Movie Review Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer

Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer 

Directed by Joseph Cedar 

Written by Joseph Cedar 

Starring Richard Gere, Lior Ashkenazi, Hank Azaria, Steve Buscemi, Michael Sheen, Dan Stevens 

Release Date April 14th, 2017 

As a critic, it’s hard not to get tired of seeing the same kind of movie over and over again. Conventional three-act stories with stock heroes and predictable villains or simple romances with happy endings get tiresome after a while. It’s really nice to experience a movie with a different style, even if that movie isn’t entirely satisfying. The new movie Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer is, at the very least, a nice departure from the norm.

Norman Oppenheimer is rather strange and kind of pathetic. He is the type of man who insinuates himself into the business of others. When we meet Norman, he is accosting the assistant of a high-powered New York financier and attempting to finagle a meeting that he hopes might make him some money. Norman’s business isn’t much of a business, you see; he considers himself a consultant whose job is to connect one person to another person in hopes that each will give him something for making the connection between the two.

We get no sense of how successful Norman is as a ‘consultant’ but he has a nice suit, and when he meets an Israeli politician who he sees as a business opportunity, he’s able to drop a big bucks present on him, though not without wincing at the price. Norman hopes to get the politician, Micha Eshel (Lior Ashknazi) to attend a dinner being held by another New York big shot in hopes that making the connection will create opportunities for himself.

Three years after this scheme fails, we find that Norman and Micha have remained friends and for once Norman’s schmoozing has paid off. Micha is now the Israeli Prime Minister and when he spies Norman at a New York fundraiser, he welcomes him as if he were family — family he doesn’t speak to regularly and does not return phone calls to, but still family. Norman’s new connection, no matter how tenuous, remains lucrative to him as the financiers who would not meet with him before are suddenly eager to do business.

Find my full length review in the Geeks Community 

Movie Review Happy Feet 2

Happy Feet 2 (2011) 

Directed by George Miller

Written by George Miller, Gary Eck

Starring Elijah Wood, Brittany Murphy, Pink, Hank Azaria, Brad Pitt, Common, Matt Damon, Sofia Vergara

Release Date November 18th, 2011

Published November 18th, 2011

Pop junk is a little harsh for a movie as harmless as "Happy Feet 2" but it is nevertheless a fitting pronunciation. "Happy Feet 2" is junky; filled to overflow with dull pop songs and boring perfunctory messages about finding your place, growing up, family and global warming.

The original "Happy Feet," also a fluffy piece of pop junk, followed Mumble (Elijah Wood) as he learned to dance with the aid of his pal Ramon (Robin Williams) and the love of a female penguin named Gloria (Brittany Murphy). Five years later, Mumble and Gloria, now voiced by pop star Pink, have a son (Ava Acres) named Erik who struggles to find his place in the world.

The plot kicks in when Uncle Ramon decides to return to his penguin flock on the other side of the mountain. Unknowingly, Ramon is trailed by Erik and his pals. They follow Ramon back to his old family where they make a fascinating discovery; a penguin who can fly.

While Mumble tracks down his son and also confronts The Mighty Sven (Hank Azaria) a massive glacier crashes into Mumble's home and traps his friends and family, including Gloria. With his home cut off from the ocean Mumble must find a way to get food to his friends and a way to get them out of the hole they're in.

In a minor and surprisingly entertaining subplot a pair of Krill named Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon) leaves their swarm behind in search of adventure and an identity of their own. Will wants to become a predator and is determined to take a bite out of something; Will is along for the ride with his best friend.

This subplot is funny not because it's wildly inventive or well written but because Brad Pitt and Matt Damon throw dignity to the wind and give full throat to a pair of sweet, strange performances. How strange are they? Pitt and Damon each sing, quite badly but with complete abandon and joy.

Pitt and Damon are the standouts in an otherwise by the numbers effort that recycles cloying cuteness, boring, overplayed pop songs and good intentions. There's nothing wrong with the messages ``Happy Feet 2" intends to pass along. The problem is the method of delivering these messages has no freshness and thus lacks resonance.

Rather than waste the price of a movie ticket on "Happy Feet 2" I recommend you grab your DVD of the original off the shelf and toss that in the DVD player. All you're losing in the experience is the chance to pay big money at a movie theater for a movie you've basically seen already.

Movie Review Love and Other Drugs

Love and Other Drugs (2010) 

Directed by Edward Zwick

Written by Charles Randolph, Marshall Herskovitz

Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway, Oliver Platt, Hank Azaria, Josh Gad

Release Date November 24th, 2010

Published November 25th, 2010

I have long believed that the best movies reveal something not just about the characters on screen but the audience watching them. The new romance “Love and Other Drugs” starring Ann Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal and directed by Ed Zwick has moments that reached into my soul and revealed things to me that I have been trying to hide. The movie is far from perfect but for a few minutes, “Love and Other Drugs” is very touching and for that it's worth the ticket price.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars in “Love and Other Drugs” as Jamie Randall a good for nothing horn dog who gets fired from his job for having sex with his boss's wife while the boss is in the other room. Based solely on charm and good looks Jamie falls into an even better job with even more promise of sexual conquest, working as a drug rep for Pfizer.

Drug rep, as we are informed, is the only entry level position with a starting pay in the six figure range. The job plays to Jamie's strength as it involves no skill other than being charming, the only real skill he has. With the help of his new partner Bruce (Oliver Platt), Jamie has only to get sales up a little and he will move on from the lowly depths of the Ohio River Valley to the big time in Chicago.

Jamie is on the fast track when he meets Maggie (Ann Hathaway) , a beautiful 26 year old artist/waitress with early onset Parkinson’s disease. At first she is the perfect woman, her disease makes her only seek a sexual relationship with little emotional involvement, seemingly Jamie's dream relationship. It doesn't take a rocket scientist however to figure out that eventually the heartless hound dog will fall for Maggie and she will push him away.

Director Ed Zwick, with script assists from Marshall Herskovitz and Charles Randolph, uses the bones of the book "Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman" by Jamie Reidy to craft a love story about an emotionally stunted man who slowly evolves the soul he had buried so deeply within himself. It's a story that will be painfully familiar to a lot of men who have hidden behind charm in order to keep real feeling at bay.

Jake Gyllenhaal captures the emotionally stunted Jamie perfectly; hiding behind quick wit and a sheepish smile that hides a wolf's intentions. Jamie is constantly on the prowl until he meets Maggie who gives him exactly what he wants while telling him it's what he wants and with unintended consequence teaches him the well worn lesson 'be careful what you wish for.'

On the periphery of this love story is the story of the pharmaceutical business and its many disquieting practices. In this part of the story Director Zwick vacillates between wanting to damn and shame the industry and stay true to Jamie Reidy's book which is neither damning or shaming but merely observant and humorous.

Zwick includes scenes where Maggie takes a group of seniors to Canada in order to buy drugs. If this is meant as a stick in the eye to the industry it doesn't land because it doesn't seem to phase Jamie in the least as he ends up going on a trip with her that is only part of their love montage, that series of scenes set to a love theme that acts as shorthand for movie characters falling in love.

Was Zwick meaning to allude to the problems we all seem to have with Pharmaceutical companies these days or elude criticisms of those who would argue he did not damn and shame the industry enough? Whatever he was trying is the biggest failure of “Love and Other Drugs” as it merely seems a distraction from the film's more interesting elements, the lovely chemistry between stars Jake Gyllenhaal. 

These two wonderful actors bring out the best in each other. The scenes they shared, all too briefly, in “Brokeback Mountain” crackled with life and were sorrowful reminders of that film's tragic themes. In “Love and Other Drugs” Gyllenhaal and Hathaway lay each other bare literally and emotionally and let the audience in as if it were some sort of emotional three way. 

 Given Maggie's condition and her side gig taking seniors to Canada for drugs, one would assume the Pharmaceutical industry would be in for something of a beating in “Love and Other Drugs.” Instead, either Ed Zwick didn't really have the nerve for an indictment or didn't have the goods for a solid take down. Zwick force feeds the minor jabs at big pharma in “Love and Other Drugs,” they really weren’t part of Jamie Reidy’s book, as a way of satisfying those who would be upset about a love story in this setting that doesn’t address real concerns about drug companies and their supposedly unethical practices.

In the end, “Love and Other Drugs” is a good movie that gets in its own way trying to answer critics who may or may not exist. I'm sure someone might have attacked the film for ignoring the alleged abuses of the pharmaceutical industry but that should not have been a concern for Zwick and the creators of “Love and Other Drugs.” The point here is the love story and the good humor and watching a boy become a man under tough emotional circumstances.

The story of Jamie and Maggie on its own is worth the price of a ticket. The rest of “Love and Other Drugs” is unfortunately unfocused and greatly lacking. I recommend the film but with reservations.

Movie Review: Along Came Polly

Along Came Polly (2004) 

Directed by John Hamburg

Written by John Hamburg 

Starring Ben Stiller, Jennifer Aniston, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Debra Messing, Hank Azaria 

Release Date January 16th, 2004 

Published January 15th, 2004 

2004 is shaping up to be a big year for Ben Stiller. He has 3 films coming out in just the first five months of the year and is directing another. With Starsky and Hutch due in March, his much delayed teaming with Jack Black in Envy pushed to early Spring and a just-begun multi-episode stint on Larry David's HBO series “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” Stiller is going to be everywhere this year. His first film of the year, the romantic comedy Along Came Polly with Jennifer Aniston, gets 2004 off to a good start.

In Along Came Polly, Stiller is Rueben Feffer, an expert in risk management. Ruben's job as a risk evaluator for an insurance company has taught him to be quite cautious in everything he does. Cautious even in his personal life which has caused him to settle down with Lisa (Debra Messing) for what seems like a safe, life-long commitment. However, on their honeymoon in St Barts, the couple meets a French scuba diving instructor named Claude (Hank Azaria in a stellar cameo). Of course, Claude and Lisa end up in bed together, discovered by Rueben while doing it with their scuba gear still on. No one does this kind of indignity quite as well as Stiller, who is to humiliation what Jack Benny was to being a tightwad.

Returning home, Rueben is consoled by his friend and former child star Sandy (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) who tries to raise his spirits by taking him to a party. At the party Rueben runs into Polly Prince (Jennifer Aniston), a girl he went to junior high with and who now works as a cocktail waitress in between flights of fancy that have taken her all over the world.

Rueben and Polly are totally opposite personalities, Rueben is uptight, neurotic and fearful while Polly is adventurous, carefree and owns a ferret as a pet. However, like any man who sees an opportunity to be with a beautiful woman, Rueben puts aside his fears of spicy food, salsa dancing and ferrets. Of course, all of which leads to numerous comic foul-ups where his fears get the best of him. 

Once again, Stiller's talent for taking the worst that life can give him makes these varying humiliations terrifically funny. Even the awful bathroom scene after Rueben has suffered through dinner at an Indian restaurant and the spicy food has caused his irritable bowel syndrome to act up. Ugh!

The problem with Stiller's performance in Along Came Polly, as funny as he is, is that we have seen him do variations on this same character plenty of times. Rueben is essentially just an extension of the character he played in last years Duplex who was an extension of Greg Fokker in Meet The Parents (Not so coincidentally, Parents and Along Came Polly are both written and directed by John Hamburg). Further still, those roles were basically toned down takes on Stiller's role in There's Something About Mary. Stiller's act is still funny in Along Came Polly but it is growing a little too familiar and tiresome.

As for Jennifer Aniston, she once again shows why she is the Friend most likely to breakout as a bigtime film star. She's got it, acting chops and comic timing. Her role is surprisingly small as the film makes room for a number of supporting characters. Her Polly has little interaction with the supporting characters which makes her feel as if she were in a slightly different film. Unlike Cameron Diaz in the very similar There's Something About Mary, Aniston's Polly is played straight, above all of the humiliating gross out gags. Polly is central to the plot but is outside much of the humor of the film.

The best parts of the film are the supporting roles played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Alec Baldwin and Hank Azaria. These three terrific actors are in place to put Stiller in the most humiliating situations possible and they do their jobs well. Azaria is especially funny in his small role. Carrying his best accent since his gay Puerto Rican is The Birdcage, Azaria walks nude on the beach, murders the English language and as he should puts Stiller's Rueben in the most humiliating situations possible.

The supporting players, as good as they are, do however expose one of the films main flaws. Writer-Director John Hamburg can't decide on a comic tone. The script attempts to combine over-the-top slapstick, gross-out humor with a realistic romance. The over-the-top elements pull you out of the realistic story, rendering it less believable, especially at the end when the film wants you to get emotional about whether the romance will have a happy ending.

It's difficult to criticize a film that is as funny as Along Came Polly. The cast is terrific and there are a number of funny gags. Still, the romance never feels real because, as written, it gets stepped on by the slapsticky, gross-out humor. Thus we are left with a series of comic skits tied together loosely by a romance that is only in place to give the jokes context. I can kind of recommend Along Came Polly but with a slight reservations. 

Movie Review Shattered Glass

Shattered Glass (2003) 

Directed by Billy Ray 

Written by Billy Ray 

Starring Hayden Christensen, Peter Sarsgard, Chloe Sevigny, Rosario Dawson, Hank Azaria, Steve Zahn

Release Date October 31st, 2003 

Published October 30th, 2003 

The New Republic magazine prides itself as the in-flight magazine of Air Force One. Its pretentiousness has been earned by years of literate intelligent discourse on policy and international politics. Appreciate their perspective or not, you have to respect that they get into these subjects that so many average Americans think are boring.

So it was a huge black eye for the storied magazine to find out one of its writers had faked numerous stories. If there is one cardinal sin in journalism, it's lying, and Stephen Glass lied on a scale that dwarfs the lies of your average tabloid rag. The story of Glass's lies and how he was finally caught are the subject of the adroit and fascinating film Shattered Glass.

Hayden Christensen stars as Glass, the youngest writer on a staff whose median age is 26 years old. The 22-year-old Glass is a rising star with a habit of looking into fantastic stories. The stories occasionally raise suspicions but the puppy dog sweetness of Glass disarms co-workers who couldn't believe Steve would make up such a story. For the most part Stephen's stories check out, he has detailed notes and phone numbers from his subjects. Those subjects can tend to be unwieldy for fact checkers, but there is enough verifiable truth to what Stephen reports that the stories go through.

As the film progresses there is a very subtle shift of focus from the character Stephen Glass to the uncovering of Glass's deception, seen through the eyes of Peter Sarsgaard's New Republic Editor Chuck Lane. The shift is signaled almost unconsciously through scenes of Glass working late to cover his lies and Lane at home with his wife and daughter. These scenes allow the audience to choose sides without feeling bad for abandoning poor Stephen.

Coming to the story with a good knowledge of what Stephen Glass did and the type of person he is (his appearance on 60 Minutes earlier this year was the tip of the iceberg as to his serial compulsion toward hiding the truth), I never felt much of any sympathy for Glass. Thus, I came to Shattered Glass with my mind made up about the man and his crimes. There are however many people willing to like Glass as he's portrayed by the gifted Hayden Christensen. His Stephen Glass is a seemingly sweet natured glad hander who remembers everybody's birthday and offers to help you move without being asked.

I read another reviewer who was familiar with the real life players and who thought the film built up Chuck Lane as more pious than he ever truly was. I would disagree with that assessment in the context of the film. Perhaps the reviewer is too close to the real situation to consider the film. Lane as played by Peter Sarsgaard is merely a put-upon editor who happens to have a serious breach of journalistic ethics thrust in his lap. 

He rightfully despises Glass and his crimes and scenes early in the film establish the two characters at odds from the beginning. Personality-wise, it's not hard for me to dislike the serial glad-handing Glass and his childish reaction to anything critical. The character of Chuck Lane communicates a similar dislike throughout the film that makes angry outbursts near the end of the film nearly as personal as professional.

Few films have shone such a clear light on the journalistic process. How a piece goes from the reporter to the page and exactly how flawed that process can be if abused. First time director Billy Ray tells his story on two levels, getting to know the character of Stephen Glass and also showing us the behind the scenes action at a magazine. If only for a moment, it makes you consider all that goes into your favorite magazines.

What really stays with you after the film however is the performances of Hayden Christensen and Peter Sarsgaard, who perfectly inhabit their opposing characters. Christensen brings an almost creepy quality to the sweetness that so many people liked about the real Stephen Glass. That creepiness makes it that much easier to dislike him, and is important for audience members who don't understand how he did such a horrible thing. Sarsgaard, despite what others might say, never makes Chuck Lane into a journalistic crusader for ethics. He's a journalist and editor who is doing the right thing and has a righteous outrage toward Glass for the serious damage he did to the credibility of a magazine that made its reputation on credibility.

As a debut behind the camera, Billy Ray shows he knows how to tell a compelling story. His visual style doesn't leave much to the memory but this is a character piece and as such, it succeeds marvelously. Shattered Glass is one of the year’s best films.

Movie Review Night at the Museum Battle of the Smithsonian

Night at the Museum Battle of the Smithsonian

Directed by Shawn Levy 

Written by Thomas Lennon, Robert Ben Garant 

Starring Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Amy Adams, Hank Azaria, Christopher Guest 

Release Date May 22nd 2009 

Published May 21st, 2009 

It was a novel idea. Museum characters come to life at night thanks to a magical golden tablet from ancient Egypt. The premise of the 2006 Night at the Museum was destined to succeed on novelty alone. What a shame it was that no one thought to add depth, complexity or humor beyond the fall down, go boom variety.

But, as I said, the original Night at the Museum had novelty on its side. Now comes Night at the Museum Battle of the Smithsonian and the novelty has definitely worn off. What's left is a sloppy mess of out of control comic actors riffing into oblivion, searching blindly for jokes as they dress in funny costumes.

Ben Stiller is back as Larry Daley. Since we last met Larry he has given up the night watchman gig for one as an inventor and cheese ball late night infomercial star. Sure, he goes back to the museum on occasion where he is for some reason allowed to come in at night and wander around after everyone has left and apparently he was never replaced? On his next visit to the museum, Larry finds that his old friends who come to life at night are being carted up and shipped off to storage at the National Archives, beneath the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. Larry spends one last night with his friends and then accepts that it's over.

Well, of course it's not over. Larry's old pal the slapping capuchin monkey stole the gold tablet before he left and now he and the other museum dwellers are under siege beneath the Smithsonian, attacked by an evil awakened Egyptian pharaoh, KahMunRah (Hank Azaria). Now Larry must travel to Washington, sneak into the archives and save his friends.

Along the way, wouldn't you know it, he makes a bunch of new friends including Abe Lincoln, from the Lincoln memorial, Rodin's The Thinker (the voice of Hank Azaria), General George Custer (Bill Hader) and most importantly, Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) whose nose for adventure turns her into Larry's partner and briefly his love match.

My explanation of the plot gives it far more order and structure than is actually in the movie. The film itself, once again directed with hack imprecision by Shawn Levy and written by the slipshod, logic free duo of Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant, rolls out plot points and characters and leaves them dangling with little to do but look funny, even as they don't do or say anything funny.

As they did in the first film, Levy, Lennon and Garant are convinced that the premise is the movie. Museum characters come to life, boom we're done. That's it, they set up the premise and hope that a movie develops around it. It doesn't. This strands Stiller and Azaria especially, who spend minutes of screentime performing improv material, searching in vain for a joke not supplied to them.

As Azaria and Stiller grope for jokes, Oscar nominee Adams steals scene after scene on sheer energy and cuteness. She's just as stranded as everyone else in this plotless mess but at least she's got that smile and natural beauty to fall back on. Stiller and Azaria are clearly better when the joke is given to them and not when they have to dig it out of a plotless morass.

Now, this is me asking the question that I am not supposed to ask. The director and writers of Night at the Museum don't care about this, hence why they don't supply the answer. Nevertheless, I am baffled by the physics of the tablet. It brings museum pieces to life at night right? But, how close do they have to be to the tablet? Once you are brought to life does the tablet matter? How close does a museum piece have to be to come to life? In the first film it was just the New York Museum of Art, in the sequel it is the Smithsonian but as we learn the Smithsonian is several museums plus the Lincoln memorial. Do they have to have seen the tablet to come to life? I know I am not supposed to care but it irritated me.

This is definitely a brain free environment but I was irritated by the anything goes, nothing matters approach of Night at the Museum Battle of the Smithsonian. Maybe, I would be more forgiving if the movie were funnier. I understand that what is required here, because this is merely a product, is that it is safe for kids (Won't scare'em or offend their delicate sensibilities) and that it is bright, cheery and loud but I can't get past the idea that every movie, even those created only as products, should aspire to something slightly more.

Night at the Museum Battle of the Smithsonian has zero aspiration, zero rules, zero plot and most egregiously, zero laughs.

Movie Review: Year One

Year One (2009) 

Directed by Harold Ramis

Written by Gene Stupnitsky, Harold Ramis, Lee Eisenberg

Starring Jack Black, Michael Cera, Hank Azaria, Oliver Platt, David Cross

Release Date June 19th, 2009 

Published June 18th, 2009  

It's a nice idea. Get a bunch of funny people together; throw on some funny costumes, make some references to the bible and wait for one the talented performers to say something funny. That is the basic idea of Year One. Throw Jack Black and Michael Cera together with a large group of funny people like Bill Hader, Hank Azaria, David Cross and Paul Rudd and assume something funny will happen. Occasionally something funny does happen. More often however, a premise for a satiric scene is set and everyone stumbles about searching desperately for a punchline.

Jack Black stars in Year One as Zed a wannabe hunter. He stinks at it and the other hunters hate him. Unfortunately for Zed, he stinks at being a gatherer as well and those are really the only jobs in the caveman world. Zed's best friend is Oh played by Michael Cera. Oh is an expert gatherer but pines for a girl who only dates hunters. When he tries to go all caveman on her and drag her back to his hut, she beats him down, his latest in a long series of humiliations to come.

When Zed burns much of the village down he is banished and Oh decides to leave with him. Together they wander into biblical times where they witness the murder of Abel (Paul Rudd) by his brother Cain (David Cross). They move on and witness Abraham (Hank Azaria) offering his son Isaac (Christopher Mintz Plasse) as a sacrafice to God. Finally, Zed and Oh wind up in Sodom where the high priest (Oliver Platt) is a mincing queen and the princess (Olivia Wilde) thinks she can steal the crown with Zed's help.

The bible stuff is odd because Year One is not necessarily a biblical satire. It may have wanted to be but all the movie ever does is introduce biblical characters in their famous context and then waits for the actors to find something funny to do. These are very talented actors, some of whom with years of improv and sketch comedy training but without a solid script to work from even the best of the improv crowd simply flails about searching for something funny to do.

Stuck with an idea and not a character, Jack Black falls back on his well known antics and shows why audiences are growing tired of his schtick. Michael Cera to is in fallback mode as he transports his much loved persona as a gawky, shy, loser who always seems the subject of humiliation into the role of Oh. The same nervous energy that people found charming in Superbad gets old fast out of context in Year One.

Director Harold Ramis must have thought that all he needed were funny people and a lot of goofy costumes and somehow they would find something funny. Instead, we have a lot of funny talented people lurching about searching for punchlines that should have been provided for them by an actual script.

Not only does what there is of a script stink but Ramis's direction is stunningly lax and inept. Scenes arrive and sputter to a finish or, in the case of an early scene where Cera is attacked by a snake and then a cougar, the scene doesn't really end so much as the scene suddenly is abandoned without resolution. This is a stunning level of apathy from such a veteran director.

Year One is one of the biggest disappointments of the summer.