Movie Review Letters to Juliet

Letters to Juliet (2010) 

Directed by Gary Winick 

Written by Jose Rivera, Tim Sullivan 

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Christopher Egan, Gael Garcia Bernal, Vanessa Redgrave

Release Date May 14th, 2010

Published May 15th, 2010

“Letters to Juliet” could be a very good movie. The premise is engaging and unique and the star, Amanda Seyfried, is so cute that I suspect kittens want to hold her. Sadly, as directed by Gary Winick, “Letters to Juliet” is a wit free wannabe weepy that adheres so closely to formula that one wonders if Winick was threatened with execution if he attempted any innovation.

”Letters to Juliet” stars Amanda Seyfried as Sophie, an American girl traveling to Verona Italy with her restaurateur fiancée (Gael Garcia Bernal) for a little romance and a lot of his business. While the fiancée runs off to collect high end wines and learn new recipes, Sophie heads for the tourist traps beginning with the legendary home of Juliet Capulet.

Shakespeare's “Romeo and Juliet” was set in Verona and the townspeople with a good eye for tourist capturing, have an ancient house with just the right kind of balcony to stand in for Juliet's home. Year after year heartbroken women leave their romantic wishes on the wall.

Over time another group of women have voluntarily gathered the letters to Juliet and set about answering them. Sophie witnesses the gathering of the letters and meets Juliet's secretaries. A writer herself, Sophie accepts an invitation to answer some letters while the fiancée continues his business.

While collecting the letters to Juliet, Sophie finds one that had not been found in nearly 50 years. The letter is from a 15 year old girl named Claire who met the man of her dreams in Verona but has succumbed to family pressures to leave him and return to England. She wants to know if she did the right thing or whether she should return to Italy. 

Sophie writes back and her romantic notions inspire the now 65 year old Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) to return and find out what happened to her lover Lorenzo Bartolini (Franco Nero). Along for the ride, tsk tsk-ing all the way, is Claire's grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) who opposes the trip and holds special enmity for Sophie for inspiring the journey.

Naturally, Sophie offers to join the search for Lorenzo and thus begins a romantic journey across Italy. Or at least, that was the idea.

”Letters to Juliet” sadly is so forced and predictable that it becomes impossible to enjoy even the minor pleasures it has. Amanda Seyfried is an actress who is easy to enjoy. She has a great smile and most notably those great big eyes. It’s hard not to  root for her in a romantic situation and yet “Letters to Juliet” somehow fails to capture that. 

Director Gary Winick adheres to such a dull formula that even the most forgiving audience will have a hard time not deconstructing what doesn't work about it. Worst of the lot is poor Gael Garcia Bernal as the straw man fiancée. Placed as a roadblock to Sophie being with Charlie, Bernal's character is never formidable and instead exists to be awful and irritating enough that we don't mind seeing him cuckolded.

Spoiler alert, Sophie and Charlie are made for each other. They hate each other at first sight. They are forced together on a road trip. They have important things in common. Not for one moment is there an inkling of tension over whether Sophie and Charlie will be together and thus the movie meanders pointlessly toward its predicted conclusion. 

The same lack of tension, drama or humor exists in Claire's search for Lorenzo. The same scene repeats several times as Claire meets a man named Lorenzo, quickly figures out that this colorful weirdo is not her Lorenzo and back in the car we go. We know from the trailer that she finds him and since the film is about Sophie and Charlie, the romantic reunion and its aftermath are an afterthought. 

It's hard to hate a movie set in Italy. The wonderful landscapes and colorful people make for fantastic movie scenery. Oftentimes in “Letters to Juliet” you will notice that Cinematographer Marco Pontecorvo gets as lost as we do in the scenery, letting his stars slip into the background as he loses himself in the glories of the setting.

Pontecorvo's occasional distraction makes for some fun, unintentional comedy, but that is really the lone pleasure one can take from “Letters to Juliet.”

Yes, I realize punishing a romantic comedy for being predictable is like punishing a horror film for too much killing but Letters to Juliet really is lazier than most other romances in the ways it adheres to formula. Add that to the assets that the film wastes, including Seyfried's cuteness and Vanessa Redgrave's grace, and the whole thing becomes worse than just being lazy and formulaic.

Movie Review Human Centipede The First Sequence

Human Centipede The First Sequence (2010) 

Directed by Tom Six 

Written by Tom Six 

Starring Dieter Laser, Ashley C. Williams, Ashlynn Yennie, Akihiro Kitamura 

Release Date April 30th, 2010 

Published September 15th, 2010

Let's not be coy about this, you know exactly what “Human Centipede” is about. You aren't reading this out of curiosity about the movie; you want to know just how sick it is. You are wondering just how sick “Human Centipede” made this critic. It has sickened numerous others and the premise and that level of sickness has fostered your fascination.

So let's get to it then, how sick is “Human Centipede?” On an upchuck scale “Human Centipede” stood at two near pukes but surprisingly no actual projectile vomiting. Yes, I managed to keep my dinner down while watching “Human Centipede,” a feat I count myself proud of. The premise alone had my stomach flip flopping as I placed the DVD in the player.

The premise could not be more vile, a twisted German surgeon, Doctor Heiter (Dieter Laser), wishes to create a human centipede. He captures subjects, two doltish American girls, Lindsey (Ashley C. Williams) and Jenny (Ashlynn Yennie) with the bad luck to have stalled their car outside the Doc's home and an unlucky Asian fellow, Katsuro (Akihiro Kitamura) who the doctor hunted down with his trusty dart gun.

With his subjects drugged in his lab he sets about explaining his plan. He will fuse the subjects via the digestive system by sewing them mouth to anus. The calm with which Dr. Heiter imparts this information to his victims is arguably as disturbing as the actual surgery which takes place shortly after time is passed with perfunctory escape attempt by one of the American girls.

We are aware, and director Tom Six makes little pretense of our being aware, that this escape attempt is merely a way of padding the film's run time. We know the doctor's experiment will be successful; the inescapable fact of the hype surrounding “Human Centipede” stipulates that a human centipede must be delivered otherwise there is no reason for the hype to exist.

Credit Tom Six for tacitly acknowledging the padding and yet using the time well to craft some strong visuals that set up other strong visuals later. Indeed, “Human Centipede” is a shockingly crisp looking film with strong angles and bright clean lines. Never before has such striking cinematography been used to present something so utterly vile. Great talent has been spent to bring us the “Human Centipede.”

So, does this mean I like and recommend “Human Centipede?” This is not as easy a question as it would seem. I must admit the film is insanely effective. Tom Six sets out with very particular goals and achieves them with great panache. Every feeling he wishes to impart to the audience is felt. You cannot escape how compelled you are to feel exactly the dread, disgust and horror that Tom Six is seeking with “Human Centipede.”

It's all so professional and strangely restrained. While one will be expecting something truly, awe inspiringly sick, what you get in “Human Centipede” is something even more twisted and ingenious. Yes, you see the human centipede and you see some sick visuals of these three people moving as one with their mouths where no mouth should ever be. Yet, the sick questions are not answered in a visual fashion. Six leaves in the audiences’ minds the twisted practical questions about the predicament facing the victims.

Please tell me you know what I mean by practical questions because one of the great horrors of “Human Centipede” is pondering for too long the excretory concerns, among other things that make up those practical questions. In this way, “Human Centipede” has the genius of the shark in “Jaws;” it's all about what you don't see.

It's clear that I appreciate things about “Human Centipede.” So why am I reluctant to recommend the film? It's rather simple now that I think about it, how does one recommend an experience like this? How can I possibly recommend you see a movie about victims’ sewn together mouth to anus? It's just too twisted. If you are someone who wants this experience I don't really want to know that about you.

Hey, I have to see this movie. As a critic, watching movies is my job. Seeing “Human Centipede” and writing about it is what I do. You have the option to not have this experience and not share the nightmares that are fading for me a day later. There is simply no way to recommend you see this movie even as it is a dastardly effective and well crafted horror movie.

Movie Review: Death at a Funeral

Death at a Funeral (2010) 

Directed by Neil Labute 

Written by Dean Craig 

Starring Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Loretta Devine, Regina Hall, Zoe Saldana, Luke Wilson

Release Date April 16th, 2010 

Published April 16th, 2010 

Director Neil Labute has a terrific eye for human behavior. It's a very particular and often quite dim view of humanity that lead to brutal yet insightful films like In the Company of Men and his magnum opus of anger and inhumanity Your Friends and Neighbors. Yet, there is also a brilliantly whimsical side to the director of the dark side of humanity.

In Nurse Betty Neil Labute took the cute as a button Renee Zellweger and had her play a woman who falls in love with a soap opera character following a psychotic break brought on by witnessing the violent murder of her brutish husband. From there begins a road picture and a strangely romantic and wondrous performance from Morgan Freeman as the killer who falls for Betty from afar. 

The strange comic sensibilities of Nurse Betty were a turn off for many audiences but for me it was a remarkable insight into a filmmaker who is tuned to a very different wavelength than most other filmmakers or other human beings in general. It is this quality that makes Neil Labute perfect for the new comedy Death at a Funeral. What other director could find so much wacky fun at a funeral? 

Chris Rock stars in Death at a Funeral as Aaron the oldest son of a family that just lost its patriarch. Aaron is a tax attorney who longs to be a novelist and lives in the shadow of his slightly younger brother Ryan (Martin Lawrence) a successful writer of trashy novels. This however is the least of Aaron's troubles as he has his wife Michelle (Regina Hall) pushing to have a baby and his mother Cynthia (Loretta Devine) constantly on the verge of a meltdown.

Oh and then there is the issue of the funeral home delivering the wrong body. Yikes! Among the funeral guests are Aaron's cousin Elaine (Zoe Saldana) and her boyfriend Oscar (James Marsden) who dreads seeing Elaine's father (Ron Glass) who has made it clear how much he hates Oscar. They are joined by Elaine's brother Jeff (Columbus Short) a minor drug dealer whose pill concoction is set to make trouble at the funeral.

Family friend Norman (Tracey Morgan) and his pal Derek (Luke Wilson) each have a different purpose at the funeral. Norman is helping out by bringing cranky Uncle Russell (Danny Glover) to the funeral while Derek will be seeking out Elaine with whom he has a romantic past that he hopes to rekindle. 

And then there is a mystery guest. Peter Dinklage plays Frank, the same role he played in the original British version of Death at a Funeral in 2007. Frank holds the key to a major subplot that drives the middle portion of the film to a wild climax that though it comes up a little short by being too easy, does not fail so completely as to sink the whole film. 

Death at a Funeral brilliantly builds comic momentum from the opening scenes involving the wrong body in the casket to the reveal of Frank's secret to Oscar's wild drug infused ride to finally sitting everyone down for the actual funeral. It's remarkable how Labute keeps all of these comic plates spinning and pays off each set piece with a big, big laugh. 

The cast of Death at a Funeral is first rate with Marsden stealing scene after scene with his acid trip wackiness while Chris Rock grounds the film by bringing the craziness back to earth with exasperated truthfulness. Rock is used to driving the comedy by prodding the actors around him with his in your face style. Here, Rock is more relaxed than ever before and it suits him. He may not be pushing the edges but his punchlines are just as strong. 

Neil Labute worked from a script that is credited to original Death at a Funeral writer Dean Craig. Indeed the characters, set pieces and other aspects of the story are almost entirely unchanged from the 2007 film. What is different is the perspective Labute and his cast brings to the picture. There is more willingness by all involved to explore the black comedy side (not a racial observation) of a story that is after all a comedy set at a funeral. 

Especially interesting is the exploration of gay panic, something that in African American circles is an especially touchy subject. This part will contain spoilers so skip to the last paragraph if you hate spoilers, Rock and Lawrence in the film's main plot deftly balance horror, acceptance and humor at the prospect of their father's homosexuality. I would have liked to see a little more attention paid to this subject, it's wrapped up a little too neatly in Rock's closing speech, but overall well handled and bold for merely being in the movie. 

Death at a Funeral is wacky and smart, slapsticky but with an eye for the laughs that don't involve bodies being dumped out of caskets. I could have done without the gross-out moments with Tracey Morgan and Danny Glover, which I will not detail here, but it's not so horrible that it ruins the film. Nor does the relatively comfy wrap up at the film’s end take away from the big laughs and wonderful discomfort of Death at a Funeral.

Movie Review: Why Did I Get Married Too

Why Did I Get Married Too (2010) 

Directed by Tyler Perry 

Written by Tyler Perry 

Starring Janet Jackson, Malik Yoba, Sharon Leal, Tyler Perry, Jill Scott 

Release Date April 2nd, 2010 

I was very surprised when I saw Tyler Perry's “Why Did I Get Married?” It was nothing like Perry's overwrought Madea comedies with their wild shifts of plot and Perry's disturbing drag character. Married was warm and erudite with a simple set up, characters that connected in real ways and a real honesty to the way each marriage and friendship was portrayed. Returning to these terrific characters Perry finds new truths and insights but unfortunately succumbs to some of his worst crowd pleasing instincts.

“Why Did I Get Married Too?” reintroduces us to 4 couples who get together every year to renew their friendships, get away from their kids and remind themselves why they got married. There is Patricia (Janet Jackson) and Gavin (Malik Yoba), the unofficial ringleaders because, it's assumed, they have the best marriage.

There is Terry (Tyler Perry, minus the dress and wig) and Diane (Sharon Leal) seemingly passed their issues with raising kids. Angela (Tasha Smith) and Marcus (Michael Jai White) still dealing with their infidelity and trust issues and even Marcus getting a job hasn't eased their tensions.

Finally there is the continuing drama of Sheila and her new husband Troy (Lamman Tucker). They met when the couples were in Colorado last get together and have married and moved to Atlanta. Unfortunately, Troy is having a hard time finding a job, adding a bit of stress to paying for the yearly jaunt with friends, this time in the Bahamas.

Making matters worse for Sheila and Troy is the unexpected arrival of her ex Mike (Richard T. Jones) who finds out about Troy's troubles and makes things worse by needling him about it. Mike also claims to still be harboring feelings for Sheila and longs to get her alone for a moment. When he does get Sheila alone? Wow, a big scene for Jill Scott that may leave some dabbing away tears.

The trip to the Bahamas encompasses about the first hour or so of “Why Did I Get Married Too?” and does well to remind us of these characters we care about while setting the stakes for new discoveries about each of them and the new conflicts that will drive the plot.

Sadly, once the story returns to the mainland in Atlanta things go from warm yet tense to overwrought and soapy. Tyler Perry's Madea movies have always been about delivering obvious social commentary wrapped in wild, over the top comedy. He eluded those instincts in the first film allowing the film to flow naturally even through scenes that audiences were not going to be comfortable with, including scenes of extended dialogue uninterrupted by forced humor or Madea schtick. Given Perry's history these scenes were downright daring.

The second half of “Why Did I Get Married Too?” doesn't make us suffer Madea eruptions but it does indulge Perry's taste for forced dramatics, forced humor and generally overdone theatrics that take the place of the drama the screenplay fails to create. Credit this exemplary cast for managing to keep us involved even as they are forced to overplay scene after scene.

“Why Did I Get Married Too?” fails to capture the heart, humor and smarts of “Why Did I Get Married?” Writer and director Tyler Perry cannot resist the pull of simple minded over-dramatics that easily manipulate an audience toward the wanted to response. It's the same forced crowd pleasing style that has wounded each of his Madea movies. With each forced moment the promise Perry showed with the original Married slips away.

What a shame, “Why Did Get Married?” seemed like a revelation and a promise. “Why Did I Get Married Too?” squanders that promise and reveals Perry as an artist driven by the fear of not pleasing his audience rather than serving what is best for his story and trusting that the audience will follow along.

Movie Review: Why Did I Get Married?

Why Did I Get Married? (2007)

Directed by Tyler Perry

Written by Tyler Perry

Starring Janet Jackson, Malik Yoba, Tasha Smith, Michael Jai White, Richard T. Jones, Jill Scott

Release Date October 12th, 2007

Published October 13th, 2007

Filmmaker Tyler Perry had a number of interesting ideas sprinkled within his over the top dramas Diary of A Mad Black Woman and Madea's Family Reunion. Those ideas unfortunately, were overshadowed by Perry's bizarre need to dress in drag and play the matronly Madea character. This larger than life character could be entertaining but he/she was also a hurricane that destroyed the reality surrounding her/him.

One moment would be deeply dramatic, the next minute Madea storms through and we are taken out of the moment. Perry smartly leaves Madea behind in Why Did I Get Married and his interesting ideas now have a functioning reality to work within. Smart, funny and with a great big heart, Why Did I Get Married is the most mature and professional work of Tyler Perry's career.

Four couples get together year after year for a joint vacation and therapy session. For one week these couples talk about everything in their relationships and ask the honest and forthright question, why did I get married? That is also the title of the book written by Patricia (Janet Jackson) who is happily married to Gavin (Malik Yoba) and acts as unofficial counselor of the group.

Joining Patricia and Gavin for the weekend are the seemingly stable Terry and Diane, the erratic and bickering Angela (Tasha Smith) and Marcus (Michael Jai White) and the completely failing Sheila (Jill Scott) and Mike (Richard T. Jones) who show up separately though Mike does not come alone. For one week in a Colorado cabin secrets will be revealed, fights will be had and each of the couples will face crises that threaten their stability.

Tyler Perry has one of the most loyal followings in all of film, almost a cult. I never understood before but after Why Did I Get Married, I'm beginning to understand. Perry makes movies that no one else is making. I'm not just talking about films aimed at African American audiences, though that's true. Rather, I'm talking about the stories he tells, the issues he confronts. Few filmmakers have the patience or interest in these subjects.

Why Did I Get Married isn't just about marriage, fidelity, family or faith but it uses these characters, these couples to explore each of these issues with depth and understanding. Some points are simplified but the film rarely devolves to overarching melodrama. Perry's storytelling is calm and assured and never goes out it's way to be dramatic.

Perry's naturalism, the easy rapport he has with his actors, each contribute to the good natured, familiar vibe of Why Did I Get Married. This is a movie of great humor and great heart with characters you quickly come to care about. The material is naturally dramatic and Perry deftly handles the drama by establishing what is at stake in each of these relationships and resolving them in ways that are suitably dramatic but also realistic. 

Tyler Perry made a mistake in his first two films putting himself in drag as the character Madea and distracting from the many interesting and important themes he was tackling. The drag conceit was far too jokey and amateurish and, especially in the otherwise quite serious Diary of Mad Black Woman, made it impossible to take the films seriously despite their deeply meaningful intentions.

Abandoning the Madea character does wonders for Perry's dramatic intentions. Without the drag queen distraction, Perry is free to make strong points about love, marriage, family and faith in easier to swallow bites. Without Madea, Perry seems smarter and higher minded. We can now take seriously what was once seen as foolishness.

Few filmmakers deal with the issues that Perry brings to the fore and he is to be commended for that. More often filmmakers examine these issues sub textually, within genre conceits. Perry takes on marital and family issues head on and has some very interesting things to say.

It seems blasphemous to compare Tyler Perry to Woody Allen or Ingmar Bergman but in dealing so directly and honestly with relationship material, Perry is in their tradition. Less angsty and much more of a softy and a romantic, Perry bravely tackles the kind of issues that most filmmakers deal with indirectly or with snide humor.

Perry has a long way to go in terms of directorial craftsmanship. But, in terms of straight ahead honesty, he's well ahead of the game. 

Movie Review Clash of the Titans 2010

Clash of the Titans (2010) 

Directed by Louis Letterier

Written by Travis Beacham, Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi

Starring Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Jason Flemyng, Mads Mikkelsen

Release Date April 2nd, 2010 

Published April 2nd, 2010

The makers of “Clash of the Titans” were torn. On the one hand, some wanted to make a massive action blockbuster from a well remembered property. On the other hand, a more realistic faction saw what was there and realized how truly cheese ball the whole enterprise is. The battle between these two sides has helped deliver a seriously goofy mélange of self serious action scenes and a whole lot of goofball preening, posing and speechifying.

Sam Worthington stars in Clash as Perseus, the son of Zeus. Perseus doesn't know he is the son of the God until he is grown and working with the man he assumes is his father as a fisherman. When his father, mother and young sister are killed by Zeus's brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) Perseus decides to take up arms against the gods.

Perseus joins a fight already begun by the armies of the coastal city Athos lead by Draco (Madds Mikkelson). Together, with a small band of brave warriors they set out to find some way to kill the Kraken, the ancient deadly spawn of Hades set upon Athos by an angry Zeus (Liam Neeson) in vengeance for the insolence of humanity.

Never mind that Zeus started the fight. In revenge for not getting enough love from humanity, Zeus came to earth cloaked as King Acrisius (Jason Flemyng) and impregnated the King's wife. Perseus was the result of this Jerry Springer style act of vengeance. Now, that man and God are at war it falls to Perseus to stop the destruction of mankind.

“Clash of the Titans” is one bizarre, goofball effort. The special effects range from impressive looking to a bad parody of the work of Ray Harryhausen from the original Clash. The direction of Louis Letterier runs the gamut as well from pro level technique to the highest of high camp. Letterier seems to have been the most conflicted among the creators of “Clash of the Titans” having approached the material with serious intent before succumbing to bad kitsch.

The worst victim of the kitsch is Liam Neeson whose Zeus is garbed in Liberace's battle armor, a Viking beard and Barbara Walters back lighting through most of his scenes. Add to that the awful storyline that essentially boils down to a God having revenge sex with a guy’s wife and you have one utterly laughable character.

Less laughable and more unfortunate is the one note performance of star Sam Worthington. Though Hollywood has decided that Worthington is the next big thing off of his starring roles in “Terminator Salvation” and “Avatar” the young actor has yet to deliver one single memorable moment on screen. Stoic and handsome, Worthington is intensely bland. He looks like about a dozen other guys Hollywood has tried to turn into movie stars and failed. 

In “Clash of the Titans” Worthington is so sleepy and monosyllabic you may be forgiven for mistaking him at time for scenery. Worthington's facial expressions never change whether he is menaced by giant scorpions or worrying over a mortally wounded ally, Worthington's blank slate never changes. His eyes are so vacant you begin to worry if somewhere during shooting, Worthington's soul vacated his body and left behind some human machine shell. 

The biggest issue with “Clash of the Titans” is what I can only presume is a behind the scenes battle over the vision of what the film should be. Some eagerly embraced the kitsch and fed into it while others fought to make Clash an earnest blockbuster action movie. The battle created one seriously awful movie as a result.

Movie Review: Chloe

Chloe (2010) 

Directed by Atom Egoyan

Written by Erin Cressida Wilson

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson

Release Date March 26th, 2010

Published March 30th, 2010

“Chloe” is one of the most frustrating films I've seen in a long time. Rarely has such skilled direction been wasted on such B-level material. Atom Egoyan is a master of mood and feeling brilliantly pushing an audience’s buttons; manipulating them into uncomfortable places and toward often stunning revelations.

He brings his skill for mood to “Chloe” and for two acts his mastery of sex, seduction and character has you hooked. Riveting performances by Julianne Moore and Amanda Seyfried tease seduce and shock and keep you guessing just how this movie could possibly end. Then the third act begins and things are downhill from there. What should have been an adult thriller quickly devolves into a highly skilled Cinemax late night trash.

Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is desperate. She believes her husband, David (Liam Neeson) is cheating on her. Finding a damning photo of David while she is snooping through his I Phone, Catherine decides she needs definitive proof. To get it Catherine turns to a young woman she has seen in the neighborhood near her medical practice.

The young woman is Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) and it is clear from her manner with men and her unusual hours that she is a high end call girl. Catherine hires Chloe only to flirt with David and recount his reaction. Chloe takes things further than mere flirting but rather than being angry, Catherine finds herself turned on. This twisted scenario only grows more twisted from there as Catherine herself begins an affair with Chloe.

You get from the plot where this is likely heading but early on Atom Egoyan and writer Erin Cressida Wilson brilliantly create an atmosphere, a look, a sensuality that distracts from anything familiar. There is an air of desperation and sex that permeates Chloe in the first two acts that is truly sexy, not merely trashy. The sex is purposeful and erotic without being trashy.

Then comes the third act and things go off the rails. Though Atom Egoyan never loses his incredible gift for atmosphere he and writer Ms. Wilson fail to invent a satisfying conclusion for Chloe. Instead the film devolves from a smart, sexy and daringly adult thriller into a high end version of a direct to video soft-core porno. 

The final scenes of Chloe fly close to parody, so close that one could almost make the case that the ending is a satire of B-movie thrillers. However, there is far too much artfulness in Egoyan's direction and far too much skill from the dedicated cast for anyone to assume satire, unfortunately. 

Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore are an electric duo in Chloe. Seyfried, long an object of girl next door fantasies, finds a range and depth like she's never shown before. Pushed by the unbelievably talented Ms. Moore, Seyfried radiates sex so strongly that you can hardly blame a married woman for falling prey to her. Ms. Moore is no victim in Chloe mind you; her submissiveness is really an act of passive aggression that few actresses could achieve.

”Chloe” is so disappointing because I like so much of it. Atom Egoyan's direction is solid and the script from Erin Cressida Wilson, for the first two acts, is very strong. The failure comes in finding an ending that satisfies. I won't spoil it for those who still wish to see this highly erotic and often quite good thriller, but be prepared for a letdown. 

The very last scene in “Chloe” is among the most awkward and oddly humorous that I have seen. It may just be my twisted sense of humor but the seriously awkward mother son bond that comes in the final act will certainly have psychiatrists buzzing afterwards. 

Finally, you may have noticed that I had little to say about Liam Neeson in “Chloe.” Neeson lost his wife Natasha Richardson while shooting “Chloe.” He left midway through production to be at her side and returned just days after her death to wrap his role. According to IMDB Neeson's scenes were cut back to accommodate his leaving and his grief. Under the circumstances Neeson is quite good in “Chloe” but there is little that one can say about an actor working under such a circumstance.

Movie Review How to Train Your Dragon

How to Train Your Dragon (2010) 

Directed by Dean Deblois, Chris Sanders

Written by Will Davies, Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders

Starring Jay Baruchel, America Ferrara, Gerard Butler, Jonah Hill 

Release Date March 26th, 2010

Published March 26th, 2010

In any other year “How to Train Your Dragon” would be seen as the best animated film of the year. It has terrific characters, big laughs, a great big heart, fabulous animation and a killer behind the scenes story. In any other year that didn't feature a masterpiece the magnitude of “Toy Story 3,” “How to Train Your Dragon” would be an Animated Oscar shoo-in this is not, however, any other year.

“Toy Story 3” lifts the bar far higher than most animated films, indeed the folks at Pixar no matter what feature they release, original or sequel, just tend to do that. Let's not let that take away from the fabulous achievement that is How to Train Your Dragon, we will just have to find another way to honor it.

Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) is an inventive young man, thoughtful and ingenious. These however, are not the traits of a Viking. In the shadow of his mighty father, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler), Hiccup is a pipsqueak who needs to be protected from a fight rather than in the battle. This does not prevent Hiccup from dreaming of being a brave Viking, even developing clever devices that might help him overcome his slight stature with technology.

Hiccup's plan actually works, sort of. When the evil dragons fly to the village on one of their regular sheep raids, Hiccup rushes to a hilltop with one of his devices and uses it to bring down a mighty Night Fury dragon. Unfortunately, no one believes him. Ducking into the woods the following day, hoping to find evidence of his kill, Hiccup finds only an injured young dragon as harmless as a house pet.

After a few days of observing and working to get closer, Hiccup manages to develop communication with the dragon. This rapport develops into friendship and soon, a grand friendship that even includes dragon rides. Hiccup names the dragon Toothless for his lack of fiery breath and gentle soul.

Naturally, everyone in the village finds out about Toothless and most are skeptical, dragons are the enemy and have been for decades. Can Hiccup convince them that Toothless is really friendly? How will Hiccup’s dad take the news that his son is playing with a dragon? Will Hiccup be able to convince the gorgeous Astrid (America Ferrara) that Toothless is not just a pet but an ally?

These are the plot questions and each gets a succinct and satisfying answer. What is great about “How to Train Your Dragon” are the character touches that liven up scene after scene. The humor and heart of “How to Train Your Dragon” comes from these wonderfully vivid characters whose winning personalities make each scene a delight.

Jay Baruchel is perfectly cast as the voice of Hiccup. His real physical presence is a match for the animated Hiccup and likely lends to the way his voice seems just right for Hiccup. The same can be said of Gerard Butler whose brogue has always sounded Viking-esque, even in non-Viking roles. The guy sounds tough in romantic comedies.

The backstory of “How to Train Your Dragon” is downright mind-blowing.

From script to screen production on “How to Train Your Dragon” is said to have taken just over a year. The average computer animated feature, even from the pros at Pixar, takes twice that long. The gang behind “How to Train Your Dragon” did it in half the time and didn't sacrifice quality or character in the process.

Directors Dean DeBois and Chris Sanders moved heaven and earth to make this film under budget and on an extraordinary time crunch and never compromised. Working with writer Cressida Powell, on whose kids book the film is based and screenwriter William Davies, they found heart, soul and humor in their characters and brought it to the screen in record time.

With the help of Oscar winning Cinematographer Roger Deakins and a mind-blazingly talented animation team, DeBois and Sanders craft awesome visuals for both 2D and 3D presentation. This is even more staggering than the exceptional character work as this is the part that should have slowed the production. Instead, they found Deakins and with him the vision for whirling, twirling, fiery dragon battles that are the centerpiece of the final act.

In ..1973 a.. horse named Sham shattered the records at each of the three Triple Crown horse races. Why don't we know this? Sham finished second each time to Secretariat. In the race for best animated feature “How to Train Your Dragon” is Sham and “Toy Story 3” is Secretariat. Both are unbelievably great but only one will win. As I said before, we need some other way to honor “How to Train Your Dragon.” I suggest financial reward. Buy, don't rent, “How to Train Your Dragon” on DVD.

Movie Review Hot Tub Time Machine

Hot Tub Time Machine (2010) 

Directed by Steve Pink

Written by Josh Heald, Sean Anders, John Morris

Starring John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Clark Duke, Rob Corddry, Chevy Chase, Lizzy Caplan

Release Date March 26th, 2010 

Published March 25th, 2010

When The Hangover became the breakout comedy of 2009 it was inevitable that movies about 4 overgrown juveniles getting drunk while on vacation for whatever reason would become a trend or even its own sub-genre. Just watch the DVD shelves, it's coming. The first of what may be perceived as a Hangover knockoff to arrive in theaters is Hot Tub Time Machine.

John Cusack stars as Adam an a-hole insurance salesman who has clearly done something to make his girlfriend leave him; his house has been ravaged by her moving out. Adam's buddy Nick (Craig Robinson) has it worse, working as a dog groomer with a wife he knows is cheating on him. Even still, their pal Lou is in worse shape; he may or may not have tried to kill himself while rocking out to Motley Crue.

As a way of cheering up Lou, Nick and Adam have planned a getaway to the ski resort where they spent many weekends in their hopeful youth. Tagging along is Adam's nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) who has spent far too much time on his computer -his Second Life character is spending three years in prison- Adam figures he needs some human contact.

The resort was once a hotspot but now it's a run down dump. On the bright side, after a call to the front desk, the hot tub starts working. It works so well in fact that it becomes a time machine and sends all four guys back to 1986. With the time space continuum at stake, and a physics lesson from the original Terminator movie, the guys agree they must not alter the past or else.

Hot Tub Time Machine plays like The Hangover with time travel. Rob Corddry, best known as a correspondent on The Daily Show, plays the Zach Galifianakis character, replacing creepy childlike naiveté with creepy intensity and slapstick. Cusack is the Bradley Cooper character with all sharp angry humor and Robinson is the sheepish one waiting to break out a la Ed Helms.

The characters don't match exactly; Clark Duke gets far more screen time than Justin Bartha did in The Hangover, but with the binge drinking and wild time schtick the films are certainly in the same vein. Where The Hangover played something of a comic mystery plot for big laughs, Hot Tub Time Machine relies on heavy doses of nostalgia and clever references.

Cusack in and of himself as a reference to multiple 80's classics from Say Anything to Better off Dead to One Crazy Summer. None of those films get a direct name check but Cusack does ski in Hot Tub Time Machine, the black diamond, not the K-12 unfortunately, and listen closely and you might hear someone shouting for their two dollars.

Crispin Glover drops in as another self referential 80's joke; Glover was of course Marty's dad in Back to the Future, a film that earns a few laughs for Hot Tub Time Machine along with any comedy about skiing. And yet still another walking punchline, I mean that as a compliment, Chevy Chase pops up in a funny cameo as the Hot Tub Repairman/time travel guru.

Hot Tub Time Machine then throws in one more fabulous 80's cameo that I don't want to spoil; I'll just say Cobra Kai and leave it at that. Hot Tub Time Machine bursts with aching nostalgia that will either delight or invite a nauseous sort of state as one is reminded just how old they truly are.

Yes, Hot Tub Time Machine is easy to write off as a movie taking advantage of the well plowed path of The Hangover but that film didn't have time travel. That's certainly enough of a difference to allow you to forgive the many familiar elements. John Cusack is excellent as always while the rest of the cast brilliantly has his back.

If I may add a cheesy critic’s one liner to close: Take a dip in the Hot Tub Time Machine. Ha!

Movie Review Sol Goode

Sol Goode (2001) 

Directed by Danny Comden

Written by Danny Comden

Starring Balthazar Getty, Jamie Kennedy, Jason Bateman, Cheri Oteri

Release Date March 11th, 2003 

Published March 11th, 2003 

When we were kids, my sister had a huge crush on Balthazar Getty. It was based on Getty's one big role in Young Guns 2. Since Young Guns 2, Getty has seemingly dropped off the face of the Earth, save for a cameo in Natural Born Killers and his supporting role in the dopey 50's gang flick Deuces Wild. Well as it turns out Getty has actually had quite a lucrative career starring in a few direct-to-video movies. His latest non-theatrical movie is called Sol Goode, a comedy about a slacker actor who skates on his looks while awaiting his next acting job. One wonders if there isn't an element of self-parody.

Sol Goode is a good-looking young wannabe actor living off the good will of friends and family. The film's opening credit sequence includes a montage of bimbos who are asked what they think of Sol, some like him, some loathe him. It doesn't do the picture much good that the women who loathe him come off better than the ones who like him. As we meet Sol for the first time, he turns to the camera to talk to the audience about what he likes to call P.O.D, or post orgasmic disgust. P.O.D, describes a man's feelings when he wakes up next to a woman he wishes weren't there. Charming.

What does one do when suffering from P.O.D, well of course you do the classy thing. You call a friend, in Sol's case his narcissist best friend Cooper (Danny Comden), and have that friend come over and make you believe your house is on fire and run the girl out of the house quickly. Once again, charming.

Sol has other problems, rent is due and he hasn't worked in a couple of months. His roommate Justin (Jamie Kennedy) can't afford to cover him again and Sol's unemployment benefits have run out. With no other options, Sol is forced to once again ask his parents for money. In a scene that I wish I had never seen, Sol accidentally catches his parents (Robert Wagner & Christina Pickles) having sex with his Dad dressed as a baseball umpire. Eeewwww.

From there we move from there into the film's plot which involves Sol realizing that his womanizing ways are unfulfilling as is not having a real job. So Sol decides to change and figures he is in love with his other best friend Chloe (Katherine Towne). Unfortunately for Sol, she has a crush on his cousin Happy (Jonathan Schaech). Whether Sol will convince Chloe he's changed and win her heart is the center of the plot.

From beginning to end, Sol Goode is a picture that is desperate to be considered cool. Director Danny Comden, who also wrote the screenplay and plays Cooper in the film, throws in catchphrases and gross out humor in an attempt to make the film seem edgy and hip. Unfortunately, every decision he makes is wrong.

None of the catchphrases, like P.OD, or Cooper referring to his hair as his salad(?), none of it is funny. Throw in an extremely slow, glacier-like pace and an extremely unfunny Tori Spelling and you have a painfully dull movie. And as for the film's gross out humor, if you think irritable bowel syndrome is hysterically funny then maybe Sol Goode is for you. It's certainly not for me.

Movie Review Love Happens

Love Happens (2009)

Directed by Brandon Camp

Written by Brandon Camp, Mike Thompson

Starring Aaron Eckhart, Jennifer Aniston, Dan Fogler, Judy Greer, Martin Sheen

Release Date September 18th, 2009 

Published September 18th, 2009 

Is there possibly a less passion inspiring romance title than Love Happens? Love eh? Love Ensues? Love Stumbled Upon? If only the low watt title were the film's biggest problem. Oh no. Love Happens is riddled with troubles. Quirk ridden stand ins where characters should. A storyline as predictable as sunrise. And then there is a damn bird.

Aaron Eckhart stars in Love Happens as self help guru Burke Ryan. He's Dr. Phil but handsome. Burke lost his wife 3 years ago in a car accident which led to him writing a book about living with loss. Now he travels the country with his faithful sidekick (Dan Fogler), performing workshops to help people cope with loss.

Finding himself back in the city where his wife died, Seattle, Burke is looking to get in and get out before his past catches up with him. Literally while he isn't looking, Burke stumbles upon Eloise, a flower shop owner with one weird quirk on top of another. She likes to write obscure words on walls behind paintings in hotel hallways. (I said it was a weird quirk).

He is smitten immediately but she blows him by pretending to be a mute. Her ruse doesn't hold up and their next encounter is an argument. An argument that of course means they are destined to fall in love. Destined though they may be they first must be kept apart and a predictable secret from his past is supplied solely for the purpose of keeping them at a distance.

Don't worry, I won't spoil the big reveal of Burke's secret, the movie will do that in the first 5 to 10 minutes. Anyone who has seen movies like Sweet November or Return To Me or really any similarly hoary cliched romance won't need a map to find this ending well before it arrives for the characters.

It is the nature of a romantic comedy to be a little predictable, not many end with the lovers parting ways. Thus, these movies are more about the journey than the destination. Unfortunately, this is one lame journey. One that feels twice as long as it really is.

Brandon Camp is a first time director whose experience is mostly in TV drama. His roots likely contribute to the episodic, disjointed storytelling that devotes a good deal of time to filler material to pad itself out beyond what might have been better suited to something of 44 minutes plus commercials.

Most egregious of the filler material is a subplot involving a man who lost his little boy and attends Burke's seminar. While we are supposed to like Burke the film keeps making him out as a shyster. Then he alternately attempts to help and rip off this pained father, effectively portrayed by John Carroll Lynch, in serious scenes sandwiched between goofball romance scenes.

Love Happens has about as much consistency in tone as it does energy in that stupid title. One minute we are in the midst of both characters in a wacky moment. Next we are watching people who have lost a family member be taken in by a shyster who is supposed to be our hero.

Wow, what a mess this movie is. From the bizarre maudlin subplots to the lame secret right down to the two main characters who aren't so much characters as a collection of traits given to Eckhardt and Aniston to drop in as they wish. She likes writing on walls. He's afraid of elevators. She keeps copies of other people's love notes. He might be an alcoholic.

Not one of these traits has any kind of payoff, at least not one that makes any difference to the main plot. The traits exist only to give the actors something to do in between the bouts of mind-numbingly awful dialogue that includes not just 'when life gives you lemons....' but also 'if you love something, set it free'. Ugh.

And then there is the damn bird. Folks, if you are a member of PETA you will want to skip Love Happens. The bird goes unharmed, for the most part but its treatment in the film is beyond idiotic. Worse, it assumes that we in the audience are just as dumb as the movie.

Love Happens is an abysmal bit of treacle aimed at the soft hearted and softer headed. Not even the uncontainable charms of the wonderful Jennifer Aniston can bring this treacle any more life than that shrug shouldered title, Love Happens.

Movie Review Lust, Caution

Lust, Caution (2007)

Directed by Ang Lee 

Written by Hui-Ling Wang, James Schamus

Starring Tony Leung, Tang Wei, Anupam Kher, Joan Chen, Wang Leehom

Release Date September 28th, 2007

Published February 14th, 2008 

It is an odd note of history, lost to most Americans who aren't taught this in school, and still a stinging point of contention in mainland China. The fact that Japan had, prior to World War 2, overrun the Chinese mainland and were essentially running large portions of the country that has since risen to superpower status. It is almost unfathomable to the modern mind that this goliath with a population of over 1 billion people was once dominated by their tiny island neighbor. This makes Ang Lee's exceptional Lust, Caution not only an opulent, sexy spy thriller but also an important history lesson.

In hindsight it makes sense. In the mid to late 30's China was a peaceful nation coming of age. When Japan invaded and brought modern weapons and government, some of the loose confederacies of traders and politicians saw an opportunity for power backed by their modernist neighbor and this partnership brought Japan to China. This was the impetus for a Chinese nationalist revolution that would eventually lead to full fledged communism. This is where Lust, Caution picks up. A group of college educated Chinese theater students decide to perform patriotic plays to inspire their countrymen to rise against Japan and their Chinese conspirators.

At first, the group is merely idealistic but as the reality of the violence committed against their countrymen sets in, the group becomes galvanized and talk of political assassination becomes more than just talk. Setting up in Shanghai, in a wealthy district where top Japanese officials and their Chinese co-conspirators live and prosper, the group poses their best actress, Wong Chia Chi (Tang Wei), as the bored wife of a wealthy trader. As Mrs. Mak it will be her job to seduce and destroy Mr. Yee (Tony Leung) , a well protected member of the Japanese collaborationist government. It is Mr. Yee who deals, often violently, with those who oppose Japanese involvement in China.

It doesn't take long for Mrs. Mak to get Mr. Yee's attention and soon the two are lovers. Circumstances force the group to break up and Wong Chia Chi flees. Three years later Kuang (Wang Leehom) finds her and offers her the chance to finish the job. She will reassume the role of Mrs. Mak and once again fall into Mr. Yee's bed. The plan works once again but with their relationship rekindled can Wong/Mrs. Mak separate her feelings for her country and her lust for Mr. Yee.

Lust, Caution is a lush, beautifully crafted period piece with the great hook of a spy thriller. Sexy, intriguing and exciting, it's some of Ang Lee's finest direction. Coming off the languid western visuals of Brokeback Mountain, Lee continues to dazzle with eye popping visual delights that deepen the film experience without distracting from it. What Lee has yet to escape is his penchant for lingering just a little too long on scenes after their natural ending. Lust, Caution, like Brokeback Mountain and the Oscar nominated Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, would have benefitted from a tighter edit. That however, is a minor quibble over a film that is far better than most other films in the market.

The aspect of Lust, Caution that has garnered the most attention are the lengthy, athletic sex scenes that earned the film an R-rating. Indeed the scenes are very sexy and some have speculated as to whether the scenes were simulated or real. If the rumor is that it took more than 100 hours to film the many vigorous scenes of love making, let's hope some simulation took place otherwise poor Tang Wei may never walk right again. The scenes are graphic but not terribly overdone. The scenes are sexy with an edge of aggressive violent S & M that underline the tense secrets of these two complex characters.

Though the sex separates Lust, Caution from true comparisons with classic Hollywood thrillers, there is something very old Hollywood in the ways Lee builds the tension in Lust, Caution. As the film builds to its shocking climax you may be surprised how invested you are after having been kept waiting for most of the film's 2 hour 50 minute run time. Lee pulls off the astonishing trick of holding us in place with pretty pictures and erotic sex and then in the final act he amps up a truly tense spy thriller that will have you on the edge of your seat till the stunner ending.

Lust, Caution was a hit at the Cannes Film Festival and was Lee's second winner in a row at the Venice Film Festival. Now finally on DVD Lust, Caution is a must see for fans of fabulous film making and seductive intrigue. It is entirely in Shanghainese and subtitled which I know turns off a lot of you. Trust me when I tell you that investing the time in reading along with Lust, Caution is worth it.

Movie Review MacGruber

MacGruber (2010) 

Directed by Jorme Taccone 

Written by Will Forte, Jorme Taccone, John Solomon

Starring Will Forte, Powers Boothe, Ryan Phillippe, Kristen Wiig

Release Date May 21st, 2010

Published May22nd, 2010 

There have been so many things written about the history of Saturday Night Live and the movies that adding to the pile seems a waste of time. I will keep the history lesson brief, we all know the translation between sketch and feature has been less than stellar. I'm sure I am not the only one who thanks heaven there was no Church Lady or Hans and Frans movies, thank you Dana Carvey for your restraint.

And as evidenced by the dearth of SNL-movie related content written in relation to the latest SNL feature, I know I wasn’t the only one dreading the release of MacGruber. Based on a series of interstitial gags created by star Will Forte, MacGruber held little promise of feature length success. It's great to be surprised; MacGruber doesn't suck.

Will Forte is MacGruber, an ex-military man hiding out as a priest in some unspecified jungle on a self imposed Rambo-esque exile when he is approached by his former commander Colonel James Faith (Powers Boothe). There is a threat to the homeland and it comes from the man who killed MacGruber's bride on their wedding day, the evil weapons dealer Dieter Von Cunth (Val Kilmer).

Colonel Faith wants MacGruber to come back to the US and stop Cunth from using a massive nuclear weapon on the US. He also wants MacGruber to work with top new military man Lt. Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe) but MacGruber has other ideas. Our hero has a team to put together, one that fans of the WWE will absolutely love. What happens to that team and how MacGruber ends up working with Piper and Mac's old flame Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig) is something for you to discover. All I'll say is 'classic MacGruber.'

I have brought a little more order to the plot than actually exists on the screen; MacGruber doesn't really play as a straight narrative feature. Will Forte and director Jorme Taccone wrote the script for MacGruber and kept true to the sketch show roots of the character by creating a feature that is really just a series of gags. Sure, there is something of a narrative line that travels throughout but mostly MacGruber just hits one gag after another and somehow the form holds.

The gags of MacGruber work one after the other after the other. A few build throughout, including MacGruber's odd attachment to his car stereo, but most are one off jokes and references to 80's pop tunes. And then there is the filth. MacGruber is shockingly filthy with R-rated material that might make the Judd Apatow crew uncomfortable. 

Part of the shock comes from the unexpected, MacGruber can't use so many variations of the F-word when he's on network TV. He also cannot have two of the most awkward, off-putting and hysterical sex scenes since Leslie Nielsen and Lisa Marie Presley donned giant condoms in Naked Gun. 

MacGruber's supporting cast is right along with him making the awkward into the hysterical. Kristen Wiig is expectedly up to the task but Ryan Phillippe is the one who gets the big assist late with a sight gag that lives up to the word gag. Val Kilmer is a rich choice for the goofy bad guy. The now chubby cheeked star plays a wonderfully straight bad guy to MacGruber's over the top good guy. 

Tossing dignity and good taste to the wind, the cast of MacGruber crafts a series of jokes that somehow adds up to a feature film. MacGruber doesn't really tell us much about the future of Will Forte as a star but as a gag writer with a great ear for just the right cheesy 80's pop song; he's kind of a genius. MacGruber thrives on Forte's instinct for brilliant bad taste.

Movie Review Greenberg

Greenberg (2010) 

Directed by Noah Baumbach

Written by Noah Baumbach

Starring Ben Stiller, Greta Gerwig, Rhys Ifans 

Release Date March 19th, 2010 

Published May 12th, 2010 

Dear Roger Greenberg

Unlike you I rarely write complaint letters but having spent time with you, courtesy of writer-director Noah Baumbach, I felt compelled to write to you. My complaint is that I feel I am far too like you and I aim to change that. I guess this isn't so much a complaint, maybe even more of a thank you. Wanting to not become like you may change the very course of my life.

Sincerely,

Sean Patrick Kernan

The movie Greenberg may have honestly changed my life. Heretofore a misanthrope with an honest distaste for most other people I am compelled by the example of Ben Stiller's performance in Greenberg that this is the path of a lonely, pathetic and desperate existence where even those you do connect with will be dealt the blow of your worldview eventually.

Roger Greenberg is 41 years old and staying at his millionaire brother's mansion for several weeks while his brother is on a family vacation, his aim is to actively do nothing. What nothing entails is unclear as Roger seems to hate everyone and everything but desperately calls old friends and acquaintances begging for some company. This would require him to do things and there you have his conundrum.

Among the things for Roger to do is spend time with his brother's assistant Florence (Greta Gerwig) who reveals herself to be one of the rare people who can tolerate his constant bad attitude. An aspiring musician, Florence speaks to Roger's own longings; he once was in a band that came up short of the big time because of him.

Music is not a big part of Roger and Florence's relationship. The dominant theme is Roger pushing and pulling and Florence finding his anger and mood swings to be a mask for a vulnerability that she finds irresistible. These two people would be meant for each other in any other movie but in the complex web of character conflict woven by writer-director Noah Baumbach, their personalities provide realistic roadblocks to happiness.

This is the finest work in Noah Baumbach's previously overrated career. Greenberg irons out the issues with his Margot at the Wedding in which all of the characters were mini-Greenberg's and thus intolerable. With no one to point out what jerks they all were, the characters sprayed venom in all directions until the movie could not sustain the momentum of their irksomeness.

In Greenberg only Roger is bitter, sad, hateful and desperate and it's easier to tolerate. Everyone else in the movie reveals Roger's character and forces him to confront himself. This allows the character to evolve and if not change, at least check the attitude to the point where other people can tolerate him.

Ben Stiller's performance in Greenberg is a stunner, especially considering his remarkably awful turns in not one but TWO Night at the Museum movies. One could fairly wonder if he could ever be taken seriously after repeated slap fights with a monkey but Greenberg shows there is still talent there. 

Greta Gerwig is wonderful as the often wilting but wily Florence and just as good is Rhys Ifans who plays Roger's best friend Ivan. Years ago Roger and Ivan were in a band together and naturally Roger blew the whole thing with his bad vibes. To his astonishing credit, especially for a Baumbach character, he doesn't hold it against him and what Ifans plays so well are the unspoken reasons why he doesn't hold it against him.

Greenberg is filled with all of the subtlety and wit that Noah Baumbach always thought he had but has never really demonstrated. The characters are flawed, intelligent and achingly normal creatures that are not defined by their wounded psyches, aside from Greenberg that is. It's almost anti-Baumbach in that way.

Most important for me is the performance of Ben Stiller who reveals portions of Roger that I'm sure many people like me recognized far too well in our own lives. Like him I am an angry, self sabotaging misanthrope who mistakes edgy self involvement for wit and loathing of humanity as insight. Yes, I do those things and after seeing the result in Greenberg I aim to be different. What more can one ask of a great work of art but to have it reveal something of them.

For that, for me, Greenberg is a revelation.

Movie Review The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2010) 

Directed by Niels Arden Oplev 

Written by Rasmus Heisterberg, Nikolaj Arcel 

Starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Nyqvist 

Release Date March 19th, 2010 

Published October 10th, 2010

A murder mystery over 40 years old draws in a reporter and a computer hacker in Director Niels Arden Oplev's adaptation of the late Stieg Larsson's novel “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” The girl in question is Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) the aforementioned computer hacker who, when we meet her, is on the tail of a reporter, Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist).

The reporter has just been sentenced to several months in prison over a libel charge though he believes he's been set up. This however, has nothing to do with her investigation. Blomkvist is being sought by a man named Henrik Vanger (Sven Bertil Taube) who wishes to hire him to investigate the disappearance of his beloved niece Harriet more than 40 years earlier.

Needing money and with a reporter's nose for a good story; Mikael accepts the job and moves to Vanger's isolated island home where he and his family are the only inhabitants. There is only one bridge on and off of the island and on the day of Harriet's disappearance the bridge was off limits due to an accident. This leaves only members of Vanger's family as possible suspects.

Meanwhile, Lisbeth begins to follow the investigation by hacking Mikael's computer. When she discovers something that Mikael did not do, she cannot help but inform him and soon involves herself with the case and eventually with Mikael. Their relationship intensifies in unexpected fashion and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” becomes deeper and more involved.

Moody and atmospheric, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has the minimalist aesthetic that is the preference of Swedish filmmakers but also a distinctly pop polish to its punky, goth, techie heroine. Director Niels Arden Oplev makes wonderful use of actress Noomi Rapace as both an actress and as a plot device. Her look, tattoos, piercings, spiky hair intrigues us, her manner, her suffering draw us closer to her and whether the mystery plot is really all that involves doesn't really matter, we want to follow her.

Not to be outdone, Michael Nyqvist more than holds his own as the weather-beaten reporter with nothing to lose. It is almost entirely up to Nyqvist to sell the romance between Mikael and Lisbeth and his effortless vulnerability in the face of her hard aesthetic makes believable the moments when the 40 something journalist and the 20 something tattooed hacker end up in bed or share an unexpected kiss. 

Viewers will need to take note; “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” contains scenes of sexual violence that are more than a little disturbing. Lisbeth is raped in the film and then takes some righteous and arresting revenge on her attacker in scenes that do not merely border on exploitation. They do however lay the groundwork for the character of Lisbeth, giving her one shattering back-story with more than one strong payoff.

That said one can understand if someone is offended by the sexual violence of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” For those who can stomach it however, the film is a corker of a mystery. A near masterpiece of anxious suspense and eerie Swedish intrigue, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” will thrill any willing audience.

Movie Review The Bounty Hunter

The Bounty Hunter (2010) 

Directed by Andy Tennant

Written by Sarah Thorp

Starring Jennifer Aniston, Gerard Butler

Release Date March 19th, 2010

Published March 18th, 2010

Leave it to a movie as utterly insane and forgettable as The Bounty Hunter to make me search my critical soul. Though it is more likely a case of coincidental timing, I find myself reviewing this ludicrous Jennifer Aniston/Gerard Butler action comedy at a time when the world of film criticism is in turmoil.

Recently, top flight critics have been losing their jobs and that has led to a good deal of hand wringing, soul searching and a number of eulogies for professional criticism. For me, this conversation about the state of my business, the thing I truly love doing, writing about the movies, has me considering what kind of critic I am, what purpose I serve.

So many people over the years have asked me why I can't just watch a movie and leave it at that. My answer to that is that I love conversation and what better inspires conversation than a good or bad movie. I review movies to be part of a conversation that has, thanks to the web, spread across the world.

My theory about the movies is that they should do something to improve the lives of the people giving up their money and time to see them. When I feel that a film has failed to aspire to anything more than its own completion I get angry and that is where a bad review comes from.

A good review comes when I find something valuable in the experience. Whether the film is merely a passing entertainment or something that can transform the way we look at the world, each has in its way improved our lives if only for a minute or for the rest of our time on earth.

Some critics write because they like the sound of their own voice in their head as they type. Ok, all critics like that. I hope that I myself aspire to something more than my own self satisfaction. I hope that people read my words and am inspired to offer their own interpretation. If I can inspire a conversation, I feel that I have accomplished something.

With that, let's have a very brief conversation about The Bounty Hunter, a brainless, witless waste of screen time starring Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston. The inane story has Aniston's journalist blowing off court for a story and having a warrant issued for her arrest.

The warrant ends up in the hands of her ex-husband, a former cop turned bounty hunter who cannot believe his luck in getting to arrest his ex-wife. That's the joke. A dopey formerly married guy gets to arrest his ex-wife. It's a literal take on the old 'Take My Wife... Please,' vaudeville and the movie feels even older and creakier than a vaudeville routine. 

I hate wasting another word on the career decline of Jennifer Aniston but I must mention that, take away Marley and Me which was a minor pleasure, she has now starred in four movies that are not merely bad, they are dreadful. He's Just Not That Into You, Management, Love Happens and The Bounty Hunter comprise, arguably, the ugliest resume this side of Rob Schneider. 

As for Mr. Butler, Hollywood's continuing attempt to convince us he is a star fails miserably once again. On the heels of The Ugly Truth, Gamer and Law Abiding Citizen comes The Bounty Hunter as further proof that big pecs, a lopsided smile and an accent are apparently all it takes to be a movie star these days. 

I

 apologize for my snark. But as I was saying earlier, in my soul searching moments, I feel my time and yours is valuable and these two actors and this director have wasted more of my life than many others have. The Bounty Hunter inspired me to think about why I became a critic and why I love writing about movies. It happened to come along at a time when critics across the country are debating their role in the culture. 

My role, I feel, is to have this written conversation with you, dear reader, about a movie that I truly hated and why I hated it and why the actors involved have become such a burden to me. You can choose to ignore this conversation or engage in it. Here's hoping our next conversation will be about a movie we both love.

Movie Review Green Zone

Green Zone (2010)

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Written by Brian Helgeland

Starring Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Brendan Gleeson, Amy Ryan

Release Date March 12th, 2010

Published March 11th, 2010 

It’s tempting to say ‘too little, too late’ about the politics of the new thriller “Green Zone.” I was just getting started working in talk radio in 2002 and 2003 when the march to war in Iraq began and I was wondering at the time when Hollywood or anyone other than me, and a coterie of liberal groups, were going to start asking serious questions about why we were going to war in a country that had not attacked us and did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

Joe Wilson told us that the intelligence was faulty while others told the true tale of the Bush Administration wanting a war against Saddam and a chance to finish the job left undone by the first gulf war, and Bush's father George H.W. Bush. This information was readily available at the time but Hollywood, like so many others, allowed themselves to be cowed by administration goons screaming about a lack of patriotism in those who opposed war.

In the years since the decision was made Hollywood has become slightly less timid. Sure, there was always Michael Moore but he’s not Hollywood, he’s never been cowed by anyone but the occasional untruth. No, the filmmakers timidly attempted telling human stories, soldier stories but avoided really taking on the central issues of the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

It wasn’t until last year when the boldest critique of Bush administration policy arrived in James Cameron’s “Avatar.” Yes, though some loathe admitting it, not wanting to spoil the brain free fun of the film’s fantastic visuals, the most successful film of all time is an anti-war tract scoring points against preemptive war, occupying armies and how the war on terror has been fought.

I have issues with the heavy handed points that the ultra-liberal James Cameron makes in “Avatar” but mostly I was irritated that it came so late to the game. We needed a movie like “Avatar” 6 years ago when the topic was bold, fresh and there was an impact to be made. That same feeling clouds my appreciation of Matt Damon’s new thriller “Green Zone,” arguably the boldest direct criticism of the war in Iraq Hollywood has yet delivered.

Matt Damon stars as Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, leader of a squad searching for WMD in the days immediately following the invasion of Iraq. Roy is growing frustrated quickly. Each site his team raids comes up empty and looks to have been empty for a very long time. When Miller questions the ‘intel’ that keeps sending him to empty sites he is told not to ask questions, just follow orders.

Miller’s questions however catch the ear of a CIA Agent, Martin Brown (Brenden Gleeson), who encourages Miller to keep asking questions and if he turns up something useful, call him. Miller soon does turn up something interesting and it is something that some very powerful people will do anything to keep quiet. Greg Kinnear plays a shady White House official who opposes Miller and Brown.

“Green Zone” boldly tackles the Bush Administration’s main justification for war in Iraq, the need to secure Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. We know now, really we knew then, that Saddam had no weapons and hadn’t had weapons since the first gulf war. The futile search for weapons they knew weren’t there cost far too many innocent lives, though “Green Zone” doesn’t pause too long to ponder that, the point is made in brief.

The film goes further in other avenues of the war however, wading into the strategy of the administration’s post war policy. In disbanding the Iraqi army the Bush Administration missed an important opportunity to shorten the war by keeping the guys with the guns employed on our side as opposed to unemployed, armed and desperate. Keeping some of the Baathists in power would have been controversial but it also would have saved lives.

Now, I am making “Green Zone” out to be heavier than it is. Trust me; this is an action thriller at its heart. Directed by Paul Greengrass, the director of two of the Jason Bourne blockbusters, “Green Zone” starts fast and is relentless in its pulse pounding action and suspense. The political points are scored on the edges while the action and suspense dominate the foreground.

“Green Zone” features bold politics and bad ass action and yet, like “Avatar,” it comes far too late to the party. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to have my opinions reiterated with the force of pop culture behind them but I was making these points about the war at the time. I know Hollywood can’t make movies quickly but seven years late is a little much.

For those not invested in an anti-war stance as I was and am, “Green Zone” still offers the pleasure of being a seriously butt kicking action flick with realism, violence and chest tightening, pulse pounding suspense. I may still be lamenting the war in Iraq but “Green Zone” moves so quickly that lament will be the last thing most will feel while watching.

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Directed by Tim Burton 

Written by Linda Woolverton

Starring Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Helena Bonham Carter, Tim Pigott Smith, Anne Hathaway

Release Date March 5th, 2010

Published March 4th, 2010

The story of Alice in Wonderland is one of a teenage girl tripping down a rabbit hole into a magical land where adventure awaits. The sub-story however, is not onscreen but behind the scenes. It is an unfortunate story of a once promising filmmaker with the potential of a game changer but who sadly lost his way.

In Alice in Wonderland Tim Burton demonstrates that the promise he showed as a filmmaker who deftly combined unique characters with fabulous visuals has now devolved into a style over substance approach better at aping other storytellers’ visions but lacking what made their stories lasting and memorable.

The latest attempt to bring Lewis Carroll's wildest dreams to life stars newcomer Ali Wasikowska as Alice a teenage girl of privilege destined to marry a doofusy Lord (Tim Pigott Smith) and live out a sad existence as his concubine and servant. Naturally, Alice is non-plussed about this idea.

As Lord doofus ahem Lord Ascot goes to one knee in front of everyone they both know Alice runs off. It's not merely that she is horrified about getting engaged to such a dope, she also happened to see a strange looking white rabbit who seemed to be trying to get her attention. Following the rabbit, Alice finds herself at a rabbit hole which she falls into and winds up in Underland.

Underland is a magical, bizarre world of strange characters who act as if they know who she is, as if she'd been here before. Indeed she has but she doesn't quite remember it, even after being reintroduced to her friend the wild haired, hair-brain the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) who informs her of a particularly dangerous destiny ahead of her in in Underland.

This is extraordinarily rich material for a visual artist like Tim Burton and he dives right in with broad strokes of CGI landscapes and eccentric makeup and costumes. As Burton did with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd he takes his pal Johnny Depp dresses him in wacky costumes and hair and aims to set him loose in a crazy looking world.

The formula unfortunately has lost its flavor in Alice in Wonderland. Both Burton and Johnny Depp seem to have made Alice on auto pilot relying on the things they have done before to carry this film to completion while bringing little new effort to bare. Alice in Wonderland is a lazy, laconic knockoff of what Burton and Depp have done before.

The diminishing returns in the career of Tim Burton are one of the saddest stories to be told. After arriving with astonishing promise in the 1980's, Burton has spent the past decade repeating himself with less and less interest. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a movie I really liked but received much fair criticism. Sweeney Todd wasn't great but was at the least a bit daring in approach.

Alice in Wonderland is simply bad. The filmmaking is lax from the cheap looking CGI to the strangely muted colors. The pace is almost non-existent, the movie crawls from scene to boring scene relying on our familiarity with Lewis Carroll's story to keep us involved.

The 3D aspect of Alice in Wonderland is utterly unnecessary and only serves to bring forward unfortunate comparisons to James Cameron's Avatar which from a visual standpoint blows Alice out of the water, exposing the films sluggish CGI and weak 3D posing.

It is clear now that the reason Tim Burton retreads so many famous stories isn't a wont to bring classic literature to the masses but mere laziness. Famous source material allows Burton to focus on creating fantastic new worlds visually or at least that's the theory. 

In Alice in Wonderland however, the famous source material gives Burton the opportunity to relax and recreate the things he's done in previous works with little invention on his part. The approach extends to his star pal Johnny Depp whose lackadaisical Mad Hatter is a visual representation of the laziness of the director and indeed the production as a whole.

Alice in Wonderland is the first major disappointment of 2010, a lazy rehash of a well known story by a director resting on his reputation. It is heartbreaking to see what has become of the talent of Tim Burton. So much promise unfulfilled. We will always have Edward Scissorhands to remember him by but what of the future, duller, droopy remakes of other people's works with whatever existing tech best allows him to rest on his rep. It's just sad.

Movie Review: Due Date

Due Date (2010) 

Directed by Todd Phillips

Written by Adam Sztykiel, Todd Phillips

Starring Robert Downey Jr, Zach Galifianakis, Michelle Monaghan, Juliette Lewis, Jamie Foxx

Release Date November 5th, 2010

Published November 4th, 2010

The comparison between “Due Date” and the 80's classic “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” is inescapable. Then again, as conventional as “Due Date” is, it can be compared to dozens of road trip comedies released in the decade and a half since Steve Martin and John Candy seemed to define the road trip aesthete.

Conventional may sound like a negative but it's just another way of saying that the humor of “Due Date” is familiar; you feel as if you have heard these jokes and witnessed these gags before. That said, despite the conventional approach of “Due Date” it is funny because stars Robert Downey Jr and Zach Galifianakis are funny. If you don't love these two actors and their opposing comic styles going in, don't bother seeing “Due Date.”

Peter Highman has a simple task ahead of him; board a plane for Los Angeles and three days later witness the birth of his first child as his wife Sarah's labor is induced. It all seems so simple until Peter meets Ethan (Zach Galifianakis). Ethan is a whirlwind of trouble; he and Peter meet when Ethan's ride to the airport nearly kills Peter as he is exiting his town car. The ensuing chaos causes Peter and Ethan to mix up luggage and Peter nearly misses the plane while carrying Ethan's marijuana pipe. Allowed onto the plane, Peter finds himself seated in front of Ethan and like clockwork Ethan sets about getting them thrown off the plane.

Since Peter's bags are on the plane and he had tucked his wallet in the seatback in front of him he has no money and no means to rent a car. He can't catch another plane because Ethan's rant about bombs and terrorists has landed them both on the no fly list. Now, with only his Blackberry on hand, Peter is stranded until Ethan comes along offering a ride.

Like Peter, Ethan is heading to Los Angeles. He is joined by his dog and the ashes of his late father packed in a coffee can. If you've seen the trailer and commercials then you have witnessed much of the wackiness that ensues during this road trip including crashes, arrests, injuries and the accidental ingestion of dad's ashes as coffee.

Thankfully, “Due Date” is a little more than the sum of its gags. What makes “Due Date” work, even as it contains few surprises and an overly familiar plot, is that Rober Downey Jr and Zach Galifianakis are such a terrifically offbeat screen pairing. Downey and Galifianakis seem to have zero chemistry and that is exactly what works for this duo. 

Downey is brilliant in subverting expectations with defensive hostility; his Peter stubbornly refuses to accept that he is a character in a road trip comedy, one who because of social convention must accept pain, humiliation and delay simply out of kindness, and that stubbornness comes out in his righteously angry outbursts aimed at Ethan and even at his dog and his late father's ashes. 

Galifianakis too has a way of subverting what is expected of him. Employing a joyous mix of childishness and naiveté his Ethan is a man child of rather epic proportions. Not merely some Adam Sandler type who clings to his illusion of youth through fart jokes and other juvenile behavior, Ethan is truly an overgrown child with both the immaturity and vulnerability one would forgive in a pre-teen but comes off as just nuts in a big hairy adult. 

Ethan is a wonderful dichotomy. His behavior would be excused were he 12 years old but as a bear of a nearly 40 year old man his behavior is unpredictable, irritating and strangely charming. Zach Galifianakis is the rare comic actor who can play this dichotomy without it becoming an overbearing act. 

Director Todd Phillips had Galifianakis bring that same disquieting vulnerability to “The Hangover” and it gets the same big laughs this time. Yes, one must begin to wonder whether Zach can play a different comic note, for the record I believe he can, he did rather brilliantly in “It's Kind of a Funny Story,” for now this same comic note is still funny. Future roles will show how well Galifianakis plays other beats or somehow evolves this persona. 

Sure, you've seen this all before but thanks to Downey and Galifianakis, “Due Date” is still funny. The same jokes you've seen a few times in a few other road trip movies are funny because Downey and Galifianakis are telling them in a slightly off-key manner, one that works just for them. 

You have to be a fan of the comic styles of Downey and Galifianakis to like “Due Date.” You have to enjoy Downey's wry sarcasm ala “Iron Man” or “Sherlock Holmes” and you have to have enjoyed Galifianakis's man-child act from “The Hangover.” If not, “Due Date” will not work for you. I am fan of both actors and thus I really liked “Due Date.”