Movie Reviews and Movie Ratings

Many times during this part of the year I read reviews that overrate pretty much every movie. "the best movie of the year," "you've never laughed harder," "the most explosive action sequences your eyes can handle." blah blah blah, something something, dumb diddly do. This movie is 5 stars, that movie is 5 stars! That movie is a perfect 10. or two thumbs up.

Let me fill you in on something. Ratings systems suck. I am not bashing top 10s, top 5 movies of the year, or best of the year lists. I have a problem with the overly simple ratings system that many critics use to review their films. This movie is so many points out of 10, five, four, three, two, one or nil stars, or thumbs up or thumbs down is just simply a bad way to rate movies.

Thumbs up or down doesn't mean anything. How many times have you seen Roger Ebert give thumbs up to a film that he found not bad. The "oh, if you are in the mood or into that sort of thing, go see it," kind of attitude. It is like saying, if you are hungry, sure, eat something you may not like but at least you won't be hungry anymore.

the problem with the star rating system or a score based out of 10 is that you have no reference for how the film is being rated. For example lets say some new movie is given a 10 out of 10 rating and the critic had given films like The Seven Samurai, or The Godfather, or any other classic a 10... does that mean that this new film is an equivalent to classic films that inspired a 10 rating? Maybe I am over exaggerating. Maybe it's perfectly fine to rate a film 10/10 and give it the same rating as a classic that has stood the test of time. Maybe I just feel that if you give a film or anything your highest rating it not only has to be good, great, amazing but something more, something special that passes the test of time.

The stars system has the same problems as the 10/10 system. Are five star hits equally comparable to the five star classic of yesterday? I think not. The problem I have with the star rating system is that provides no depth but perfect accompaniment for movie posters, commercials and nothing else. What is deserving of a star? Maybe it's me being a glass half full of kind of guy but 3 stars out of 5 still seems like a good rating. If 3 stars is good, 4 stars is excellent and 5 stars is classic, why does 2 stars mean decent and 1 star is just bad? That system of rating seems to be off balance to me. The problem becomes worse when there are only 4 stars. I do not know if the half star is an improvement either.

Another note on the star systems. If you are like me and occasionally do the absent minded thing of trying to read Peter Travers for Rolling Stone and find it confusing how he completely rips a movie a new one and what I mean by "new one" is a new asshole and still gives the film 2 or 3 stars. I don't understand this. not at all.

In the end it is just another short cut. It's a lot like picking up the daily horoscope and realizing that every day you read the horoscope it's never anything worse than a 3 star day. How often do you see those 2 star, 1 star days? Maybe if you did you'd stop reading that horoscope? Maybe if reviewers gave worse reviews knowing that people only look at the stars then people will see less movies. I am not talking conspiracy.

a good critic is a path towards enlightenment. You don't always have to agree with the critic but a good critic can educate and create a path to a world of cinema you may have never imagined. There is a single critic I trust that employs any single type of rating system. Shame on you critics.

Faster - Review

Faster is the new film starring Dwayne Johnson also known to many as the Rock. It is a philosophical analysis of murder dressed up as an action drama. The verdict is - It's actually half way decent.

Dwayne Johnson is a recently released felon who goes on a killing spree to avenge those who murdered his brother and almost killed him. With little planning and a lot of action Johnson goes after and kills the men responsible for his brother's death. Billy Bob Thornton and Carla Gugino are the cops trying to stop him and Oliver Jackson Cohen is the hired gun paid to stop Johnson. The man who hires Cohen is the one who set up the the original murder that started it all.

The film plot flows like your general run of the mill revenge saga. Man wants revenge for the murder of his brother, cops try to solve the crime and in doing so fill in the blanks for the plot, while the "bad guys" try to stop our "hero" before they get there comeuppance. It's also nice (at least to my recollection) that word or notion of "justice" is never used to describe Johnson's attempt at revenge.

There is action, some fighting, some gun play and a car chase or two but the film uses all of this to explore the philosophy of murder. Johnson is not a violent man but was driven to crime by circumstance and driven to murder by the consequences of such violence. He only takes out his violence on those who had done him wrong. Even Cohen who is sent to kill Johnson is not considered a threat or worthy of the violence inflicted upon his (Johnson) brother's murders. An interesting twist to the film is Cohen's killer. He is a self made millionaire who through hard work and surgery overcame polio or some other medical illness. He is an assassin for hire at the cost of $1. He does it for the thrill. Cohen character is an interesting one as Johnson's foil. His motives are not as passionate as revenge but are as selfish as thrill seeking.

The action is a bit slow at times. The murders come quick and the build up of whether or not Johnson's Driver character will kill his enemies or those who get in his way creates a fair amount of tension. The growth of the character occurs as he meets his victims. The man who sliced his brother's throat has been waiting for the time he would come face to face with past. During his attack he asks Johnson to call his son and ask for forgiveness. Johnson calls his victim's son and passes along the message. Eventually the two will talk again with the son declaring to Johnson that he will face a similar fate he inflicted upon his father. As Johnson confesses his crime to the son he warns him of the dark road he will travel if he pursues his own course of vengeance. Driver (Johnson) also chooses not to kill one of his targets because of how after the crime he changed the course of his life.

The film also takes a fun if not loose exploration of American vs. European violence. Johnson's Driver character wears a t-shirt and jeans, drives a classic American muscle car, uses a no muss no fuss 6 shooter and is tattooed and scarred. Cohen's Killer is sleek, wealthy, could easily be confused for a Banana Republic model. A witness at a shooting one word to describe the second shooter is, "beautiful." Killer drives a fancy European sports car which is also made to look feminine.

It is also interesting to see the role women play in the film. There are only a few woman that have any relevance to the plot. Driver's girlfriend who not only lost her man when he went to jail but aborted their child after his incarceration. Driver's mother who could not protect a young Driver from his adopted father's beatings. A snitch who cleans up her act only to deny a junkie cop his high to satisfy her own urges. A by the book female cop that breaks one rule to let a crooked cop get benefits for his family after his death. And finally, Killer's girlfriend who is just as bad ass as Killer but becomes soft and homely after their marriage. It might be nothing that all of these female characters are not overly positive characters because the film lacks positive characters in general. The one positive character is one of Driver's targets. A former criminal and junkie who never wanted to kill Driver or his brother but during his stint in prison found religion, became a pastor and adopted lost boys in an attempt to shield them from the mistakes he had made in life.

Faster is more than meets the eye. It really isn't an action film but an examination on murder; the effects of those who not only are the victim of the crime but those who commit and witness such an egregious offense. Dwayne Johnson is solid as Driver. His size and athleticism do much of the work but he is, at times surprisingly convincing during certain tender moments in the film. Billy Bob Thornton and the rest of the supporting cast is reliable. The film doesn't rely on flash or special effects which is a refreshing thing this day and age in Hollywood cinema. The script might spread itself too thin and the ending is very predictable. In the end, Faster is a film with tremendous upside and the harshest criticism for it might be that it came up short on depth and the actual amount of action. Not bad at all.

the Virginity Hit - Review

The Virginity Hit is a movie about four friend who vow to take a hit out of a bong after losing their virginity. Three of the four lose their virginity and those three friends try to help out the fourth with not funny moments to ensue. Worst fucking movie I've seen in a long time.

Review complete.

Eat Love Pray is the new film with Julia Roberts that focuses on the plight of an upper class woman struggling with her identity, lack of spirituality and her failed romantic existence. The film itself is a grade below mediocre with pretty scenery, good acting and a shallow exploration of spiritually in food, meditation and love.

Eat Pray Love is based off the popular memoir by writer Elizabeth Gilbert. In the film though she is known as Liz. Now books are different than films. I have not read the book but strongly believe that the two should not be compared because they are different mediums. That is a different discussion all together.

In the film, Liz (Julia Roberts) is in an unhappy marriage. She also feels that her life has lost it's passion and meaning. Her search for greater meaning in life is ignited by a conversation with a medicine man on a trip investigating meditation and yoga in Bali. The medicine man spoke to Liz concerning her unhappiness with her marriage and how she will lose all that she has only to regain it again. She returns home to New York City and decides to divorce her husband (Billy Crudup) which her husband contests, move out of her home, date and then end things with a young actor (James Franco).

After the divorce and new romance, Liz is still unhappy. She says that she has lost her passion for life which leads her to go on a one year journey to Italy, India and Bali. In Italy she will eat and enjoy life. In India she will meet her guru and pray. In Bali she will reconnect with the medicine man and learn all that the medicine man knows.

It can be difficult to show a character's passion for food, growth in spirituality and enlightenment through knowledge and meditation without the character overtly expressing it. Eat Pray Love tries to do this and fails. We see Liz eat lots of pasta, little pastries and drink wine in Italy. Julia Roberts still has a wonderfully unique smile but her smile after devouring tasty food does nothing to show the growth of her character and her embracing "life." While in India there are several scenes in which Roberts is seen praying or trying to pray. Watching her pray over and over again is meant to imply spiritual growth but the film also fails to capturing that. She goes to Bali to learn from the medicine man but she spends more time sleeping and hanging out with Bardem rather than learning from the medicine man. She is not even willing to hand copy his lessons intended for her. She takes them and photo copies them which is meant to be cute but in many ways displays how shallow her exploration towards harmony and balance really is.

The film itself is very shallow. We don't explore living life, prayer, meditation, yoga or love in any profound way or with any depth. Watching Julia Roberts eat a couple bowls of pasta, pray here and there and meet guys doesn't explore the themes of the film but casually presents them in a manner that makes finding balance in life all too simple. It's a middle class yuppie notion of spirituality and love. Little is truly known about Liz's character as her exploration only reveals how her marriage failed and nothing about what brought her to such unhappiness.

The film might be best served as a travelogue for Italy, India and Bali. Throughout the film, Liz goes to these places and enjoys the classic beauty of these places with little to none of the flaws. She travels for a year with one bag, yet her outfits are different every time but she always looks fabulous. She is always clean, never sweats and fails to experience any of the hardships of the people that reside in her vacations hot spots. Because of this, the film superficially suggest that you can find balance in your life by going on a long vacation, drinking, eating, praying and meeting a nice man.

The film does have some decent qualities. Julia Roberts is very strong in the lead, in what could be defined as a transitional role. As someone over the age of 40, Roberts may struggle to find roles that don't make her look silly by trying too hard to show how young she might be. Tom Cruise has yet to discover this, as the almost 50 year old Cruise still believes he can play a 30 year old. Roberts is quite good. She doesn't rely on her laugh or smile to propel her through the role. She is subtle and very charming. She is able to bring a a certain child like discovery to her journey but a certain sadness of youthful exuberance lost during down periods. In her 40's Roberts could not have played the early 30's Liz while in her 30's. It seems like a role Roberts was meant to play during this stage of her career. Javier Bardem is also excellent as Liz's love interest in Bali. Bardem does a lot with his screen time. We see him cry, laugh, be charming and argue with Roberts in a way that is both alarming and agreeable.

The dialogue is also very resourceful. Eat Pray Love is written by director Ryan Murphy and Jennifer Salt. It uses the dialogue very well in understanding the minor characters we see for only 1/3 of the film. Unfortunately in many ways we learn small details about the minor characters that we never learn about Liz. This could also be a problem. We learn so much about the other characters and hardly anything about Liz. It is because of that the film tends to drag. It drags because there are so many characters, so many places and the pattern of the film becomes far to apparent early in the film.

Love Eat Pray is probably a very good book but as a movie it seems like a self indulgent travel guide. Is it beautiful to look at? At times, yes? Does it make you hungry? Yes. Would you want to travel to these places afterwards? Probably. Is it funny or profound? Maybe as funny or profound as a fortune cookie can be. In the end, Eat Love Pray seems to reach only a small audience of upper class, superficially lost women that don't need spirituality but a man in their lives. Maybe Eat Pray Love will be the Starbucks drinking, Banana Republic wearing, Oprah book club reading version of Sex and the City.... oh boy.

Inception - Review

Inception is the new Christopher Nolan film that focuses on dreams as well as memories to understand the harsh consequences of guilt. Unfortunately the movie is not very good because it lacks structure and identity. Inception has unlikable characters, a complicated plot that has a lot of rough edges, a shocking ending that is not shocking and a lot of notions about memories and dreams that are underdeveloped.

First, Christopher Nolan is a film maker focused on memories and guilt. Memento is a film about a man who has no long term memory and with the aid of clues searches for the man that killed his wife. His remake of Insomnia is about a detective who accidentally shoots his partner and is haunted by those memories. In the first Batman, Nolan explores Bruce Wayne's inability to cope with his parents murder and how his memories of his parents influence his decision to become Batman.

Inception is about a top notch group of thieves that enter your dreams while you sleep and steal secrets. Their job is basically super sophisticated corporate espionage. The leader of this team is Leonardo DiCaprio as Mr. Cobb. Mr. Cobb is a wanted criminal in the US and struggles to efficiently perform his job without memories of his dead wife interrupting his dream state. Mr. Cobb and their team typically do extraction jobs until a new employer, Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers Mr. Cobb a proposition to plant an idea into the mind of one of his business competitors. Placing an idea in another person's mind is called inception.

Upon being approached with this idea of inception Cobb and his business partner Arthur (Joseph Gorden-Levitt) immediately reject the idea and tell Saito that inception is impossible. The reasons why inception cannot be done are not very convincing. Immediately after the proposal is dismissed Saito offers Mr. Cobb a chance to see his children again. Cobb takes the job explaining without reason that inception can be done. While everyone doubts whether or not inception can be done, Cobb is holding something back from his team. His secret is that he has done inception to his dead wife. This plot twist is meant to be a surprise but it isn't as Cobb keeps it a secret from his team.

So the chase is on. Cobb and Arthur assemble their crack team of mind thieves which include Ariadne (Ellen Page), Eames (Tom Hardy) and Yusuf (Dileep Rao). It's seem hard to believe that all of these characters are needed and it does not help that their job description and training are roughly explained. Ariadne as the architect of the dreams, Eames as the forager, Yusuf as the chemist, Arthur as the team lead and Cobb as the principle thief that really doesn't do anything, not even come up with the plan. By the way, the plan to insert an idea in the target Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy) seems really easy.

So the plan goes like this... the team plus Saito plan to invade Mr. Fischer's dreams while on a 10 hour flight from Sydney to LA. The 10 hour flight is important because an hour of dreaming translates to a week in the dream and the plan needs months of dreaming to develop, hence the 10 hours needed. It seems reasonable but the film follows this principle very, very loosely. On the plane the team will take some heavy sedatives so nothing will disturb their sleep because they will be exploring multiple levels of dreams, a dream within a dream to plant the idea. Before entering this set of dreams, the viewer has already seen a dream or two and is somewhat familiar with the rules of what should be done and can be done in dreams. Somethings go wrong in the first layer of dreams and the rules change. Things going wrong in all the levels of dreams and frequently so the team improvises with a new plan seemingly contradictory of what was thought capable, but it all works out anyway.

One of the major obstacles is the target Robert Fisher Jr. has been trained to handle mind espionage and his mind sets out traps to capture those attacking it. Fisher's mind defense is something not shocking since the idea had been introduced early in the film. Each dream encounters a problem that seemingly comes from nowhere but is resolved with ease because after all the characters are in a dream and in a dream you can do whatever the fuck you want. Yes, in a dream you can do whatever you want. No need for rules or previous notions of what can, cannot, should or should not be done in the dream because Nolan was going to throw them out the window.

The team gets the job done and Cobb again get his man. By completing the job, Cobb is freed of his criminal charges and gets to see his children again. He also deals with the memory of his dead wife who has been plaguing his dreams and making the jobs much more difficult. The memories of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) continue to interrupt each mission Cobb goes on, at the point that it puts his team in significant danger. In the end, all is resolved or is it?

The drama of what happens within the dreams seems very over blown. Earlier in the film, if you died in your dream you woke up but in this new set of dreams with the many levels of dreams and the heavy dose of sedatives, if you die you might be in a coma or some type of mental limbo when you wake up. Such threats of a coma or mental limbo at some point seem weak since the rules of the dreams continue to change. For example Saito is shot in the first level of dreams but must complete the mission and awake as according to plan or else mental limbo. Later on Fisher is shot but is somehow found in Cobb's dream and comes back to life. What? There is an explanation given on why this works and with this explanation you easily just want to toss your hands up in the air and wonder why they don't use super powers to fend off their attackers, fly or call upon giant mythological monsters to play a game of dodge ball.

There is a moment in the first layer of Fisher's dream sharing in which Arthur is in the middle of a shoot out, using a large rifle and having little success. Eames comes to help by simply saying, "you must not be afraid to dream a bit bigger" or something of that sort and in his hands magically (seemingly so) a hand cannon appears which quickly relieves them of their pursuers. Why isn't this method of dreaming bigger explored more often? I do not know. Maybe because it would easily squash any of the drama in the film. In some aspects one has to admire Nolan for wanting to keep the violence so grounded, making it concrete and realistic but in the end the drama rises and falls without any reason. Something bad happens, a plan to resolve quickly arises and then resolution. Is it because they are in a dream and within a dream anything can be done? If that is true then doesn't that kill any of the drama? I think so.

Their are several twists in the plot that might require debate or a second viewing. I am not opposed to see anything twice but it seems that much of the film requires a second viewing for cheap purposes. The end is a twist that anyone should see coming. The plot twists seem intentionally confusing rather than profound in which the sole purpose is to mask a lame duck plot with self absorbed characters.

Mr. Cobb is an incredibly selfish hero. He is hard to like as he continually puts the plan and his team in danger. Ariadne is meant to be our moral center but consistently forgives Cobb and allows him to continue his selfish ways. DiCaprio as Cobb plays the role in a straight manner and is solid but not exceptional. He doesn't play Cobb as an obsessive or a guilt stricken man which are both reasonable and might have made the character more interesting. There is no humor or sadness which leaves the performance kind of flat. You have to wonder if the choice to play this role in that particular fashion was his or Nolan's. DiCaprio does deserve some kudos for his recent string of playing characters struggling with identity. Page as Ariadne is mediocre as she seems type cast to play a snotty youth who consistently gives her characters an attitude that embodies a self righteous teen. Joseph Gorden-Levitt is an interesting cast as the team manager Arthur. He doesn't really have the persona or body type for the role nor does he use those distinctions to build upon the role in a new way. His rigid portrayal just comes off as flat. Ken Watanabe as Saito, Tom Hardy as Eames and Cotillard as Mal are probably the most efficient and entertaining performances. It is nice to see Nolan having a group of actors that routinely appear in his films such as Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine (as Cobb's step father?)

Inception is not an inventive film. It is a charade. It doesn't really explain how dreams work, how time works within the dreams, what can be done and what cannot be done. It's very confusing for the sake of being confusing. It doesn't try to explore the philosophy of dreams. The film slogan, "your mind is the scene of the crime" is misleading and odd since we follow the criminals. Plot twist after plot twist don't reveal anything new about the characters or the plot. Everything in the film seems underdeveloped. The cast seems all wrong despite my admiration for much of the players. The sub plots are weak while the issues about mothers and parenting within the film are unclear. It is also a shame that Nolan, his cinematographer and editor must rely on flashbacks in a film about memory. They are either unable to recreate film shots and use montage editing to build upon the themes of the film or they don't think the average audience is able to understand those techniques. After all Inception is not Hiroshima Mon Amour.

Much is made about this film and it's approach on dreams. Nolan is not a surrealist and that doesn't hurt this film but at times the film seems to be lacking imagination. If he were a surrealist would that make Nolan more creative? I doubt it. Nolan is very grounded. His action sequences are classic in many ways with chase sequences, subtle gun play, a timely explosions and clever fist on fist fights. He doesn't rely on special effects and films in a grand epic scale that David Lean would admire. He shoots on location and there is much about this film that seems like it could have been done with old school movie tricks according to new school rules. When cities fold it almost looks like two overlapping rolls of film but better. When the zero gravity sequence occurs in a fun over overdrawn action sequence, it is nothing more than a room that twirls like on a rotisserie causing the appearance of walking on walls. All of these old school tricks might be done with new school technology but if anything Nolan should be saluted for doing what has been done before in better ways. Nolan should also be given props for making challenging large scale films, even if, at least according to this review are not fully developed.

In the end, Inception is a great idea crudely done, questionably performed with a lack luster script and an ending encouraging debate over good film making.

Death at a Funeral - Review

You have to wonder why Chris Rock chooses some of his pictures. Death at a Funeral might be a noble effort but fails in a variety of ways to capture the original's clever and offbeat humor. If that seems like an unfair criticism by comparing it with the original, then it fails to be funny on its own terms.

Death at a Funeral is about a family's struggle to deal with the loss of one of their loved ones. Chris Rock is Aaron, the insecure want to be writer who recently lost his father. He is married, a tax accountant and trying to have a baby with his wife. Martin Lawrence is Ryan, his younger brother who enjoys the bachelor life and is a successful novelist in New York City. Ryan comes back home for the funeral and while his brother struggles with the financial burden and organization of the funeral, Ryan is more focused on hooking up with a hot young thing. The two brothers argue about money, who should give the eulogy, writing, and family responsibilities.

There is also Aaron's cousin, Elaine (the oh so beautiful Zoe Saldana) who is nervous about telling her father that she is engaged and pregnant to drug induced Oscar (James Marsden). Luke Wilson is Derek trying to win Elaine back. Tracy Morgan is Norman, the fat friend adding absurdity to any situation. Danny Glover is the angry Uncle Russell and Peter Dinklage is Frank, the former gay lover of Aaron and Ryan's father.

A whole bunch of shenanigans ensue, starting with misplacement of the deceased, a couple of hallucinogenic highs and blackmail. Humor is supposed to surround these antics but most fall short except for Marsden who takes takes acid thinking it was a Valium in an attempt to relieve his anxiety. Much of the humor is poorly timed. Many of the actors never seem comfortable or able to make the subtle humor funny. Poor and choppy editing also disturbs the flow making the some of the punchlines stand alone, causing them to fall flat.

The movie is very brave in casting the actors against type. Chris Rock as the straight man? Martin Lawrence as a ladies man? James Marsden playing a straight laced guy on a drug high? Owen Wilson as an arrogant stock broker? The only one that succeeds is Marsden. As funny as Rock can be and he can be very funny, he is still trying to find his straight man ability. Chris Rock has been acting in movies for almost 20 years and still has yet to find his breakout comic performance. Eddie Murphy had Beverly Hills Cop. Jim Carrey had Ace Ventura. Will Pharrell had Anchorman. It seems hard to pin point a huge comedic success for Chris Rock on the silver screen. Are films like this, a remake of an English Comedy, along with other films like Down to Earth (remake of Hollywood classic Heaven Can Wait) and I Think I Love My Wife (remake of French classic Chloe in the Afternoon) attempts to show audiences that Chris Rock is more than his upfront and aggressive humor portray? I think so. Is Chris Rock like every other comedian, trying to prove he can act as well as be funny? Probably. Is he successful? No, not really but you have to admire his desire to be more than just a comedian. Adam Sandler knows a little bit about this too.

Death at a Funeral fails in several ways. It isn't that funny. Marsden and Morgan provide some laughs but not enough to keep the film from dragging. Poor editing and a lack of direction fail at creating what kind of film Death at a Funeral could be. Is it slapstick? Is it a family comedy? Is it all that and more? In the end, it is none of these things. In the end, Aaron (Rock) learns something but we aren't exactly sure what. In the beginning of the film, he seems like a perfectly good guy, a good husband and son, a want to be writer with some confidence issues. In the end, he discovers his confidence but the viewer never witnesses his lack of ability to understand his growth as a writer. Ryan, his brother seems to learn nothing and Elaine learns to stand up to her father out of must have circumstances rather than choice.

In conclusion, Death at a Funeral is nothing but disappointing.

Date Night - Review

Date Night stars Tina Fey and Steve Carrell as a married couple looking to spice up their usual date night but get involved in a black mail scheme involving sex and the mob. Ultimately the film is funny but leaves you wanting more, maybe more than is really possible.

Tina and Steve are great on the their hit shows, The Office and 30 Rock but this is the big screen and Date Night has them trying to be funny in slightly different ways. Steve Carrell is easily type casted in the nerdy, nice, goofy and sometimes clumsy male. Tina Fey is the smart mouthed, un-hip, sexually tame mother. The two are married with kids. They both feel a bit trapped as their marriage has lost that spark. A married couple close to them split and as a reaction they go out to the city instead of the local eatery for a night of fun and adventure. What they get is a night of guns, blackmail, crooked cops and Mark Wahlberg bare chest. They get involved in a black mail scheme that has nothing to do with them but are confused for some one else and the adventure begins. They have to find the couple with the restaurant reservation they stole, the blackmail goods that could solve the mystery and save their hides while alluding, crooked cops and Mark Wahlberg's oily chest.

Date Night has some funny moments, both involving speedy or not so speedy chases. One involving a motor boat, the other involving a spiffy Audi colliding into a taxi cab with hilarity to ensue. Fey and Carrell are fine. Might the movie have been better if they were allowed to improvise or roam free with the script? I don't know. I am not sure improvisation are their strengths. Fey's best talents are as a writer, not an actor or even a comedian. Carrell also seems like someone who best works with set material and is funny when working with quality material like on The Daily Show or The Office, not so much with Get Smart or Evan Almighty. Towards the end of the film, Carrell and Fey are involved in a strip tease scene involving a stripper pole that is humorous but a little bit of a let down. It should be the scene everyone talks about the next day or at the water cooler but it's not that memorable. It might be because the pole dance sequence requires a good sense of physical humor and neither of these two comedian are known for their physical humor.

Date Night is not bad but it is not memorable. The crooked cops chasing the simple married couple from New Jersey might be the dumbest bad guys ever and their stupidity isn't even played up for any amount of humor. None of the one liners are that funny and many of the smartest jokes are after the fact (punchline) jokes. Even the gag reel during the credits is not up to par and displays Fey's and Carrell's lack of ability to improv or do physical humor. If you don't believe me that Fey is nothing special at improv then why was her best character on SNL, a portrayal of herself on the Weekend Update Segments. It is only till recently that she discovered new success as Sarah Palin.

Date Night will go down as one of those movies that could have been so much more but until then will go down as pretty good, well sort of.

Kick Ass - Review

Kick Ass is the new comic book movie aimed at not being a comic book movie but being a analysis of a comic book movie dressed up as a comic book movie. Confused? It seems like a lot of comic book movies have been diving deep into self exploration and if that is not your cup of tea then Kick Ass is not for you. If you like comic book action, self aware humor and 11 year old with ninja stylings and the mouth of a sailor than maybe this film is for you.

Aaron Johnson is Dave, a geek who wonders why no one has ever tried becoming a super hero. It seems logical that someone at least one person would have dressed up in cape and cowl and fought crime. So one day, after getting beat up and no one doing a thing, or even caring, he decides to buy a wet suit, put on a mask and fight crime. He doesn't have any powers or even any gadgets. His method of fighting crime is really no different than a neighborhood watch. Except when he patrols the neighborhood, he does it in a mask.

Along the way, he meets a father and daughter duo called Big Daddy and Hit Girl (Nicholas Cage and Chloe Moretz). Big Daddy and Hit Girl are the real thing and out for revenge. Big Daddy is a former cop who wants to avenge his wife's passing, while his daughter is along for the ride and is there to make her father happy. They are after mob boss Frank D'Amico. Some wild action, a trap involving D'Amico's son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Superbad's McLovin) as a fake comic book hero Red Mist, some girl chasing and comic book references galore occur in Kick Ass.

Kick Ass is enjoyable. The movie doesn't really discover an identity. Is it an homage or a critique of comic book culture? In his narration, Kick Ass tries to persuade us that his motives are not spurred by revenge or the sudden appearance of super powers but simply by the frustration that no one seems to care about how bad this world has become. It seems like a noble premise until you meet Big Daddy and realize that this is really a revenge movie after all. And then what may seem like an original premise falls under every comic book convention.

The worst thing about Kick Ass the movie is the Kick Ass character himself. The movie follows his dull and rather pointless narration and his feeble attempts at self training. There has to be at least 3 different instances where he is checking himself out in the mirror trying to psyche himself up while displaying his "awesome" fighting movies. A joke that is funny at first but after many other displays of his inadequate training, the joke wears very thin. His attempts at getting the girl are just as awkward, unimportant and a stretch, not only for relevancy but humor.

The best part of Kick Ass is the father and child relationships shared by Big Daddy and Hit Girl, as well as Mob Boss D'Amico with Red Mist. Big Daddy has been training his daughter for these moments since she was 6 and is very proud of her killing ways, While papa D'Amico is hesitant to trust and allow his son to join his mob. It's a shame that the movie focuses so much on Kick Ass that these story lines are a underdeveloped and not the central focus of the film. It is understood that Kick Ass is supposed to be the ordinary Joe, the common figure of which we the viewer should relate to, but his story is just so bland. So he is an awkward teenage that cannot get girls, with no super powers and reads comics. So was I and so were a lot of my friends.... I don't need to spend my time watching a movie that fails to be profound on the subject. Does Kick Ass save the day at the end? Yes, well sort of but his journey to super hero is more out of accident rather than defiance or great act of courage.

Kick Ass does not examine the mind state of super hero's like The Dark Knight was determined to achieve but it does hint at the disturbed nature of the masked hero far better than Watchmen did. Nicholas Cage as former police officer Damon MaCready is a twisted character of pure hate and determination that finds no peace except for time spent with his daughter. The blind faith his daughter has in his plan and violent methods is fascinating. The seemingly ordinary relationship D'Amico has with his son is odd but pleasant. Moretz as the 11 year old Hit Girl is just a treat. She wields a knife as if it were a 6th finger. She swears like she has 50 years of experience with an attitude that somehow doesn't come off as cute but fierce.

The final action sequence is the best part of the film. It truly captures the essence of the film; from the off beat comedic absurdity to the comic book plot, the oddity of people dressed up in costume to fight crime, the outrageous violence and casual misplacement of logic. Kick Ass is a bit long but enjoyable. It might be a fan boy type thing. I never read the original comic strip for which the film is based but you shouldn't feel lost or confused. You don't need to know everything about comics to get the humor or the references. It is a fun movie. At least one I would say is worth watching, even if you dislike it.

Hot Tub Time Machine - Review

Hot Tube Time Machine is a whacky comedy that goes beyond logic to be funny. The film finds three adult males going through hard times heading back to the past for a moment to relive their glory days.

John Cusack (Adam) is in a similar role as a broken heart, recently divorced man taking care of his nephew. Clark Duke (Jacob) is the nephew who would rather play video games than go out and be a teen. Craig Robinson (Nick) is a former musician turned pet groomer who is let down by his marriage and wonders what happened to his rock star days. Rob Corddry (Lou) plays a drunk low life who fails at everything even suicide. After Lou fails to kill himself, the guys get together and decide to take a man trip out to their favorite ski resort. They don't realize that like their own lives, the resort has seen better days. The resort is falling apart but the hot tub outside their suite is fully functional. They get wildly drunk and with the aid of a knock-of Russian power drink like Red Bull which causes a malfunction in the hot tub, they are sent them back to 1986.

Hot Tub Time Machine is actually pretty funny. Much of the humor works because despite being an absolutely stupid and awesome premise, the movie doesn't rely on crude, disgusting or crass humor. When the film does that like when a bell boy's arm is ripped off it comes off as a shock rather than funny. Disgusting humor exists but shock humor isn't the only thing that makes this film funny. While Corddry might be a little exhausting as he tries to find ways to make money in the past by using his knowledge of the future, the humor finds laughs because the chemistry from the four is very believable. The characters are very sarcastic and are capable of using the f-bomb to a smart and playful degree. There are also some very funny situations, for instance when Nick who has been struggling with his wife's affair calls his wife, in the past, at the age of nine and unloads on her for being a cheating bitch. The banter Lou and Jakob share as they insult one another is fun and spirited. Cusack provides little humor but his role as Adam is the emotional center. Even as the film's producer and biggest star, Cusack doesn't let his character dominate the film which could have caused the film to drag.

Hot Tube Time Machine struggles with some logical errors. Despite taking place in 1986 there is a rousing gambling scene that involves the 1987 AFC championship game. Cleveland Browns fan (like myself) might enjoy this moment as John Elway's historic drive falls short. There is also a joke that Lou forms Motley Lue and enjoys the celebrity of being a rock star. This is not necessarily possible because Motley Crue was formed in 1981. Despite these errors, the goof ball premise of a hot tub time machine already dismissed any sense of logic or reason. It's a funny movie. It doesn't matter that the Chevy Chase character is never really explained or why the group is so reluctant to relive their past, make the best of it or improve on their future by fixing the past. It is probably a smart move that the movie doesn't really take the time to examine their emotional state or explain the time wizard that is Chevy Chase's character.

The real break out star of Hot Tube Time Machine is Craig Robinson. You might recognize him as a recurring character on The Office or small roles in Pineapple Express and Zack and Miri Make a Porno. In this film, as part of an ensemble cast, he gets to display a wide range of comedic skills. He can get your sympathy, be enraged, be sarcastic and be funny at the same time. There is a fair amount of sincerity in his comedic delivery. This sincerity makes a great deal of what he does either funny or charming.

Hot Tub Time Machine is funny if you accept that logic does not exist and just go with the flow. It's a guy movie, not like Wild Hogs or even The Hangover. The guys aren't good looking, on a road trip or in a fashionable hot spot like Vegas. Even the ski resort, past or present looks like a bad movie set or sound stage but this adds to the movie's charm. It has the Cusack production stamp all over it and I am sucker for Cusack's personal and sometimes morbid romantic explorations. Plus any film where the Cleveland Browns go to the Super Bowl cannot be all bad.

The Cleveland International Film Festival

The Cleveland International Film Festival.

Before you say anything, It does exist. It is not a made up festival or anything. The festival has for 34 years shown movies from around the world in all forms; short, full length, documentary, fictional, animated, and so forth.

For example today, on the 4th day of the festival I saw a french romantic comedy and a documentary on the history of film criticism. You can catch a plethora of films at the festival. You can see an Iranian film about guys wanting to lose weight who then train in sumo wrestling or a documentary about Allen Iverson. Variety - the spice of life.

I love talking about movies. I get into plenty of conversations about movies. I consistently hear people complain about the movies that are being made and shown in local theaters. Since many people out there do not know of or cannot make it to an art house cinema where foreign films or low budget movies are a regular occurrence, they are then stuck with the general milieu of Hollywood cinema at your near by megaplex. But countless amounts of people out there yearn for something more than some romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant as the awkward British guy or some over-hyped teen drama with countless minutes (which feels like hours) of intense yet unsatisfying staring.

What I am saying is... if you want more than what is available to you, then you have to seek it out or you can attend a festival in which there are dozens of options, easily packaged and available to you. Kind of like a buffet for movie lovers. If you cannot make it to Cleveland, fear not because most likely a film festival is closer to you than you think. There are countless amounts of festivals all over the world. In big cities, small cities, universities and even small local theaters organizing festivals ranging from genre festivals showing three nights of horror classics to international festivals displaying a world of cinema beyond your individual grasp.

I suggest going to the Cleveland International Film Festival. Supporting the arts never hurt anyone, plus you might be surprised by what you see or you might be surprised by what you like.

the Oscars - Why You Shouldn't Put Too Much Stock in Award Shows

Today, the 82nd Academy Awards will recognize certain individuals for acting, writing, directing and producing motion pictures. The awards ceremony also recognizes the make up artists, production designers, editors, sound technicians and so forth. I refuse to claim someone as a victor, not because you cannot judge art or some lame crap like that but because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences might be the worst at award acknowledgment in the history of cinema.

Since 1929, the Academy Awards have been very successful at kissing Hollywood ass. It is a giant party and promotional gala for the movie industry. As a child I bought into the notion that great movies are the movies that had won awards. Today, many people, not just children subscribe to the notion that success should be awarded, not simply by commercial or critical gains but by little golden statues that mean absolutely nothing.

Tell me... why should I recognize an award show in which a film noir, science fiction film, or an animated film have never won Best Picture? Tell me... why only 13 people of African American descent have ever won an Academy award for acting? There are have only been 4 people of Asian descent to win an acting award and 8 people of Latin or Hispanic descent to win. Way to go Anthony Quinn on winning twice. In case you don't want to do the math. The best actor/actress category has had 164 winners since 1927, while the supporting actor/actress awards have been given 146 times since 1936. So with 310 acting awards being awarded, only 8 percent of those awards have been given to minorities. That is not the only injustice because there is no explanation as to why only four woman ever been nominated for directing? Wait, there is more. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Academy Award. Peter O'Toole never won an Academy Award. Robert Altman never won, neither has Albert Finney, Deborah Kerr or Greta Garbo. Charlie Chaplin only one won Academy Award and that was for his score of the film Limelight (1952). Here are some more numbers for you; Only 8 foreign films have ever been nominated for Best Picture and none of them were victorious.

If you feel that those statistics are simply coincidence or just bad luck then try this argument. In another attempt to promote itself the American Film Institute (AFI) ranked the 100 greatest movies of all time in 1996. In any case, it was the 100 greatest American or English language films because there was not one foreign or foreign language film listed. Almost 70 years after the Academy awards were created the AFI list only honored 32 best picture winners. Many of the films on the list never won any Oscars. Those films included Taxi Driver, Psycho, Vertigo, Dr. Strangelove, and The Manchurian Candidate. If those films are a little too old for you then how about this; a revised list was done in 2007 in which The Shawshank Redemption was on the top 100 films of all time and that films also failed to win any Academy Awards.

Another example of the Academy's failure to recognize great films took place in 1941 when Citizen Kane failed to capture the awards for best picture and director. Since 1941, Citizen Kane is heralded as one of the best, if not the best film of all time. Citizen Kane is mentioned in every text or class that attempts to teach film. Citizen Kane is not just a great film because of its execution but because of the influence it has had on a variety of film personalities and cultures. Despite this influence it failed to capture the best picture award. The film that had won, How Green Was My Valley is not a bad film but is not celebrated on any level in comparison with Citizen Kane. The reasons for Citizens Kane's defeat is nothing short of shameful. Welles, who wrote, starred and directed the picture loosely based the film on media tycoon William Randolph Hearst. During the films release, Hearst threatened anyone's career if they applauded the film or voted for it in any award ceremonies.

The greatest problem with the Academy Awards is that they have convinced people that the films that have won awards aren't just good films but movies worth watching. How many times have you heard this, "Well I thought I should see it because it had won so many awards." Or this, "it has to be good, it won like 10 Oscars." The notion of what is and isn't Oscar worthy is absurd. The Oscars are not the only barometer for good or bad movies. Films that win Oscars are not necessarily good or even memorable. Sometimes the movies that win are the films that don't offend while others times the films that win just make a lot of money. Some of the most praised, studied and adored films of all time never won an Oscar. Some were denied because of politics, while others were denied because of popularity. No one knows exactly why certain films or actors, writers, and directors have been neglected by the voting committee. It is unsure why Charlie Chaplin had not won an Oscar until he was removed from the United States. Some thought he was a communist or that he hated Jews while others disapproved of his personal life. It is unclear why Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Many feel that Martin Scorsese had not won an Oscar for so long because his films were too violent. There were reports that Raging Bull was denied the Best Picture Award of 1980 because his film Taxi Driver had influenced the assassination attempt on President Reagan the day prior to the 1981 ceremony. Some reports suggest that the Academy did not want to appear as if they were promoting the violence in Scorsese's films.

So who makes up the voting committee? I guess, if anyone is to blame it should be those who vote? You might be happy to know that the voters are a bunch of movie people. The voters are actors, writers, directors, camera persons, technicians, stylists and musicians? Musicians? Really? I know there are a couple of categories for music but as much as I love Bruce Springsteen I am not sure if he is a solid voter for Best Picture. Bruce Springsteen is a voter, in case you wanted to know. Other voters include those in the public relations business. Oh yeah, public relations. The people who sell you stuff help decide which films deserve awards or not. The president of marketing for Universal Pictures is Eddie Egan and don't worry he has a vote. I wonder if he will be compelled to vote for Inglorious Bastards, which was produced by Universal or will he vote for what he thinks was the best picture.

Who wins and who is nominated does matter in other terms besides awards and recognition. In 2009, Hollywood.com reported that films see a bump in ticket sales when nominated for best picture. If that is true then what kind of bump do they get at the ticket office, rental box or sales counter when the film wins best picture? How can anyone trust these voters when so much money is at risk?

I don't want to get rid of the Oscars but I feel it is necessary to acknowledge that the Oscars do not determine greatness. It's a big party. People enjoy watching the glam of the red carpet. It's a spectacle. It's a method to promote the notion that Hollywood is still the place where dreams come true and if you are talented or popular enough you can win an award that is about 8 pounds symbolizing everything and nothing all at once.

Crazy Heart - Review

Jeff Bridges displays great talent while singing and performing great country music crafted by T-Bone Burnett. Crazy Heart is an adequate film about an alcoholic musician struggling to rediscover his gift for writing music.

Jeff Bridges is Bad Blake, a country musician at the end of his career playing bowling alleys and small town bars. Bad Blake is looking for one last moment in the sun but is unable to write a hit song or stop his drinking. At a tour stop he meets single mother Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and they connect over music and a romance blossoms. It is partly because of their romance that Bad Blake reaches out to his former protege Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) to perform some opening gigs and write some new songs. Until meeting Jean, Blake was unwilling to meet Sweet or even discuss the success of his protege while his career was coming undone.

The two fall in love, Blake becomes a hit with her son and the only thing standing in their way is Blake's drinking as Jean is afraid to make the same mistakes she has made in her past. Though it may be unclear what mistakes have been made, she is very weary of Blakes drinking. Then during a trip to see Bad Blake in Houston where Jean allows Blake to watch her son for an afternoon and due to his alcoholism (?) he loses the young boy at a mall. Jean is upset and decides to never see Blake again, understandably so. After feeling down and out, Blake calls up his friend Wayne (Robert Duvall - also one of the film's producers) and decides to go to rehab. Blake cleans up his act and starts writing hit country songs for Tommy Sweet but unfortunately never regains the love of the woman who brought him out of his drunken darkness.

So the film might read like a country song. Drunk country star finds love, his talent and peace through love. Crazy Heart isn't new ground. The Wrestler (2008) was one of the last films to portray a former star in their profession struggling with the end of their career and personal misdirection only to find some hope through romantic encounters with a younger woman. Crazy Heart is a more positive film than The Wrestler but both films have powerful performances by their stars. Crazy Heart might not be original, shocking or even that clever but it has a great performance by Bridges. The film is not completely removed from reality too. Many great country musicians of the past have resurrected their career in recent memory like Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson, and Loretta Lynn. Therefore it is not hard to believe that a country great can come from obscurity to reclaim the talent that made them great so long ago. It is also not hard to believe that there is a connection between drug abuse and country music; Willie Nelson, Steve Earle, Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings all have associations with drugs use and/or abuse.

Bridges knows that he has never received the same respect as other talented actors. Even though at times, in the eyes of this reviewer, Bridges has often over acted in many of his roles. Despite his lack of recognition he has still had many great performances throughout his 50 years of acting on television and the big screen. While many honor him in the Big Lebowski as the Dude, his performances in such films like the Last Picture Show, The Fabulous Baker Boys and The Fisher King should be used as reliable sources for his talent. He brings a great deal of subtly to this role without relying on gestures or breaks in his speech to define the character. He embodies the great southern charm that his character Blake is known to have. Bridges is also not bad singer, being able to bring T-Bone Burnett's music to life.

Crazy Heart spends a fair amount of time focussing on the issue of alcoholism. For the first part of the film it might be easy to dismiss Bad Blake's drinking as basic part of the music or country music culture. It becomes clear that his addiction is a problem when his drinking and driving causes a car accident. At the hospital he consults with the doctor and the doctor tells him that dismissing his problems with jokes and a devil may care attitude will only bring him closer to his death. After losing Jean's son and her affection, he goes into rehab. Alcohol and the problems of addiction play a large role in the film, as big as romance or the music itself. Other than Blakes constant drinking, Jean seems to have a past involving drinking, Blake's best friend who takes him to rehab owns a bar and knows the troubles of getting sober. At a gig with Sweet, Blake asks Tommy why he is drinking tea instead of whiskey. To deny the role that drinking/alcohol play in the film is to deny the central theme of recovery.

Despite powerful performances and good music there is nothing that stands out in this film. Plus everything in the film moves so quickly that nothing has a big impact. It takes a moment of screen time for Blake and Jean to fall in and out of love. It takes a moment of screen time for Blake to stop drinking, enter rehab and come out clean. It might be hard for the viewer to really appreciate the difficulty it can be for some to recover from substance addiction. A lot of things go unsaid like why Blake has such a difficult time going to work for Sweet. The storyline in which Blake tries to reconnect with the son he abandoned takes too much time and is underdeveloped.

Crazy Heart has great music and great performances but Bridges, Farrell and Duval. Taking place in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico with such beautiful landscapes, director Scott Cooper effortlessly connect the music with the open landscapes of the southwest. T-Bone Burnett's selection of covers and well crafter originals add to his legacy of making great movie soundtracks that include O Brother Where Art Thou and Walk the Line. With all that in mind, the film goes little to nowhere without Bridges.

The Book of Eli - Review

Denzel Washington in post-apocalyptic action adventure is (kind of) entertaining as long as you can suspend disbelief and ignore logic or reason.

The film is set in the not too distant future, in the wasteland that has become the United States. A traveler, Washington's Eli is walking west. Why? Because he carries a package and that must be delivered. The earth as we know it is no more. A war has destroyed landscapes, wild life and resources. Everything is in limited supply. Things are in such limited supply one can barter with KFC hand wipes.

Along the way Eli has to overcome traps and cannibals. He arrives at a town run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman) and his gang. In a time when few can read because of a war in which books were burned, Carnegie searches for one book that he can use to run his town and possibly the world? He is searching for the Bible. We come to learn that every Bible ever created has been burned except the one which is in the possession of Eli. Eli and Carnegie have some fights and shoot outs that are part western and part Mad Max. With divine guidance and strong convictions , Eli goes West to San Francisco where a small community is trying to rebuild society through intellectual thought and science. This group take the bible and with a newly constructed printing press they copy it along with other important pieces of literature and thought.

The Book of Eli is the first film directed by the Hughes brothers in almost 10 years. Albert and Allen Hughes have only made a few films since there breakout debut, Menace II Society in 1993. I am not really sure if this method helps them or hurts them. Eli has some decent action sequences, a downplayed performance by Washington and a positive religious message that is not offensive. The film is smart enough to suggest the power the bible and it's message can have while being used for good or evil. Unfortunately the film is not smart enough to build on it's backdrop, characters or plot lines.

For example, the film is set up on the principle that Eli has been walking with the Bible for 30 years trying to get west. It is 2905 miles from New York City to San Francisco. You understand that food or shelter is not easily accessible but with that amount of time to travel, Eli would only have to walk 1/3 of a mile per day to reach the west coast. With a questionable ending, one also wonders whether or not Eli is able to see? The viewer never really knows about the war that brought upon such destruction - nuclear war? You don't know why all books or sources of knowledge were burned - religious war? If so, who won? With limited resources and little to no civilization in sight, how are people still using motorcycles or cars? The list could go on.

If you are curious for information or come into this film questioning why things are they way they are then you will leave unsatisfied. If you can suspend disbelief long enough to ignore the giants wholes or gaps in the script then you might have a good time. Washington is relatively subdued as the traveler on a spiritual mission. He brings a certain humility to the character that makes his performance somewhat stand out. Oldman performance is a bit strange as it seems like he is trying to do his best impersonation of Jack Nicholson. At two hours long, it does get bogged down in the middle and addition of the Mila Kunis character Solara turns a somewhat predictable film into a more very predictable film. At least the Hughes brothers have enough class to resist the temptation to turn Kunis into a sex object. Sorry movie goers but there are no shower scenes, bikini shots or even any romantic twist between Washington and Kunis. Thank goodness. And even in post apocalyptic films there is still plenty of room for product placement.

The Book of Eli is bound to land itself on the "there is nothing else to watch on cable" guilty pleasures list. It's not horrible but it's not very good. It's a film with a religious theme that is not overtly offensive which can be a difficult trick to pass. A good idea that goes under the file - underdeveloped.

Tooth Fairy - Review

I freely admit that Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson is a guilty pleasure of mine in every sense of the word. As a male, I wish I had his physique. I wish I could have his athletic skill. I don't necessarily want his acting talent but I won't reject his success. Dwayne Johnson stars in Tooth Fairy as aging hockey player Derek Thompson. Derek Thompson is stuck in the minor leagues struggling with the fears of his crumbling career. He is also in a promising relationship that never seems to get off the ground due to his selfish atttitude. Through a twist of fate or magic or whatever he becomes a tooth fairy for a couple of weeks so he can learn that there is still magic in this world and the greatest fear in life is losing ones sense of wonder.

Tooth Fairy is part Santa Claus and part The Game Plan. There isn't anything really new in the story and all the plot twists are relatively predictable even for a PG rated audience. I guess the joy in this film comes from watching a rather large individual dress up in powder blue pajamas with fairy wings and then eventually covering his powder blue pajama fairy costume in hockey pads. Is it entertaining? I won't deny it - I chuckled. It helps that Stephen Merchant (co-creator of the hit show The Office) plays the tooth fairy case worker assigned to help the confused hockey player complete his assignments. Julie Andrews plays the fairy godmother and Billy Crystal has a goofy but delightful cameo as the gadget man for the tooth fairy agency. Oh and Ashley Judd is in the movie as the girlfriend with the the daughter who is told by Derek that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy and a son that is struggling through those early teen years. Again, nothing new here.... selfish egomaniac discovers that his own fears ruins the dreams of others, his heart is melted by the kindness of strangers and a family wanting to love him.

Dwayne Johnson is not a great actor but he is more flexible than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone ever were or could have been. He has the ability to deliver some fun lines and use more facial expressions that Harrison Ford has ever had. He is more charming than the bland and robotic Vin Diesel. He also has the size to pull of the silly sight gag of wearing a tutu. He plays everything pretty straight and like every one of his roles you rarely get the impression that he is playing the role rather than playing himself. I suppose that is why much of his roles are of an arrogant athlete. At the same time, the scenes between Johnson and Merchant are charming. Johnson holds his own, delivering clever jokes and bad puns back forth between the great comedic talent Merchant. Hopefully Merchant becomes the new Eric Idle or John Cleese, co-starring in a variety of films as the funny English guy. Merchant is really funny in his role as Tracy the case worker that desires to move up and become a real tooth fairy.

Tooth Fairy is certainly not a great movie but it has some moments that are pretty darn funny. It also has lengthy moments that can be completely ignored. I'd try not to ignore the moments with Merchant. I wonder if Dwayne Johnson will continue to make these films directed for children or if he will ever attempt a role that can actually challenge his ability as an actor. Tooth Fairy is directed at children but with that in mind there is very little physical humor and sight gags that would interest children or at least young children. Many of the lines delivered by Johnson, Merchant and even Crystal are sarcastic nuggets, banter or bad (but good) puns that I am unsure children would understand. I say this because at the age of 27 I still miss a good (but bad) pun from time to time.

Tooth Fairy might not be that good but it has 20 minutes of intentional humor in a 90 minute movie and that is a lot better than a lot of other so called comedies I have seen as of late. It might be hard to recommend the movie unless you like guilty pleasures or lack high expectations, enjoy the Rock or the notion of Dwayne Johnson playing hockey. It is a relatively funny concept. Carry on Mr. Johnson. Carry on.

Up In the Air - Review

Up In the Air is a film about a man who travels around the country laying off workers for a variety of companies. Clooney is Ryan Bingham. Bingham is the hired gun sent to companies to do their dirty work. He is not the guy who makes the million dollar deal at the last second or saves the company from corporate espionage. He fires people. On his spare time, he delivers motivational speeches directed to those struggling to become independent from the things that tie them down like a relationship, house or even a job.

The film starts off with Bingham firing workers. He comes back home to Omaha to discover that his job is being threatened by a young and idealistic new employee. Her idea is to stop sending Bingham and other agents out into the field to lay off workers but to stay in the office and do the dirty work over an internet connection and video feed. Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) is the young go getter that insists that this new transition in the company's procedure will not make Bingham's position obsolete. Bingham is weary of this new technique and believes his job requires a certain sensitivity not found on a computer screen. After a debate with his boss Bingham is ordered to show Natalie the ropes. They go on a cross country tour of firing company workers and along the way Bingham dishes out job mentoring along with travel tips and relationship advice.

On his travels he encounters Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) a female counterpart that is quick witted, sexually adventurous and as she puts it - Ryan Bingham but with a vagina. Alex and Ryan connect and eventually Bingham who once stood on the principle of solitude where things, objects, places and people do nothing but weigh you down is falling in love with Alex.

As Ryan bonds with Alex, he builds a friendship with his new coworker and reconnects with his two sisters over his baby sisters weddings ceremony. It seems a bit odd but other than difficulties of his profession, it is never understood why Clooney's character is so adamant about being alone. Quick to judge and easy to distance himself Bingham left home. Other than the harsh Wisconsin winter it is hard to understand why. His family seems like pleasant small town folk that dream of traveling the world but struggle financially to do anything let alone travel. If there is a more sinister wolf underneath sheep's clothing than I could not see it.

Eventually Clooney decides to give it all up for the woman he loves. He can no longer make lengthy public speeches about the trials of personal and intimate relationships. He suddenly wants to find himself attached. He has discovered, as he convinced his soon to be step brother not to leave his sister on their wedding day, everyone needs a co-pilot. Unfortunately the woman he chooses is married. A surprise that doesn't come off as shocking, unfounded but not shocking. The discovery of her marriage dashes a relatively clever film with a cliche twist. Bingham makes a decision to include someone in his life but that decision is ruined by her marriage thus his next decision to travel the globe with his 10 million air miles doesn't seem like a gradual evolution of thought but a reactionary one. How differently would the film have been if Bingham was simply rejected? Instead of her saying no because of her marriage, her simply saying no out of choice might have been a better parallel to his occupation and the fate of the workers he fires. Like Ryan, the viewer knows very little about Alex. Her marriage is a bit of a surprise but the film lacks any clues to merit this turn of events.

Director Jason Reitman does a fine job creating a methodical tempo for the film. With the repetition of scenes, sequences, and dialogue Clooney's Bingham character isn't a machine but a creature of habit. We see him travel, deliver motivational speeches, pack, and fire people with a consistency that doesn't get old but displays the success of his formula. The character had found success in this repetition but so does the film until the very end. As his life begins to change, Bingham changes his routine. It is meant to symbolize a changed man. A man slighlty unhinged. unfortunately the viewer is robbed of a key scene. At the end of the film, at a big motivational conference where Bingham has been invited to deliver his speech but cannot go through with it. He is in love and cannot deliver a speech about the profits of being content in being alone. He runs off the stage and is hit by the marriage of his lover. It is an unfortunate twist that the viewer doesn't get a chance to see Clooney deliver his motto for the third time. To see that speech for the third time would be a real chance to show the development of the character. It could have been that scene that everyone remembers. Why that speech doesn't exist is unfortunate. It would have been interesting to see if Clooney could dish out the goods. To see if he could deliver the same speech with the same impact but with different intentions and the opposite perspective would have been a sight to see.

Clooney has never been a great actor but he is perfectly cast in this role as Bingham. He is cheated out of the big impact scene that Hollywood films love to display. The scene where he saves his sister's marriage is cute and the scene in which he discusses his relationship with Alex over the phone lacks impact. He is perfectly cast because he is good looking enough to play the cavalier jet setting playboy. He has always come off as a charming guy and charming is something Bingham has to be to deliver the speeches and the pick me up motivational pep talks after laying off a half dozen people before lunch. He is lady killer and life coach. Clooney delivers his lines like slogans and the richness of his voice only adds fuel to the fire.

One also has to admire Reitman as he does not shy away from making a man whose job is to fire people the hero of his film, in this economy. It takes a certain amount of guts to make a film in which he tries to stir sympathy for characters that do and do not feel bad about firing people. I am not sure if his attempts at sympathy work but it certainly takes a certain amount of balls to film it. Rietman is crafty enough to never plea for Bingham to receive any amount sympathy but allows Natalie to garner some as her innocence seems lost. Sympathy doesn't come to those who have lost their job, at least not until one is actually fired via video conference. It is only when one person is fired through Internet communication that we feel sorry for the nameless company staffer and it is a sympathy that seems to come from how he is being fired rather than the firing itself. It is a hard message to sell. It is not exactly the Dr. Frankenstein or his monster story line. The viewer never gets the perspective of the company letting the workers go and Reitman again shows a certain objectivity by never making any of the companies the villain. I repeat, It is a hard argument to sell. It is argument that is never fully developed or convincing but that does not deminish the attempt or the cojones Reitman must have to relay the message.

Another thing to possibly examine is the portrayal of women in the film. Natalie is innocent and emotionally ruined by the news of her boyfriend leaving her. She also quits the company after word that one of the people she let go committed suicide. An act that leaves little to no impression on Bingham. She quits and pursues the career that she always wanted without the "typical" female pursuits of house, husband and family that caused her to abandon her original plans. While interviewing for her new position it seems unlikely that the position would have been filled with out the help of Ryan. The appropriately named Alex is the only other female of note and there is an interesting role reversal between her and Ryan. In some ways, at least stereotypically, she is more the dominant male figure compared to Ryan. She is sexually adventurous, commits a secretive affair and does not get emotionally attached to Ryan's plea for love. One might wonder who truly is the emotionally detached one of the two. It is also a woman that kills herself after being fired. It is so hard to see any positive female character in this film but the very same could be said for the men and the main character.

Up In the Air is a clever film that suffers from the occasional bout of stupidity. It is a movie that seems obsessed with debating youth and immaturity against adulthood and responsibility. The movie constantly refers to these two sides as Bingham lives his lifestyle. Is he a child for living the way he lives? Is he avoiding responsibility? Is he one step ahead of the game? Is he not mature for being able to separate his personal life with his professional one? With all this said, there is a great philosophical argument to be made about his alone man on an island routine but that argument is never made. It becomes a little frustrating that none of the characters as smart as they are never speak of anything else but what it means to be an adult.

Another lapse in judgement is the montage of workers who share their feelings about losing their job and the role their family or loved ones have played in helping them cope. It seems odd that Reitman would throw this scene in at the very end of the film. It seems like an obvious statement. The statement being that it is hard to live life alone and through the rough times, good friends and family can do a lot to help. The scene involving the recently laid off is not needed unless the director feels that the central message of the film is not clear or lost upon his audience. Reitman either doesn't believe his argument is sound or believes that the audience is too stupid to simply get it. It is a lapse in judgement to add this scene. Reitman comes off as not trusting his audience. If he desperately wanted to include their stories then it would have been better suited for the ending credits.

Up In the Air has a cheap plot twist in the end, an underdeveloped argument about being an adult, characters that lack back story, and failures in the editing room. With all that said, it is not a bad movie. Reitman somehow manages to make cram enough postcard imagery into a film about traveling along with enough humor and romantic intrigue to keep the film afloat. Clooney is good but is robbed of any moment to make it a great performance. Reitman is proving to be a skilled director and his ability to create humor out of despair and difficult situations is welcomed. Reitman who has also directed Thank You For Smoking and Juno seems perfectly fine with making movies about outcasts, rejects and loners. Bingham is a little bit of all those things. He is an outcast in his profession, rejected by the one he loves and in the end, ultimately alone.

It's Complicated - Review

Meyers first success was What Women Want with Mel Gibson as a marketing executive struggling to save his job and relationship with his daughter. Through a stroke of luck, magic or mystery he is able to hear the inner thoughts of the female sex. Something's Gotta Give stars Diane Keaton's as a play write struggling through a block and her daughters relationship for an older man as well her own feelings for that older man, played by Jack Nicholas. Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet are best friends trying to deal with heart ache while getting away from their normal lives in The Holiday. With her latest release It's Complicated, Meryl Streep tries to find closure to her divorce and uncover the passion within that has been lacking for so long. In some way or another, her films tend to focus on the lead characters discovering the beauty and passion of female sexuality. This discovery of the female sexuality does not exclude Mel Gibson in What Women Want. Meyers writes a lot about women. Her films are often about the struggles, emotional, physical and social women face within the family, at work, in public and private. Despite being about women it is hard to for me to imagine that her films appeal to all women. All of her female characters are above the age of 35 with high profile professions and upper class lifestyles.

Blue collar doesn't really exist in the written world of Nancy Meyers. Most of her films take place in the glam of Hollywood or New York City or where those characters vacation. The good thing is that Meyers is able to write the characters with enough charm and humility that they seem endearing. Meyers films speak out for middle to upper class white people and that is a community dying for representation. Despite being a criticism, Meyers does deserve some praise for writing films for middle aged women, especially when Hollywood is a boys club and where many women have seen their work load diminish after the age of 40.

The real problem with It's Complicated is Nancy Meyers direction. She is a stronger writer than she is a director. That really is not saying much. She should explore the Woody Allen mode of directing. Allen relied on quality actors to deliver his unique dialogue. He would use a consistent of amount of medium-long shots and let his actors perform as if they were on stage. Unfortunately Meyers and her editor ruin much of her dialogue by over cutting the footage. Instead of just turning the camera on and letting her actors roam free with her dialogue, Meyers constantly cuts from actor to actor seemingly in between each line or transition of dialogue. The problem with this over editing is that much of the conversations in each scene never really flow and the some of the jokes lose their impact. It is unfortunate with talented actors like Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin along with a talented comedian like Steve Martin that she doesn't let them loose. This over editing does nothing but make natural acting seem more scripted.

Another fault of the film or of the people who make previews for films is that all the best moments are ruined by the preview. With that said, there weren't that many funny moments if most are spoiled in the preview. Their is a sequence where Streep and Martin get high while on their first date. It is funny but it feels like something we have seen plenty of times in goofier or raunchier comedies. Thank goodness John Krasinski, playing Streeps step-son supplies some comedic relief during the pot smoking sequence. Unfortunately it seems that much of Krasinski's comic talents are wasted and forced. As if his casting was a throw in to appeal to a younger audience that could care less about mid-50's romance.

It's Complicated is a comedy that is mildly entertaining but after the first view a second is hardly necessary. Meryl Streep proves that she can do anything, act any role and make even bland characters appealing. Streep is truly in a class of her own no matter how much she tries to downplay her talents.