Movie Review: Beastly

Beastly (2011) 

Directed by Daniel Barnz 

Written by Daniel Barnz 

Starring Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Hudgens, Mary Kate Olson, Neil Patrick Harris, Dakota Johnson

Release Date March 4th, 2011 

Published March 3rd, 2011 

Take the legendary French faery tale “Beauty and the Beast” and cross it with the elegant and joyous Disney cartoon and Jean Cocteau's artist's rendering of the story from 1946 and then throw all of it in the trash save for the very barest bones of the original premise and you find “Beastly,” a dreary rendering of a 2007 novel that was already a shallow recreation of what came before.

”Beastly” stars Alex Pettyfer as Kyle an ugly on the inside Big Man on Campus who tells anyone who will listen how easy life is when you are incredibly good looking. He's ‘Zoolander’ without the irony and dumber. Kyle is cursed by Kendra (Mary Kate Olson), a witch, who sentences Kyle to magically become as ugly on the outside as he is inside.

Suddenly, Kyle has scars all over his head and weird tattoos that cohere to the seasons as they pass. Kyle has one year from the beginning of his curse to find a woman who will love him despite his hideousness.  The top candidate for this gig is Lindy (Vanessa Hudgens), a not so popular but pretty girl who cares about the environment.

How Lindy comes to live in Kyle's posh riverside digs, paid for by his news anchor daddy (Peter Krause), is one of a litany of contrivances in “Beastly.” Briefly, Kyle becomes a stalker Batman who rescues Lindy from drug dealers and saves her druggie dad from a murder rap. The filmmakers craft this scenario with a deathly seriousness that only underlines how over the top nutty it all is.

Then there is Kyle and Lindy's eventual romance which happens as they spend several months with Kyle's tutor, played by Neil Patrick Harris as a blind man, studying one single poem. Now, to be fair, with the amount of depth given to these two characters one cannot be surprised that it would take them several months to read a single poem but one would think they would eventually move on to the meanings and themes at least.

Now, no one wants to watch these two pretty folks learn anything; we want to watch them fall in love. And what a treat that is as after their months of poem reading, Kyle and Lindy do fall in love but her daddy gets in the way leaving Kyle only days to get her to say 'I love you.’ This leads to the film's next bizarre contrivance called 'why doesn't dorko just answer his stupid phone instead of waiting to confess his love at the last minute of the last day.' But that is a little too spoilery, so I won't go into it.

”Beastly” is a serious bit of foolishness, a post-ironic love story that begs for a little knowing wink and someone other than Neil Patrick Harris to puncture the pompous sincerity on display. Nothing against Mr. Harris who has the film's only sense of humor but he is merely playing his ‘How I Met Your Mother’ character as a blind guy. It's a lazy performance but then Harris is likely the only one who saw the writing on the wall and figured 'why bother with my best effort.'

Alex Pettyfer sure is pretty and with “Beastly” and last month's “I Am Number 4” Hollywood seems dedicated to making him happen. That's lucky for Mr. Pettyfer because if Hollywood were merit based rather than 'look at me' based he might be struggling for a TV pilot right now. Instead I am sure Mr. Pettyfer is readying some sort of summer or fall picture that will once again show off his shirtlessness.

In fairness to Alex Pettyfer, Hollywood did the same thing to Johnny Depp and Heath Ledger and both reacted by going into their heads, rebelling against the system and finding depths that no one expected of them. Mr. Ledger's sad fate aside, Mr. Pettyfer still has a chance to rebel against the image makers and craft his own path to real stardom.

Movie Review: Battle Los Angeles

Battle Los Angeles (2011) 

Directed by Jonathan Liebesman

Written by Chris Bertolini 

Starring Aaron Eckhardt, Ramon Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Bridget Moynihan 

Release Date March 11th, 2011 

Published March 10th, 2011 

The sci-fi action flick "Battle: Los Angeles" has me quite torn. On the one hand, it is a brutal exercise in poor filmmaking techniques and terrible writing. On the other hand, the chaotic intensity of "Battle: Los Angeles" builds to a surprisingly rousing conclusion that any red blooded American can only cheer for.

Aaron Eckhardt stars in "Battle: Los Angeles" as Master Sgt. Michael Nantz, a 20 year Marine veteran who has just filed his retirement papers. Sgt. Nantz is plotting life after the marines when a meteor shower begins impacting off the coast of Santa Monica. Unfortunately, these are not meteors but rather alien beings intent on war.

With forces stretched thin Nantz joins a unit led by the much younger and very green, Lt. William Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez). The rest of the unit is populated with war movie stereotypes much older than the actors playing them and is more notable for its PC multiculturalism than for any one of the performances. However, Michelle Rodriguez joins the film late and offers a dash of tough chick vitality.

The unit is tasked with rescuing civilians trapped at a Santa Monica police station. The civilians include a veterinarian played Bridget Moynihan and a father (Michael Pena) protecting his son. Two other children are present as well though the film does a poor job of mentioning who they are or why they are present.

The task at hand for the unit is laid out like a videogame and, as shot by director Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls), it feels a lot like a first person shooter game. The camera whips about as if it were being controlled by a caffeine addled gamer preventing the audience from gaining any perspective on the action at hand. Audience members prone to motion sickness might want to bring medication.

The characters are mostly forgettable; the dialogue is filled with atrocious cliches and malapropisms. The film style is so hectic in "Battle: Los Angeles" that you really don't know what's happening from one scene to the next. So, you're probably wondering: What is good about "Battle Los Angeles?"

Director Jonathan Liebesman makes up for many of the film deficiencies by establishing an intensely chaotic tone that despite awful dialogue and by the numbers characters can be quite compelling. The film's final act in which Eckhardt leads a ragtag crew back into action to take out an alien outpost that controls deadly, unmanned alien drones builds to a rousing finish.

The ending takes advantage, for better or worse, of our inclination toward patriotism. If you cannot be moved by our troops at their bravest readying for the biggest battle the country has ever seen, even if it is against fake aliens, then you are definitely not the audience for "Battle: Los Angeles" which doesn't literally wave the American flag but definitely salutes.

Hectic and at times completely awful, "Battle: Los Angeles" gains its appeal from star Aaron Eckhardt who commits fully to the premise and sells you on his guts alone. He believes in the action around him and because of him you do to, sort of. Most of the movie is pretty terrible but when Eckhardt leads the final battle you will work hard not to be moved to cheer, a little.

Movie Review Red Riding Hood

Red Riding Hood (2011)

Directed by Catherine Hardwicke 

Written by David Leslie Johnson 

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Max Irons, Gary Oldman, Billy Burke, Julie Christie 

Release Date March 11th, 2011 

Published March 10th, 2011 

Amanda Seyfried has yet to find the right movie for her particular talents. Seyfried mixes girl next door good looks, those amazing flying saucer-esque eyes, and inviting sensuality into one precocious package. She would be a dream come true in a Bertolucci movie or as captured by Antonioni's loving lens. Sadly, being a young American actress means offering her services for schlock such as "Dear John," ``Letters to Juliet," and her latest "Red Riding Hood."

Amanda Seyfried stars in "Red Riding Hood" as Valerie, the virginal daughter of a wood cutter (Billy Burke, Bella's dad from Twilight) who is promised in marriage by her mother, Suzette (Virginia Madsen) to Henry (Max Irons) the son of a wealthy family friend.

Valerie however, is in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez) and intends to run away with him. Their plans are thwarted sadly when Valerie's sister is murdered by a werewolf. Now, Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) is coming to the village to hunt the wolf and a dark secret Valerie did not know she carried will place her in the wolf's path.

"Red Riding Hood" was directed by Catherine Hardwicke, a talented director who has faltered under the weight of big budgets and special effects. Hardwicke is exceptionally talented in crafting warm and intimate scenes, as she demonstrated in her wonderful coming of age film "Thirteen" and in the quiet moments of her hit "Twilight."

Unfortunately, special effects simply are not Catherine Hardwicke's forte. The CGI in "Red Riding Hood," used to render the wolf and portions of the mid-centuries village, is amateurish in comparison to other CGI heavy films including such stinkers as "The Wolfman" and "Underworld: Evolution."

The Gothic air that Hardwicke attempts to bring to "Red Riding Hood" comes off campy rather than mysterious or forbidding. Attempts to mix period cliches with modern pop culture savvy feel forced and trite. What works is when Hardwicke focuses on smaller, intimate moments that take advantage of star Amanda Seyfried's innate eroticism.

The climax of "Red Riding Hood" is laughable as the filmmakers settle the allegedly mysterious identity of the werewolf by choosing a character at random. So indiscriminate is the choice of the identity of the werewolf that it is fair to wonder if the filmmakers knew the choice before they filmed it.

"Red Riding Hood" is a mess of feeble CGI and market tested pop culture. Though star Amanda Seyfried still manages to be radiant and alluring, the film is all Gothic bluster and teen targeted kitsch. Fans of Ms. Seyfried would be better served waiting for her next film, teaming with visionary director Andrew Niccol called "Now." That film hits theaters ..October 11th 2011.

Movie Review Paul

Paul (2011) 

Directed by Greg Mottola 

Written by Simon Pegg, Nick Frost

Starring Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen, Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader 

Release Date March 18th, 2011

March 17th, 2011 

"Paul" is the "Citizen Kane" of nerd humor, the movie all other nerd movies will be compared to for years to come. "Paul" stars beloved geeks (I use the term Geeks with love) Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as a pair of sci-fi loving Brits on holiday at Comic-Con who decide to road trip to their favorite alien hot spots. Along the way they meet a real alien named Paul (Seth Rogan) who takes them on an exciting and very funny adventure.

Paul was directed by Greg Mottola whose nerd credentials include "Superbad" and the cult romance "Adventureland." Mottola infuses "Paul" with unexpected heart and sensitivity that coexists surprisingly well with uproarious R-rated gags. The script comes from stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost whose geek humor knowledge is seemingly limitless. You will have to see "Paul" twice to capture all of the nerd references packed tightly into the 104 minute runtime.

The geek chic extends to the supporting cast including Jason Bateman from the cult TV series "Arrested Development," Joe Lo Truglio from the cult comedy troupe "The State" and Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader who bring SNL's loyal fan base to the film. Finally, "Paul" ends with a cameo that the trailer spoils but I will not. Let's just call it a shocking and gory appearance by a geek goddess and leave it at that.

"Paul" is an uproarious R-rated comedy that manages to be funny and sweet without lapsing into cloying or pandering. Much of the film's surprising maturity comes from the voice of Seth Rogen who brings his typical foul mouth shtick to the film but also a newfound warmth and tenderness to his voice. Rogen offers a reassuring vocal performance that grounds "Paul" within its wacky alien universe of geek references and broad physical humor.

Paul is one of the funniest movies you will see in 2011, and even though it is early in the year, it will remain one of the funniest movies of 2011. "Paul" is a brilliantly funny sci-fi comedy that never fails to be outlandish and raunchy and sweet at once. Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and the voice of Seth Rogen are a terrific comic trio and with all of the geek cred they bring to the film you have the makings of a cult classic to which all other nerd movies will be compared.

Movie Review Win Win

Win Win (2011) 

Directed by Tom McCarthy 

Written by Tom McCarthy

Starring Paul Giamatti, Burt Young, Amy Ryan, Bobby Cannavale 

Release Date March 18th, 2011 

Published March 17th, 2011 

Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti) is struggling. His law practice is not making any money and the stress has begun to manifest itself in breathless panic attacks that mirror heart attack symptoms. Mike needs money and when he stumbles across an opportunity to make some money through an ethical loophole with one of his clients (Burt Young) he takes it.

Since "Win Win" is a movie we know that Mike's decision will have very particular consequences or it wouldn't be in the story. What writer-director Thomas McCarthy creates in order to arrive at those consequences and the wealth of emotions involved in when and how Mike's ethical lapse is revealed is the hook of "Win Win," a small human story about a good man whose flaws cannot mask his true nature.

Paul Giamatti is spectacularly well cast as Mike Flaherty. His unique face communicates worry and sadness while his clipped line delivery makes him sound desperate and close to out of breath even when he's in a relaxed moment. Giamatti's nervous energy has been his calling card since his breakthrough performance in Howard Stern's "Private Parts" through his rise to stardom in "Sideways."

Alex Shaffer plays Kyle in "Win Win." Kyle is the main complication to Mike's money making scheme. Having run away from home and being only 16 years old, Mike and his wife Jackie (Amy Ryan) are forced to take Kyle in while they sort out the situation with his mother and his Alzheimer's afflicted grandfather. The connections between these characters are something I want you to discover by seeing the movie.

The movie poster shows Kyle in wrestling gear sitting next to Mike. Wrestling appears in Win Win as both literal, Mike coaches a High School wrestling team and as a clever undercurrent to the main story as Mike wrestles with his conscience over his scheme, and, more importantly, about how not to get caught while Kyle wrestles with his past including his recovering drug addict mother (Melanie Lynskey) who also has a connection to Mike's scheme.

Writer-director Thomas McCarthy has an eye for small human stories. He was the writer and director of "The Station Agent," a small highly observant and smart picture about unique characters who form an odd family. McCarthy then directed "The Visitor," another film about unlikely family ties, this time an older white college professor and a young, immigrant African man and wife.

McCarthy approaches these stories with compassion and a thoughtful curiosity about how his characters live from day to day and how they interact with changing circumstances that are mundane by movie standards but are things real people are experiencing everyday. "Win Win," like "The Station Agent" and "The Visitor," is a warm, kind and modestly funny movie that compels you with great characters who reflect lives you can relate to, sympathize with and still be entertained by.

Movie Review Push

Push (2009) 

Directed by Paul McGuigan

Written by David Bourla 

Starring Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Ming Na, Cliff Curtis 

Release Date February 6th, 2009

Published February 5th, 2009 

Director Paul McGuigan directed the clever, funny, con-man comedy Lucky Number Slevin. It was his first feature and it should have portended great things for his career. Sadly for his Slevin follow up McGuigan chose Push, a terribly goofy comic book movie about psychic superheroes and a government conspiracy. Where Slevin was endlessly inventive, Push is predictable and sloppy.

What a shame.

Handsomely mild actor Chris Evans stars in Push as Nick a man on the run since his father was hunted down and murdered by a mysterious  government entity. Since then Nick has lived off the grid in Japan hoping to keep a low enough profile to be left alone. That all changes when Nick is discovered by a teenage psychic named Cassie (Dakota Fanning) who has had a vision about him and her and their deaths.

On the bright side, she's also had a vision about a young woman named Kira (Camilla Belle) who may be able to save them. Kira is the only person ever to escape from the shadowy government forces chasing Nick and Cassie and if they find her she could be the key to bringing the conspiracy down. Add in a helpful psychic con man (Cliff Curtis) and another more powerful psychic hiding out as a fake psychic (Ming Na) and you have a misfit team ready for battle.

The premise of Push plays not at all unlike the TV series Heroes. Both are about shady conspiracy, hunting down people with special abilities and wild special effects. Both are also wildly divergent in quality, Heroes can vary from week to week with good episodes and not so good ones. Push has one chance to work and fails.

I have been a little dismissive of the story potential of Push. There is certainly nothing wrong with a comic book style movie about superheroes. The key is making those heroes compelling and their journey interesting beyond their powers. Director McGuigan and screenwriter David Bourla fail this by vaguely defining the powers and muddying the government conspiracy premise.

Not that a cleaner narrative might have made much of a difference. The super powers on display, people pushing other people with their minds or controlling objects with their minds or seeing the future, simply are not all that interesting. The best superheroes have powers that comment on their personality. The abilities reflect the man (or less often the woman) and we learn something about them through their uniqueness.

No such comment or reflection emerges from Push. Instead we have a series of dull, uninspired effects scenes.

I expected much more from Director Paul McGuigan. Lucky Number Slevin was the kind of debut that promises so much more from a director's future. It was a far from perfect movie but a clever, funny, imaginative film. Push is nearly the complete opposite. Derivative and uninspired, Push is disappointing beyond Director Paul McGuigan. It's disappointing to have to have sat through such a lacking effort.

Movie Review Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks (2007) 

Directed by Bruce A. Evans 

Written by Bruce A. Evans, Raynold Gideon 

Starring Kevin Costner, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, William Hurt, Marg Helgenberger

Release Date June 1st, 2007 

Published May 31st, 2007

The career of Kevin Costner has had many ups and downs. He has been one of the biggest stars in the world and People Magazine's sexiest man alive. He's also been the most reviled man in Hollywood and a grand punch line after his triple failures, Waterworld, The Postman and Wyatt Earp. He has recently tried to reinvent himself as a character actor and a comeback kid, a perception fed by well received performances in The Upside of Anger and Open Range.

Now however, as he tries to reclaim leading man status; Costner is once again flailing. First, there was the disastrous Rumor Has It, a pseudo sequel to The Graduate with Costner as a middle aged Ben Braddock. Now comes Mr. Brooks a disaster of a different kind, one that isn't really Costner's fault.

"The Hunger has returned to Mr. Brooks, it never really left"

That is the opening title card to the new thriller Mr. Brooks, a title card that thrusts us into the midst of the madness of a man named Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner). Earl is a proud father, a loyal husband and a respected businessman who runs a major box company. However, in his spare time he is the thumbprint killer, a maniac who likes to pose his victims after killing them and then get off over the photos he takes.

He has been at this for years and for years has been careful to not get caught. He even managed to stop killing for 2 whole years with the help of  weekly A.A meetings, though alcohol never played a part in his compulsion. Then the hunger returned and he selected a pair of victims. Unfortunately, he wasn't as careful as he used to be. He left the curtains open and across the street, an amateur cameraman saw him commit murder.

Luckily for Mr. Brooks the cameraman, call him Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), is a sick puppy like himself. Smith doesn't want to turn Brooks over to the cops, rather he wants to learn from Mr. Brooks, he wants to kill. Thus sets up an uncomfortable partnership between the steely, calculating Mr. Brooks and the unnerved novice Mr. Smith.

That is just one of several plots running concurrently in this rather misguided take on the Dr. Jekyll, Mr Hyde mythos. Also jammed into this plot is a backstory and sub-storyline for Demi Moore as the cop investigating the thumbprint killer and another different killer and a credulity stretching plot for Danielle Panabaker as Mr. Brooks' daughter who may have inherited the serial killer gene.

A glance at director Bruce A. Evans' resume offers a few clues as to why Mr. Brooks  turned out so goofy. Evans wrote the lauded screenplays for epics like Cutthroat Island, Jungle 2 Jungle and Kuffs, a Christian Slater guilty pleasure that he also directed. Curiously, Evans hasn't directed since Kuffs. Maybe he was waiting for something that could match the goofball pleasures and squirm inducing discomfort of that early nineties crime comedy.

Mr. Brooks is certainly goofy but it's not supposed to be. It's intended to be a thriller but thrills are in short supply compared to the unintentional laughter induced by some of the bizarre choices made. There are more than a few moments of unintended humor such as watching comic Dane Cook attempt to appear credible as an actor opposite the veteran Costner. The disdainful glare of Costner's Mr. Brooks towards Cook's Mr. Smith plays like Costner's silent commentary on his co-star.

Despite the loopy plots and unintentional humor there are a few honest pleasures in Mr. Brooks, not least of which is the chemistry between Kevin Costner and William Hurt. These two veteran actors are so in sync and so on the money that you hate the movie for the constant interruptions of their interplay. Taking time out for Demi Moore's lame backstory and a search for another serial killer aside from Mr. Brooks and the daughter's story and Dane Cook's story all serve to upstage the film's one and only asset, the Costner-Hurt duo.

In the few moments that Costner and Hurt get to play we actually get to dig into Mr. Brooks' character and find out how he ticks and why he does what he does. The potential is there for a very unique take on the classic serial killer picture, a movie from the killer's perspective. Few killers are as uniquely villainous as Mr. Brooks, the upstanding businessman and father who happens to be a serial killer.

What a waste, Mr. Brooks had all sorts of potential and wasted it all on dopey, distracting subplots. Director and co-writer Bruce A. Evans is not a bad director really, just inexperienced with a seeming lack of confidence. Evans lacked the courage to jettison what was clearly not working and focus things where they were working, with Kevin Costner and William Hurt riffing and roaring.

Oh, what might have been.

Movie Review: 28 Days Later

28 Days Later (2003) 

Directed by Danny Boyle

Written by Alex Garland 

Starring Cillian Murphy, Noah Huntley, Naomie Harris, Brendan Gleeson, Christopher Eccleston

Release Date June 27th, 2003 

In 2003, while the masses sought out mindless entertainment real film fans were eagerly anticipating the release of a much buzzed about British horror film that portended the end of the world. Oh yeah and it's got zombies. 28 Days Later, from Trainspotting auteur Danny Boyle, was released some 6 months earlier  worldwide, creating an anticipation among American horror and indie film fans. When 28 Days Later finally reached the States, it had not lost any of the buzz. 

The Plot

In a scenario that likely made Republicans smile, a group of animal activists break into a research facility and release a group of monkeys who they believe are being abused. Unfortunately, the monkeys happen to be infected with a disease that the doctors call the rage virus. The infection is passed by blood and when the monkey bites a human, it takes little more than 30 seconds before that person becomes a mindless flesh-eating zombie. The zombies can be killed like any normal human being but they are also excessively quick and strong.

Within 28 days, the virus has spread throughout the whole of Britain. Only a few lucky people remain uninfected. One of the uninfected is Jim (Cillian Murphy) who has just awakened from a coma to find the hospital entirely empty. He then finds the neighborhood around the hospital empty, then finally all of London. That is until he stumbles into a church filled with zombies.

Jim escapes with the aid of a pair of survivors, Mark (Noah Huntley) and Selena (Naomie Harris). They give Jim the 411 on what has happened since his coma and then accompany Jim to his parent's home where he finds his parents dead. It's not long before the zombies arrive there and Mark is killed by Selena after he is bitten. As she has explains to Jim, if someone is infected you have only seconds to kill them before they turn. She won't hesitate to kill Jim if the same happens to him.

The two then venture out to find new shelter and stumble upon a father and daughter (Brenden Gleeson and Megan Burns) who are hiding out in what remains of their apartment building. Though they have had little to no interaction with the outside world, they have heard what they believe is a recorded message on the radio about some military officers who may have a cure for the virus. Whether that is true or not, the soldiers at least offer protection from the zombies and that is good enough to get them on the road. Once arriving at the military base, they find a ramshackle crew who is no more well prepared than they are.

When 28 Days Later arrived in theaters in 2003, it arrived in the wake of September 11th, 2001. It arrived in America in a moment of great panic, fear, and paranoia. Newspapers and TV broadcasts stoked the flames with stories about Anthrax in the mail, Monkeypox potentially becoming airborne, and the looming specter of terrorism, violent, biological, or otherwise. Thus, a movie about a fast spreading virus leaving city streets littered with bodies and the detritus of abandon, was one that felt immediate and relevant. Without intending to, director Danny Boyle had tapped the zeitgeist in a most urgent fashion. 

Though the zombie thing gives the film a far-fetched feeling, the grave fears of terrorism and disaster  comes in Boyle's camerawork that has a mind’s eye feeling to it. It's unsettling the way in which the camera, under the guidance of future Academy Award winner Anthony Dod Mantle, becomes like a dream from your own mind. The washed out look of 28 Days Later feels like it comes from your subconscious, formed by your own fears and anxiety the state of the world. 

There is no camp in 28 Days Later, nothing that breaks the immersion. Danny Boyle's incredible vision is unrelenting. Where other horror films tend to undercut the horror with a sense of bleak humor, Danny Boyle shows no interest in letting the audience get comfortable or take a breath. The atmosphere of 28 Days Later is oppressive and all encompassing until it reaches the ending. Only once the credits have begun to roll are we in the audience able to relieve the tension. A cleansing breath finally comes once the lights began to come up but, for me, the visceral effect of 28 Days Later lasted until the following day when I was finally able to shake it from my subconscious. That's just how effective 28 Days Later is. Even today, 22 years later, the experience of 28 Days Later on the big screen lingers in my mind, drawing me back to that anxious, post 9/11 world. 

Movie Review: Yesterday

Yesterday (2019) 

Directed by Danny Boyle 

Written by Richard Curtis 

Starring Himesh Patel, Lily James, Joel Fry, Ed Sheeran, Kate McKinnon 

Release Date June 28th, 2019 

Published June 27th, 2019

Yesterday was a complete delight. Directed by the ingenious Danny Boyle, Academy Award winner for Slumdog Millionaire, and Love, Actually writer-director Richard Curtis, Yesterday is charming, romantic, and quite funny. The acting is wonderful as well with a core duo of newcomer Hamish Patel and Lily James providing romantic and friendly chemistry that leaps off of the screen. All of that, and some of the greatest music of all time and Yesterday becomes irresistible. 

Jack Malik (Patel) has spent 10 years trying to make his music industry dreams come true with no success, but with his trusted friend and manager Ellie (James) always at his side. Despite Ellie’s constant support, Jack finally appears ready to give up his dream and return to teaching when something dramatic happens. On his way home from his last gig, Jack gets in an accident just as all of the electricity on the planet goes out for 12 seconds. 

When Jack wakes up in the hospital the following day, minus his front teeth, he makes a reference to The Beatles that Ellie dismisses in unusual fashion. Later, after Ellie gives Jack a guitar to replace the one he lost in the accident, Jack goes to play “Yesterday” by The Beatles and his friends react as if they have never heard the song before. A confused Jack returns home in a rush and begins googling The Beatles only to find that they no longer exist in any way. 

Apparently being the only person on the planet who remembers The Beatles songs, Jack decides to start performing Beatles songs from memory, not without a serious struggle, as if he had written them. Jack finds success in a fashion not unlike the Fab Four, with a brief struggle and then a massive breakout, all while Jack wrestles with his conscience over the decision to capitalize off of someone else's art and his relationship with Ellie which he has misjudged for the past 20 years. 

Director Danny Boyle is a directorial chameleon, leaping from genre to genre, country to country and masterwork to mediocrity. Yesterday, thankfully, is in the masterwork category. While the movie is minor in social relevance, unlike his Steve Jobs or Slumdog Millionaire, it is masterful as a work of genre. Yesterday is gloriously, ridiculously, heart on its sleeve romantic in ways that modern Hollywood has struggled to be for decades. 

Much of the credit, of course, goes to screenwriter Richard Curtis, who has been at the forefront of the romance genre since the 90’s and the release of his Four Weddings and a Funeral. Curtis is a genius at giving a unique spin to the romantic cliches that are at the heart of the romance genre dating back to the early days of sound in film. What makes Yesterday even more unique is Curtis teaming with a visual master like Danny Boyle who places Curtis’s big romantic ideas into a wonderfully visual, eye-catching package. 

Of course, both Boyle and Curtis are helped by the fact that they have somehow secured the chance to use some of the greatest music of all time to tell their story. It’s famously not easy to get the rights to use the music of The Beatles in a project but the team of Boyle and Curtis were apparently enough to get this movie a break. Of course, I am sure, $10 million dollars in rights fees also helped their case. 

The music in Yesterday isn’t used as you might think. You might assume that Jack deploys the songs in a specific fashion related to his place within the story. Instead, the movie subverts expectations by having Jack simply record Beatles songs in an almost random order, just as he is able to remember them. It’s a clever approach that allows the story to exist outside of The Beatles. Was this done in case the producers could not get the rights to The Beatles and they acted accordingly in building the story? Perhaps, but the approach works nevertheless. 

The supporting cast of Yesterday is exceptionally well chosen. Kate McKinnon of Saturday Night Live fame plays Jack’s new, high powered manager who treats him like dirt even as she is giving him worldwide fame. McKinnon’s oddball dialogue which combines radical honesty with a sociopathic zeal, rarely fails to get a laugh in Yesterday. It’s a brilliant comic performance. McKinnon is backed up by pop star Ed Sheeran who sheds all pop star ego to play himself as a fan of Jack who is willing to compare himself to Salieri to Jack’s Amadeus in one particularly great scene. 

Yesterday, as I said at the start, is a complete delight. It’s a delight for any audience that gives it a chance but it is a special treat for fans of The Beatles. Yesterday is a love letter to The Beatles that balances idolatry and fandom without becoming overly precious. Yes, the film is entirely uncritical of The Beatles but it felt to me like a genuine appreciation and not overly worshipful. The Beatles are only part of this story and not the entirety of it. 

The heart of Yesterday is the romance between Jack and Ellie and the struggle to escape preconceived notions of romance and friendship. There is a warmth and complexity to Jack and Ellie’s relationship that I bought into simply because I loved these two actors so very much. Hamish Patel and Lily James are just wonderful together and I fully believed in their choices, from Jack being blind to Ellie’s feelings to her heartache and his revelation. It’s a simple but well portrayed arc and I think everyone who loves a good love story will appreciate it as much as I did. 

I was a little worried by the trailer for the film that Yesterday would simply be a movie with a clever premise and little more. What a wonderful thing to have all of my worries dashed in the first few scenes and then to grow more and more comfortably immersed in this movie as it unfolded. Yesterday invites you in and if you are open to it, especially if you love this music, and you simply fall in love with it. Yesterday is just so darn charming.

Movie Review Sunshine

Sunshine (2007)

Directed by Danny Boyle

Written by Alex Garland 

Starring Cillian Murphy, Rose Byrne, Cliff Curtis, Chris Evans, Troy Garity. Michelle Yeoh

Release Date July 20th, 2007

Published July 19th, 2007

Director Danny Boyle hasn't always been my favorite director. I am one of the rare critics who found Trainspotting tedious. 28 Days Later was an undeniably impressive move into the horror genre. But with the release of his minimalist family drama Millions, I joined the Danny Boyle fan club. That was such a wonderfully small film with such grand ambitions that it burst from the screen.

Now, with his latest film Sunshine, Boyle once again shows that there is no genre limitation to his work. Sunshine is an intellectual dissection of morals, instincts and the basics of human nature all couched in a sci fi landscape with a dash of old fashioned horror movie tossed in for good measure. It's great idea that unfortunately gets lost in space.

Sunshine stars Cillian Murphy as science officer named Capa. A keep his own council type, Capa is the outcast of an international space flight crew that includes Captain Kaneda (Hiroyuki Sanada), Life support officer Corazon (Michelle Yeoh), Navigator Trey (Benedict Wong), chief mechanic Mace (Chris Evans), medical officer Searle (Cliff Curtis) and pilot Cassie (Rose Byrne.

This is the crew of Icarus 2, a crew charged with the modest task of saving the world. It's 2057 and the sun is dying. Soon the earth will be pitched into a permanent, lightless winter and all life will quickly die. The Icarus 2 project's goal is to kickstart the sun by precisely dropping a nuclear weapon, the size of Manhattan, into the center of the sun.

This is the earth's last best hope after the first Icarus project failed and was never heard from again. That is until Icarus 1 is heard from by Icarus 2. As the crew moved out of range of earth communications they found another signal in the middle of space. It's a several years old distress call from Icarus 1. Now the crew must decide whether to continue the mission as planned or to rendezvous with Icarus 1 to check for survivors.

The side trip would be beneficial to Icarus 2 which could take on a second nuclear payload and thus two chances to save the world. Also, Icarus 2 has suffered some damage on the way, so scavenging what they can from Icarus 1 could be a big help if the crew somehow manages a return flight home.

That is the surface area of Sunshine, a deep and disturbing idea from the fluid minds of the 28 Days Later team of director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland. Beneath the surface of this homage to Kubrick's 2001, is a terrific study in character and the effects of isolation on the brain. With a large and capable ensemble we witness unique human dynamics emerge and an intriguing study of people in confined spaces under intense pressure.

Interesting idea, but where do does the movie go from there? For Boyle and Garland the exercise in human endurance unfortunately devolves into a slasher plot involving the survivors of the original mission. Up until that plot emerges, and in minor moments thereafter, there are a number of really interesting and abstract  ideas in Sunshine.

Danny Boyle is a director highly skilled in crafting tense, character testing situations and filming them with precision. In Sunshine his skills take aim at a terrific ensemble cast and put them through a series of trials and tribulations that are eye catching and intense. Cliff Curtis is a standout as the medical officer who is drawn to the ship's observation deck for searing stares at the surface of the sun.

We don't truly understand his motivations but Searle's odd musings and matter of fact approach to his insane and painful sunlight obsession are quite intriguing. Also good is Michele Yeoh as the life support officer Corazon. In charge of the ship's oxygen garden, Corazon's cabin fever has bonded her to her plants as if they are her children. When an accident destroys most of the garden, it pushes Corazon to unexpected lengths. Her character is unexplored by the end of the second act but there is nevertheless some very fine work from the underrated Ms. Yeoh.

Sadly Rose Byrne, Troy Garrity and Chris Evans are, for the most part, cyphers. Portrayed as delicate, ignorant and determined in that order, each takes that one character trait and is able only to work that. Whether there wasn't enough screen time for each to go deeper in their character or if they just weren't that interesting and thus left on the cutting room floor, is undetermined. My guess would be the latter.

As for star Cillian Murphy, this is another strong performance from this peculiar performer. Murphy's odd physicality and palpable vulnerability give an interesting twist to his characters. These traits work especially well for Murphy when doing genre work as he did as the villain in the thriller Red Eye and as he does here in Sunshine. His uniqueness gives a different context to typical characters in typical movie situations.

Sunshine is an ambitious sci-fi epic that comes up just short of greatness. Bowing to commercial concerns, director Danny Boyle succumbs to the money men and abandons the idea driven elements of Sunshine in favor of 28 Days Later in space. This approach is no doubt more marketable but it's far less satisfying.

That said, there is enough good work, from the cinematography of Alwin Kuchler, to the terrific, for the most part, ensemble cast, to Boyle and Garland's many unfinished ideas, that I can give a partial recommendation to Sunshine.

Movie Review Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire (2009) 

Directed by Danny Boyle 

Written by Simon Beaufoy

Starring Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Irrfan Khan

Release Date December 25th, 2008 

Published December 24th, 2008 

Danny Boyle has never appealed to me as a director. His Trainspotting and 28 Days Later are such bleak and ugly examinations of humanity that each made me want to vomit. To date, Boyle's work has been little more than flashy, overwrought ugliness set to electronica and punk soundtracks intended to pound you into submission.

Then there was Millions, one of the oddest and most delightful little movies of the last decade. A sweet, sorrowful, hopeful little movie where director Boyle abandoned most of his worst habits in favor of telling a loving compelling story populated by wonderful characters. That film should have gotten the attention that is now being heaped upon Boyle's latest effort Slumdog Millionaire. In essence, Slumdog is the marriage of the sad, ugly kinetic-ism of Boyle's early work and the sweet, smart, thoughtful Millions. The combination yields mixed results.

Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of Jamal who is being assaulted by the police when we meet him. Jamal is accused of cheating on the TV show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire where he is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. His status as a so-called Slumdog, a boy from the slums of Mumbai, has the host of the show and the police wondering if he is cheating.

He isn't. What is happening for Jamal is that the questions somehow all seem to relate back to memories from his life growing up. Whether it's stumbling on a Hindu god after watching his mother brutally murdered or knowing the inventor of the revolver because his brother began carrying one for their protection, each question leads Jamal on a journey through his past, a journey he takes his interrogators on in order to convince them he is legit.

Jamal's motivation for going on the show, surviving the cops, and winning the money, is a girl named Latika (Freida Pinto). He and his older brother Samir took Latika in when they were young orphans. They were separated several times but Jamal would always find her. He found her again just before going on the show and hopes she will be watching and finally come find him.

That is the story of Slumdog Millionaire and it is compelling and romantic. Unfortunately, director Danny Boyle's over-caffeinated, highly stylized handheld camera and propulsive score distract and keep the story at an untenable emotional distance. The images whir by at such a frenetic pace that you are at once bedazzled and bewildered.

It's a neat trick to make a movie with such an astonishing pace. Sadly, the sacrifice is the emotional connection between the audience and these characters. While I was dazzled and propelled and moved to the edge of my seat by the intensity of Slumdog Millionaire, I couldn't find the time to really connect with the characters emotionally.

The style and even the flashback heavy structure of Slumdog Millionaire prevent the characters from standing out amongst the flurry. Things happen so fast that scenes fail to have the impact that I am certain they were intended to have. When the film does slow down for a moment at the end; I was too exhausted to be invested in the moment.

Slumdog Millionaire is a furiously paced, artfully crafted movie that well displays the talents of director Danny Boyle behind the camera. Sadly, those gifts give short shrift to what should be an emotional as well as visceral connection. That means that Slumdog Millionaire is a good movie that should've been, could've been a great movie.

Movie Review Milk

Milk (2008) 

Directed by Gus Van Sant

Written by Dustin Lance Black 

Starring Sean Penn, James Franco, Josh Brolin, Victor Garber, Diego Luna

Release Date November 26th, 2008 

Published November 25th, 2008 

The life of Harvey Milk is an inspiration. The first openly gay elected official in the country was a bold, brave and brilliant man. He was a fighter and a politician and a flawed soul. A movie about his life needs to capture these aspects of Harvey Milk and the Gus Van Sant movie Milk comes up just short. It's not that Milk is poorly made or even that it fails to honor the man. It's just that such an atypical hero deserves something far more than a very typical biopic.

Sean Penn takes on the role of Harvey Milk picking up his life story in the early 1970's when a fully closeted Harvey cruised a young gay man in a New York subway. That young man was Scott Smith (James Franco) and he drew Harvey out of the closet and into the life he had always longed for. The two moved to San Francisco and opened a camera shop in the Castro District. That area of San Francisco is now a famously gay enclave but when Harvey and Scott arrived that wasn't the case. Milk slowly but surely ingratiated himself in the community, he drew people to him and eventually as the community changed with him, he became its leader.

His rise from community organizer to politician was filled with potholes and roadblocks but eventually Harvey was elected to the City Board of Supervisors where an alliance with Mayor George Moscone (Victor Garber) would make history and repeated run-ins with fellow supervisor Dan White (Brolin) would lead to tragedy. To tell the story of Harvey Milk's life Gus Van Sant has Harvey narrate his own story in flashback. As he sits at a table alone in his apartment Sean Penn as Harvey recalls the incidents of his life into a tape recorder. The device frames the film but it's one of many signs of just how typical the movie is.

The flashbacks unfold in predictable fashion recalling all of the well known moments of Harvey's life that shine a positive light on him. Leaving out a few of the less flattering moments, generally celebrating the things that Harvey Milk accomplished in the all too short time he was in public service. There is nothing terribly devastatingly wrong with Milk. It just shouldn't be so typical. This is the same biographical formula applied to every life from Ray Charles to Johnny Cash to any famous person you can think of whose life has been brought to film in the last decade.

The movie suffers from what I like to call Van Sant-itis. This is a malady that affects movies directed by but not written by Gus Van Sant. Movies like Finding Forrester, Good Will Hunting and To Die For are all enjoyable movies but each lacks the director's full engagement. Watch Elephant, Gerry, Last Days or Paranoid Park and you can see a fiercely committed director dedicated to bringing his vision to the screen. There is an almost visceral difference in the directors engagement with his filmmaking in these films, especially when compared to the often soft focused laziness of his non-writing credited films.

Milk is as close as Van Sant has come to committing to another writer's vision, he seems to really care about Dustin Lance Black's work, but as the film goes along you sense the drift in Van Sant's attention. As the movie goes on, after brief early love scenes, the film drifts into conventional biopic mode and rolls to its tragic finish on a wave of typicality. The only truly outstanding thing about Milk is Sean Penn. He embodies Harvey Milk mind, body and soul and his commitment almost overcomes the strict adherence to biographical formula. Penn's performance is as brave and bold as the man he plays but he is hemmed in by the numbers biopic recipe.

Milk is a disappointment only because I was expecting something more from it. The film suffers from building expectations. It suffers from our expectation of something better than your average Hollywood biopic.

Movie Review Mile 22

Mile 22 (2018) 

Directed by Peter Berg 

Written by Lea Carpenter 

Starring Mark Wahlberg. Iko Uwais, Ronda Rousey, John Malkovich

Release Date August 17th, 2018 

Published August 16th, 2018 

Mile 22 is some hot, flaming, garbage as a movie. I’m shocked that such a mess could feature the talent of Peter Berg behind the camera and Mark Wahlberg in front of it. Not that they are no stranger to nonsense, they did make Lone Survivor together, a film that amounted to the Black Knight from Monty Python written as a soldier in Afghanistan, but that film is Die Hard compared to the ludicrous, chaotic, rubbish that is Mile 22.

Mark Wahlberg, sort of stars in Mile 22 as James Silva, a CIA operative. I say 'sort of' because the performance is so unhinged and disconnected that it is hard to say if he is fully aware of what is happening in the movie. Wahlberg seems far more invested in the idea that his character is a troubled super-genius than in the plot which has him leading a team that broke up a Russian spy ring in an American suburb and is now in some foreign locale following up on what they found.

The plot kicks in when Li Noor (Iko Uwais from The Raid franchise), drives right up to the American Embassy and presents evidence that could lead to the discovery of a cache of some deadly poison. However, he won’t give up the evidence, one of those Hollywood encrypted computer disks that even the world’s great hackers can’t hack, (Gah!), until Wahlberg agrees to take him to America and away from the people trying to kill him.

Uwais is a tremendous physical performer and he gets one truly spectacular fight scene that demonstrates that but his casting appears to be little more than a marketing attempt to evoke the worldwide success of The Raid and The Raid 2. Uwais is supposed to be desperate yet duplicitous and yet his blank-eyed stare only ever looks tired when he’s supposed to seem menacing or slightly untrustworthy. He’s checked out in only a slightly different way than Wahlberg it would appear.

Poor Ronda Rousey makes her film debut in Mile 22 and it’s rather embarrassing. Rousey plays Sam, one of Wahlberg’s lieutenants, and while she’s believably a badass, she is cringe inducing when attempting dialogue. Saddled with an expository scene with co-star Lauren Cohan, Rousey mumbles her way through a wince inducing exchange where she seemed about as natural as a mixed martial artist in a mud wrestling competition.

Mile 22 appears to have been edited with an eye toward satisfying absolutely no one. The film is hard to watch at times as Berg and his team slash cut from perspective shots to security camera footage in the most jarring fashion possible. Berg favors odd angles as well and thus the editing combined with the cantilevered angles and too loud soundtrack obscure the action and assault the senses all at once.

I have always disliked Berg’s fantasy approach to supposedly realistic action. His Lone Survivor with Wahlberg a few years ago had a real life story to tell but the violence was so cartoonish it obliterated the real life story. The stars of Lone Survivor may have been real life heroes but Berg’s cartoonish exploitation of their real life struggle rendered those men like animated caricatures, bulletproof and apparently made of rubber and steel rather than flesh and bone.

That same cartoonish violence and amping of the stakes beyond the point of believability is present in Mile 22 as well. Each character in Mile 22 suffers through a scene where they are injured to a degree that would be unsurvivable by an actual human being. And then, when they aren’t defying the ability of the human body, the odds are so heavily stacked against the survival  of our heroes that that we can’t help but laugh and wonder just how dumb or bad at their job the bad guys must be for the heroes to survive.

I don't understand how Mile 22 came to be. Mark Wahlberg and Peter Berg are a good team of director and actor. The last two Berg-Wahlberg movies, Patriot's Day and Deepwater Horizon, are legitimately good movies. Patriot's Day was one of the better movies of 2016, a legitimately emotionally involving action movie about the real life Boston Marathon bombing that felt visceral and alive. Here however, both director and leading man appear to be paycheck players who do not care a lick about the movie they're making or how remarkably bad that movie is. 

So, why is this movie called Mile 22? I am legitimately wondering why this movie is called Mile 22? I watched all of Mile 22, or what my mind could take before I had to look away to shake off the latest assault on my senses, and I still have no idea what the title is about. Perhaps it was a production title and they simply didn’t bother to change it? That would fit with how little anyone appears to care about the quality of Mile 22, one of the worst movies of 2018.

Movie Review Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris (2011) 

Directed by Woody Allen 

Written by Woody Allen 

Starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Allison Pill, Tom Hiddleston, Michael Sheen

Release Date May 20th, 2011 

Published May 19th, 2011 

Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" is even more magical and romantic than the title implies. The romance however, is not between Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams or Owen Wilson and Marion Cotillard but between Woody Allen and Paris. "Midnight in Paris" is a sappy love letter to the City of Lights and its glorious history as a home to hipsters, bohemians and intellectuals.

Owen Wilson is the stand in for Woody in "Midnight in Paris" essaying the role of miserable hack screenwriter Gil Pender. Gil is in Paris ahead of his wedding to Inez (Rachel McAdams) as a sort of pre-wedding gift from her obnoxious parents, John (Kurt Fuller) and Helen (Mimi Kennedy). Joining them, by chance, are a pair of Inez's friends, Paul (Michael Sheen) and Carol (Nina Arianda).

Gil is despised equally by Inez's parents and friends but this only enhances his character. While his days are spent being dictated to and insulted in equal comic measure, Gil's nights turn unexpectedly magical when a turn down just the right street leads to a chance encounter with Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald (Allison Pill and Tom Hiddleston).

When the clock strikes midnight in Paris Gil finds that he is transported back to the period that he has long glorified as the finest period of time and place anywhere in the world, Paris in the 1920's. Not only does Gil spend time with the Fitzgerald's and their pal Cole Porter (Yves Heck), he gets writing tips for his attempt at a novel from none other than Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll).

Hemingway introduces Gil to Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) who in turn introduces him to a dreamer much like himself, Adriana (Marion Cotillard.) While Gil glorifies her time period in the 20's she longs for the Paris of La Belle Epoque and the Moulin Rouge. The two have chemistry but is it romantic chemistry or merely a shared affinity for the safe confines of nostalgia? FYI, if you need to be told what La Belle Epoque means or how to identify the Moulin Rouge on screen, this is not the movie for you.

"Midnight in Paris" is a love letter to Paris but it is also Woody Allen at his absolute Woody-est. Owen Wilson is not the most likely of Woody Allen stand ins but he finds the perfect rhythm in "Midnight in Paris," a mixture of nervousness, excitement and an ebullient curiosity that is infectious and lively.

Woody Allen's canvas has always been the recesses of the psyche and "Midnight in Paris" is yet another trip deep into the caverns of the subconscious. Each of the legendary people that Gil encounters in "Midnight in Paris" is an extension of his sub-conscious from the Fitzgerald's who provide his ideal romance to Hemingway who is Gil's dashing alter-ego and finally Adriana who is essentially a mirror of his fears. I won't go any further than that as there is so much life and depth to be discovered in "Midnight in Paris."

"Midnight in Paris" stands in Woody Allen's canon among his greatest films; lively, funny, thoughtful and romantic with an acid wit for the philistine American blowhards and a romantic, unblemished memory of all things Paris in the 20's. It certainly won't appeal to everyone but to those who don't need a scorecard to tick off Allen's many references, it's just wonderful.

Movie Review Mid 90s

Mid-90s (2018) 

Directed by Jonah Hill 

Written by Jonah Hill 

Starring Sonny Suljic, Lucas Hedges, 

Release Date October 18th, 2018

Published October 17th, 2018 

No one would have predicted that the foul-mouthed teenager from Superbad and Knocked Up would grow into a two time Academy Award nominee and a genuine auteur. And yet, here we are with actor-writer-director Jonah Hill whose roles in Moneyball and The Wolf of Wall Street forced us to take notice of his acting talent and now Mid 90’s where we learn that he is a true and noble artist behind the scenes as well. 

Mid 90’s stars young Sonny Suljic as Stevie, a 13 year old boy making his first steps toward defining himself as a person. Stevie is shy and doesn’t have many friends. He idolizes his brother, Ian (Academy Award nominee Lucas Hedges), despite Ian’s more than brotherly bullying and violence. Early on, we see Stevie sneak into his brother’s bedroom so he can try on his brother’s life, looking through his clothes and hats and especially his collection of hip hop records. 

Ian doesn’t make it easy on his little brother, their 5 year age gap may as well be 10 or 20 years given how distant Ian is toward his little brother. Unable to connect at home, Stevie heads to the streets of Los Angeles where he falls in with a group of skateboarders. First, there is Ruben (Gio Galicia) who invites Stevie into the sphere of this tight clique as he seeks a small sidekick. Then there is Ray (Na-Kel Smith), a budding professional skateboarder, F---S--- (Olan Prenatt), a rich kid who rebels through skateboarding, drugs and alcohol and Fourth Grade (Ryder McLaughlin) a wannabe filmmaker. 

Stevie’s first experience with deep friendship becomes a little dangerous as he begins smoking, drinking and other experimental behaviors. It’s nothing that a lot of us didn’t get into at 13 but as presented here, with writer-director Jonah Hill’s raw honesty, it has the power of a cautionary tale without coming off as a scolding buzzkill. Hill’s work is wonderfully non-judgmental and observant and if you’re uncomfortable, you’re supposed to be. 

Many assume that a movie called Mid 90’s is intended as a nostalgia piece but what Jonah Hill has actually created is a thoughtful and quite funny observation of youth and identity. Stevie is on the search for his own identity for the first time. He is making the first tentative steps toward defining himself outside of his family, his mother (Katherine Waterston), and his older brother. His choices aren’t the best but they are his and they give him the opportunity to find himself. 

This search for identity is all in subtext but it is nevertheless the crux of this story being told in the Mid 90’s. There is a wonderfully small scene in the film between Katherine Waterston and Sonny Suljic that captures the separation of parent and child, in terms of identity, not physical location, that I found remarkably powerful. It’s a simple exchange where mom says to Stevie “It’s Blockbuster night, what should we watch?” Stevie rejects his mother and their tradition so he can go out on his skateboard and for a moment you can see hurt ripple across Katherine Waterston’s face. 

The hurt in this scene does not come from Stevie being insensitive, he’s not, but he’s unaware of how his mother sees this moment, how she’s just witnessed the first step in her son defining himself apart from her and her expectations and plans for him. She likely doesn’t realize the significance of the moment completely but that moment of minor rejection is palpable and Katherine Waterston plays the moment beautifully. 

The other standout scene, in a movie that brims with top notch moments, comes late in the movie and I will leave you to discover it. It’s a moment between Stevie and his older brother that is charged with emotion. As someone who grew up with a much older brother who was out of High School before I got to High School, I felt this moment so deeply and so personally that I was completely overwhelmed. You may have to have an older sibling to understand why this moment is so powerful but if you remain aware of the signifiers, you may just feel the effect as much as I did. 

If you idolized an older sibling the moments between Ian and Sonny will hit you like a ton of bricks. I had forgotten about my longing as a child to be friends with my older brother. Like Stevie, I used to sneak into my brother’s room and would pay the price in brotherly violence. I wanted to hold his guitar and feel for a moment what it was like to be him. He didn’t know it, but he was my idol but part of growing up was coming to see him as human and Mid 90’s nails that similar moment for Stevie, a moment where his brother becomes human and not the embodiment of youthful ideals. 

In his very first directorial effort, Jonah Hill has delivered a genuine masterpiece of style and character. Mid 90’s is funny, heartrending, thoughtful and observant. The characters are vital and lively and the story flows from scene to scene beautifully. The sun-baked cinematography and the laid back tone come together brilliantly to underline the ongoing tension of the story of Stevie coming of age and finding out who he is. 

I adore Mid 90’s. This is one of the best movies of 2018

Movie Review: Alone in the Dark

Alone in the Dark (2005) 

Directed by Uwe Boll

Written by Elan Mastel, Michael Roesch, Peter Scheerer 

Starring Christian Slater, Matthew Walker, Tara Reid, Stephen Dorff

Release Date January 28th, 2005 

Published January 27th, 2005 

German born Director Uwe Boll did not exactly set the world on fire with his first atrocious major motion picture, the horror video game adaptation House Of The Dead. Yet, because of the films low budget, success can be judged by lowered standards. Thus it's not entirely surprising to see Mr. Boll directing another low budget horror film based on a video game. What is a little surprising is that he was unable to improve on one of the worst films from any director in history.

Christian Slater, a long way from Heathers, stars as paranormal detective Edward Carnby, a former member of a secret government agency that fights the forces of evil. Now working freelance, Edward has just intercepted a rare Indian artifact and someone wants to kill him to get it. Turns out the artifact is part of a key that could unlock the gate to hell.

The bad guy chasing the artifact is Professor Hudgens (Matthew Walker) who, thanks to his assistant and Edward's ex-girlfriend, Aline (Tara Reid), has assembled all but one part of the key. The Professor has more links to Edward's past as well.  He was involved in some strange way with the disappearance of Edward and the entire population of his childhood orphanage.

The orphans, except Edward who escaped, were turned into zombie assassins who could be called only by Professor Hudgens. He calls when he is ready to open the gate to hell and it's up to Edward, his ex-girlfriend, and his former colleagues at that secret government group led by Stephen Dorff to kill the zombies and stop the Professor from opening the gate. There are also some demons from hell that are unleashed to provide some CGI carnage but God help me if I can remember why the hell they were in the movie.

Poor Christian Slater. He used to be so cool. Pump Up The Volume, Heathers even Broken Arrow, Slater had the calm sardonic cool that you can't teach. Even in a bad picture like 1992's cop comedy Kuffs Slater had the ability to bring charm to a charmless and idiotic plot. In Alone In The Dark, you sit and you wait for him to crack wise, to show how much smarter he is than the movie he's trapped in, but it never comes. Slater just looks tired, as if he has just given up and resigned himself to fate as a straight to video actor. That's a real shame.

The rest of the cast actually seems right at home in this awful material, especially Stephen Dorff who chews the scenery like a B-movie legend. Listening to Dorff bark his every line as if belting every word to the back of the theater is almost camp enough to be entertaining. Alas he can't resist taking himself and this ridiculous movie seriously as something that might actually scare someone. Like with his stolid performance in Fear Dot Com, Dorff earnestly believes he's making a good movie and that makes his performance more sad than laughable.

Director Uwe Boll is a hack, plain and simple. He is a directorial machine, built to transcribe bad scripts to filmed images. Whether those images coalesce into anything resembling a movie seems to be none of his concern.

Missing from the plot is any kind of motivation for Professor Hudgens to open the gate to hell. The professor has very little backstory for explanation, aside from turning orphans into future zombies, so the only explanation is that the professor has a case of the "movie evils". "Movie evils" occur when a movie character does something horribly evil only because the plot requires it. The professor does not benefit from opening the gate, and seems perfectly aware of what will happen if he does open it. If he has any demonstrable motivation it was left on the cutting room floor.

But hey, who needs character motivation or a coherent plot when you've got oodles of fake blood, dummie bullets and CGI demons. In a so-bad-it's-good movie that might be all that you need in order to provide some giddy cheap thrills. Unfortunately Alone In The Dark is much too dour and takes itself way too seriously for any real good camp, aside from casting Tara Reid as a scientist, HA! That's pretty funny, but they did not mean it to be a joke amazingly enough.

Watching Alone in the Dark makes me wonder-- with its imbecilic plot, bad special effects and dull witted characters, was it even a very good video game? A gamer friend of mine told me that there has not been a new Alone video game since Playstation 1 sometime in the late nineties. So why did this game get the big screen treatment?

Asking that question is as futile as asking why Uwe Boll continues to get directing assignments when clearly his real talent is inhumane torture. Or maybe it's Svengali-ism, how else to explain how he has convinced real life professional actors that he is a filmmaker.

I hate to ruin your appetite, movie fans, but indeed Mr. Boll will have another horror video game adaptation very soon. Bloodrayne stars Sir Ben Kingsley and will be in theaters early 2006. Just what we have done to deserve this I do not know but repenting our sinful ways might be a good idea before some other obscure video game receives a script commitment and comes knocking on ol' Uwe's door.

Movie Review: After the Sunset

After the Sunset (2004) 

Directed by Brett Ratner 

Written by Paul Zbyszewski, Craig Rosenberg 

Starring Pierce Brosnan, Salma Hayek, Woody Harrelson, Don Cheadle, Naomie Harris

Release Date November 12th, 2004 

Published November 11th, 2004 

Director Brett Ratner has a flair for escapist action junk.  He is the man behind the Rush Hour series. His latest escapist mainstream popcorn fare is After The Sunset, a heist comedy that is lacking a good heist and some comedy but does feature a supremely hot Salma Hayek in various stages of undress. Sometimes even bad movies have a bright side.

Pierce Brosnan stars as Max, a master thief with a particular affinity for the very rare Napoleon diamonds. What he seems to enjoy even more than the diamonds however is humiliating FBI agent Stan Lloyd, (Woody Harrelson) who is guarding the diamonds and who was held responsible when Max lifted the first one. As the story requires, Max once again humiliates Stan in a convoluted little plot with remote control cars, cat and mouse antics at a basketball game, and finally a gunshot wound for Max, though nothing serious enough to keep him from the diamond. 

The heist would not be possible without Max's better half Lola (Hayek) who runs important interference on the heist and even gets to wear a neat costume. It is Lola who decides that they are now retired and she who chooses their retirement home on a gorgeous unnamed Caribbean tourist trap island. She's happy but Max is miserable with no loot to steal and no agent Lloyd to mess with.  He is bored stiff.

Then out of the blue pops agent Lloyd and a cruise ship that just happens to be carrying the third Napoleon diamond, the only one Max hasn't stolen....allegedly. Can Max resist the temptation of the complicated and once again convoluted and over-wrought pilfering opportunity and another chance to show up Stan or will he follow Lola's admonition that they are retired and it's not worth the risk. Whether he steals the diamond or not he is guaranteed to be involved because of a local gangster (Don Cheadle) who threatens to kill him if he won't help lift the diamond.

Pierce Brosnan is trying hard to settle into post-Bond  life, though he still has one more Bond yet to come. Sadly Brosnan once again misfires on his image makeover. Brosnan is a stiff and casting him as a colorful thief in colorful surroundings only serves to show off his weakest qualities. He's charming and handsome and so very, very boring when compared to his co-stars and even the sunrise of the title is far more interesting than anything Brosnan brings to this film.

If they really wanted to have some fun with After The Sunset they should have switched a few of the roles around. Have Cheadle play the thief, Harrelson the American gangster running the island and Brosnan the straight-laced FBI guy. That at least would give Don Cheadle something more to do than just show up when the plot needs him to look mean. For some reason I can really imagine him sparking with Salma Hayek as well, something Brosnan fails at miserably.

For his part Director Brett Ratner is his calculated mainstream self. Always well aware of what test audiences are looking for, Ratner ratchets up the formula story, the recognizable faces and the entirely "lowest common denominator" plot that only few will find complicated or surprising. I will say this for Ratner, his camera loves Salma Hayek and finds new and wonderful ways of capturing her magnificent form.

As the plot clicks away through poorly executed buddy humor and lazy action setups with little if any payoff the one thing that is clear about the making of After The Sunset is that everyone on the crew must have gotten a nice tan and plenty of umbrella drinks. Otherwise there isn't much reason for this film to exist at all. This is a vacation for all involved, a chance to go to paradise on a studio dime. Can't say I blame them for living it up but would it have killed them to make a halfway decent film while they were sunning themselves?

Movie Review: A Very Long Engagement

A Very Long Engagement (2004)

Directed by Jean Pierre Jeunet 

Written by Jean Pierre Jeunet 

Starring Audrey Tautou, Gaspard Ulliel, Ticky Holgado, Jodie Foster

Release Date October 27th, 2004 

Published December 25th, 2004 

French Director Jean Pierre Jeunet can pack more artistry into one scene than most American directors conjure up in an entire career. For his latest effort, A Very Long Engagement, Mr. Jeunet has topped himself with a strikingly beautiful work that evokes an early twentieth century postcard and a grim Private Ryan-esque war picture. The mixture works because Jeunet is more imaginative and daring than many more well known or better compensated directors in the world.

Audrey Tautou, whom Jeunet made a star of in his last picture Amelie, stars here as Mathilde, a starry eyed romantic twenty year-old who lives every day awaiting the return of her fiancé Manech (Gaspard Ulliel). Even after receiving word from the war office that Manech has been killed, she refuses to accept it. Thus begins a journey, a mystery that will take her from the French countryside to Paris to the frontlines of WW1.

Through Mathilde's numerous inquiries into Manech's fate we see several different versions of what happened from soldiers and those with second hand recounting. With the help of an oddball private eye named Pire (Ticky Holgado), we learn that Manech was one of five French soldiers sentenced to death for self-infliction of wounds. The death sentence was carried out by sending the soldiers into what was called no man's land, the area between the French and German encampments on the frontlines.

Five dead men, five different explanations that range from the expected to the surprising to the miraculous. With the help of family, friends, and fellow soldiers, Mathilde pieces together a mystery that relies a little too much on chance and coincidence, but is too well directed and populated with too many great characters to not work.

Director Jean Pierre Jeunet puts more artistic imagination into one scene in A Very Long Engagement than we have seen in every mainstream feature in 2005, not that that is a very high standard. With Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel and some stunning CGI, Mr. Jeunet casts an amber glow over all of A Very Long Engagement that gives the film an aged look that fits the World War I time period. This is a remarkably beautiful looking movie and it is no surprise it was nominated for the Oscar in Cinematography.

For her part Audrey Tautou delivers another star defining performance. At once dramatic and precocious, Ms. Tautou awesomely conveys Mathilde's naivete and determination. She is aided by a terrific supporting cast of oddballs, tough guys and simply great actors, including Jodie Foster as the wife of one of the five soldiers, and Marion Cotillard as the girlfriend of one of the five soldiers who murders her way through the same mystery as Mathilde.

Director Jean Pierre Jeunet is a gift to true film fans. A director who cares about all aspects of his films, the visual and the scripted page. Unlike some of the assembly line hacks working in mainstream Hollywood who simply transcribe the scripted page to the screen with no imagination or thought, Mr. Jeunet carefully crafts every scene for maximum effect. A Very Long Engagement is yet another example of his genius.

Documentary Review Michael Jackson This is It

Michael Jackson's This is It (2009) 

Directed by Kenny Ortega 

Written by Michael Jackson 

Starring Michael Jackson 

Release Date October 26th, 2009 

Published October 25th, 2009 

The morbid truth of Michael Jackson's This is It is that many in the audience will spend much of the film's 2 hour run time searching for clues to how Michael Jackson died. Shot just weeks before his death on June 30th 2009, This Is It shockingly shows a Michael Jackson who is lithe, agile, adroit and in control. A musical auteur crafting his music like a pro and creating a whole new musical experience that could have changed his legacy.

The Michael Jackson of This Is It does not look like a drug addict or a man in desperate pain. Granted, these two hours were cut from likely hundreds of hours of footage where Jackson's troubles may have been readily apparent. Nevertheless, based on what we see, Jackson is healthy and mentally he's not merely aware he is adept and fully in control, in fact he is the vision of a visionary artist.

The footage compiled for This Is It was meant for Michael's private collection. After he died Michael's family and business partners convinced Jackson's friend and This Is It director Joe Ortega to cut the footage and give fans one last glimpse of The King Of Pop. Ortega has done that and more giving us the musical legacy of Michael as well as glimpses of a star who never whined or cried, never acted like a diva, but a perfectionist and a creator.

It is the vision of Michael Jackson that fans, I'm sure, wish were the dominant image of Jackson rather than the alien figure of tabloid headlines. It is a sad irony that Jackson's death would deliver this change in Jackson's fortune, warping his image back to icon from oddball.

It's sadder still that the potential of This Is It, the actual London performances, could have done what his death seems to have done, restored Michael's legend. From the footage in This Is It, you can see such a spectacle and so much raw, visionary talent, that you can't help but speculate that Michael, barring any more odd behavior, might have clawed his way back to icon status.

The mystery of Michael Jackson's death provides an eerie and morbid fascination but the lasting impact of This Is It may be as the final word on Michael Jackson's legacy, beyond the oddity, the talent wins out and Michael goes into history as a remarkable singer and visionary showman. Oh, what might have been,

Movie Review Miami Vice

Miami Vice (2006) 

Directed by Michael Mann 

Written by Michael Mann 

Starring Colin Farrell, Jamie Foxx, Gong Li, Naomi Harris, Ciaran Hinds, Justin Theroux

Release Date July 28th, 2006 

Published July 27th, 2006 

Miami Vice the movie bares little resemblance to Miami Vice the TV show. Gone are the warm pastel colors, the linen suits and the alligators kept as pets. The trivial elements of the TV show are gone, replaced by a gritty sense of reality. Director Michael Mann, who created the TV show back in 1984, has eliminated the cheese factor of the TV show but in doing so also jettisoned the shows sense of humor and fun in favor of a grim belabored police procedural that is so consumed with presenting a realistic portrayal of the inner workings of being an undercover cop that it forgets to be entertaining.

Not that Miami Vice is a bad movie, hardly. In typically Michael Mann fashion, Miami Vice is sexy and violent with an air of undeniable cool.

Sonny Crocket (Colin Farrell) and Ricardo Tubbs (Jamie Foxx) are partners who, when we meet them, are about to take down a prostitution ring. Before the bust can go down however, Crockett gets a call from a frantic former informant, Alonzo (John Hawkes), who babbles about not having given up Crockett and Tubbs. Having given Alonzo to the feds, Crockett and Tubbs know that something bad is about to go down.

A group of white supremacists, cutting deals with Colombian drug lords, used Alonzo to ferret out FBI undercover agents and have killed them. Now only Crockett and Tubbs can go undercover and take down the supremacists and the Colombians headed up by Jose Yero (John Ortiz) and his partner Isabella (Gong Li). They work for another man, an untouchable named Arcangel (Luis Tosar). The game Crockett and Tubbs run involves inserting themselves into the transportation operations of the Colombians using high speed boats and planes.

The plot of Miami Vice is typical cops and criminals stuff that many other directors have presented before. Mann's only real twist on it is in indulging his love of the procedure of being an undercover cop. Mann loves the planning that goes into an undercover operation, he loves the execution and conclusion. Unfortunately his love only extends to a mere presentation of the facts of procedure. He fails to make these procedures come to life in an engaging and entertaining way.

Miami Vice is as slick and stylish as the TV series ever was. The difference comes in the general tone which is not merely serious but rather angry. Farrell and Foxx play Crockett and Tubbs as scowling, grim faced thugs with zero humor who only become human when they are bedding beautiful woman, Farrell bedding down the lovely Gong Li in a passion free subplot and Foxx in a simmering scene with a fellow undercover officer played by Naomie Harris.

Colin Farrell continues his war with stardom in Miami Vice by delivering yet another glum charisma free performance. Like his Alexander The Great, Farrell's Sonny Crockett is a mumble mouthed downer who barely sparks to life even when bedding a beautiful woman. His intensity does pick up near the end during a climactic gun battle but for most of the film Farrell is pissed off at some point in the distance that he keeps staring at.

Oscar winner Jamie Foxx deserves better than a role that has him playing second fiddle to Farrell. Where Farrell is mumbling and charisma free, Foxx gives a charge to his few featured scenes. There is simply no explanation why Michael Mann gives most of the movie away to Farrell while keeping the multiple Oscar nominee Foxx in the background. More Foxx, less Farrell, better movie.

One of the few things that Mann's Miami Vice movie excels in is hot transportation. The boat, the Donzi triple engine ZF -one of two different boats used in the film- is pure speed on water. The plane, the Adam A500 twin engine, is state of the art with props on the front and back for speed and maneuverability. And, of course the cars are hot and make you wonder just how police departments are spending your tax dollars. The Bentley that gets blown to smithereens certainly would set the average undercover unit back a pretty penny

Regardless of the many problems with Miami Vice there is still much to enjoy about the film. Michael Mann's direction is typically assured and his violence is first rate. Watch for a standoff scene between the Vice squad and some trailer dwelling white supremacists. Actress Elizabeth Rodriguez stars in this scene delivering a very quick, very powerful monologue before dispatching the scene with a violent flourish.

For Michael Mann violence is like a symphony building to grand awesome crescendos. From the street gun battle in Heat to Tom Cruise's charging nightclub chase in Collateral to the final gun battle in Miami Vice, Michael Mann proves himself a master conductor of screen violence. The action in Miami Vice is quick and visceral like a concerto at 33 rpm's. The blood that is spilled is spilled quickly and splatters with the explosive power of real bullets.

The look of Miami Vice, grainy, gritty digital video, bathes the picture in a documentary realism that is at odds with the mundane presentation of the plot. Michael Mann's obsession with the behind the scenes of an undercover cop plot never really gets any entertaining momentum. When Farrell, Foxx and their team are planning the next phase of their operation the film lapses into serious tedium that lasts even as they begin to get into the action where Mann excels.

Deeply flawed as an entertaining action movie, Miami Vice is undeniably artful and even at times very cool. With a more charismatic lead performance, a little more Jamie Foxx, and a little less of the inside baseball on being an undercover cop, Miami Vice could have been quite an awesome picture. As it is I recommend it for fans of Michael Mann, women who love to ogle Colin Farrell, and fans of screen violence.

For everyone else Miami Vice is just another TV spinoff.