- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
Back in 2003, Jim Carrey was a huge movie star whose film Bruce Almighty grossed almost $250 million in the U.S. alone. But after seeing that film, people started talking about another name. Steve Carell played his rival newscaster in the film and many said he had the funniest scene in the whole movie, stealing a bit of Carrey's thunder. 10 years later, it's Carell who has become the bigger star and Carrey's fame has been declining. The two of them must have stayed friendly as they both appear in the new film The Incredible Burt Wonderstone . And it's Carell in the starring role this time around with Carrey popping up here and there. Here's the bad news though: the movie's not that good. It's about two childhood friends (Carell and Steve Buscemi) who grow up to be famous magicians. But the fame turns one of them into a pompous egomaniac. That would be Burt Wonderstone. His arrogance causes a rift between the two which causes them to part ways. To make matters worse, people start turning their attention to a street magician named Steve Gray. The character is a parody of Criss Angel who had his own successful television show called Mindfreak. Burt Wonderstone decides to continue his magic show as a solo act and watches his audience become smaller and smaller. This is because he continues to do the same old tricks which can't compete with the more eye-popping and dangerous spectacles displayed by Steve Gray. The movie plays out with the two magicians trying to outdo one another, much like a silly version of The Prestige (a far superior film). Steve Carell gets credit for trying something a little different by playing someone who's pretty much a douchebag for most of the movie. But it doesn't help when that douchebag is the central character of the film. What's really nice to see is Jim Carrey back in true form with some genuinely funny scenes. It would have been too much if he was the focus of the film, but we get just the right dose of his over-the-top character as this time Carrey gets to steal scenes back from Steve Carell. Carrey hasn't had the chance to play the kind of roles that made him famous in quite a while, but this one is more in sync with what fits him best. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone opens on March 15. It's really only worth it for some of Jim Carrey's scenes and that's it. Otherwise, save your money.
Zombies and vampires seem to have taken over Hollywood. From The Walking Dead to The Vampire Diaries to the Twilight films and so on, they've been everywhere. The trend has gotten pretty tiresome. So if they're going to keep doing this, they should at least put a fresh twist on it. That's what Warm Bodies aims to do. The film is a fresh take on Romeo and Juliet with humor... and zombies. Whereas some films like Shaun of the Dead already combined the genre with humor, this one also adds an aspect of romance. Nicholas Hoult plays R, a young zombie who we follow around at the beginning of the film as he narrates his inner thoughts to us. Apparently, zombies still have thoughts. They do need to find food and survive. It's just that their version of food is people. They don't remember much from the time they were alive. That's why he goes by R; he can only remember the first letter of his name. The zombies just strut around looking for the living and don't really speak. As we all know, they just grunt here and there. This film gives some additional explanation for the eating of humans. When the zombies eat their brains, they collect some of that person's memories. So it's implied that the zombies still have a bit of humanity and some purpose. Far worse off are the "bonies" which are zombies who have degenerated to the point of becoming skeletons. They've abandoned their humanity altogether and become complete killing machines. When R and some fellow zombies find some surviving humans to attack, he immediately becomes enamored with one girl and decides to save her. He becomes her protector and attempts to get to know her. She struggles at first to understand why he's keeping her safe. But soon enough, through awkward communication, they get to know each other. Not only does he slowly gain the ability to speak to her but he also seems to become more in touch with humanity again. This revelation makes them realize there's hope for all zombies. However, it puts them much more at risk with the merciless bonies. This brings about the Romeo and Juliet aspect in that the girl must convince her military father (John Malkovich) that not all zombies are bad. He's the head of a militia that's set on wiping them all out. Humans and zombies are the Montagues and Capulets of the film while R and his new love are caught in the middle. It's safe to say that R probably stands for Romeo. And the girl - her name is Julie. There's even a scene that takes place on a balcony just like in the original story. Warm Bodies manages to put a weird, apocalyptic but humorous twist on an old classic. There are funny moments in watching a zombie try to impress a human girl and not come off too creepy. We get that mixed with scenes of brains being eaten like a delicacy. So it's not for everyone, yet it stays interesting to say the least. Julie is played by Teresa Palmer who looks and acts just like Kristen Stewart with blonde hair. But there's more personality in these characters than those overserious brooding ones of the Twilight movies. That's right, there's more liveliness in this undead corpse than in the Twilight characters.
A novelist suffering from writer's block begins to write about a female character and suddenly she comes to life. That is the absurd but entertaining plot of the new film Ruby Sparks . Paul Dano plays Calvin, an awkward young man who gained fame as a teenager for writing a successful book. He's been struggling to follow up that success as an adult though. The pressure and expectations put upon him have caused him quite a bit of stress, so much so that he now goes to therapy. He tells his therapist about a woman he's been dreaming of who seems like the perfect girl; the therapist advises him to write about her. Once Calvin does this, he begins to actually see her. At first, he doesn't want to tell the therapist about it because he'll be told that he's imagining things and going crazy. This is what Calvin believes himself. Yet this is not the case, as other people see and talk to the girl as well. Ruby Sparks is the name of the character Calvin has created. Once he realizes that she is real, he can't believe it but comes to accept it. It becomes the ideal relationship for him. He has manifested her to be his girlfriend. There's no explanation of how he was able to do this or why it happened, but he's happy enough not to care. He's got the perfect girl. It's not long before it's pointed out to him by his own brother that he can use this power to get her to do whatever he wants, or even mold her into whatever he likes. But why do that if she already seems perfect? The real question though is if any person or situation can ever really remain perfect in one's eyes. Will the "perfect girl" always seem that way or is it inevitable that things will change? Even the most ideal situation must get kind of redundant at some point, whether it's due to your own perception or other outside factors eventually affecting things and thus causing a change. There are actually a lot of funny scenes throughout the film. A story like this can get away with a lot more than other more realistic works can. The scenes with Calvin's family, which include actors like Annette Bening and Antonio Banderas, add some extra quirkiness to the film too. But as it goes along, you wonder if Calvin will ever take it upon himself to make more changes or if he will in fact stay content with what he has. Of course, there are moral issues in being a puppeteer over someone's life. It becomes a god-like control in which you'd have to take responsibility for all consequences. The film strikes a few different tones making for a good balance of comedy, romance, and drama. It may not be based in reality but it presents the story in a modern, relatable context that allows you to imagine how you'd react in such a situation, as eerie as it may be. It's just the kind of peculiar story one might expect of an indie film.
Believe it or not, the inspiration for the film Safety Not Guaranteed is a real classified ad which appeared in the back of a magazine stating the following: “WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You’ll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before.” It’s the kind of bizarre ad that makes you laugh at first, but then maybe wonder if he’s really serious or knows some secret that the rest of us don’t. Of course we all know that time travel hasn’t been invented, so what kind of person would place such an ad? This film explores that question to comedic effect. A local magazine writer and his two interns decide to do research on the man who placed the ad, just to have an interesting story to write about. Aubrey Plaza plays Darius, the intern who decides to respond to it and report what happens. At first, the man (Mark Duplass) who placed the ad does appear to be a bit eccentric and possibly out of his mind. Yet, he’s very grounded and serious about what he believes. So much so that it causes Darius to wonder if he’s really crazy after all or maybe just has information that the rest of us don’t. While the bulk of the movie is filled with humorous scenes showing the two of them training for their important mission and taking on important tasks to acquire the proper materials, it also shows how they become close with one another and form a strong bond together. It’s a nice balance of silliness mixed with heart. Aubrey Plaza (best known from the TV show Parks and Recreation) is the type of girl who’s so smug and sarcastic most of the time that on the rare occasion she smiles it truly lights up a room. She’s someone that if you were able to bring a genuine display of happiness out of her it would feel like a great accomplishment. And that’s what makes her perfect for the role. We follow her as she goes from her initial skepticism to eventually enjoying her time with this man and becoming more and more intrigued by his unique qualities. I recommend this movie for anyone who wants a nice escape from the typical film fare that we’re often served. Independent films can often be counted on for that. Safety Not Guaranteed is currently playing at the Ritz Five theatre in the Old City section of Philadelphia.
Jeff, Who Lives at Home starts out by referencing a film from 10 years ago. The main character, Jeff, speaks about his love for the movie Signs. That movie was all about signs being sent to us and that we must use those signs as guides for living our lives. This becomes Jeff's mantra for how he lives his life. These signs haven't been getting him anywhere as of yet though. He's a grown-up slacker who still lives at home with his mother as the title of the film says. It's this bohemian free-spirited attitude that has led him to where he is. He seems at peace with things, yet something is missing from his life. His brother Pat is the opposite. He's married, has a job, and even just bought a new Porsche; he doesn't believe in slacking off like Jeff. That doesn't mean everything is going well for him though. He really didn't have the money to comfortably afford the Porsche and you can tell that his wife isn't happy about it. But Pat lives in the moment. While showing off the Porsche to Jeff, they see his wife with another man and start to suspect she's having an affair. Even though these two brothers don't generally get along and seem to despise each other a little, Jeff agrees to help Pat out and find out what's going on. Along the way, they begin to learn about each other and their different ways of approaching things. Pat always thought he had his life together and looked down on Jeff. Now's he realizing that maybe Jeff had a better way of looking at things. Jason Segel and Ed Helms play the 2 brothers and make the best of their roles. There's also an interesting sub-plot about what's going on with their mother (Susan Sarandon) at her job. The movie is part of a recent genre of film called "mumblecore" which generally have low budgets and focus more on the dialogue - sort of like a Quentin Tarantino film without the action. Luckily, the dialogue here is very good and holds your interest throughout. At less than an hour and half (which is very rare nowadays), it doesn't meander at all. It focuses on how we spend our days and seems to have a message of living more carefree. But there are plenty of laughs throughout the film which make it very enjoyable.
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.
» = New Post(s)