There have been two movies as of late that have gotten a lot of attention for one reason or another. One is a tribute to the King of Pop, the one and only Michael Jackson, while the other has been declared the "scariest movie ever made." I found that only one of these two actually lived up to the hype. However, since they are shorter and, while not undermining the artistic merit of either of these films, less deep productions, I decided to write shorter reviews for them both.
This Is It
Love him or hate him, but Michael Jackson was one of a kind. From his roots in Gary, Indiana, where he started the Jackson 5 with the rest of his family to the days of Thriller and Off The Wall and until his tragic, confused death, no other individual ever made such an impact on pop music as MJ. As a tribute to his legacy, This Is It seems like a money-grabbing attempt at the countless legions of fans who want to see what Michael's final days were like. However, much to my surprise, this movie turned out to be surprisingly enjoyable and perhaps the best tribute that could be made.
This Is It's premise is simple: take the footage of Michael's rehearsals for his planned reunion tour which was filmed all just weeks, days or mere hours before his death, and add some interviews and stylish editing to top it off. Honestly though, it works. The movie can be labeled a concert film considering that about 75% of the on-screen action is singing or dancing but it keeps you engaged throughout with great pacing and effects.
The music is the star here, and it does not disappoint. MJ sings most of the songs with an energy that strictly contradicts his supposed sickly state of the time, considering he hits most of the high notes with relative ease. Basically all of his classics are here, with "Beat It", "Billie Jean", "Human Nature", "Thriller", "Wanna Be Startin Something" and many more. For songs such as "Thriller", filmed sequences in graveyards were filmed to be used as a backdrop for the concert action. We see the filming process and the intricacies involved, though obviously most of the detail will probably be included in the Ultra Super Collector's Edition of the film which is bound to be released. The "Smooth Criminal" scene is fantastic, blending scenes from Humphrey Bogart's film Gilda with the, well, smooth criminal that is MJ. At the end, or even in the middle, of some songs Michael will stop to note something he wants changed or improved upon. He was always a perfectionist and this film truly shows how he wanted everything to be just right for his final shows.
There is no look at Michael's troubled life or death in this film whatsoever. It is all about the music, and the lives he touched throughout his life. Interviews with backup dancers and musicians all gush over what Michael brought to their lives and the effect he made on them. The director, Kenny Ortega, obviously saw the greatness in Michael as well and worked hard to make this concert be the best it could be. Unfortunately, it never happened. After watching this rehearsal footage you can only wonder what could have been. Seriously, this would have been one of the most elaborate, and probably best, tours ever done if it could have followed through. But, in the end, we are left with this tribute alone, and it achieves its job and then some by reminding us all of Michael Jackson's legacy in a positive, loving light.
Final Verdict: 4 out of 5 Stars
Paranormal Activity
Well, there is not much to say about this film besides the fact that I was disappointed. I do not know why I even anticipated much, though the claim that this was the "scariest movie ever made" definitely enticed me into seeing it. However, I never was genuinely scared or really spooked. I was interested in it, but not in a very attached way.
Basically, Paranormal Activity is the story of a couple in Los Angeles who experience various "hauntings" in their bedroom at night. The boyfriend installs a camera and documents everything Blair Witch-style, as the whole movie is in the handicam format. I am not an advocate of that type of filmmaking (Cloverfield was not a big hit for me) but, in this case, it does work to some extent. With the lack of any real special effects and the bare bones budget of $15,000, Paranormal Activity is taking the raw approach and an acknowledged, cheap camera can get the job done. Once the movie gets going (there are no opening titles or credits), it becomes very formulaic. A night passes by and we see the strange footage of things that happened. Micah (the boyfriend) and Katie (the...girlfriend) observe the footage and freak out. It is quite a bore for the first half or so as nothing really occurs of much significance besides an extremely cheesy appearance by an actor playing an expert at psychological and spiritual affairs like the ones the two are experiencing. I will not spoil anything else that happens in this film but I will say that I never was scared in a way that I anticipated. This seems to be a trend too; only the really, really sensitive will be genuinely freaked out by this. The ending is a bit of a disappointment too. Too anticlimactic, gimmicky and cliched to leave a good impression.
Overall, Paranormal Activity is a movie that really benefits from our current forms of communication (Facebook, Twitter, etc), because it has been making rounds on the Internet and claiming the spoils with a near $90 million domestic gross as of this writing. This may be the most profitable movie ever made in the long run. Still, Paranormal Activity is a shallow film that will be all the buzz now but never thought of again a few months down the line. It may be worth seeing it to just experience it, but the experience really is nothing special.
*Disclaimer: This review may contain slight spoilers. However, the extent to which plot lines are revealed is about equal to a reading of the original children's novel. However, the following is as much a review as it is an analysis. I equate certain events in the film to what there true meaning may be. It is a joy for the viewer to find these by themselves, but reading some thoughts here will do no harm. But to anyone with no intent on seeing the movie, there is no harm in reading this (and maybe you'll change your mind). Nonetheless, enjoy.*
Where The Wild Things Are: Directed by Spike Jonze Released in 2009
"Well, that was underwhelming." That was the first thought I had when I left the theater after seeing Where The Wild Things Are. The movie lacked focus, it did not pack the punch of emotion like I expected it to and the ending seemed abrupt. I was ready to cast the film aside and call it a disappointment. That was until I gave it some time to sit, to digest. The greatness of some films are not always apparent from the initial impressions; upon leaving Inglourious Basterds I knew I had seen a mad masterpiece but I didn't appreciate the perfection that is Dr. Strangelove until a second viewing. Where The Wild Things Are is no exception; beneath the cuddly, kid movie surface lies a film that is one of the deepest and emotional tales I have seen in years.
Initially, let me explain the general premise to the uninitiated: Where The Wild Things Are is based off the beloved children's book by Maurice Sendak, released in 1963 and featured in the childhood of millions of American children since. The book is only 10 sentences long and, thus, hard to adapt to a full-length feature film. However, screenwriters Spike Jonze (also the director) and Dave Eggers take the overall premise of the picture book as well as the aesthetic look and make something entirely their own. This film is dark. Children may be fooled into believing that the playful creatures that are featured in the trailer only serve as one-dimensional playful objects but that is a false assumption. They occasionally look very frightening, act violently and behave in such intemperate ways that may even cause nightmares among the youth. Still, if a child has an open mind and a knack for analysis (I want to meet this kid), he or she will thoroughly enjoy this film.
In terms of plot, Where The Wild Things Are is the story about Max, played by the aptly named Max Records, who lives an imaginative yet lonely life at home. His sister has miserable friends who tear down his ice sculptures and she only looks on with mild disapproval, not acting or even being apologetic. Max's mom, with the ever reliable Catherine Keener at the helm, is a caricature of a mother that sadly exists in the real world but would make any mother, despite some similarities with this character, cringe. She is a divorcee or single mom from unknown circumstances, though it is fairly sure that the father walked out on the family early on. During a date with a man played by Mark Ruffalo (featured for maybe 40 seconds of screen time), she ignores Max despite his incessant pleads for attention. This culminates to Max embarrassing himself and his mother in front of this "date," much to mom's chagrin, and Max fleeing his house without looking back. All the while, he is dressed up in a wolf suit. Looking for liberation, he finds a sailboat and takes it to a faraway island where he encounters the Wild Things. They are about to eat him when he reveals to them his "magical powers" that are so powerful that he could make "people's heads explode." Clearly a manufactured lie, this excuse is bought by the creatures and they crown him king. From then on, the plot is not the focus.
The problem I had with the film upon conclusion was how it just meandered along, with no general concrete plot beneath it all. Max and the Wild Things have fun by engaging in a "Rumpus" or having a "dirt clod" fight, all featuring breaking stuff or throwing things in some way. There are scenes between these events such as the building of a large fort "where only the things you want to happen, would happen." There is never any sense of progression; the film's approach is very freewheeling and loose. However, this is revealed to not be the film's true value or even necessity.
Where The Wild Things Are's weapon is symbolism. It wields it often and with the grace of a poet. A second viewing of the film may be mandatory to truly appreciate the detail and effort that went into it. The Wild Things are comprised of seven different creatures: humble, loving Ira (Forest Whittaker), the mute and menacing Bull (Michael Berry Jr.), Judith, the pessimistic and rebellious one (an excellent Catherine O'Hara), the sympathetic yet plainly pathetic goat creature Alexander (Paul Dano), the consistently loyal Douglas (Chris Cooper), the affectionate and motherly figure KW (Lauren Ambrose) and, last but not least, the leading figure, Carol (James Gandolfini). These different creatures all represent a different aspect of Max's mind, thus showing the multiple personalities he has. He finds Carol to be the closest like him, accepting him without hesitation from the start. Max also sees the worst of himself in Carol, shown by the hostility between them near the end. Carol goes on anger tantrums, tearing apart their houses which reminds Max of his similar situations at home when he wrecked his own house. This bond proves to be the film's strongest point, as evidenced by the bittersweet conclusion. When Max sails back home, Carol runs to him in an emotionally devastated state, finally cognizant of the harm his ignorance has caused. He is unable to embrace Max for one last time but emits a howl of such shaky sentimental stature that only tears or ignorant laughs from the audience will result. As Max sails into the sunset, Carol gets a last look at the boy who revealed the best and worst in him. The analogy here is how Max's father recklessly abandoned his family but did not realize his mistake until it was too late. The father misses his family dearly now, just as Carol's tears show, but will never be able to partake in that final endearment. Upon realizing this revelation, I was torn. Not in a long time has a film hit me with such an emotional blow.
Truly, the film can be endlessly perused and analyzed for small details that carry significance. And they are there. Watch KW's introduction of the mysterious Bob and Terry and try not to think about the mother's date with that special individual or even the sister's unworthy friends. Better yet, Carol goes on a tantrum and reacts violently against Douglas who spouts the best line of the film regarding his "favorite arm." That, again, relates to Max's real world and Carol's pathetic excuses only make Max realize how immature he has become. The final salute to childhood will strike a chord with the high school crowd as shown by my thoughts. We are stuck in the middle between child and adult, not knowing when it is safe to set sail for the life of responsibility that lies ahead. But, shown by Max's journey, we all have the bravery to take that leap of faith. Clearly, there is no doubt that symbolism is this film's source of significance and emotion. Anyone who ponders the events of the screen will ultimately gain much satisfaction from realizing what was behind the cuddly exterior.
But what an exterior it is. Shot entirely in live action, Where The Wild Things Are takes an innovative approach at CGI through its natural blend of fantastical creatures in a real world. The Wild Things were filmed in costume with a static face; this was later changed when the voice talent was added and the faces emoted digital yet very lifelike feelings. They contain a stunning level of detail and emotional range that captures the nuances of every happy, sad or anger-filled moment. Complementing this triumph in imagery is the beautiful cinematography. Filmed in Australia, Where The Wild Things Are takes place on a wonderful island with great variety shown by the lush forests yet stark deserts adjacent to each other. While logically impossible (this is a fantasy story after all), this antithesis in environment only amplifies the beauty of everything else.
In the end, Where The Wild Things Are is a unique, fascinating film. Never before have I had such a 180° turnaround on a film from utter disappointment to unhinged love. The characters, and the true meaning that lies beneath them all, are fully developed even when they may seem shallow initially. The absolutely stunning visual work only helps the film's cause in the end as well, portraying the film's message about childhood even more effectively. I am not disappointed by Where The Wild Things Are: I love it. Maybe my irrational dismissal of the film without truly comprehending what I saw suggests I have some growing up to do myself.
For a movie that is poking fun at the current horror movie genre, Drag Me To Hell ends up being one of the best horror movies in recent memory. Its mix of campy violence, witty humor and genuine scares make Drag Me To Hell an entertaining, compelling film.
The overall premise is simple: Christine, played by Alison Lohman with a full committal to her role, is living a nice life until Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) comes along. This old, gypsy woman requests Christine for an extension on her mortgage. Christine decides to deny the mortgage in hopes of a promotion but Ganush, in her fury, casts a dark spell upon the poor girl, the curse of the Lamia. The Lamia stalks its victims for three days until finally bringing them down to eternal hell. Christine has no plans of eternal suffering and goes to great lengths to rid her of the curse. The film is brilliantly paced and just moves; this film will hook you from the beginning and not let go until the end. And what a finale; I could not have imagined a better way to end this movie and it combines equal parts humor and pure terror to leave the viewer shocked as well as satiated.
In a horror movie like this one, acting is not a field where this film will usually, or even necessarily have to, excel in. However, Drag Me To Hell has an excellent lineup lead by the lead actress, Alison Lohman. As an innocent girl with a (literal) hellish burden put upon her, she performs her part with a great mix of typical horror film naivety, pure terror and pissed-off badassery. Lohman even goes to disgusting lengths such as swallowing maggots in her full dedication to her role. Christine's boyfriend is played by Justin Long and is just what you would expect from him. He doesn't really believe his girlfriend's struggles and has bigot parents to boot. This role is not new for him but Justin Long is a likable actor and he fits the role with ease. As well, Lorna Raver as Mrs. Ganush is excellent without a doubt. Her makeup transforms her into a menacing, demented gypsy who haunts Christine at every turn. There is even an extended fight scene that involves her brawling with young Lohman. Clearly, Mrs. Raver put a lot of effort into her role. Another prevalent actor in this film is Dileep Rao who plays Rham Jas, the seer who can see Christine's troubles. He is a likable character who only has limited screen time but ends up being one of the few, real good guys in the film. Basically, the acting is better than expected and a big part of why this film is better than most horror films this decade. What a looker
However, what really sets Drag Me To Hell apart is its style. There is a certain campiness to it that was clearly the brainchild of Sam Raimi, the director, looking back to his early days of Evil Dead. The violence, especially for a PG-13 film, is shocking yet somewhat hilarious. At one point, Christine spouts blood from her nose like a fountain, with people around her viewing it as a minor distraction. Clearly, the violence is meant to amuse, not repulse. That being said, there are various forms of blood and bile liquid flowing throughout. Furthermore, its self-deprecating look at the horror genre actually lends it an advantage. Many situations are full of the typical cliches such as a dead flashlight, shadows under a door, or closet jump scares. It works though; this could be attributed to its excellent directing or driving pacing. It never plods along at a slow pace. Countering this humor and convention is real horror. There were many times throughout the film where I was actually creeped out by its Lamia spirit or Mrs. Ganush, even if I may have laughed at them afterward. All in all, it is very interesting how Drag Me To Hell blends comedy, parody and horror all into one creation that seems original as much as they may have been done before.
To sum up, Drag Me To Hell is a fun, wild film. It keeps you hooked, regaled and even spooked throughout with no time to breathe. Add in the surprisingly good acting and one of the best endings I have seen in recent memory and you've got one of the finest horror films of the decade.
Zombieland does not reinvent the wheel. A hybrid of a zombie and romantic comedy, Zombieland takes a lot of influence from films before it such as Shaun of the Dead and even the similarly titled (as well the career launch pad for one of this film's leading actors) Adventureland. However, it works because of its execution. The cast - with a pleasant surprise - fit with one another in a practically flawless manner, and the comedy and action are very well-balanced.
Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is a kid on his own with a certain set of rules for surviving the zombie apocalypse. His OCD mentality is restricting but effective, as he has survived longer than most on Earth. He eventually runs into Tallahassee, played by Woody Harrelson, whose gun-ho approach strictly conflicts with his reserved attitude. Nonetheless, they join forces to survive until they run into the sly sisters, Wichitaw (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). Their uncertain motives put the two males down often, but Columbus knows he has an attraction for the older sister (Stone) and she does too. The chemistry between the two is very good and similar to the Eisenberg-Kristen Stewart relationship from Adventureland. From me, that is a compliment. Emma Stone, more commonly known as "Jules" from Superbad, is in a similar role here but brings her own sexy charm and back-stabbing attitude to make it a fun role. Abigail Breslin is in her best role since Little Miss Sunshine as a tough girl despite her small appearance. The real star of the show here, however, is Woody Harrelson. An underrated actor in many regards, Woody constantly brings a rough, humorous approach to almost all of his roles and this one is one of his finest. Tallahassee directly contrasts Columbus's conservative approach and that really highlights his talents. He will casually, yet brutally, take down a zombie, laugh at rednecks' obsession for guns, grow furious at a Hostess truck for lacking his ultimate treat, Twinkies and even grow emotional when his real reason for roaming the wastes of the US are revealed. This film has shined the much-deserved spotlight on Woody's career again, and the commercial and critical success this movie is experiencing can only foretell good things for his career once again. Overall, the casting in this film is spot-on and its finest aspect. However, the joy and carnage this film conveys through its story and action are also very notable. The film starts out as a typical zombie comedy, with countless undead killing helpless humans while Columbus's narration explains what they did wrong and how he avoids their mistakes. The opening is actually pretty brutal, with plenty of appendages either decaying or being eaten, and the huge bursts of blood are not for the faint at heart. The credits sequence, played to Metallica's epic "For Whom The Bell Tolls", is similar to Watchmen's as it contains many slow-motion scenes of carnage while still conveying a pseudo "history" of the zombie events (more like a collage of action honestly). Once the romantic interests are introduced, however, this film takes a long break from zombie action all together and focuses mainly on its comedic laurels. To some, this may seem like an unwelcome approach but I found it a perfectly fine way of mixing the movie up. The film's conclusion contains plenty of action so it ends up being very balanced. In around the middle of Zombieland, there is a certain cameo whose identity I will not reveal, but he (a hint at least) ended up being my favorite part of the film. He is a universally-loved actor anyway, and seeing him again is a pleasure for practically anyone who will being seeing a movie called "Zombieland." All in all, Zombieland takes lemons and makes damn fine lemonade. You may have tasted some of it before, whether it be in the consistency or tartness, but it brings back good memories and is the perfect cure for thirst on a hot day. In this case, the hot day is the current slough of movies that really make this film stand out. Even without these limitations, Zombieland is an excellent zombie film and one of the year's better comedies. Its careful borrowing of older ideas end up working because of the stellar execution in almost every regard. The acting, action, dialogue, comedy, cinematography....it all works. And I am more than satisfied with that.
There really is not much to say about Jennifer's Body. Starring Megan Fox and written by Diablo Cody (Juno), the expectations are already set. Could this be the next high-school slasher film? Is the Academy Award-winning Cody going to strike gold again? Is Megan Fox still hot? The answer, with the exception of the last, is a resounding no.
Jennifer and Needy
As for the basics, Jennifer's Body is about the story of Jennifer (Megan Fox), the high school "it girl" who is drooled over by the male students and knows it. She teases them with their desires but *usually* doesn't give in. Her best friend, Needy (Amanda Seyfried) is a nerd but still is Jen's best friend, despite their physical and emotional differences. The problem comes when they both go to a bar one night and meet a Indie rock band called "Low Shoulder," with Nikolai (Adam Brody from the OC). A fiery event ensues and Jennifer is mysteriously whisked off with the band. She returns later to Needy's house in an emaciated form but, the day later, she is perfectly fine. It turns out Jennifer has turned into some demon/zombie that must feast on humans to keep her lustrous look intact. In this case, she chooses boys.
Jennifer lures countless different high school boys into her (literal) grasp by acting slutty but then, of course, disposing of them in gruesome ways. Unfortunately, these encounters are never scary or even sexy enough to get much of an impact, relying on horror movie cliches for "shock" value. For example, a boy walks into an abandoned house with absolutely no one on the street. Must be fine, right? He proceeds to climb through a window in the back of house that is under construction and gets freaked out by a crow that is inside the house. What happens next doesn't even need to explained; you know already. The violence is not even that graphic, as death scenes only involve shadows with blood splattering on walls or after views of murders that have humorously disfigured bodies with unreal excesses of blood. It's typical teenage slasher fare and not much more.
The script, with Diablo Cody of Juno fame at the helm, is nagging and vomit-inducing in itself. The worst part of Juno, the so-called "witty" dialogue, returns in full force, making expressions like "what the blog?" seem like child's play. When Jennifer is all bloody she says, "Got a tampon?" or, instead of using the word "jealous," Jennifer calls a boy "jello" and then repeats it five more times. Jen's final line is so ridiculously stupid I am not going to even repeat it here. I wonder how Diablo Cody won an Oscar in the first place and this movie should hopefully put her away for good.
Now, the acting. There really isn't much to say here, as well. Megan Fox is still sexy but incapable of much talent. It is definitely a step up from Transformers and, who knows, she may have a movie down the road where her sex appeal isn't the only thing that gets her by. But, in this film, Fox provides many laughs, usually unintentional, and is a very unconvincing demon child. Amanda Seyfried as Needy is merely okay, looking drastically different from Mamma Mia! from 2008. She still is an attractive actress even next to Fox here but her acting also relies on typical horror movie conventions. Her narration also can be grating, though this is more related to Miss Cody than her. Needy also has a boyfriend called Chip who is played by Johnny Simmons. He has a Zac Efron-style haircut so he can talk with a drawling, chill voice right? Well, the fact that he is never seen with anyone besides Needy (the names are starting to make sense...), pretty as she may be, begs to differ. A more Jennifer and Chip nervous, uptight Chip would have been a better fit and probably provide a sense of comedic value but, as it stands, his character is actually decent. He provides a few funny one-liners and he is really the only other main character of the film, and the only male one at that, so he stands in rough territory. Adam Brody makes an impossibly stupid appearance as "Low Shoulder's" singer, not blinking an eye when a fire is blazing next to him or trying to reason that the devil is an indie rock band's best chance at success. Whenever he appears on screen, a guaranteed facepalm is bound to follow. The veteran actor here is actually the best. J.K. Simmons, the excellent character actor from Juno, Spiderman and Burn After Reading, is here as a one-handed teacher who provides most of the laughs or even emotion. Of course, his time on the screen can amount to maybe four-five minutes tops.
Truly, there is not much more to say about Jennifer's Body. The acting, script and story are all vapid or uninspired, but that is not even its biggest problem. The ultimate obstacle this film runs into is its severe identity crisis. It doesn't really know what it is or wants to be. There are not many laughs, there is not much horror, and there is not much sex. I actually had hopes that this film could have one or more of those three and executed them in an admirable way but, wow, was I wrong. Girls will probably not know the point and boys will be disappointed by the lack of the title star's "body." So, really, what is left?
May contain slight spoilers, though this is a true story so "spoilers" may not even be an applicable term. Just read the damn review, already. :)
A delightfully smart and witty comedy, The Informant! is one of the better comedies of the year thanks to its very intelligent plot progression and excellent lead performance by Matt Damon. Even if it is based on a true story, the film still carries an air of creativity that really sets it apart from recent comedic endeavors. Mark with FBI Agents Shepard and Herndon The Informant! is centered around the story of the real-life Mark Whitacre, a successful scientist/business man at Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), a giant agricultural industry based in Illinois, turned whistleblower when the business side rears its corrupt head. When, supposedly, his conscience cannot handle dealing with the illegal price-fixing schemes that are going on at his company, he starts wearing a wire and contacting the FBI, represented by Agent Shepard (Scott Bakula) and Agent Herndon (Joel McHale). These two actors, known for past or recent appearances on television, are great in their roles, especially Brian Shepard who has to deal with Mark's lies and troubles firsthand. These lies show themselves as Mark begins to compromise himself by concealing certain information or distorting certain other facts. The self-destruction of Mark Whitacre is the real star of the show here, as he continues to descend on a downward spiral while not really noticing it himself.
Mark, played by Matt Damon, is a highly intelligent man with some severe problems. The best part of this movie is its constant, arbitrary narration from Mark himself, giving thoughts on anything from human interaction to polar bear camouflage. At first these non-sequiturs seem like random comedic tidbits but they eventually show another side of Whitacre's mind that is really his problem all along. I won't say much more (the facts are all out after all) but it really is a nontraditional yet satisfying approach at storytelling.
Of course, a real question is whether or not this movie is funny in the first place. It really is, but it will not appeal to everyone. There is a lot of dialogue and some jokes can go over people's heads if they don't pay attention. Any fan of films such as The Big Lebowski or television shows such as Arrested Development should feel right at home, however. Mark with his wife, Ginger
There is a interesting, surely intentional approach at lighting and filming that was made with this film. Everything is bathed in a orange, incandescent lightbulb glow that fills every scene, even ones outside. Sometimes rooms have lamps on behind the actors, making them very shadowed and blurry. This can be interpreted to be a few different things, maybe even a joke by the cinematographers. A reasonable explanation for the look could be an analogy itself to Mark. The script is smart and witty, much like the leading character, but there is another layer of him that is deeply troubled. His mind is bent to believing that he really is not wrong and his hardships are the results of others. By lying to himself constantly, his perception is altered in this way. So while his dialogue may be flattering and convincing, the real soul of his character is as distorted as the scenery around him. As the movie progressed and he starting to reveal some of his flaws and lies, I noticed that the lighting slowly began to look normal. Maybe my eyes were playing tricks on me but, if not, it was a clever albeit subtle way at seeing this mad man progress in thought and mind.
In the end, The Informant! is a very human comedy, showing all the wonders and flaws any regular person has. In this case, Mark had a fair share more foibles than the regular human but he used many to his own advantage. Would he be brought down? Yes, and he actually received larger punishment than the rest of his corrupt superiors. But the ride was fun along the way, much like this movie. It is not a classic by any means but The Informant! is a comedy that makes you reflect on your own qualities upon finishing it, trying to persuade yourself that you really are not a Mark Whitacre yourself. In this age of economic recession, it is nice to see the corporate bigwigs get a real, human side instead of current media stereotypes. And with all the problems that these characters have, you'll be laughing when you might be witnessing how the country fell in the first place.
Crank: High Voltage is an ugly film. The characters are unappealing, the violence is overly and unnecessarily gritty, the aesthetic is bleak and its content is overall just unpleasant. There is no denying that Crank 2 is not a good movie, even a bad film, in fact. However, it does have some positive aspects that were carried over from its crazy predecessor, though it still doesn't match the balance the first one had between fun and gratuitous material.
Jason Statham, the ever-reliable action hero, is back with his artificially stimulated heart and his quest for revenge. The story is basically nonexistent so no more details need to be given about it. All there is to know is that Chev Chelios (Statham) has a mission and kills many people along the way. He runs into some despicable, lowlife characters throughout, such as Ria (Ling Bai), the prostitute who regards Chev as her "Kurt Russell." His girlfriend (Amy Smart) returns and engages in another public sex scene that is comical and lighthearted despite its content. Even Napolean Dynamite's Pedro (Efren Ramirez) is in this as Chev's gay friend who has "Body Tourettes," causing him to have random, violent spasms. The joke is funny the first time but quickly wears thin, and his character is more of an annoyance than a humorous presence. Overall, the characters in this film are trashy, on-purpose, but that did not do much for me. Some may like its seedy setting and people but I really did not.
The action is highly kinetic, with fast cuts and bright lighting. There are some cool fight scenes that really bring the only worthwhile part to the film but they are usually hit or miss. For example, one scene in a strip club features gun-wielding strippers gunning down gangsters. It is pretty awesome at first but when a stripper's breasts get shot and deflate, you know this movie really is terrible or, for some, the best film of the year. I am definitely part of the former. There are still some fun scenes sprinkled throughout but it really is not worth it.
I guess I just found Crank: High Voltage to be too crude and crazy for its own good. The first film was a good time that I found perfectly acceptable in its content, and its action was very similar to this one. But Crank 2 takes the typical sequel approach when it is assumed that "more is better." In this case, no it is not.
There is no denying the fact that Ponyo is a beautiful film. The 2D animation is hand-drawn and bursting with color and life. It is one of the most attractive artistic visions I have seen in a film this year. Nonetheless, something seemed "off" with it. It sits in a tough spotlight considering Spirited Away is a masterpiece in my eyes, one of the best animated films of the decade.
The voice talent is stellar, though. A boy named Sosuke (Frankie Jonas, brother of Jonas Brothers, ugh) meets a small goldfish with a human head on the shore by his head. Her name is Ponyo and she is voiced by Noah Cyrus, sister to Miley (double ugh). Nonetheless, there is still some great talent that overshadows the names of these two. Matt Damon and Tina Fey are the parents for Sosuke and they give the film a great personality, even if their American accent really counters the landscape. Ponyo's parents are portrayed by Liam Neeson and Cate Blanchett. Cate has a very ethereal, God-like aura while Neeson is a troubled dad with some funky hair. Neeson's character does not look like his real life self at all but he still manages to pull it off, speaking to his talent. Betty White, Cloris Leachman and Lily Tomlin all give voices to a group of elderly women who are frequently seen throughout the film. Many of their remarks are usually funny and show a big counter to the youth that is part of the two protagonists. Actually, the two young actors are fine in their respective parts but their last names are so past the saturation limit that my surprise was unfortunately mitigated. The animation is obviously beautiful and stunning and there really is no need for description besides seeing it for yourself. The one thing that left me with a strange impression of the film was its message of love. The conflict in the film is if Sosuke will love Ponyo, even at the tender young age of five. I found this to be strange and the true meaning of love does not come to a person until much later. The fact that the whole world hung in the balance of his decision did not make anything more settling. I believe the meaning of love that this film was trying to convey was not truly a romantic form but more of a responsible, caring love. In that sense, the message was affectionate, but still odd to have such young characters as its subject. There was also a message of conservation that never really was realized or given much context in the end. Add the grating, childish song at the end credits and my impression was less than impeccable.
Despite these gripes, Ponyo is certainly a fine film. The animation is enough to warrant a watch. It is just not as transcending or ambitious as Hayao Miyazaki's other work.
3/5
Adventureland
From the director of Superbad and boasting such regulars as Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, one would expect Adventureland to be filled with raunchy, laugh-a-minute humor akin to the previous work. However, Adventureland is not that type of film at all, instead opting for a coming-of-age film with not so much humor as a heartfelt, entertaining story. There are certainly laughs to be had but the real value of this movie lies beyond that.
Set in 1987, the movie is the story of James Brennan (, a recent college graduate who spends his summer before grad school working at Adventureland, a seedy yet vibrant theme park to get him some money. Jesse Eisenberg plays James and he is in a mix between Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate and Michael Cera in, well, any Michael Cera movie. He actually pulls the "George Michael attitude" (Patent pending) rather well, maybe even better than the creator himself. Nonetheless, he meets Em, played by Kristen Stewart. She is excellent here and gives a sexy, emotional performance contrary to the movie most people know her by, Twilight. James also has multiple friends that he spends time with, such as Joel, a down-to-earth, philosophical dude played by Martin Starr as well as Frigo, a guy who does not talk to James as much as repeatedly punch him in the balls. Frigo is played by Matt Bush, otherwise know as the "guy in the AT&T commercials with the angry mom." Other characters include Lisa P, played by a steaming Margarita Levieva, and Ryan Reynolds as Mike Connell. A mistake this movie makes is the presumption that Ryan Reynolds is cool, shown by his slow, chill stroll in his first scene. First of all, Ryan Reynolds is not, nor has been or will be, cool. Thankfully, the film's story does not view him as favorably by the end, a godsend in my eyes. Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig are the two employers of the park, and they are in their usual, hilarious self. Kristen is always quirky and funny in her own way and Bill boasts an extremely fake mustache as he screams at litterbugs around the park. Good times are had for all.
The romantic relationship that grows between James and Em is portrayed in a great, genuine fashion. A great scene in the beginning when Em drives James home from the theme park is filled with awkward glances and uncomfortable silences. Greg Mottola, the director, does a great job at establishing the feel and pace of a teenage relationship. The film, much like its character Lisa P, reaches its height in the mid-section when it is filled with joyous wonder and life. The true, faithful representation of late-1980s America is remarkable and filled with plenty of music, movie and cultural references. This perfectly complements the brewing romance and somewhat magical theme park that serves as a character of its own in the movie. It is a shame, then, that the movie falters a little in the second half. When a foreign conflict arises that breaks the flow of the peace, the film resorts to a few cliches and filler dialogue before getting back on track. Thankfully, it does. The last few scenes are nice, even if the ending is somewhat strange.
Unlike Stewart's other "work," Twilight, Adventureland is not a parable for abstinence. In fact, it is the opposite. While I have no problem with that personally, it is weird for the film to end on such a note of this message. It should have been a mid-film event and the ending should have been modified to something else, less about sex and more about love. After all, "intercourse," as James calls it, is not a true sign of love. But hey, its the 80's. Times were different....right?
All in all, Adventureland is a really touching and fine film that I enjoyed greatly. The message is a bit shaky and there are parts that drag but I would still call it one of the best comedies of the year, even if its genre is harder to distinguish than a clear-cut film like The Hangover. But as a story of young love and all the quirks that come with it, there hasn't been a movie like it in awhile.
*Contains some slight spoilers - Read at your own risk* :P
Quentin Tarantino makes great movies. It is a simple fact. There is no denying the draw and appeal of classics such as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, or perhaps the mad violence that made the Kill Bill series an action classic. It just so happens that Inglourious Basterds is another great film by Tarantino. So good, in fact, it ranks up there with his best, easily. After leaving the theater, I was overwhelmed with love for this movie. It is definitely my favorite movie of the summer and will be hard to top for the rest of the year.
The Basterds The film starts out with a scene that strongly parallels the opener to The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Tarantino's professed favorite movie. Hans Landa, played by a impossibly good Christoph Waltz, is a Nazi assigned with the task of rounding up the Jews in France, or just exterminating them. He meets with a French farmer, Perrier LaPadite (in an excellent, too short appearance by Denis Menochet) to ask him if he is hiding any Jewish people in his house. The conversation is innocent enough; he compliments LaPadite of his beautiful daughters and requests a drink, milk in this case. They engage in small talk for a few minutes and the scene documents every moment. The suspense is present throughout as Landa uses his menacing wit to coax information out of the farmer. It eventually draws to a thunderous, frightening close as Landa gets his way. This opening scene is almost identical in a sense to The Good, The Bad and the Ugly when The Bad confronts a farmer, pestering him for information. Drawing from one of the greatest movies of all time is certainly a fine thing to do (Tarantino borrowed elements from the film before such as the Mexican Standoff which makes an appearance in this film as well). This scene starts the movie off well and gives the Jewish escapee, Shoshanna Dreyfus, a reason for vengeance.
Brad Pitt and his crew are given a introduction as "The Basterds" next, a group of Jewish-Americans with one mission only: "Killin' Nazis." According to Aldo Raine (Pitt), the "business is boomin'" and the whole German army is starting to fear this ragtag group of violent figures. Pitt is excellent in his Nazi-hating, Southern American role and is always provides a laugh throughout the movie. Aldo's gang also includes "The Bear Jew," played by a insane yet amusing Eli Roth, Hugo Stiglitz, a Nazi killing machine who Til Schweiger fulfills the role for, and Smithson Utivich, played by BJ Novak, or "Ryan" from The Office. The whole crew is given a comical view, despite their horrible war crimes, and each member is given a distinct, interesting personality. Shoshanna's mission There is also a separate agenda for Shoshanna, the Jewish girl whose family was terrorized early on by Landa. Her role is occupied by another relative unknown to American cinema, Melanie Laurent. She acts with cold grace, turning down the advances made on her by the handsome, nagging hero soldier, Frederick Zoller, played by Daniel Bruhl. She owns a cinema in Paris, and Zoller, trying to flatter her, wants to premiere the movie based off his accomplishments at her venue. This quickly sets up a situation where she can get back at the scum that murdered her family and her vengeful character really steals the show in many of her scenes.
Meanwhile, there is a separate plan to take down the Third Reich by the Basterds themselves, with an almost unrecognizable Mike Myers as the courier. A bunch of other great roles are shown throughout, including a British film critic turned spy played by Michael Fassbender and a large part played by Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark, a famous actress turned spy for the Allies. Everyone here adds a ton of personality to their characters and, as a result, the world feels fresh and alive. There has not been such a stellar lineup of actors, known and unknown, in awhile. Hey, look who it is!! As many Quentin Tarantino movies can boast to, Inglourious Basterds has style. Pure, smooth style. Starting with the words "Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France," the film does not take itself seriously and, thus, can have a lot of fun with its setting. The props and settings are all historically accurate but the presentation of the movie is anything but. When introducing Hugo Stiglitz, a burst of rock guitar rings with huge, screen-filling, yellow font of his name. A cool narration by Samuel L. Jackson ensues with a flashback, and the action returns to the scene as if nothing happened. Only Tarantino can pull off something like that. In addition, the soundtrack is stellar as well, mixing Ennio Morricone-style epics with 70s funk and David Bowie. The music is so far from the setting that each time it plays, you can't help but laugh at the some of the ridiculousness at hand. Regardless, the soundtrack still managed to fit perfectly with the action, giving the movie its own identity.
Much praise has already been given to Christoph Waltz for his impeccable portrayal of mirth mixed with malice, but I must add to it. Every scene of his is his own, and his blend of evil and humor is unlike anything I have seen before. When he finds out crucial information about Operation Kino (the plan to kill high-ranking Nazi officials), he shouts "That's a bingo!!" in a way that will make anyone laugh and cringe simultaneously. His "chat" with Shoshanna at a Nazi party is suspenseful and nerve-wracking, even when he has nothing much to say at all. He will surely receive a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance and he deserves to win it. The psychotic villain genre has been played by many great actors recently, such as Heath Ledger and Jackie Earle-Haley, and now Christoph Waltz can deservedly sit among them. He draws Christoph Waltz with the infamous pipe attention from every audience member and won't let go until his character is completely absent from the screen. In summary, he is fantastic.
The violence in this film has also gained some publicity but it is no more than a typical 21st century Tarantino film. There are several scenes of scalping and beatings but they are usually not given a serious tone, but instead a comical one. Shootouts are brief but intense; a shootout in the bar must have had at least 20 shots go by in less than 10 seconds. The final, climactic scene is literally explosive and a pleasure to watch, even despite its grossly disfigured body parts. Seeing history being rewritten, Tarantino-style, had me laughing hard for its approximate three minute duration.
The writing overall is top-notch, with obviously Quentin at the helm. While some may say they drag on too long, I found about every line of dialogue interesting due to the talented actors, and usually suspense is drawn from even the most inane of occurrences such as a waiter serving whipped cream. Once again, Christoph Waltz steals every one of his scenes and takes Tarantino's work and elevates it farther than even the director predicted. The screenplay was reportedly ten years in the making, going through several rewrites, and, while there have certainly been better scripts written in shorter amounts of time, Tarantino did not put that time to waste because the effort and proofreading show. The film's steady, patient approach throughout also suggest one thing and one thing only: Quentin Tarantino is the man and he knows it. He does not need anyone to ask him to cut with zooming in on someone pouring milk because it has to be there, at least in his mind. At a solid two and a half hours long, Inglourious Basterds takes its time but still manages to make all of it interesting, even when conversations approach the twenty minute mark or more. Only a man like Quentin can pull that off.
In the end, Inglourious Basterds is a fantastic film. Some may end up not liking it because of its length, gratuity or blend of different genres but they probably don't like Tarantino's style in the first place. This movie will be remembered by me and many others down the road as a mad work of art. The film's final words are, said by Pitt's Aldo Raine, "I think this just might be my masterpiece" as he stares at a swastika-scarred scalp he created. We all know that it is truly Tarantino behind the camera saying that, and he is truly right.
Here is another trio of movies I have seen recently. Two of them were moderate to pretty good, while another one was amazing. Again, guess which is which.
District 9
I remember it clearly: It was the summer of 2006 and a relatively unknown director, Neil Blomkamp, was chosen to direct a movie based off of Halo, the revolutionary first-person shooter video game. Even at that time, I was unsure if I wanted a Halo movie to come out. After all, movie-video game adaptations have had a history of being egregiously bad, with few to no exceptions. I was relieved to hear that the project was scrapped because of financial problems, with the producers asking for a budget of over $200 million. Basically, Neil Blomkamp and Peter Jackson, a producer, said "screw this" and made a film called District 9, a lower budget sci-fi film based off of Blomkamp's short film, Alive in Joburg about alien refugees in Johannesburg, South Africa. Now, three years later, the film is released and, rest assured, it is a million times better than anything with the name "Halo" in the title would have been.
District 9, with its subject matter of extraterrestrials, is, ironically, very human. It is about the story of a gargantuan Alien mothership that stalls above Johannesburg. From here, aliens are given a home in the city below and are segregated into a separate section of the city, District 9. District 9 is basically a slum in the nicest description and all the aliens live in shanty houses and poor conditions. These aliens, called "Prawns" by many humans, look like a crustacean-cephalopod creature and make various moaning and clicking sounds to communicate with one another. They vary in intelligence and ferocity but they are all united by one purpose: they want to go home. Even with their repulsive appearance, the aliens have a very human heart and do not appreciate being treated like the bottom-feeders the humans believe they are. This story relates very closely to the real-life segregation that occurred in Johannesburg many years ago. The film follows the story of Wikus Van De Merwe, played by newcomer Sharlto Copley. He starts as a relatively annoying, forgettable character but evolves to be much, much more. He is assigned to be in charge of the forced relocation of the alien denizens of District 9 and starts his raid on the village with plenty of armed soldiers behind him. This introduction is very well-made using mostly handheld cameras in a documentary style fashion. Most aliens view the humans in contempt and respond in a violent fashion, prompting the humans to fight back. Many of these encounters are actually very sad and show the barbarity that humans can display. However, during a raid on a house with the intelligent, caring alien called Christopher Johnson, Wikus is infected with an alien compound and starts to experience a metamorphosis. I will refrain from revealing the rest of the story because it is worth experiencing firsthand.
Copley's performance in this film is fascinating and an amazing debut to start on. He makes the viewer feel his pain in addition to seeing it and delivers a performance akin to Jeff Goldblum's in The Fly. His transformation is very grotesque and not for the faint at heart, with blood, black vomit and decaying appendages by the plenty. He also develops a bond with Christopher Johnson and this proves to be one of the film's greatest strengths. For once, he finds himself united with these "alien" species and exiled by the humans.
The special effects in the film are also spectacular. With only a budget of $30 million, it made me think if the extravagant, $200 million + films truly put their budget to good use because this film accomplished these admirable and beautiful feats of technology with a fraction of the money. All the aliens are given great detail that properly conveys their features and emotions, and the omnipresent mothership is a wonder to behold. It is also amusing that the final action scene involving a alien mech suit is better than any scene Transformers 2 had whatsoever. Blompkamp is an artist while Michael Bay is a soulless machine, in the end.
Overall, District 9 is one of the best movies of the summer and a must-see for anyone seeking an original adventure. The movie starts out strong with its documentary style approach and then improves with its emotional, graphic human tale. The ending is also very touching and beautiful. It resonated with me long after I left the theater and affirmed the film's artistic merit. In the end, District 9 is the perfect summer film.
4.5/5 Stars
I Love You, Man
I was surprised to hear that Judd Apatow had no direct connection to this film in one bit. Then I was relieved. While I love all that Apatow has made and done for the 21st century comedy scene, it is great to see his "disciples" move past his guidance and do things by themselves. As a result, I Love You, Man is a perfect example of the stars taking charge and starting their own scene.
I Love You, Man is about the story a man named Peter (Paul Rudd). Peter has no friends, well, male friends at least. He has always been the lady's man but never developed a close bond to a male. He realizes this needs to change when he has no best man for his wedding. So, Peter goes on a quest to find a "bromance" with someone who he can see eye-to-eye with. There are a bunch of funny scenes with him finding that "special someone," with the predictable situation when one of his targets turns out to be gay and is looking for more than a friendship. However, Peter finally finds Sydney Fife (Jason Segal), a dude that he instantly clicks with. What results are the various, amusing situations they get into as well as the usual conflict and *spoiler alert* make-up they have at the end. If there is any real con about this film, it is that it is very, very predictable. Thankfully, the movie is funny enough to keep you entertained for its reasonable duration.
Paul Rudd and Jason Segal are the perfect duo. Paul plays the awkward, desperate-to-please friend while Jason fits in with the laid-back, forgiving mold his character possesses. Andy Samberg appears as Peter's gay brother and JK Simmons and Jane Curtin are Peter's very amusing parents. There is also a scene with an Apatow, Paul Rudd-regular: Joe Lo Truglio. You probably don't recognize his name but he is an instantly recognizable character. He played Lonnie, a minor character whose voice cracked every time he spoke. These scenes were hilarious and he was my favorite part of the film, no small praise.
So, I Love You, Man is a very funny movie. It follows the regular formula we all know but that is fine when there is great talent behind each of the characters.
The Soloist
The Soloist is a sweet, passionate movie that you have to give credit to because of the pure talent that is behind it. Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx are both excellent in their roles, most particularly Foxx as Nathaniel Anthony Ayers Jr., a musical prodigy that suffers from severe schizophrenia. He really pours his heart into the character and, as Robert Downey said himself in Tropic Thunder, he did not go "full retard."
The film does drag at times and occasionally loses focus but it remains endearing enough to leave a positive impact. Joe Wright, the director of Atonement, layers some beautiful imagery throughout and does a great job as director, even if the movie is not up to the quality of his previous film. Overall, The Soloist is an inspiring film that is worth a viewing just to see the great performances it holds.
7 Comments
Log in to comment