the three farmers aren’t your typical placid farmfolk, they’re vengeful jerks, so after Mr. Fox makes off with much of their birds and cider, they vow revenge, which includes using a backhoe to remove not only the tree but also a huge chunk of the earth.
There’s also an interesting subplot involving Mr. Fox’s son Ash (Schwartzman), who feels that his parents think he’s worthless and that he can’t possibly compete with the super-debonaire Mr. Fox. Ash is at that awkward age anyway, so dealing with his famed dad isn’t easy. Then, on top of that, Ash’s cousin Kristofferson (Eric Chase Anderson) arrives for an extended stay, and he’s perfect in virtually everything. So poor Ash can’t measure up to his dad OR his cousin.
What makes this movie really work, though, is the magnificent animation style. We’ve all seen those old Rankin-Fitch Christmas classics, right? This is sort of like that, only even more stylized and fluid. The film was shot at a rate of 12 frames per second, rather than the standard 24, so that viewers could really see the actual stop-motion animation process itself. And the result is that the movie feels more organic, more natural, and more poetic.
A Wes Anderson movie is usually oddly endearing anyway, but this one is exceptional in its uniquity. The set pieces are dazzling (for example, the hair on the humans is from actual human hair, from the movie’s crew), and the backgrounds are meticulous works of art. Neat trivia: Mr. Fox’s study is a faithful recreation of Roald Dahl’s garden hut, where he wrote most of his beloved books.
It’s fun seeing Clooney in a role he’s best suited to anyway, the devilish rogue. (One gets the feeling sometimes that he’d really like to be James Bond.) Mr. Fox is certainly not without his flaws (need for spotlight, need to be right, delusions of grandeur), but his heart belongs to his family and to the other woodland creatures. The characters are nuanced just enough for kids to grasp their intentions and attitudes while not being too simplistic for adults to enjoy.
Fantastic Mr. Fox: ***
488 – Alien Trespass (**1/2)
Posted by frothy in Alien Trespass on November 27, 2009
Alien Trespass pays homage to 1950s sci-fi thrillers with a story of a spaceship, carrying an alien marshal ferrying a murderous alien creature to jail, that crash lands near a remote desert town, throwing everyone into a panic. Given how cheesy movies of the period were, it’s somewhat surprising that Alien Trespass turns out to have quite a bit of panache and credulity to go with its faithful look at a quieter, simpler time.
Set in 1957, the movie follows the effect that the arrival of the alien marshal Urp (Marshal Urp, get it?) has on the populace. Shortly after his ship crashes – and his prisoner escapes – Urp assumes the body of a local scientist, Dr. Lewis (Eric McCormack) and sets about finding his prey, a Ghota – a beast with one eye and huge tentacles who kills. And turns invisible! In fact, the Ghota looks a lot like Kang and Kodos from The Simpsons, but I digress.
Some kids necking (hee hee) at Lover’s Lane or Lookout Point or Inspiration Point see the crash, and when they investigate they’re attacked by the monster. But naturally, the police don’t believe them or their seedy looking greaser pal (told you it was set in the fifties). Meanwhile, Marshal Urp, in the doctor’s body, is stealing cars and trying to, uh, blend in.
One of the scenes – no spoilers here – takes places in a movie theater while the kids are watching The Blog. Yes, the one with Steve McQueen, where he himself is a kid trying to warn a small town about a gelatinous monster! And of course, while everyone’s watching this movie, the real monster attacks.
I have to admit that I had pretty low expectations for this movie. It’s set in the 1950s, the apex of cheesiness. It’s got a cheesy title. It has no recognizable stars, other than Dan Lauria (The Wonder Years) and Robert Patrick (Terminator 2). You can’t expect Close Encounters with that sort of lineup. But Alien Trespass has something that movies like Plan 9 from Outerspace and, more recently, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra wish they had: a heart. Endearing, winning performances by Jenni Baird (as the waitress who helps Urp) and McCormack help lift this above the usual low-budget ennui.
487 – Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (**1/2)
Posted by frothy in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans on November 26, 2009
This nominal remake to Abel Ferrara’s 1992 original isn’t bad, and it’s not really good, either. Nicolas Cage stars as the titular cop who doesn’t so much as bend the law as stomp it flat in his quest to do whatever. Cage isn’t terrible, but even his unhinged charisma isn’t quite edgy enough and feels one dimensional. Even the nihilism of Harvey Keitel’s character in the earlier film had more of a point than this uneven drama.
Terence McDonagh is a detective in New Orleans. We pick up his story shortly after the landfall of Hurricane Katrina; in an early scene, he and his partner (Val Kilmer) joke about saving or not saving a prisoner in a cell in which the water level has risen past the man’s head. As the criminal desperately treads water, McDonagh takes odds on his survival before the firemen come to rescue him.
As before, our protagonist is investigating a crime. A family of five has been shot, execution style, in their home. McDonagh must, of course, pull out all the stops to solve the crime and thus get more power and money and keep his prostitute girlfriend (Eva Mendes) in nice clothes and a high-class hotel. He also has a serious drug habit, shaking down clubgoers in exchange for not busting them for whatever it is they didn’t do. McDonagh also has to deal with his father, a recovering alkie, and his father’s girlfriend (Jennifer Coolidge) a current alkie, who live out in the middle of the bayou.
But where Ferrara’s movie pushed the envelope and strained our sense of good taste, Werner Herzog’s alleged remake seems too straightforward. McDonagh is just another dirty cop who breaks the rules to get what he wants. In the 17 years between films, we’ve all seen countless movies about dirty cops, and Cage’s McDonagh seems no better or worse than any of them. Keitel’s unnamed lieutenant desecrated churches and pranced about in a naked, drunken stupor, but Cage’s cop can’t summon up the cojones to do anything that wild and crazy. Or maybe it’s just that we’re all so numb to outlandish onscreen behavior that there’s not much that Cage and Herzog could have done to shock and awe us.
It’s worth noting that Ferrara, when asked about Herzog’s upcoming film, didn’t have much nice to say about it; Herzog also stated in interviews that he didn’t feel that his movie was a remake of Ferrara’s, despite the title, because he (Herzog) had not seen the original. (Well, you can’t fault that logic, right?)
I just didn’t find anything horrible about this movie, nothing that makes me really dislike it. But I also didn’t find it wildly entertaining. It has its adrenaline moments, and the cast tries, but it’s just an ineffective film. It’s fun to see Val Kilmer, though, and Mendes looks great.
The trouble with this movie is that the connection to the original is tenuous at best; it sort of feels like the Bad Lieutenant part was tacked on in an effort to sell more tickets. Nah, that’s unpossible. Hollywood would never use familiarity to make more money, right? Cage is going to have to do far more of these to pay off his tax bill.
The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans: **1/2
486 – Freaky Farley (**)
Posted by frothy in Freaky Farley on November 23, 2009
A little while ago, I reviewed a low-budget filmed called Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas. I didn’t care for it too much, but what did I expect, with a title like that? The makers of that gem offered, somewhat illogically, to send me a copy of their earlier work, Freaky Farley, a movie about a creepy Peeping Tom who gets mixed up with a spirited lass while chafing under the control of his domineering dad.
You don’t see many movies in which a Peeping Tom is sort of the good guy. Farley Wilder (writer-producer Matt Farley) is the weird guy in your neighborhood who spends his time walking in the woods or hiding in the bushes. Farley is sort of a poster child for arrested development, whereas his dad (Kevin McGee) is a bit of a hardass, and has been since his wife died. Farley’s dad is always getting on his case, as fathers are wont to do, but the elder Wilder essentially verbally and pyschologically abuses his kid for years and years, pushing Farley closer and closer to the brink of madness.
Meanwhile, the young man is beset by two different young women: Katy, a younger girl next door (literally) who’s more annoying than interesting to Farley, and Scarlett (Sharon Scalzo), an independent muse who’s working on a book. No longer a complete loner, Farley begins keeping company with Scarlett, much to the chagrin of his father.
As with Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas, the acting, script, direction, and photography are all pretty mediocre, but there are some bright spots. Okay, not many, but overall the acting was definitely better. In fact, leading man Farley is better here than in the later film, perhaps because he’s playing a psychotic Peeping Tom. But even better is Scalzo as the trippy Scarlett; unlike most others in the cast, she seems to believe in the silly dialog she’s given to speak. (Hey, selling the script is half of what acting is all about.) The thing is, it feels like there’s much more effort made here than in the more-recent film. After all, even if you’re given crap to work with, you can put a happy face on it and do your best. Sometimes a bounty of enthusiasm can make up for certain, shall we say, deficiencies.
You got to give props to a movie in which a character says something like “We’re sending him along to keep an eye on you” while pointing to his own eye. That, my friends, is serious thespianism right there.
You also have to love a movie that lifts sound effects from the computer game Doom. At least it sounds a heck of a lot like it, and I’ve played a lot, lot, lot, lot of Doom in my time. (No more. Cold turkey. On the wagon now.)
Still and all, considering the low, low budget and inexperienced cast and crew, this isn’t nearly as horrible as it could have been. It helps a bit if you watch it ironically, as if the goings-on were a big joke to which only you were privy.
Freaky Farley: **
Entertainment Weekly: Home of the Sanctimonious Knucklehead
Entertainment Weekly is a print publication, albeit one with a major web presence. But if the Internet revolution has taught us anything, it’s that New Media (i.e., blogs and the like) is becoming more trustworthy than Old Media (i.e., magazines and newspapers). There’s always been this suspicion that Old Media critics are elitist snobs who prefer sipping Chardonnay and nibbling brie and watching costume dramas and High-Minded Art like that.
Filthy bloggers like me try to distance ourselves from so-called insiders, people who either know more than they’re letting on or who pretend to. I sort of think critics should be neutral and see things from the perspective of the average moviegoer, not a Hollywood insider, but maybe that’s just me.
Now, as we all know, print is dying, and part of the reason is this sense of elitism. This perception is perpetuated by Old Media critics, sometimes on purpose (you know, they’re just sooo much better than the rest of us unwashed heathens).
In the Letters section of the November 27 issue, a reader asks
Can you please explain to me how a movie that hasn’t been released yet gets on your Best Picture Oscar Odds? Invictus isn’t due in the theaters until Dec. 11, yet Dave Karger justified his selection of it by saying, “Judging by its strong trailer…’
Kargar’s response then appeared:
As the Academy Awards writer for EW, I’m in charge of identifying which filmks are most likely to appeal to the Academy based on their subject matter, tone, and cast. When I wrote this same story last year, two of the films at the top of my list were The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Frost/Nixon, which also hadn’t been released yet, but — wouldn’t you know it? — ended up getting nominated for Best Picture.
(Yes, I have a subscription to Entertainment Weekly.)
Essentially, Kargar is saying that since he correctly predicted two of the nominees last year even though neither had been officially released when he wrote the article, it’s okay for him to continue to do so for movies that haven’t been released. This doesn’t make much sense, though; how many times have we seen movies that had great trailers but ultimately disappointed? It happens pretty damn often, really, since the best parts are in the trailer to begin with. This is equivalent of an editor reading the first few chapters of a new book and proclaiming it worthy of bestseller status.
It is insanely unprofessional, I think, to make a bold prediction such as Oscar worth without having, you know, seen the movie. This is the kind of garbage opinion that give all critics a bad name. Because what if the final, released movie differs from the trailer? It may not be so in this case, but what if someone sees a trailer and loves it but there are some key edits made before the movie is released to theaters? Or what if, as usually happens, the trailer does show the best, most dramatic, and funniest parts – and the rest of the movie just plain pales in comparison?
485 – 2012
Ahhh our careers are sliding into the ocean ahhhhhh
Here’s 2012, summed up: Look, some recognizable landmark! Kablam! Look, a giant wave! Wooo! Do our intrepid Good Guys have enough time to outrun the imploding planet and foil a plot to save only the pretty, rich people? Probably!
It’s pretty clear what happened to bring us to this point. Roland Emmerich, who’s made such cinematic classics as Independence Day, The Patriot, Godzilla, and The Day after Tomorrow, was asked if he wanted a quintillion billion bazillion dollars to make a movie about the end of the world, and he said sure. Then he took parts of each movie’s script, filmed them mostly with CGI, and pocketed the rest. Viola! Greatest movie!
[A quick break to sum up the plot. Apparently, the sun and the planets have all aligned with the center of the galaxy, which winds up causing the Earth's crust to break up, which then causes the tectonic plates to shift. Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats, living together! The End.]
See, there are two ways Emmerich could have gone with this movie. He could have given us characters to follow whom we cared a little about, thus involving us in their plights, and mixed in some convincing special effects. Or he could have said, “The heck with the characters, give me blowy-uppy thingys.” This sometimes works: See Independence Day, a movie that made me feel pretty good when I left the theater after seeing it but that ultimately, frankly, was pretty bad.
Emmerich chose the latter. Which would have been fine, but the effects themselves are wildly unrealistic and often take so long to set up that you completely notice how godawful they really are. For example – and if you’ve seen the trailer, this is in there – there’s a scene in which the Sistine Chapel falls, crushing thousands of spectators. Because the toppling is so slow to complete, it becomes painfully obvious that it’s just a film running on a screen behind people running away. Sad and unintentionally hilarious.
And you can forget about the plot, really, because most of it makes no sense anyway and would happen only in a Big Movie like this. Of COURSE John Cusack is divorced from his hot, bitchy wife (Amanda Peet) and of COURSE she’s hooking up with a plastic surgeon who of COURSE winds up having had some flying lessons that of COURSE will save them all and of COURSE Cusack’s young son will somehow save the day as well and of COURSE there is a Russian businessman who used to be a boxing legend and of COURSE he punches someone out. And of COURSE people say “My God!” a lot, because that’s what people do in crappy disaster films. And of COURSE the president is black, because in Hollywood black people get to be president only if disaster is a-coming.
At least the acting isn’t horrible. Because everyone just runs from place to place in an effort to escape the horror, there aren’t any subtle, low-key scenes that would allow good actors to flourish. Cusack is good in general, but what the heck is he doing in here? He’s usually so good at picking projects, and he chose this? Willingly? Oliver Platt plays the kind of role that Bruce McGill typically gets, the hamhanded, I’m-in-charge, Al-Haig-like politician. I can’t even remember his title. Danny Glover gets to be president and does get the best dialog in the film, even if his role isn’t a big one. Woody Harrelson, as a crazed DJ deep in Yellowstone is also a lot of fun, although he’s not the kind of guy you’d want to sit next to on a transatlantic flight.
Final verdict: Yikes. Yikes, yikes, and yikes. If you dare watch this travesty, you might find yourself laughing hysterically at things – and this is important – that were not meant to be funny. If that’s your thing, this is your movie. I managed to see this as a matinee, so I’m not out the $10-$15 that some people are right now, so at least I got that going for me. Best advice: Watch it for free at home on a big-screen TV to fully appreciate the magnitude of suck.
2012: *
484 – Adventureland
Posted by frothy in Adventureland on November 20, 2009
Against the backdrop of a low-rent amusement park and set during the halcyon days of 1987, Adventureland is a sweet and endearing, if slight, comedy that makes the most of its familiar plot. In particular, Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland) is wonderful as the nebbish James, making up for the usual pouty-faced, lip-biting acting by Kristen Stewart. A cavalcade of quirky characters makes this all seem true to life, lending a sort of easygoing charm and appeal.
James is set to go to an Ivy League school, but his dad’s transfer (and subsequent alcoholism) means the family can’t afford the tuition. Eventually, James happens upon Adventureland, which is every bit as ritzy as its name implies, and is quickly put to work manning one of the games on the park’s midway. It’s here that he meets the alluring Em (Stewart), along with Joel (Martin Starr) and owners Bobby (Bill Hader) and Paulette (Kristen Wiig). Also entering the picture is the mysterious handyman Mike Connell (Ryan Reynolds), who’s said to have jammed with Lou Reed, and the sexotic – new word! – Lisa P (Margarita Levieva).
James’ problem? Many, as it turns out. He’s a virgin (I know!), and Em is almost an unattainable ideal for him – she’s cute (no, she’s not), she’s smart, she’s worldly, and so on. Plus he’s trying desperately to save up enough money to head to New York and start a life there. It helps, though, that he’s the major weed supplier for the park’s employees. Neat trick.
Essentially, what you’re left with is a slice of life, a look at a summer spent working in a hellhole (albeit with a cool boss like Bill Hader), accompanied by the usual teen/young adult angst and overactive hormones. I liked Jesse Eisenberg, and I think that his casting is essential to the movie’s appeal. Didn’t care for Stewart at all, and I wonder how she possibly gets these cute-indie-chick roles when she’s neither cute nor indie. Where’s this generation’s Parker Posey or Janeane Garofalo? Ryan Reynolds was also appropriately douchey. It’s sort of his character, his mien, his idiom, if you will.
Adventureland: **1/2
483 – Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas
Posted by frothy in Monsters Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas on November 16, 2009
Reviewing and analyzing low-budget movies is almost never as gratifying as it is for the big-budget ones, because often the cheapies make up for their lack of full-throated entertainment with eagerness and a strong effort. You almost feel a bit guilty when you pick on them, too, because you know the director probably hocked his entire Star Wars action figures collection to finance his labor of love.
Even so, the odds are against the low-budget movie. In order for it to be successful, it has to be really, really good, because it’s sure not going to get a huge advertising blitz – word of mouth will likely make or break it. The good news is that twenty years or so down the road, even the worst (especially the worst) will reemerge as cult classics. Hey, if it worked for Rocky Horror, it can work for anything.
I don’t think that sort of fate awaits Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas, from the makers of Freaky Farley. This direct-to-video comedy is set in Manchester, NH; well, it’s actually Manchvegas, a fictional stand-in for Manchester, but you get the drift. Anyway, the story focuses on a prank-loving group in town called the MOS (Manchvegas Outlaw Society), led by Marshall (director-writer-star Matt Farley). Marshall, who appears to be in his twenties, is in arrested development and only wants to have fun; meanwhile, his female coconspirator, Jenny (Marie Dellicker) is beginning to wish for a more adult relationship, which leads her to date older guys while still pining for Marshall. Secretly.
Meanwhile, young women are being kidnapped off the streets and then murdered. Who’s behind these diabolical crimes? Who knows? Who’s up to solving the mystery? Why, MOS, of course!
On the plus side, the movie is enthusiastic and silly; its high-energy attitude (despite the macabre plot) help disguise the fact that this is a poorly acted, poorly written, and poorly directed film. Okay, maybe that’s more like damning with faint, faint praise. The acting is uniformly – and hysterically – grade-school bad. People recite their lines as if they learned them two minutes prior and couldn’t be bothered to add such luxuries as tone and emphasis. The plot itself is nonsensical, sort of what you’d expect a hyperactive kindergartener to come up with after three hours of recess.
And I know that’s mean, and after all this is not a theatrical release anyway (it went straight to video), so what did I expect? I didn’t expect much at all, frankly, and that’s really what I got. The movie looks as if it were produced by a first timer, but this is the fourth entry for Matt Farley. I admire his perseverence, especially since he can’t be making any money off these enterprises, but if your fourth movie is still really, really awful, maybe it’s time to find another line of work.
Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas: *
Kurt Russell could have been Han Solo
Here’s his audition tape. Not easy to watch -- Russell’s Solo seems like he would have been far, far less badass than Harrison Ford’s turned out to be. Anyway, in the mid-1970s Kurt Russell was known mostly for his Disney movies, even though his turn as psychotic sniper Charles Whitman in 1975′s The Deadly Tower tried to rid him of that perma-clean image. It would be a few more years before he would really get a badass role, that of Snake Plissken in 1981′s Escape from New York.
from Film Drunk.
Desolate apocalypse soon: The Road trailer
The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, Robert Duvall, and Guy Pearce, will come out on November 25. It’s about a man and a boy walking along the titular thoroughfare as they try to escape the death and misery of a post-apocalyptic nightmare.
Apparently, the book (by Cormac McCarthy, who also wrote the book on which No Country for Old Men was based) is a subtle look at love and devotion, hardly the stuff of violent action movies. So will Hollywood make this a popcorn movie, or will it be a more thoughtful enterprise? And how will it be marketed? (I don’t think I’ve seen commercials for it…)
-
You are currently browsing the archives for November, 2009
People Had This to Say