- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
She's the girl you hated in high school - and she's back. The local people get the word that she's back, and so, when they talk about her, they call her the Ex-Prom Queen with the additional qualifier of 'Bitch'. Yeah, she's returned to her hometown and she wants her old flame back. Only he's a HMWAK - otherwise known as Happily Married with a Kid. Sounds like trouble has arrived in Mercury, Minnesota. The film is called Young Adult . It stars the Oscar winning Charlize Theron , and was directed by Jason Reitman and written by Diablo Cody . These two were paired up as Director and Writer in the 2007 film - Juno. Charlize has the role of Mavis Gary, a ghostwriter of romance fiction for teen girls or should I say YA's, which if you connect this to the title of the film, you get Young Adults. While she's kind of successful in that field, she hasn't quite reached an income level that could mean she could shop on Rodeo Drive, or have an apartment on Central Park West in New York. Instead, Mavis lives in a modest Minneapolis apartment with 'Modest' being an overstatement. However to Mavis, this was a far better situation than if she was stuck back in the old hometown The thing about Mavis is that she can't see beyond her own image. Beauty worked for her in high school. She was the prom queen, she dated the school's football hero, and in her mind - the sea was required to part if she showed up on its shore. So Mavis was the kind of woman who steamrolled through life - she either overwhelmed you because she was just sooo important, or she never saw you, like you weren't important, or attractive enough to even be noticed, considered, or thought about. What a gal. So Charlize takes this role of this kind of a self-centered woman. She thought she was a woman born to run, as in run through life always having everything her way. Only for the rest of us - she was a woman that was born to hated. So there's your set up. Usually in this kind of a situation - the bitch goddess gets taken down a peg, gets humiliated, or is knocked off her pedestal by the local folks, who put aside their sense of being threatened, and rev up their inner nobility - and a lesson is learned, the b/g gets the message, and everyone lives happily ever after. That's usually the case - but it doesn't work out that way this time. Mavis is never going to get the message. She'll remain an unrepetentily savage. Not so much that she becomes a cartoon queen of cruelty. No Charlize, Reitman, and Cody have imbued her with a myopic sense of self. She can't see beyond her own aura - the one she imagines, and the one that is like an invisible force field. This field keeps people away, and keeps 'goodness', if any exists within Mavis, locked up inside her. The object of Mavis's lust is Buddy Slade played by Patrick Wilson . He's a nice guy, and he loves his wife. But he is somewhat vulnerable when Mavis begins her assault on the beachhead of his marriage. But he quickly marshals his common sense, so he rebuffs, refuses, and reacts in the negative. Watch for his expressions as he gradually gets the message that the message he's sending to Mavis is the message that she's not getting at all. Patton Oswalt is on hand as the local good guy. He was damaged a long time ago - in fact he was beaten up by town toughs back when he was in high school because they thought he was gay. He wasn't - but he's been badly disabled from that attack. He had the locker next to Mavis back in high school. Does she remember him - not at first - but then she recalls that incident and remembers him as The Hate-Crime Guy. So Mavis is on one end of the spectrum - she's the Prom Queen both then and to this day - she's still the prom queen. She got all the attention she could handle. Patton's Matt is on the other end of the spectrum - 180 degrees opposite. He was the geek, the nerd, and he was never noticed. Buddy is the middle. The film has entertainment value despite the fact that the lead is despicable. Kudos to Charlize for taking this role. The film's tagline says - Everyone gets old. Not everyone grows up. So much so, that you are actively rooting against Mavis. Tough work for an actress. But the way Charlize handles this role - she's definitely worth seeing again.
It seems so hard for sequels to ever match the quality of the original movie that spawned them. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle was the rare low-brow silly comedy that was actually hysterical. Yet the third film in the franchise, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas , is far from that. It’s trying something a little different by going with a holiday theme this time around. But that doesn’t do much to add to the humor. John Cho and Kal Penn once again play Harold and Kumar. The film takes place six years after the last one and the former best buddies are now estranged from one another. Harold, always the conservative one, is married and living a good normal life. Kumar is still living in the same apartment they used to live in together, still smoking pot daily, and still not really doing anything with his life. But when a mysterious package arrives, Kumar notices that it’s addressed to Harold and decides to go bring it to him. Kumar is busy trying to impress his intimidating father-in-law (Danny Trejo) who just brought a special Christmas tree to the house which has special meaning to his family. As usual, it’s Kumar who’s always getting the guys into trouble, and when he brings the package over to Harold, it’s not long before he’s burned the special tree down. That sets up the premise for the rest of the film: they’re simply running around town trying to find a replacement for the tree. Just as they tried desperately to find a White Castle in the first film, they run into all kinds of crazy people and situations while on their mission. Once again, it’s Neil Patrick Harris who gets the most laughs. His mere 10 minutes or so in the movie is funnier than just about anything else. You may chuckle here and there at other parts, but won’t be laughing as much as you probably did during the first film. Searching for a Christmas tree is not exactly a clever storyline, but then again neither is searching for a White Castle establishment. Yet it was much more satisfying to see the guys fulfill their insatiable craving for the munchies than it is to see them find a tree. Plus, we never learn who sent the mysterious package or why it was even sent in the first place. It’s simply a lame device to bring the two characters together again. Adding the 3D aspect is kind of different for a comedy, and we get to see strange things coming towards our eyes such as marijuana smoke, but it’s just not satisfying. Fans of the series might be interested to follow the ongoing journey of these two guys; anyone else just won’t get it.
Adapting any material for the big screen can be a tricky process but it’s especially so when considering the minimalist settings and character oriented tales on the stage. There is a preconceived idea on how the story should play out with play adaptations because of the familiarity with the story and the performances of the original cast. And with a popular play such as Yasmina Reza’s “God of Carnage,” popular both here in the US and in France where it originated, that standard of expectation is equally daunting even if you have an accomplished director such as Roman Polanski behind it. Carnage , as the film version of the play is titled, is Polanski’s first comedy of sorts since his 1967 film The Fearless Vampire Killers and truth be told it drastically shows. The casting isn’t ideal, the comedy delivery is slightly stunted, and his handling of the static and limited environment isn’t what you would expect from a well-known director. It certainly lacks in presentation skills compared to the mastery of Sidney Lumet in how he dealt with minimalist settings ( Dog Day Afternoon, 12 Angry Men ). The film explores two couples meeting to discuss a fight between their sons at a playground and becomes a comedy of revelation, which exposes the annoying quirks, prejudiced assumptions, and diminishing facades of the parties involved. The play and film have a similarity to the themes of Luis Bunuel’s The Exterminating Angel where high class sensibilities devolve into the animalistic meaning the elimination of civility and politeness, which makes sense since they are both originally from French authors. Carnage , while not as good as its stage predecessor, has enough interesting dialogue and performances that will keep an audience relatively satisfied. However, throughout the process you realize that Polanski’s abilities are strained, the actors on the screen are not as good as their stage counterparts, and the film reveals too much to an audience that is meant to be purely objective observers. A fatal flaw in a film presentation of the play “God of Carnage” is the opening credits where we witness, at a distance, the quarrel between the children on the playground that ignites the parental encounter that is the entire film. Actually seeing the act of violence doesn’t add anything to the core of the film and with enough contemplation can be seen as a detriment to our objective experience. Witnessing anything slants our view and it didn’t have to be in the film. But that is a criticism that is only part of the presentation as a whole. Polanski’s directing style can be sweeping, it can be elegant, and it can be succinct when he wants it to be. However, throughout Carnage it seems he had a difficult time handling a very tight environment, which utilizes a lot of close ups and different shot exchanges but never tries to express the emotion in the scene with the position of his camera. The beginning of the film should be uncomfortably awkward in its politeness and transitions into loose and bitter honesty near the end, though the camera use remains consistent. But the point of this story really revolves around the strengths of the performances because Carnage is an acting piece for comedic and overly dramatic delivery giving the actors in the project a lot of range and expression that needs a bit of restraint. While the four leads work very well and definitely appear to have fun with their roles, there is no denying that even though they have unquestionable talent the film would have benefited more with the original Broadway actors. John C. Reilly works best in his role as the arbitrating and overly polite host to the visiting couple but his transition from civil mediator to an explosively apathetic father doesn’t have the same level of change as it would have been with James Gandolfini (Broadway original), who happens to have the best reserved rage in the business. Where comedy is concerned delivery is important and it doesn’t seem Christoph Waltz has the chops as much as he did in Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds . His comedic abilities become more evident as the film goes on but his demeanor comes off as just plain nasty than it does pompous and indifferent, such as Jeff Daniels in the original play. The two female leads, Jodie Foster and Kate Winslet, have a unique chance to go unhinged and it is relatively successful though at times Foster seems a bit out of place. Acting aside the material in the play is incredibly strong and having the original playwright Yasmina Reza be part of writing the screenplay was a solid choice and it keeps the film interesting if not as strong as it should be. A director more willing to experiment with a play that is essentially one long scene could have planned it out such as Hitchcock did for his play adaptation of Rope , which would have been essentially been one shot if he didn’t have to switch film stock. Polanski isn’t as accomplished a director as bourgeois crowds like to claim since he hasn’t made a classic or memorable film since Chinatown , but he what he can be credited for is not messing things up. Carnage as a Polanski film is one of those above average pieces in his arsenal of work probably due to his vast choices for shots and framing that make an intriguing visual experience and his handling of the actors, which makes it a sporadically humorous one. Perhaps holding the film up to the stage play expecting something identical is justifiably overcritical, but why did they make the decision of not using the original actors from the stage (Hope Davis, Marcia Gay Harden, Jeff Daniels, and James Gandolfini). Was this a creative decision? Was it an obligation through contract? Did the other actors not want to work with Polanski due to his sordid past? Whatever the reason might be there is an indisputable truth that transitioning a play to the screen requires a delicate approach and foresight for presentation and in regards to this play it needed a director with a better sense of risk and creativity beyond Polanski’s average abilities.
50/50 is based on the true story of the writer of the film. It’s about finding out you have cancer and how to deal with it – not exactly the most appealing story to the average person. The movie was originally going to be called “I’m with Cancer” but it was decided that the word cancer is too much of a turn-off to moviegoers. It’s a bit of a dramedy, meaning it’s both a comedy and a drama. Luckily, the film finds a good balance between the two. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, a guy with a nice house, good job, and pretty girlfriend. But his life comes crashing down on him when he finds out that he has a rare form of cancer. He looks it up and apparently there’s a 50/50 chance of beating it. He’s not too happy with the outlook but his friend makes sure to point out to him that those are pretty good odds if it were for a casino game. That friend is played by Seth Rogen. He says things like this throughout the film as a way to support his good friend. They may not be the smartest or most accurate statements, but he just wants to make his buddy feel better and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. While he’s a brash, outspoken type of guy that Rogen usually plays, he seems to be more of a help than Adam’s own live-in girlfriend and overbearing mother. This is familiar territory for Rogen who played a very similar role in the movie Funny People just two years ago. That movie, too, was about a man who finds out he has a terminal health condition, and Rogen played the supportive friend. However, that movie was very drawn-out and felt like it was trying to fit too much into it. 50/50 is the complete opposite. It clocks in at a pretty short hour and forty minutes, and kind of leaves you wanting more. There’s good acting all around, including Anna Kendrick who plays Adam’s young therapist whom he develops a strong connection with. And the movie has a very realistic, heartfelt feel to it. But when it really seems to get going and starts to pull you in, it just kind of stops. It’s nice to see a film though where a decent person in a bad situation has a good support system around him and tends to find it in unlikely places.
Fellini’s Satyricon (Federico Fellini, 1969) The films of Federico Fellini always have been intriguing and mysterious because every first viewing of his films I feel like I’m entering in a different world than mine. Not only the imagery but also the narrative and the acting. It is always like the feeling of being in a dream-like universe. The first film from Fellini I saw was his Casanova with Donald Sutherland. It’s time for an anecdote: when I came back from my one month trip in Italy in 2006 my flight from Paris to Montréal had a special passenger: Mr. Donald Sutherland. The funniest thing about this little moment was that I knew who he was and I loved his presence in Casanova , Don’t Look Now, 1900, etc. But everyone was shouting this is Jack Bauer’s father! For Odin’s sake’s this man is a living legend don’t insult him by saying that he is the father of the flavour of the moment! Recognize the man at least! I discovered many Fellini films before I started this blog, so this is why this is one of the first reviews about his work. Satyricon was the first film of Fellini I ever bought, the Antic Roman settings and the name of the movie (I am a fan of the band of the same name) were the two magnets that got me and my hard earned money. Opposed to many Italian and American peplums that tried to recreate with precise details the past, Fellini’s Satyricon is the perception of the Roman Empire by Fellini himself. This is his fantasy about this time and age. It may sound a little pompous but for the neophytes out there Federico or affectively Fefe had an incredible imagination and his creations are inimitable. This creativity is characterized by a childish approach to everything, many of his imagery is taken from his memories and his impressions as a kid on how he used to perceive and see life. Far from being his most accessible work, Satyricon did not have standard narration neither does it have appealing characters. It looks like a freak show set in Ancient times. It is raw, bizarre, and beautiful at the same time. But like many unique films, this Fellini is a masterwork of cinematic brilliance and mise en scène. Even if it’s not considered as a major work from his oeuvre I still think that film has a special aura of greatness and weirdness. Moreover, Satyricon is a very personal film made by the genius vision of Federico Fellini. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/satyricon.html
Going the Distance (Nanette Burstein, 2010) Drew Barrymore and Justin Long are around 30 years old and they both have had hard times at relationships. She, is finishing school and is an understudy in New York for the summer while in Autumn she’ll return to her big sister’s house to complete school. He, is a New York guy working for a record label he hates. His relationships always fell in the same pattern with every girl. But together they’re like the perfect couple. As Fall comes Drew returns to San Francisco to finish her grad. Their relationship will have to pass through the test of distance. This light rom-com aims at the Y generation. Filled with a superb soundtrack of bands like Weezer, The Cure, and The Airborne Toxic Event. Going the Distance has modest goals and probably hits the target for what it’s supposed to be. A light but not life changing comedy. The denouement is predictable but like every Colombo, we how it’s gonna end, it’s how it gets there that is interesting. Well, even if passing by the clichés Going the Distance has this breezy light hearted spirit and a funny feeling. Not as good as ( 500) Days of Summer , Going the Distance fells into that category of films that are not too stupid or not overly melodramatic either so it can please the boys and the girls. The weakest points are the supporting roles that aren’t stiff enough and that could have some sort of Easy A ing. The stereotyped supporting cast just get onto your nerves and slows the whole story and its evolution. Far from being a study of characters it still has this hook that makes you want to finish the film even if you guessed the ending right. It is a movie worth a look with your girlfriend. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/going-distance.html
Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (Luis Buñuel, 1972) This is by far one of my favourite film of all time. Buñuel has always been a one of a kind director contributing with Salvador Dali on the surrealism with his Un chien andalou and L’Âge d’or , two masterpieces of moviemaking and dreamlike sequences that every self-respected cinephile should have seen. The symbolism of these instinctive films as so many levels of understanding and such depth that a simple essay on them isn’t enough to crack their codes. Let’s get back to Le charme discrèt de la bourgeoisie made almost fifty years after Buñuel’s first films! What strikes you the most is how the surrealism that characterized his first films is still omnipresent but even more mastered than ever. Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie is the culmination of Buñuel’s work : the perfect surrealism film. The uses of symbolism and camera techniques is really subtle and Buñuel doesn’t need to slice the eye of a woman or get a cow in the bed of two lovers. The many situations of Le charme ... are already overly enough and the closer to realism it gets the better it is. The dreamlike sequences that always feel like if you were in reality but finally you weren’t at all embarks the viewer on a trip with the bourgeois that are trying to get diner together and enjoy a nice evening. This series of events is packed with humorous dialogues and situations. Just like Woody Allen, another admirer of Buñuel’s work, I feel that this kind of hybrid film where humour and reflection means entertainment and Cinema. It is a smart film where subtlety uncovers the hypocrisy, the fears, and the vices of the bourgeois characters populating the film. The uniqueness unity of Le charme ... brings you in common places and then just when the viewer thinks he knows how the situation will turn out Buñuel gets a bunny out of his hat. This master has many tricks in his bag. You have to see the film to fully understand the reach of the whole thing. In 1972, there were many big successes: The Godfather , Cabaret , Deliverance , What’s Up Doc? , The Getaway , Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were to Afraid to Ask) , but in my opinion Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie along with Aguirre: The Wrath of God was the greatest film of that year. Unfortunately other films mentioned earlier will always make shadows on Buñuel’s greatest achievement. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/le-charme-discret-de-la-bourgeoisie.html
From an off-branch of the Judd Apatow School of Crude Yet Heartfelt Humor comes Bad Teacher , the story of an inebriated gold-digging middle school teacher looking for the easiest way down the Yellow Brick Road. Cameron Diaz, whose sense of humor is much better than people give her credit for, sleazes slickly through the role of Elizabeth Halsey, whose moral ambiguity makes her character's profession all the more unsettling (and one will often wonder exactly how she managed to become and stay a working certified professional). Her foe, the disturbingly (and realistically) perky teacher Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch), adds much "zany" humor to the story, as well as bringing a more down-to-Earth perspective of middle school life (i.e. she actually teaches). Jason Segal, the greasy yet earnest pursuer of Diaz's character, is essentially every other character he's played, except now he's a gym teacher. However, he is good at what he does. The Achilles heel of this film is Justin Timberlake, whose character seems to have suffered a severe head trauma at some point. Playing the thick-headed new teacher in school, who happened to be born into a very wealthy family, Timberlake breezes dumbly through the movie, overly-oblivious to Diaz's character's ulterior motives, innocent to the point of man-childish. His character is too underdeveloped to be realistic- one would feel that he is not responsible enough to take care of himself, much less a class of 7th graders. Even with Diaz's character being a master manipulator, he falls too easily into her thinly veiled schemes, as if he has no self-guard or sense of preservation. Partly the fault of Timberlake, and mostly the fault of the writing, Timberlake's character seems to be there only to represent Diaz's character's ultimate goal- to snag a dumb-rich man that will pay for the rest of her life. However, while this movie has an Achilles heel, it certainly is no Achilles. It's more like the Mets of movies (no offense to Mets fans)- it tries, it works well, but in the end, no cigar. There are humorous bits (Diaz's drunk, clueless roommate was a source of humor) and there are dry bits (the Illinois State Test Score theft seems especially superfluous), but in the end, it averages out to be worth a $9 afternoon; if one were to pay any more to see this film in theaters, one would feel slightly cheated. It doesn't touch on too deep an emotional point, the character does not experience an alternating emotional catharsis (although she does make some minor changes, which seems more realistic), and there is no CGI overstimulation to give the movie-watcher a shallow thrill. It's simply an OK comedy that profiles was Diaz (as well as a colorful assortment of side characters) can do. Rent it on Discount Days at your local friendly video store, if that store still exists. It's worth a cheap laugh.
30 Minutes or Less is a comedy about two criminals (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson) who are desperate for money and decide to kidnap a pizza delivery guy, forcing him to rob a bank for them. The reason they want a pizza delivery guy to do it is because the pizza company advertises that their drivers will deliver your pizza in 30 minutes or less, thus the title of the movie. So the pizza drivers are known for driving fast and getting things done quickly. Jesse Eisenberg plays Nick, the delivery guy that they kidnap. They strap a bomb to him, threatening to detonate it if he doesn’t rob a bank within 10 hours for them. Nick realizes he can’t do this on his own, so he asks his best friend Chet to help him pull off the robbery. There’s been a little friction between Nick and Chet lately since Chet found out that Nick has a thing for his sister, and that they’ve even slept together before. But the two guys are still best friends going back to childhood and Chet reluctantly agrees to help. Nick’s life is on the line after all. This may not sound like the plot to a comedy but it manages to find a lot of humor amidst all the robbing and kidnapping. The movie reminded me a little of Pineapple Express which also mixed humor with violence (and also featured Danny McBride) but, thankfully, this film is not as extreme or violent as that one which really ruined its supposedly comedic tone. The two criminals fit into the “bumbling crooks” role that we’ve seen in many other comedies before. It’s hard to sympathize with them even with one of them having a tough, controlling father that he lives with. The film is better when it focuses on Nick and Chet. Jesse Eisenberg is much looser than he’s ever been before. He usually plays very uptight characters but here he gets to play more of a funny, carefree kind of guy. Aziz Ansari, who plays Chet, is the real reason to see the film though. He’s funny in everything he’s ever been in and definitely the funniest part of this movie as well. So if you don’t mind an R-rated comedy with a lot of vulgarity in it, then you should like this one.
Romantic comedies – it’s pretty hard to find a good one nowadays. It’s become possibly the most redundant and predictable of all the movie genres. There’s usually a guy and a girl who meet, then clash, but it all works out in the end. So it’s nice to see a film like Crazy, Stupid, Love which has a more detailed story and definitely stands out among its peers. The movie gets right to the point. Cal, played by Steve Carell in his strongest role to date, is having dinner with his wife of 25 years, Emily (Julianne Moore), who out of nowhere tells him that she wants a divorce. Not only that, but she was also having an affair with a co-worker. Cal is stunned. He begins to spend his days drinking away his sadness at a bar - where he’s also very vocal about his current situation. Meanwhile, we see a young, suave guy named Jacob picking up just about every woman he speaks to at the very same bar. Jacob is the ultimate player. He’s got all the right lines, and the looks to match. Women are drawn to him. Cal sees this and is bothered by Jacob’s actions, but more so by just how easy it all is for him. Jacob notices Cal too, but for all the wrong reasons. Pretty much everyone notices him whining about his problems throughout the bar. Jacob decides to do something about it. He decides to help him out. It could just be an effort to do a good deed, but it’s surely out of pity for what he sees as well. Cal, though reluctant at first, agrees to the offer. He becomes a student to Jacob in learning the fine art of the pick-up. Jacob not only schools him on the right things to say, but also makes plenty of changes with Cal. This includes physical changes such as hair and wardrobe but also a change in his own mentality. He teaches him to be confident, and to know that he’s better than how he views himself. Lines like “Be better than The Gap” make him feel comfortable in his upgraded wardrobe rather than feel as if he’s not good enough to sport a new look. Though this may sound a lot like the movie Hitch, this film balances the laughs with the drama. There’s much more emotion involved here. We get to see how Emily is coping with her decision to give up on the marriage, trying to figure out whether she did the right thing or not. And while Jacob helps Cal find his mojo again, he finally meets a girl who actually impresses him. Most girls are just sex to him, but he sees more than that in this new girl who rejected him at first but is now interested. So the movie doesn’t just focus on Cal; we get to see a little of what everybody’s going through. There’s even a great sub-plot involving Cal’s son, who at just 13 believes he’s already found his soulmate… his 17 year-old babysitter who’s also love struck with an older person. It does seem as if none of the characters are truly finding what they want, but it’s the searching and the trying that’s entertaining to watch. They’re all just on a quest to find happiness with the right person, even if some have a better approach than others. Ryan Gosling nails the role of the debonair Jacob, and Emma Stone is very believable as the girl who just might make him care about a woman after all. While there’s also decent supporting roles played by such name actors as Kevin Bacon and Marisa Tomei, it’s the boy who plays Cal’s son that really steals the show. His obsession with proclaiming his love for the older girl and not giving up on her is what inspires his father to do the same. Each character in the film rubs off on another one and creates an intriguing chain that brings them all together in the end. There’s even a twist or two along the way that you never see coming. It all makes for what I believe to be the best film of the year thus far.
It’s something that people across the world often contemplate – how they’d like to kill their boss. Of course most rational people never seriously consider taking such an action, most likely due to the consequences like going to prison. But many do daydream about it. They think about the fulfillment they would have knowing they never have to see or hear their boss again. That’s the idea behind the new movie Horrible Bosses. Three friends share stories about their day-to-day trials and tribulations working under their respective bosses. Each one has a boss who is vicious in a different way; each one would give anything to work for someone else. The three friends are played by Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day. Jason Bateman works at a financial firm under Kevin Spacey. If you’ve ever seen one of Spacey’s older films called Swimming with Sharks, you have an idea of what kind of tyrannical boss he can play. He pretty much plays the exact same character which he played so well in that film. Here he busts Bateman’s balls about things such as being two minutes late. He even tricks him into doing unprofessional things that he later uses against him in front of other employees. Jason Sudeikis actually gets along great with his boss. But early in the film, his boss has a tragic accident which leads his son to take over the company. The son is played by Colin Farrell in a role different from anything you’ve ever seen him play before. Jerk is probably the kindest word to describe his character. Immediately upon taking over the company, he insists upon firing people who are fat or disabled. Even worse than his general disregard for humanity is that he also intends to sell the company. He simply wants to retire and snort cocaine with hookers. If you think Colin Farrell is playing against type, he’s got nothing on Jennifer Aniston. She plays a dentist who sexually harasses her assistant, Charlie Day. Most men wouldn’t mind being sexually harassed by a woman like Jennifer Aniston, but Charlie Day plays the one guy out of the three friends who’s not single. He’s currently engaged and doesn’t want anything to ruin that. Aniston comes onto him and toys with him on a regular basis. She even fondles her patients while they're unconscious. Things get especially crazy when Day’s fiancé shows up for some dental work and goes under the gas herself. All this craziness leads the three guys to hire a murder consultant played by Jamie Foxx. I can’t print his character’s name but it may be the funniest name I’ve ever heard in a movie. Though Foxx can be very funny on his own, he’s relegated to a smaller supporting role here. The three guys and their bosses get most of the laughs. Since the “consultant” only gives advice and doesn’t do the job himself, we get to watch the guys plot out how to kill their bosses. They spend most of their time scoping out the bosses’ homes and breaking in. This is where things get really chaotic, leading to one funny scene after another. Charlie Day in particular stands out. He keeps getting himself in the worst situations and it’s fun seeing him try to squirm his way out of things. He’s not as sharp as the other guys so he tends to go overboard to great effect. You really can’t ask for a better cast than this, especially considering the surprising choices to play the horrible bosses. This is definitely the funniest movie of the year so far.
Transformers 3 achieves something possibly unprecedented in the history of the film franchise. It is the third entry in the series, and it is better than the first two. Often the third entry of a series begins the decline in quality, but thankfully not in this case, as the first two Transformers movies were so infamously scorned. I hated the first Transformers movie (in 2007 I hated almost every movie). I almost walked out of that scene where the Autobots were at Spike’s house (who was completely unlikeable), because I didn’t pay 8000 won to see a dog pee on Optimus Prime. I refused to see the second one in the theater, and only rented it because a friend was an extra, and I wanted to see that part where they walk out of the Smithsonian Institute and into the Nevada desert. So I had no plans to see the this movie, but then I saw the ads. Wait, this looks good! How could this be? On to the review. Transformers 3 opens with the only film sequence I’ve seen worthy of being in 3D (I saw Avatar in 2D). It is a battle on Cybertron and it looks fantastic. Cut 1961, when the US discovers an alien ship has crashed on the moon. JFK (who is shown on screen but looks a little off, we also see Nixon and Obama) then orders a moon mission, hence we have a secret reason for the space race. Cut 1969 with actual news footage of Walter Cronkite as the moon mission is underway. What is not televised is the secret recon mission to investigate the alien space ship on the moon (Later revealed to be the Ark, which was in the cartoon). So far the first two scenes of this movie are better than the entire first two movies put together. Then we get to Sam, who is frustrated as no one knows he’s saved the world twice, and is struggling to find a job and feels the pressure from his parents. He has a new girlfriend, the impossibly hot Carly, who was his girlfriend in the cartoon. However, she’s not an M.I.T. student as in the cartoon and sounds British for some reason. Spike’s dealings with the Transformers put a strain on their relationship, as she has lost a brother who served in the military and is worried for him. Spike is also jealous of her hot shot car collecting boss. Now this relationship is hardly one of the silver screen’s great romances, but it has a tiny bit of dept to it, which is much more than what he and Megan Fox had. Next we get the real reason behind the Chernobyl incident, as the villains unveil their plot. It involves growing a rift between the humans and the Autobots, hence the villains live up to their name of Decepticons. There’s a betrayal part way in, but that left me wondering why said plot didn’t happen sooner. Leonard Nimoy does a voice of a Transformer, and there’s a few Star Trek jokes, and a clip of he old show, apparently it’s the one where Spock “goes nuts.” There’s also a neat scene where Megatron takes the giant Lincoln statue in Washington off its seat, and sits in the seat himself. Megatron did that in one episode of the old cartoon. Thankfully there’s not jokes about pot and masturbation like the first two. Spike’s mom makes a joke about his manhood, but it’s real fast and subtle. Also one of the Autobots almost says clusterf&*k. The problem this one has, is a similar problem for the whole series. We don’t get much of the Transformers personalities. Shockwave appears and has no personality, he’s just another grunt, not the cold logical warrior. (Maybe Nimoy should have played him instead) He also has this big tentacle thing, I couldn’t tell if this was a Decepticon being or just some weapon. Bumblebee still hasn’t had his voice repaired yet, how long has it been now? Finally the big action scene at the end mostly has the humans fighting the Decepticons. Now I like seeing some of this, and I like knowing humans can take them down, but we’re paying to see robots fight. For instance we get told that a bunch of Autobots got captured, but we don’t see that happen at all (And one part where Optimus fights actually looks like it’s framed wrong). It’s strange because most fx movies that fail do so because they focus on the fx and not the characters, but with this franchise the fx are the characters. Still it is an incredible improvement over previous entries. It leaves us with a sense that the series could end here. Looking back, it’s so disappointing how the series turned out. There’s such a rich mythology to this franchise. To me it always made perfect sense to have the first movie on earth, the second on Cybertron, and the third have Unicron, the giant robot planet. I don’t know what the future holds for this series. Maybe in 5 years it will be rebooted into something greater. (Personally I’m hoping for a Hasbro Cinematic Universe similar to Marvel’s, with Transformers, G. I. Joe, M.A.S.K. and Inhumanoids, but that probably won’t happen.) No matter what happens, we’ll at least have this one. 8/10
"What we got here is... failure to communicate." That famous quote is from the iconic 1967 film Cool Hand Luke , which starred Paul Newman and garnered an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for George Kennedy . Neither of those men spoke that line above. But that line perfectly describes the story we watch in the 2009 film - City Island which stars Andy Garcia and Julianna Margulies . There are two further tie-ins. Garcia plays a prison guard, or more correctly a Corrections Officer, and Steven Strait plays a convict. This film is a tale about a family that keeps secrets very well, and has trouble communicating. Garcia is Vincent Rizzo. He is a family man with a wife and two kids. They all live in the small enclave called City Island which technically is part of the Bronx, but is nothing like the Bronx that most of us know about from the movies and television. Vince's day job is as a Corrections Officer at a nearby prison. His aspirations and dreams are centered on becoming an actor. He enrolls in an acting class - only he can't tell is wife about it. So on various nights when he has a class, he tells her that he is out for a poker game. That's his relatively new secret. He has an older secret and it involves a prisoner at the jail where he works. In fact Rizzo has the prisoner allowed out of jail on a family member type of parole. He brings the prisoner home, only he can't tell anyone about his connection to the prisoner. Vincent's son, Vince Jr., played by Ezra Miller , has a few secrets too. He is addicted to Internet porn, and he admires a BBW ( a desirable overweight woman) who he discovered on the internet, amd who actually lives in the next house. Vince Jr. is mum about all of this. But not that mum. His wisecracks at the family dinner table are near priceless. The daughter, Vivian Rizzo, has a secret too. She's not only lost her scholarship to a college, but she has also been kicked out of the school. So she's taken a day job to earn enough money to be able to go back to college as a paying student - only it is the kind of job that she cannot tell her parents about. By the way, Vivian is played by Dominik Christina Garcia-Lorida , and she is Andy Garcia's real life daughter. Mrs Joyce Rizzo is played by Julianna Margulies is a successful actress who has starred in both ER and The Good Wife . Here she has to deal with the Rizzo's. No easy task. And once she starts to suspect that Vince hasn't quite been all that upfront with her, she starts an adventure of her own. Of course this has to be a secret too. So there they are. A nice Italian family that just can't or won't communicate with one another. Will their secrets come out? Will each of them crumble under the burden of their own lies? They live in City Island and they have their own beach as the back yard is right on the shore of Long Island Sound. Yes, this is a working class family. But they are not over the top Italian. Just over the top crazy. For sure, all of this 'stuff' is going to come to a boil. You know it is will just have to. While not quite a comedy, this film is closer to a comedy than a straight drama. It is fun to watch because you can see the explosions coming far in advance. It is fun to watch because it does cross the lines a few times. I mean it goes from far-fetched to 'ya gotta be kidding me' . More over, so much of it isn't the least bit believable, which is funny in its own right. For sure this isn't an A-List movie, but it has enough quality acting, decent writing, and a nice bit of direction by newcomer Raymond De Felitta to make it worth your time. Add in the plusses of Alan Arkin and Emily Mortimer in supporting roles as non-family members, but each of them are an integral part of Vince's secret, and you will have a nice bit of entertainme
Midnight In Paris quietly arrived in Sarasota today at the Burns Court Cinema , a small film venue that books mostly indies, art, and an occasional foreign film. This was very fortunate for me, as this film, directed and written by Woody Allen, wasn’t booked at either of Sarasota’s big film chain multiplexes. The hall in which I watched the film was indeed small – 10 rows of four seats on each side of a center aisle. Your basic 80-seater. As for Paris, I’ve been there three times. I’ve walked its streets like a true boulevardier. I’ve stretched a thimbleful of coffee into a few hours of people watching on the sidewalk cafe at the Deux Magots on the Left Bank, and I’ve even been aboard one of those glass enclosed tour boats ( Bateaux-mouches ) that slowly make their way up and down the Seine River for a romantic dinner cruise with my main squeeze at the time. In short, Paris, the city of lights, is a very romantic city, especially the Rue Cler neighborhood that I usually stay in. As Ernest Hemingway once said, I f you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast. While Woody’s Midnight In Paris might not qualify as a feast for either the palate or the senses, it is certainly worthy of being called a delight and delicious cinematic pastry. I wrote the above intro to this review before I actually saw the film. Little did I know the Woody would use the same Hemingway quote mere minutes into this film. Then again, I didn’t know that Hemingway himself would be a character portrayed by an actor in the film either. I’ve decided to give this review a secondary title and I’ll call it Woody’s Wish List. Since Woody has more years behind him than he does in front of him, it is altogether natural to look back toward’s one younger days. Or to wish for something that never happened. Our personal memories always to seem to have a glow to them that we didn’t quite see when we lived through those times. But even further back from our own lived in memories are the times we’ve only dreamt about or read about in a book. The film Midnight in Paris is Allen’s homage to a city he adores but doesn’t live in. For the movie going audience it a series of lovely postcards from Woody to us – all set in Paris and environs. The film even begins with about three or four minutes of these visual bon-bons. But it is also themed about living in the now as well as the wished for or desired period of time. The wonderful cast starts with Owen Wilson ( How Do You Know ) as the young writer, Gil Pender, who finds that Paris has much more to offer than he had either hoped for or imagined. He’s paired with the now blonde Rachel McAdams who was delightful in Morning Glory , and quite good here (granted it is a smaller role) as his fiancée Inez. Ostensibly, they’re here in Paris free-loading on her parents who flew in so her Dad could do some business. They take in the sights beginning with a voice over by Gil as Allen shows us the visual pleasures of Paris. Woody even finds a way to incorporate Monet’s Gardens in Giverny into the film (see the title card above). Along the way, Gil expresses his dream of moving to Paris to enjoy the cities pleasures, to finish his novel, to escape the grind of Hollywood, and to live the bohemian life that he’s read about and dreamed of. He’s really longing for the Paris of the 20′s which, in his view, represent the most idyllic and superb time to have lived. Inez calls it a fantasy and a waste of time. Gil and Inez will meet Paul and Carol while out dining. Paul is ‘pedantic’ to say the least, pretentious to take the middle road, and as Gil describes him – a pseudo-intellectual – who seems to know everything about everything to such a degree that he’s boring. Paul’s purpose is to provide Gil with an opportunity to distance self from the foursome making it an off-screen three-some, or even a two-some. After a wine tasting, Paul turns down an invitation to go dancing, instead he wanders off and gets lost. At this point, Allen introduces the whimsy, the fantasy, and the elements on which this film is based – that Paris at Midnight is magical. Without offering us any kind of explanation, we, as well as Gil, are transported back in time to the Paris of the 1920′s. We will meet all of the biggest names of the literary and art world of that era – the very names that Allen probably read about 50 years ago when he was in college. The magic is that these people take Gil in and make him a part of their world. To drop more of these names would constitute a spoiler of a sort, so I won’t name any of them other than the previously mentioned Ernest Hemingway. Gil at first is in a state of disbelief. he thinks he’s being conned. But eventually, the champagne, the smoky cafe, the intellectual talk, and the fact that he, Gil Pender, is somehow living in the time and place that he’s desired for so long. That’s your set up. Of course reality must rear it head, and Inez and her folks, Paul, a delicious guide from the Rodin Museum (played by Carla Bruni),and a saucy sales girl, Gabrielle, played by Lea Seydoux, from an antique shop all come into play. Owen Wilson’s Gil Pender has a delightful manner that will remind you of Woody Allen’s usual on-screen persona, only without the dour or the sour. Gil is really a good guy, he’s likeable, and Wilson does a great job in this role. Allen’s script is delightful. He is going to deliver a message, and it is not too subtle, which is unusual for him. But it isn’t hammered home. Instead you will feel seduced from reality to fantasy and back but without anyone thinking they been taken, or deceived, or fooled. So the film is about the magic of Paris and Allen’s love affair with that city. His story is told through Pender’s dream and you will feel the same awe, surprise, and delight that Pender does. Before closing, I must also mention Marion Cotillard, who as the Parisienne femme , is outstanding. She steals every scene she’s in. Yes, Allen has taken the magic of Paris, and the magic of film-making and has delivered his best film in years. Even the way the films ends – not with a couple walking off into a sunset holding hands – instead they walk off into a delicious Paris light summer rain. I liked this film very much and will have no problem, recommending it. For sure – I’ll be seeing it again.
RATING 4/10 Bottom Line Proving to be completely pointless, this un-funny sequel simply rehashes the plot of the first film, while being more cruel-minded and lacking the crazy “WTF” moments that made the mystery element of the first film so engrossing. The Good Stu, Phil and Allen wake up in Bangkok to another hangover and have no idea what happened the night before. As they set about finding out what happened to them on their wild night out, they discover that they got themselves in to more trouble than they imagined. The first Hangover film was a smash hit because it provided the right amount of crazy comedy combined with a great cast that had good chemistry together. On the latter point, this sequel still manages to come through in some ways with the three leads proving to be just as watchable as they were in the first film. Ed Helms, who for all intents and purposes should be the straight guy, seems to generate the most laughs as he freaks out at every new twist and turn, particularly in the scene where he realises he had a rather strange night with a Thai hooker. Bradley Cooper is solid as the pretty boy Phil who tries to keep everything together. And Zach Galifianakis does well to bring his nutty portrayal of Allen to life and has some funny moments. The film certainly looks good, and seems to take advantage of the locale of Bangkok quite well. A late appearance by Paul Giamatti as a gangster who turns out to be more than that is a nice touch, as does a cameo by Mike Tyson in the finale. Perhaps the best part of the film is the drug-dealing monkey who acts as a courier between supplier and buyer. If anything, this film reminds you how good the first film was. The Bad There is no reason for this film to exist, other than to make money. The film shamelessly rehashes the plot of the first film, but changes the setting to Bangkok. Basically, you have already seen everything already. The first time someone tells you a funny joke, it’s funny. The second time someone tells you the same joke, but with a few minor details changed, it’s not funny. Once you take those elements out, this sequel makes it even harder on itself by not utilising the “WTF” moments that made the first film so funny. With one notable exception, all the ‘surprise’ moments feel tired, for the simple reason that they are hitting all the same beats from the first film. Another problem is that the jokes seem to be more cruel this time around. Instead of a tooth getting pulled out, this time a finger gets chopped off. The revelation that Allen spiked them again appears more stupid and unforgivable this time; and given that the trio did not intend to have a big night out like they did in the first film, their antics seem more desperate than funny. The boys wanted to have a ‘bad boy’ night out in the first film; here, it happens by accident and this change robs the film of any zest for the simple reason that you feel more sorry for them rather than laughing with their situation. In short, watch the first film, enjoy it, and try to imagine that this film does not exist.
» = New Post(s)