#3
#2
#1
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Booby prize
I had another opportunity to see a sneak preview at the campus theater. This time it was Adventureland, which is coming out on April 3rd. As with any of my early reviews, spoilers ahead!
Having spent several summers working at my city's recreation center, I know a thing or two about lousy summer jobs. They're low paying, thankless, and usually involve you having to work alongside a bunch of other deadbeats. But somewhere amongst that misery, you find you gain a lot of good stories and fond memories. You may not want to have that job for the rest of your life, but you end up grateful for the opportunity nonetheless. I was hoping to see a similar situation emerge in Adventureland, the new film directed by Superbad's Greg Mottola.
The film, set in 1987, centers around James Brennen (Jesse Eisenberg), a recent college grad whose plans for a trip to Europe over the summer are dashed when his father receives a demotion. In order to make money so he can go to grad school, Brennan takes a job at the local amusement park.
The park employs a number of interesting characters including SNL's Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, who run the place, Ryan Reynolds as the park's maintenance man, and Martin Starr (Knocked Up). All of these characters are great in their limited roles. There are even a couple other lesser known actors who also shine in their brief appearances. Each of these characters in their own way provide a lot of humor to their scenes.
If only the film had managed to stay in the park longer, this would have been an instant classic. Instead, the film opts to place most of its attention on Brennen's attraction to Emily (played by Kristen Stewart), who also works at the park. I have no problem with including a love story into the film as a subplot. I also wouldn't have minded if it was the central focus if you provide the audience with a rooting interest in the characters. However, in this film the romance really drags the film down.
The central flaw in this love story is the character flaws of both characters. Brennan is an indecisive virgin who unnecessarily opens up to anyone who will listen. Emily comes with a ton of baggage and may not be as pure as Brennan thinks she is. If done right, you can make a romance between flawed characters work, but their flaws just seem incompatible. By the end of the movie they seem smart enough to recognize their flaws but eschew improving on them and instead just settle with being together.
Brennan's lack of growth is particularly frustrating. You would think that with the way the story is structured, his time spent at Adventureland would have provided him with the life lessons needed to improve himself and better handle this relationship. Instead, it appears the carnival setting was just a mere prop to inject some humor into a film centered on a flimsy love story.
It's hard to be completely critical of the film because when it chooses to be funny, it really succeeds. Mottola once again shows that he can create realistic depictions of teenagers that are embarassing, awkward, and still hilarious. I just wished he would have embraced it more. This almost seems like two movies put together. The stuff at the carnival works, everything else doesn't.
In the end, the film is just like the rigged games you'd find at an amusement park like Adventureland. You're easily drawn in by the flashy lights and big prizes, but once it's over you feel like you've been ripped off. I'll give the film a mild recommendation based on the strength of its hilarious supporting cast. However, you may be best to wait until DVD for this one. I have a feeling a lot of good stuff found its way onto the cutting room floor so that more time could be spent on a mopey romance that fails to set off any Fourth of July fireworks. Grade: B-
Having spent several summers working at my city's recreation center, I know a thing or two about lousy summer jobs. They're low paying, thankless, and usually involve you having to work alongside a bunch of other deadbeats. But somewhere amongst that misery, you find you gain a lot of good stories and fond memories. You may not want to have that job for the rest of your life, but you end up grateful for the opportunity nonetheless. I was hoping to see a similar situation emerge in Adventureland, the new film directed by Superbad's Greg Mottola.
The film, set in 1987, centers around James Brennen (Jesse Eisenberg), a recent college grad whose plans for a trip to Europe over the summer are dashed when his father receives a demotion. In order to make money so he can go to grad school, Brennan takes a job at the local amusement park.
The park employs a number of interesting characters including SNL's Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, who run the place, Ryan Reynolds as the park's maintenance man, and Martin Starr (Knocked Up). All of these characters are great in their limited roles. There are even a couple other lesser known actors who also shine in their brief appearances. Each of these characters in their own way provide a lot of humor to their scenes.
If only the film had managed to stay in the park longer, this would have been an instant classic. Instead, the film opts to place most of its attention on Brennen's attraction to Emily (played by Kristen Stewart), who also works at the park. I have no problem with including a love story into the film as a subplot. I also wouldn't have minded if it was the central focus if you provide the audience with a rooting interest in the characters. However, in this film the romance really drags the film down.
The central flaw in this love story is the character flaws of both characters. Brennan is an indecisive virgin who unnecessarily opens up to anyone who will listen. Emily comes with a ton of baggage and may not be as pure as Brennan thinks she is. If done right, you can make a romance between flawed characters work, but their flaws just seem incompatible. By the end of the movie they seem smart enough to recognize their flaws but eschew improving on them and instead just settle with being together.
Brennan's lack of growth is particularly frustrating. You would think that with the way the story is structured, his time spent at Adventureland would have provided him with the life lessons needed to improve himself and better handle this relationship. Instead, it appears the carnival setting was just a mere prop to inject some humor into a film centered on a flimsy love story.
It's hard to be completely critical of the film because when it chooses to be funny, it really succeeds. Mottola once again shows that he can create realistic depictions of teenagers that are embarassing, awkward, and still hilarious. I just wished he would have embraced it more. This almost seems like two movies put together. The stuff at the carnival works, everything else doesn't.
In the end, the film is just like the rigged games you'd find at an amusement park like Adventureland. You're easily drawn in by the flashy lights and big prizes, but once it's over you feel like you've been ripped off. I'll give the film a mild recommendation based on the strength of its hilarious supporting cast. However, you may be best to wait until DVD for this one. I have a feeling a lot of good stuff found its way onto the cutting room floor so that more time could be spent on a mopey romance that fails to set off any Fourth of July fireworks. Grade: B-
In the beginning...
You saw the teaser during the Super Bowl, now here's the first full trailer for the prehistoric comedy, Year One, starring Jack Black and Michael Cera and directed by Harold Ramis due out this summer.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Movie magic
Three movies came out this past weekend that I put on my Top 30 to see in '09 list, yet I ended up seeing something else this weekend. Thankfully, I wasn't disappointed. The Great Buck Howard is currently out in limited release in theaters, but it's also available already On Demand through your cable provider, which is the way I saw it.
Those that know me, know that I have been a fan of pro wrestling for almost all of my life. Being a fan, I'm frequently asked why I bother watching it. I've heard all the complaints and criticisms, and yet I still watch it. I've given up trying to rationalize it, I simply say that I'm a fan and will always be a fan. I thought about my love for a fake sport as I watched The Great Buck Howard.
Buck Howard, played by John Malkovich, is a aging mentalist who's main claim to fame is that he performed on The Tonight Show 61 times. Even though, he doesn't receive the coverage he once did, he still performs in tiny theaters around the country. We see this latter part of his career through the perspective of Troy (Colin Hanks), a law school dropout who is hired as his road manager in order to make some money.
Malkovich does a great job with this character providing him with the right amount of showmanship energy that makes it realistic that he could still entertain audiences. Of course, like most beyond their time celebrities, there's also this bubbling anger that occassionally emerges when he's not treated with the celebrity status he believes he still has.
Colin Hanks does a nice job of responding to Buck in the same way most people watching the film would. Buck brings us to the brink of repulsion but keeps drawing us back in by creating a sense of whimsy and awe over the tricks he's able to do. As a result, I found myself drawn to Hanks' character and interested in how he would continue dealing with such a combustible boss.
The film is strengthened by a couple of decent supporting roles as well. Emily Blunt does a nice job as the love interest for Troy. In the few things I've seen her in, I've been impressed and I hope she continues to get larger roles, as I feel she definitely has a future. She provides a good balance of cute and confident. Colin's father is played by his own father, Tom Hanks (who also has made out with Emily Blunt on screen, in Charlie Wilson's War). In a small role, he comes in at just the right moments to urge him to go back to law school, which only helps remind him why he's taking this thankless job in the first place. That reason being is that he's on a search to find something that he loves to do.
That brings me back to my point about being the wrestling fan. The film does a good job of establishing the message to do what you love to do. Troy doesn't want to be in love school because he doesn't love it. Seeing Buck refusing to retire even though convention says no one cares about him anymore inspires Troy to eventually get his dream job of being a writer.
This is a message that easily could turn the film into a schmaltzy mess, but that never happens. You find yourself getting caught up in Buck's, and by extension, the film's magic. The film takes you on a fun ride and leaves you feeling happy afterwards, something that should be seen in more films these days.
The film is a little too small in scale to truly feel significant. But for a smaller film, it succeeds at virtually everything it sets out to do. Buoyed by some great performances, The Great Buck Howard is a real treat. It doesn't take a mentalist to figure out why this a fun film. I have no doubt that if you see it, you too will quickly be engaged by the magic of Buck Howard. Grade: B+
Those that know me, know that I have been a fan of pro wrestling for almost all of my life. Being a fan, I'm frequently asked why I bother watching it. I've heard all the complaints and criticisms, and yet I still watch it. I've given up trying to rationalize it, I simply say that I'm a fan and will always be a fan. I thought about my love for a fake sport as I watched The Great Buck Howard.
Buck Howard, played by John Malkovich, is a aging mentalist who's main claim to fame is that he performed on The Tonight Show 61 times. Even though, he doesn't receive the coverage he once did, he still performs in tiny theaters around the country. We see this latter part of his career through the perspective of Troy (Colin Hanks), a law school dropout who is hired as his road manager in order to make some money.
Malkovich does a great job with this character providing him with the right amount of showmanship energy that makes it realistic that he could still entertain audiences. Of course, like most beyond their time celebrities, there's also this bubbling anger that occassionally emerges when he's not treated with the celebrity status he believes he still has.
Colin Hanks does a nice job of responding to Buck in the same way most people watching the film would. Buck brings us to the brink of repulsion but keeps drawing us back in by creating a sense of whimsy and awe over the tricks he's able to do. As a result, I found myself drawn to Hanks' character and interested in how he would continue dealing with such a combustible boss.
The film is strengthened by a couple of decent supporting roles as well. Emily Blunt does a nice job as the love interest for Troy. In the few things I've seen her in, I've been impressed and I hope she continues to get larger roles, as I feel she definitely has a future. She provides a good balance of cute and confident. Colin's father is played by his own father, Tom Hanks (who also has made out with Emily Blunt on screen, in Charlie Wilson's War). In a small role, he comes in at just the right moments to urge him to go back to law school, which only helps remind him why he's taking this thankless job in the first place. That reason being is that he's on a search to find something that he loves to do.
That brings me back to my point about being the wrestling fan. The film does a good job of establishing the message to do what you love to do. Troy doesn't want to be in love school because he doesn't love it. Seeing Buck refusing to retire even though convention says no one cares about him anymore inspires Troy to eventually get his dream job of being a writer.
This is a message that easily could turn the film into a schmaltzy mess, but that never happens. You find yourself getting caught up in Buck's, and by extension, the film's magic. The film takes you on a fun ride and leaves you feeling happy afterwards, something that should be seen in more films these days.
The film is a little too small in scale to truly feel significant. But for a smaller film, it succeeds at virtually everything it sets out to do. Buoyed by some great performances, The Great Buck Howard is a real treat. It doesn't take a mentalist to figure out why this a fun film. I have no doubt that if you see it, you too will quickly be engaged by the magic of Buck Howard. Grade: B+
KU's Cole = UD cold
The Flyers' tournament came to a close earlier today after losing to Kansas. I have mixed feelings over the game. Our defense played great, but we just couldn't get anything going on offense, thanks mostly to Kansas' Cole Aldrich just dominating the middle and blocking everything in sight. I wish UD could have gone further, but they had their first NCAA tournament win in almost twenty years, so I'm happy about that. There were a lot of positive things about this season for UD, so I'm hoping that they can build on this and have an even better season next year!
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
NMR: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Wow, I cannot recall the last time I saw a movie this bad. This was just downright terrible. There were several times where I thought about just shutting it off, but I kept waiting to see if things would get better. Thankfully the movie was only 90 minutes, although it felt much longer than that. This movie was just a representation of everything that I'm not: indie music, New York nightlife, teenage drama. The whole thing was just an unappealing mess. About the only thing I enjoyed were the random cameos by SNL cast members like Seth Meyers and Andy Samberg. I get why there are some that would be really into this movie, but if you're anything like me, you will not enjoy this in the least. Strong recommendation to avoid this one! Rating: *
Shall we dance?
March Madness is upon us once again! And while I'm excited, it's been tempered a bit by the fact that I've got so much work to do and probably won't have time to watch many of the games outside of Dayton's first round game Friday afternoon. Here are my Final Four picks though: Louisville, Missouri, Villanova, and Oklahoma. I have Louisville beating Oklahoma in the finals.
And if you're not excited about the tournament yet, here's a video to get you in the mood. If students are putting that much on the line in a meaningless game for the College Basketball Invitational, just think what they'll do when everything is on the line.
And if you're not excited about the tournament yet, here's a video to get you in the mood. If students are putting that much on the line in a meaningless game for the College Basketball Invitational, just think what they'll do when everything is on the line.
Quick review: Better Off Ted
So after weeks of quirky promos for the show, I decided to give ABC's latest sitcom, Better Off Ted a chance last night. I haven't watched a sitcom regularly on ABC since the heyday of TGIF back when I was 10. Well scratch that, I did watch The Knights of Prosperity back in 2007 for all 6 of its episodes that actually aired. Anyways, this show about a mysterious company Verdian Dynamics and the people that work there provided enough laughs for me to give it a second shot. I'm always happy to see Arrested Development cast members get work, so it was nice to see Portia de Rossi here as Ted's blunt boss. And even though it's cliched, I bought right in to the office romance that's developing between Ted and Linda (Andrea Anders). This is not a perfect show, but probably the best new sitcom this year. If you missed it, you can watch the first episode on ABC.com and the show airs regularly on Wednesdays at 8:30, right before Lost (which had another killer episode last night. I'm loving the new take charge Sawyer, or excuse me, LaFleur).
Monday, March 16, 2009
NMR: Super terrific review
I have never really seen the original Superman movies in their entirety and since almost all of them were available for instant viewing on Netflix, I decided to partake in a little marathon.
Superman: The one that started it all. You can see why this one is still used as a standard bearer to compare newer comic book films. Director Richard Donner just did a fantastic job here. The cast was absolutely perfect. Reeve does a great job of doing nerdy as Clark and heroic as the Man of Steel. The star though is Gene Hackman who is awesome as Lex Luthor. I used to think that 2006's Superman Returns was bad because Superman is an uninteresting character, but this film has a great energy level to it, making Returns just a bad movie. This may not have the visual sophistication of today's comic book films, but it's still a great movie. Rating: ****
Superman II: Still a fun movie, but definitely a notch below the original. It's really apparent, at least to me, that there were changes made mid-stream during this film. If you're unfamiliar with the backstory, director Richard Donner got into a fight with the studio and was replaced halfway through. As a result, Marlon Brando is completely gone from the film and Gene Hackman is missing from a large chunk in the middle. I plan on seeing the Donner cut that was released a few years ago to see how significantly different it is. FYI, this is the only one for some reason that is not available to instantly view. Rating: ***
Superman III: The quality level significantly drops off here. After the Donner incident, Gene Hackman didn't return for this one and Margot Kidder (who played Lois Lane) is only in it for literally five minutes. In place of them we get Robert Vaughn, Richard Pryor, and Annette O'Toole. They're all fine actors but sorry replacements for the characters we've come to love. The story here is really stupid and the whole film is way too comedic. That is for one of the final scenes where a woman is turned into a machine. I saw that scene when I was a kid and it scared the shit out of me and seeing it today still gives me the willies. Overall, this is just a plain awful movie. Rating: **
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace: This provided the death knell for the series and is often slammed, but I found myself enjoying this one a lot more than III. Most of the original cast was back and they all seem to still be giving it a go, which helps. Sure, the film comes off a bit preachy with its whole nuclear disarmament storyline, but I wasn't bothered by it, maybe because I'm seeing it so long away from the time when this was a major issue. The battle between Superman and Nuclear Man is also pretty cheesy, but I've also seen worse. One thing that's surprisingly though is that the visuals in the film look really cheap. Visually the films seemed to regress over time, which isn't a good thing. I also felt the story could have been bolstered more; this is the only film in the series that clocks in under 2 hours. So while it's an imperfect film, I'd recommend it over III. Rating: ***
Also available for instant viewing on Netflix is a 1 hour documentary that aired last year on the Starz channel called Starz Inside: Comic Books Unbound. It covers the history of comic books and their film adaptations. It's an interesting look at the genre with a lot of interviews with people from the industry. At only an hour long though, the coverage is fairly superficial. It may not provide a lot of surprising information, but it's still a cool look at a genre that was once ignored by Hollywood and has now become one of its biggest cash cows. It's worth a look if you've got the time.
Superman: The one that started it all. You can see why this one is still used as a standard bearer to compare newer comic book films. Director Richard Donner just did a fantastic job here. The cast was absolutely perfect. Reeve does a great job of doing nerdy as Clark and heroic as the Man of Steel. The star though is Gene Hackman who is awesome as Lex Luthor. I used to think that 2006's Superman Returns was bad because Superman is an uninteresting character, but this film has a great energy level to it, making Returns just a bad movie. This may not have the visual sophistication of today's comic book films, but it's still a great movie. Rating: ****
Superman II: Still a fun movie, but definitely a notch below the original. It's really apparent, at least to me, that there were changes made mid-stream during this film. If you're unfamiliar with the backstory, director Richard Donner got into a fight with the studio and was replaced halfway through. As a result, Marlon Brando is completely gone from the film and Gene Hackman is missing from a large chunk in the middle. I plan on seeing the Donner cut that was released a few years ago to see how significantly different it is. FYI, this is the only one for some reason that is not available to instantly view. Rating: ***
Superman III: The quality level significantly drops off here. After the Donner incident, Gene Hackman didn't return for this one and Margot Kidder (who played Lois Lane) is only in it for literally five minutes. In place of them we get Robert Vaughn, Richard Pryor, and Annette O'Toole. They're all fine actors but sorry replacements for the characters we've come to love. The story here is really stupid and the whole film is way too comedic. That is for one of the final scenes where a woman is turned into a machine. I saw that scene when I was a kid and it scared the shit out of me and seeing it today still gives me the willies. Overall, this is just a plain awful movie. Rating: **
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace: This provided the death knell for the series and is often slammed, but I found myself enjoying this one a lot more than III. Most of the original cast was back and they all seem to still be giving it a go, which helps. Sure, the film comes off a bit preachy with its whole nuclear disarmament storyline, but I wasn't bothered by it, maybe because I'm seeing it so long away from the time when this was a major issue. The battle between Superman and Nuclear Man is also pretty cheesy, but I've also seen worse. One thing that's surprisingly though is that the visuals in the film look really cheap. Visually the films seemed to regress over time, which isn't a good thing. I also felt the story could have been bolstered more; this is the only film in the series that clocks in under 2 hours. So while it's an imperfect film, I'd recommend it over III. Rating: ***
Also available for instant viewing on Netflix is a 1 hour documentary that aired last year on the Starz channel called Starz Inside: Comic Books Unbound. It covers the history of comic books and their film adaptations. It's an interesting look at the genre with a lot of interviews with people from the industry. At only an hour long though, the coverage is fairly superficial. It may not provide a lot of surprising information, but it's still a cool look at a genre that was once ignored by Hollywood and has now become one of its biggest cash cows. It's worth a look if you've got the time.
Friday, March 13, 2009
NMR: Beerfest
I know this movie has already reached cult status with certain viewers, but I just wasn't digging it. Perhaps I needed to be on something to enjoy, but being stone cold sober, I just didn't find it particularly funny. I thought the coolest part was seeing all of the different competitive events that were part of Beerfest, but those are really only seen in the last fifteen minutes of the film. The whole training for the competition, which is the bulk of the film didn't make any sense and just drug on forever. I didn't find any of the protagonists to be funny, nor did they make me have a rooting interest in them. If you want a funny, wacky sports tournament movie, just go re-watch Dodgeball for the millionth time. Rating: **
Saturday, March 7, 2009
and the trailers keep rolling in
I tell you, this is the week for new trailers. Here's a sample of some previewing some of this summer's biggest releases:
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Up
Star Trek
The Hangover
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Up
Star Trek
The Hangover
Beauty and the bleak
As mentioned before, I decided to go see the midnight screening of Watchmen. I should have remembered before I bought my ticket that this movie was 243 mins. long, because I may not have been as eager to catch such a late showing. Luckily though I'm a night owl (no pun intended) so I made it through all right.
Full disclosure upfront, I have never read the widely loved graphic novel which the film was based on. I had minimal knowledge of the characters and story, but I always enjoy an event film, so I wanted to see why this was such a big deal for comic book fans. To say I was shocked by what I saw would be an understatement. This film earns every bit of its R rating as it is bloody, gruesome, and sometimes downright vile. And what's most shocking is that many of these deplorable actions are committed by the 'heroes' of the story.
If, like me, let me set up the premise of the story. The year is 1985, but very different from the one we remember. After winning the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon remains president of the United States. The country, however, is still entrenched in a Cold War with Russia and nuclear holocaust seems imminent (this is represented by a Doomsday clock set at five minutes to midnight). While there used to be several superheroes protecting our country, the President has banned all masked heroes and now most of them are retired. The film starts with the murder of one of the former superheroes and it appears someone is trying to kill them all off. The remaining heros band together, somewhat, in order to figure out who's behind this.
That's a lot of story, and yet it barely scratches the surface of what this film covers. Director Zach Snyder (300) is to be commended for making such a strong effort to remain faithful to the original story in this film. Again, while I've never read the comic book, based on what I've read this seems to closely resemble the novel's events. This is a mixed blessing for the film. While it is likely to please rabid fans, it gives the film too much of a structured feel. You can tell where segments of the book began and finished as the film covers each of the main character's backstories. At times it plays more like an anthology than a fluid narrative.
And while most of the characters are fleshed out through their histories, the story still seems somewhat incomplete. There were parts of the film that I wondered why the scenes were included and other plot points that I wished were explained better. The story itself is not terribly confusing, but for a neophyte to these characters, it can be difficult to get into the story.
The other problem for outsiders that I briefly mentioned before is the shock factor. Watchmen puts the graphic in graphic novels. There are scenes of dismemberment, mutilation, and abuse of women. There's also an extended sex scene that didn't really have to be included as well. Given that so many of these acts are done by the superheroes themselves, you begin to wonder who you're supposed to have a rooting interest for in this movie. The more you know about this story and these characters before watching the movie, the better off you'll be.
I ended up having a similar detached feeling while watching this film as I did watching the Lord of the Rings films. In both cases, I had never read the source material before seeing the films. I was also able to see why the stories were loved by fans because of the rich characters and intricate themes that the respective authors had created. While gruesome, Watchmen does provide a lot of interesting discussion points on issues like nuclear war, religion, responsibilty, and corporate greed.
As important as those issues are to discuss and unpack, I don't feel the film allows for that as much as the book. Unless you're already familiar with the material, you're more likely to be consumed by the visuals of the film than its themes. This is not necessarily a knock against the film. It should be noted that this is an extremely well made film. The production is top notch and is visually stunning. The final product is the end result of someone who was clearly passionate about this project.
The acting here is a mixed bag. Some deliver solid performances. For instance, Jackie Earle Hayley brings an amazing about of intensity to his performance as the enigmatic Rorshach. Other actors are subpar at best, like Patrick Wilson as the nerdy Night Owl. His performance reminded me too much of Bob Odenkirk, which in this case wasn't a good thing.
In the end, this is a well made film but a difficult film to enjoy. If you have read and loved the novel, you don't need me to tell you to run out and see this. You've waiting a long time for this film and you likely won't be disappointed. For the rest of the world, brace yourself. This is an acquired taste that may not sit well with everyone. If you're the squemish type or if you just don't want to see the concept of what is a superhero turned on its head, then you may want to enjoy it. As for me, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not likely to be making any repeat viewings of it in the near future. Grade: B-
Full disclosure upfront, I have never read the widely loved graphic novel which the film was based on. I had minimal knowledge of the characters and story, but I always enjoy an event film, so I wanted to see why this was such a big deal for comic book fans. To say I was shocked by what I saw would be an understatement. This film earns every bit of its R rating as it is bloody, gruesome, and sometimes downright vile. And what's most shocking is that many of these deplorable actions are committed by the 'heroes' of the story.
If, like me, let me set up the premise of the story. The year is 1985, but very different from the one we remember. After winning the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon remains president of the United States. The country, however, is still entrenched in a Cold War with Russia and nuclear holocaust seems imminent (this is represented by a Doomsday clock set at five minutes to midnight). While there used to be several superheroes protecting our country, the President has banned all masked heroes and now most of them are retired. The film starts with the murder of one of the former superheroes and it appears someone is trying to kill them all off. The remaining heros band together, somewhat, in order to figure out who's behind this.
That's a lot of story, and yet it barely scratches the surface of what this film covers. Director Zach Snyder (300) is to be commended for making such a strong effort to remain faithful to the original story in this film. Again, while I've never read the comic book, based on what I've read this seems to closely resemble the novel's events. This is a mixed blessing for the film. While it is likely to please rabid fans, it gives the film too much of a structured feel. You can tell where segments of the book began and finished as the film covers each of the main character's backstories. At times it plays more like an anthology than a fluid narrative.
And while most of the characters are fleshed out through their histories, the story still seems somewhat incomplete. There were parts of the film that I wondered why the scenes were included and other plot points that I wished were explained better. The story itself is not terribly confusing, but for a neophyte to these characters, it can be difficult to get into the story.
The other problem for outsiders that I briefly mentioned before is the shock factor. Watchmen puts the graphic in graphic novels. There are scenes of dismemberment, mutilation, and abuse of women. There's also an extended sex scene that didn't really have to be included as well. Given that so many of these acts are done by the superheroes themselves, you begin to wonder who you're supposed to have a rooting interest for in this movie. The more you know about this story and these characters before watching the movie, the better off you'll be.
I ended up having a similar detached feeling while watching this film as I did watching the Lord of the Rings films. In both cases, I had never read the source material before seeing the films. I was also able to see why the stories were loved by fans because of the rich characters and intricate themes that the respective authors had created. While gruesome, Watchmen does provide a lot of interesting discussion points on issues like nuclear war, religion, responsibilty, and corporate greed.
As important as those issues are to discuss and unpack, I don't feel the film allows for that as much as the book. Unless you're already familiar with the material, you're more likely to be consumed by the visuals of the film than its themes. This is not necessarily a knock against the film. It should be noted that this is an extremely well made film. The production is top notch and is visually stunning. The final product is the end result of someone who was clearly passionate about this project.
The acting here is a mixed bag. Some deliver solid performances. For instance, Jackie Earle Hayley brings an amazing about of intensity to his performance as the enigmatic Rorshach. Other actors are subpar at best, like Patrick Wilson as the nerdy Night Owl. His performance reminded me too much of Bob Odenkirk, which in this case wasn't a good thing.
In the end, this is a well made film but a difficult film to enjoy. If you have read and loved the novel, you don't need me to tell you to run out and see this. You've waiting a long time for this film and you likely won't be disappointed. For the rest of the world, brace yourself. This is an acquired taste that may not sit well with everyone. If you're the squemish type or if you just don't want to see the concept of what is a superhero turned on its head, then you may want to enjoy it. As for me, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not likely to be making any repeat viewings of it in the near future. Grade: B-
Friday, March 6, 2009
The German job
I would have had this review up last night, but I chose to instead also see the midnight showing of Watchmen, so look for that review up later today. But for now, our next review is of Tom Cruise's latest, Valkyrie.
I had a hard time figuring out what to expect with this film. Originally set to open last July, it went through a number of release dates before settling on last December, a time that didn't seem to fit with the tone of the movie. Then despite that, and despite Cruise really, the movie ended up doing fairly well at the box office.
Valkyrie marks director Bryan Singer's first film since his overbloated, boring Superman Returns. Thankfully, this is a better effort although still not a great film. The plot centers around General Claus Stauffenberg (Cruise) and several other German officers devising a plan to kill Hitler. Unhappy with the way Hitler was running things, Stauffenberg and company planned to kill Hitler and then fake a coup in order to stage their own coup.
While the basic events are based on one of the several attempts at Hitler's life, the movie plays like a true Hollywood film. The film lacks the authentic feel to create a sense that you're watching history unfold before your very eyes. From the dramatic soundtrack to Cruise's cartoonish eyepatch, the film is more Indiana Jones than History Channel documentary.
Clearly, the filmmakers were more concerned with making a good movie than trying to thrust the audience into 1940s Germany. This is perhaps best evidenced by the decent supporting cast that the film boasts. Valkyrie includes great actors like Tom Wilkenson, Bill Nighy, and Kenneth Brannagh, yet none of them, nor Cruise, speak with a German accent, let alone actual German. If Hitler were not the target, this film could have easily taken place in any other country around the world.
Now while I'm quick to criticize the film for lacking authenticity, I cannot aruge that it does do a good job of creating drama and tension. Every attempt that this crew makes to off Hitler comes off well and would be really suspenseful if you didn't know how it ended. I knew the events and still found myself on the edge of my seat a few times.
The film takes a while to get going as we're introduced to a bevy of characters that were at times difficult to keep straight. But once we get into the actual assassination attempts, things pick up nicely. It's a shame the aftermath of their actions wasn't longer or more interesting in real life, because I felt the film could have used a bigger ending.
One wonders, though, why a film about this was even made. It's not like this was the only attempt to kill Hitler (although it was the last). You could make some crude comparisons between Hitler and Bush and the idea of standing up against power for what you believe is right. But they aren't fleshed out enough to make it a worthy consideration.
Given the way the film plays out, I almost wished they would have just created a fictional story of about a Hitler assassination. If the producers want a Hollywood war movie, why restrain yourself with historical facts. You just box yourself into a corner doing that.
The bottom line here is that the movie is entertaining. It has enough action and drama to keep anyone entertained. And if you haven't seen many World War II films or aren't real familiar with the events, then the film's historical accuracy won't be a big problem. If you're looking for something with a little bit more meaning, then you may want to pass on this one. Valkyrie is nothing more than the fast food equivalent of a history lesson. Grade: B
I had a hard time figuring out what to expect with this film. Originally set to open last July, it went through a number of release dates before settling on last December, a time that didn't seem to fit with the tone of the movie. Then despite that, and despite Cruise really, the movie ended up doing fairly well at the box office.
Valkyrie marks director Bryan Singer's first film since his overbloated, boring Superman Returns. Thankfully, this is a better effort although still not a great film. The plot centers around General Claus Stauffenberg (Cruise) and several other German officers devising a plan to kill Hitler. Unhappy with the way Hitler was running things, Stauffenberg and company planned to kill Hitler and then fake a coup in order to stage their own coup.
While the basic events are based on one of the several attempts at Hitler's life, the movie plays like a true Hollywood film. The film lacks the authentic feel to create a sense that you're watching history unfold before your very eyes. From the dramatic soundtrack to Cruise's cartoonish eyepatch, the film is more Indiana Jones than History Channel documentary.
Clearly, the filmmakers were more concerned with making a good movie than trying to thrust the audience into 1940s Germany. This is perhaps best evidenced by the decent supporting cast that the film boasts. Valkyrie includes great actors like Tom Wilkenson, Bill Nighy, and Kenneth Brannagh, yet none of them, nor Cruise, speak with a German accent, let alone actual German. If Hitler were not the target, this film could have easily taken place in any other country around the world.
Now while I'm quick to criticize the film for lacking authenticity, I cannot aruge that it does do a good job of creating drama and tension. Every attempt that this crew makes to off Hitler comes off well and would be really suspenseful if you didn't know how it ended. I knew the events and still found myself on the edge of my seat a few times.
The film takes a while to get going as we're introduced to a bevy of characters that were at times difficult to keep straight. But once we get into the actual assassination attempts, things pick up nicely. It's a shame the aftermath of their actions wasn't longer or more interesting in real life, because I felt the film could have used a bigger ending.
One wonders, though, why a film about this was even made. It's not like this was the only attempt to kill Hitler (although it was the last). You could make some crude comparisons between Hitler and Bush and the idea of standing up against power for what you believe is right. But they aren't fleshed out enough to make it a worthy consideration.
Given the way the film plays out, I almost wished they would have just created a fictional story of about a Hitler assassination. If the producers want a Hollywood war movie, why restrain yourself with historical facts. You just box yourself into a corner doing that.
The bottom line here is that the movie is entertaining. It has enough action and drama to keep anyone entertained. And if you haven't seen many World War II films or aren't real familiar with the events, then the film's historical accuracy won't be a big problem. If you're looking for something with a little bit more meaning, then you may want to pass on this one. Valkyrie is nothing more than the fast food equivalent of a history lesson. Grade: B
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Sink your claws into this
The latest trailer for the new Wolverine movie has just hit the net. It could be good, but for a film that supposed to be an origin story, this seems to have a whole lot of bang and not a lot of talk.
NMR: Trifecta
No regular movie review today, so instead, here's a trio of brief reviews for films I recently caught through Netflix.
Bigger, Stronger, Faster: This was the documentary on steroids released last year that caught the attention of a lot of wrestling fans. The film was made by Chris Bell, who along with his two brothers, was a bodybuilder. Bell lays it out early on how torn he is on the subject because he didn't feel it was right to take steroids but he kept discovering all of his childhood heros (Ah-nuld, Hulk Hogan, Sly Stallone) had all taken them. Bell does a really good job at presenting arguments on both side of the issue. However, Bell's own non-commital stance on the issue grows wearisome as the movie progresses and you'd like him to pick a side. This is not a great documentary, but if you have any interest at all in the subject, it's probably worth a look. This one is available to watch instantly. Rating: ***
The Invasion: This was yet another remake of Invasions of the Body Snatchers that came out back in '07. I was initially interested in it as it was going to be one of Daniel Craig's first post-Bond films. However, the film kept getting delayed and there always seemed to be more re-shoots. Soon the writing was on the wall that this wasn't going to be very good, and for the most part that's true. There are a handful of good scares in the film, but it provides nothing new to this classic story. There are hints of what could have been (the idea of the possibility of world peace if the pod people completely take over), but all of that is loss for generic action scenes. The end result is a film that had more knives put to it than Joan Rivers. Rating: **
The Heartbreak Kid: Another '07 release that had some promise but turned out to be a dud. Ben Stiller re-teamed with the Farrelly brothers in this remake of a 1972 comedy. While providing some occasional laughs, this one ends up being too crass and stupid. It's another one of these Three's Company comedies where simple communication would have prevented all of the conflicts. The film doesn't do itself any favors by including in its supporting cast unfunny guys like Carlos Mencia and Danny McBride. Little known actress Malin Ackerman (soon to be seen in Watchmen) seems talented though, so hopefully she'll continue to get more roles. This film, however, is totally skippable. Rating: **
Bigger, Stronger, Faster: This was the documentary on steroids released last year that caught the attention of a lot of wrestling fans. The film was made by Chris Bell, who along with his two brothers, was a bodybuilder. Bell lays it out early on how torn he is on the subject because he didn't feel it was right to take steroids but he kept discovering all of his childhood heros (Ah-nuld, Hulk Hogan, Sly Stallone) had all taken them. Bell does a really good job at presenting arguments on both side of the issue. However, Bell's own non-commital stance on the issue grows wearisome as the movie progresses and you'd like him to pick a side. This is not a great documentary, but if you have any interest at all in the subject, it's probably worth a look. This one is available to watch instantly. Rating: ***
The Invasion: This was yet another remake of Invasions of the Body Snatchers that came out back in '07. I was initially interested in it as it was going to be one of Daniel Craig's first post-Bond films. However, the film kept getting delayed and there always seemed to be more re-shoots. Soon the writing was on the wall that this wasn't going to be very good, and for the most part that's true. There are a handful of good scares in the film, but it provides nothing new to this classic story. There are hints of what could have been (the idea of the possibility of world peace if the pod people completely take over), but all of that is loss for generic action scenes. The end result is a film that had more knives put to it than Joan Rivers. Rating: **
The Heartbreak Kid: Another '07 release that had some promise but turned out to be a dud. Ben Stiller re-teamed with the Farrelly brothers in this remake of a 1972 comedy. While providing some occasional laughs, this one ends up being too crass and stupid. It's another one of these Three's Company comedies where simple communication would have prevented all of the conflicts. The film doesn't do itself any favors by including in its supporting cast unfunny guys like Carlos Mencia and Danny McBride. Little known actress Malin Ackerman (soon to be seen in Watchmen) seems talented though, so hopefully she'll continue to get more roles. This film, however, is totally skippable. Rating: **
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
#1 with a bullet
The first trailer for Michael Mann's new movie, Public Enemies. From the looks of things, I'd say I was justified in putting this so high up on my must see list. Can't wait!
Unwelcome visitor
Back to the movies we go and this time it's for the remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic, The Day The Earth Stood Still.
When I first heard that this remake was coming, I was generally intrigued. A lot of that was due to the fact that I had just seen the original in a film class. I was impressed with the way that film, like so many of the sci-fi films of that era used out of this world creatures as an apt metaphor for the Red Scare. It fed into audiences' fear of the unknown to make a truly scary movie. With all of the important issues going on in our world today, I was interested to see how they would make this update appropriate for our current time. Unfortunately, they decided to forego coming up with an appropriate methaphor and focused on more important things like finding a cool way to depict the destruction of Giants stadium.
As in the orignal, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) arrives in an alien spacecraft on Earth with a warning to the human race. Jennifer Connelly plays Helen, the astrobiologist who first meets Klaatu and strikes up an odd bond with him. She's hopeful of finding a way to convince Klaatu not to destroy all of humanity. Also along for the ride is her step-son Jacob (Jaden Smith) who is not as willing to listen to what Klaatu has to say.
You see, Klaatu is going to kill off all human life because they are detrimental to themselves and the planet. In the 1951 version, you can see how the fearmongering and Communist witch hunts would appear to an outsider like humanity was destroying itself. And today, there are certainly plenty of reasons why you could blame humanity for the way the world is. Things like the war on terror, global warming, and addiction to technology all reveal the dark side of humanity. If this film had chosen any one of those and focused on it, the message would have more resonance. Instead the film takes a generic, humans are bad and must be eradicated approach.
Rather than trying to make the audience think, the film distracts you with a bunch of superflous visual effects. Sure the glowing orbs across the earth and the nanobot storm eating any non-living thing look cool but they don't add any gravitas to the film. If I wanted eye candy, I would just go watch a Roland Emmerich film. At least there, I know I'm not getting any substance, so I won't be disappointed.
The one cool visual that does add to the film, though, is their version of Gort, the robot that protects Klaatu and his ship. While the 1951 film had a guy in a silver rubber suit (I don't think metal bends that way), this director creates a visually stunning creatures that truly elicts the fear that the original should have, but didn't. Their interpretation of Gort is the best thing about the film (although I rolled my eyes over the fact that Gort this time is an acronym created by the Army).
But for as much as I liked their interpretation of Gort, I was equally dismayed by their treatment of the Professor Barnard character. In the original, Barnard is the voice of rational thought in an irrational situation and also helps Klaatu better understand humanity. Here, his inclusion is shoehorned into the story and doesn't really add anything. John Cleese is wasted here in the role neither providing any comic relief nor any real words of wisdom to justify the character's inclusion. If you had never seen the original, you would wonder why this scene was even included in this version.
As disappointed as I was about the film's failure to pick an issue to use drive its message, that can be overlooked if the film does a good job at providing an emotional and meaningful climax to the story. But as you may have guessed, this doesn't do it. First of all, the action that causes Klaatu to change his mind about humanity is so basic and ordinary, you begin to wonder why it took so long for him to figure out that humans have the capicity to be compassionate. The film builds things up to make it seem like there's something special about Helen and/or Jacob that Klaatu will see, but their actions are not unlike most average humans. It's truly baffling why that moment creates the change in Klaatu's perspective.
Then as the film ends we aren't given a proper sense of the aftermath. Will humanity change? What, if any, lessons have they learned from this experience? The whole climax is as emotionless as Klaatu himself. I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to take away from any of this.
Like a lot of movies that came out this past Winter, it seems this one may have been a victim of the writer's strike. There were just too many poorly constructed or underwritten scenes. You feel like if the script had gone through one more revision, a lot of the problems could have been tightened up. While I can give some other films some slack for this, this film shouldn't haven't had those problems. First, it's a remake, so you already have the core script ready. Secondly, the film was originally supposed to be released in the summer, so this may have been a case of too much tinkering instead of not enough.
Regardless of the reason, this is a disappointing film to anyone who saw the original. And if you haven't, I can't see it being very enjoyable for you either. The whole thing has a very dour tone that never eases up. This film is neither scary nor uplifting. This alien invasion feels more like your mother-in-law having an overextended stay. You just want them to leave so we can go back doing our regular thing. Everyone will be better off just going out and finding the original rather than wasting your time with this disappointing redux. Grade: C
When I first heard that this remake was coming, I was generally intrigued. A lot of that was due to the fact that I had just seen the original in a film class. I was impressed with the way that film, like so many of the sci-fi films of that era used out of this world creatures as an apt metaphor for the Red Scare. It fed into audiences' fear of the unknown to make a truly scary movie. With all of the important issues going on in our world today, I was interested to see how they would make this update appropriate for our current time. Unfortunately, they decided to forego coming up with an appropriate methaphor and focused on more important things like finding a cool way to depict the destruction of Giants stadium.
As in the orignal, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) arrives in an alien spacecraft on Earth with a warning to the human race. Jennifer Connelly plays Helen, the astrobiologist who first meets Klaatu and strikes up an odd bond with him. She's hopeful of finding a way to convince Klaatu not to destroy all of humanity. Also along for the ride is her step-son Jacob (Jaden Smith) who is not as willing to listen to what Klaatu has to say.
You see, Klaatu is going to kill off all human life because they are detrimental to themselves and the planet. In the 1951 version, you can see how the fearmongering and Communist witch hunts would appear to an outsider like humanity was destroying itself. And today, there are certainly plenty of reasons why you could blame humanity for the way the world is. Things like the war on terror, global warming, and addiction to technology all reveal the dark side of humanity. If this film had chosen any one of those and focused on it, the message would have more resonance. Instead the film takes a generic, humans are bad and must be eradicated approach.
Rather than trying to make the audience think, the film distracts you with a bunch of superflous visual effects. Sure the glowing orbs across the earth and the nanobot storm eating any non-living thing look cool but they don't add any gravitas to the film. If I wanted eye candy, I would just go watch a Roland Emmerich film. At least there, I know I'm not getting any substance, so I won't be disappointed.
The one cool visual that does add to the film, though, is their version of Gort, the robot that protects Klaatu and his ship. While the 1951 film had a guy in a silver rubber suit (I don't think metal bends that way), this director creates a visually stunning creatures that truly elicts the fear that the original should have, but didn't. Their interpretation of Gort is the best thing about the film (although I rolled my eyes over the fact that Gort this time is an acronym created by the Army).
But for as much as I liked their interpretation of Gort, I was equally dismayed by their treatment of the Professor Barnard character. In the original, Barnard is the voice of rational thought in an irrational situation and also helps Klaatu better understand humanity. Here, his inclusion is shoehorned into the story and doesn't really add anything. John Cleese is wasted here in the role neither providing any comic relief nor any real words of wisdom to justify the character's inclusion. If you had never seen the original, you would wonder why this scene was even included in this version.
As disappointed as I was about the film's failure to pick an issue to use drive its message, that can be overlooked if the film does a good job at providing an emotional and meaningful climax to the story. But as you may have guessed, this doesn't do it. First of all, the action that causes Klaatu to change his mind about humanity is so basic and ordinary, you begin to wonder why it took so long for him to figure out that humans have the capicity to be compassionate. The film builds things up to make it seem like there's something special about Helen and/or Jacob that Klaatu will see, but their actions are not unlike most average humans. It's truly baffling why that moment creates the change in Klaatu's perspective.
Then as the film ends we aren't given a proper sense of the aftermath. Will humanity change? What, if any, lessons have they learned from this experience? The whole climax is as emotionless as Klaatu himself. I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to take away from any of this.
Like a lot of movies that came out this past Winter, it seems this one may have been a victim of the writer's strike. There were just too many poorly constructed or underwritten scenes. You feel like if the script had gone through one more revision, a lot of the problems could have been tightened up. While I can give some other films some slack for this, this film shouldn't haven't had those problems. First, it's a remake, so you already have the core script ready. Secondly, the film was originally supposed to be released in the summer, so this may have been a case of too much tinkering instead of not enough.
Regardless of the reason, this is a disappointing film to anyone who saw the original. And if you haven't, I can't see it being very enjoyable for you either. The whole thing has a very dour tone that never eases up. This film is neither scary nor uplifting. This alien invasion feels more like your mother-in-law having an overextended stay. You just want them to leave so we can go back doing our regular thing. Everyone will be better off just going out and finding the original rather than wasting your time with this disappointing redux. Grade: C
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
False positive
So it's spring break this week and while I've still got plenty of work to do, there's a ton of movies over at the budget theater that I need to catch up on, so I'll try and get to as many of them as possible. So be on the lookout for more reviews as the week progresses.
We'll start things off though with Jim Carrey's latest comedy, Yes Man. I'll admit that nothing really stood out to me from the previews for this one. The premise seemed similar to Liar Liar and I didn't find myself laughing that much. It turns out that my instincts ended up being fairly accurate.
The premise here is that Jim Carrey plays Carl, a pessimistic banker who jumps at the chance to say no to every offer put in front of him until he takes a motivational seminar in which the guru gets him to start saying yes to everything asked of him. Hopefully in reading that sentence some warning bells should already start ringing in your head that this sounds like a pretty flimsy concept.
First of all, we're never really given an adequate explanation as to why Carl is so pessimistic. There is some mention of a failed marriage, but that idea isn't really explored enough to make us buy that as the justification. After this brief introduction into the character, Carl runs into a Contrivance #1 aka John Michael Higgins character. These two supposedly know each other, but we're not told where they know each other from. Higgins' encourages Carl to attend this positivity seminar and soon we're thrust right into the main plot.
Of course, all of the things asked of Carl seemed like they'll go terrible if he agrees to them, but he does and then end up turning out great for him. The best thing is he ends up meeting Contrivance #2, Allison (played amicably by Zooey Deschanel). Being a free spirit herself, she really likes how spontaneous and optimistic Carl is. We then spend the crux of the film watching them do zany things like breaking into the Hollywood Bowl or flying to Lincoln, Nebraska. Any of this sound exciting yet? All the while, we're supposed to be laughing at Carrey's zany, spur-of-the-moment antics, but instead it just appears that this character has some sort of mental deficiency.
Carrey's character is flawed in so many ways that it basically ruins the entire movie. Aside from acting like a lunatic, he doesn't come across as likeable when he pessimistic or optimistic. It's hard to root for someone who is so stupid to believe that saying yes to everything is the answer to all of life's problems. By the end of the film, he learns the lesson that while it's important to be positive, major decisions require critical thought, not just blindly agreeing to everything. How hard was that to figure out? The audience figures this out waaaaay before the main character does, which just makes for a frustrating experience.
There are an assortment of subplots introduced that could have been potentially interesting like Carl's friends abusing his inability to say no, or the fact that Carl works at a bank and is suddenly giving loans to everyone who asks for one. In our current financial times, this could have been particularly pertinent, but it's abandoned for more wacky Carrey antics.
Any of these minor stories are spurned in favor of the cliched romance which of course involves Contrivance #3 causing Allison and Carl to briefly break up when she realizes he's 'not the man I thought he was' only for them to quickly reconcile by the movies end.
Nothing in the movie feels real or genuine. Perhaps the best example of that is one of the final scenes, which in a way mirrors one of the final scenes in The 40-Year Old Virgin. Without giving too much away, they both involve the main character on a bike chasing after their love interest. If you do see this movie, you'll understand how cheesy and lame this scene comes off as in comparison to the emotion that's packed into the scene from Virgin.
I was excited to see Carrey come back to the genre that brought him, the slapstick comedy, but this was not the right vehicle for him. The film tries to put a fresh spin on a tried and true method of storytelling, but fails completely. Nothing rings true about the story or the characters or the message. If I were you, I don't see a need to waste your time renting it. It'll probably show up on the USA channel fairly quickly anyways, so if you're really a big Jim Carrey fan and you haven't seen it, you can watch it then. Otherwise, just say no to Yes Man. Grade: C-
We'll start things off though with Jim Carrey's latest comedy, Yes Man. I'll admit that nothing really stood out to me from the previews for this one. The premise seemed similar to Liar Liar and I didn't find myself laughing that much. It turns out that my instincts ended up being fairly accurate.
The premise here is that Jim Carrey plays Carl, a pessimistic banker who jumps at the chance to say no to every offer put in front of him until he takes a motivational seminar in which the guru gets him to start saying yes to everything asked of him. Hopefully in reading that sentence some warning bells should already start ringing in your head that this sounds like a pretty flimsy concept.
First of all, we're never really given an adequate explanation as to why Carl is so pessimistic. There is some mention of a failed marriage, but that idea isn't really explored enough to make us buy that as the justification. After this brief introduction into the character, Carl runs into a Contrivance #1 aka John Michael Higgins character. These two supposedly know each other, but we're not told where they know each other from. Higgins' encourages Carl to attend this positivity seminar and soon we're thrust right into the main plot.
Of course, all of the things asked of Carl seemed like they'll go terrible if he agrees to them, but he does and then end up turning out great for him. The best thing is he ends up meeting Contrivance #2, Allison (played amicably by Zooey Deschanel). Being a free spirit herself, she really likes how spontaneous and optimistic Carl is. We then spend the crux of the film watching them do zany things like breaking into the Hollywood Bowl or flying to Lincoln, Nebraska. Any of this sound exciting yet? All the while, we're supposed to be laughing at Carrey's zany, spur-of-the-moment antics, but instead it just appears that this character has some sort of mental deficiency.
Carrey's character is flawed in so many ways that it basically ruins the entire movie. Aside from acting like a lunatic, he doesn't come across as likeable when he pessimistic or optimistic. It's hard to root for someone who is so stupid to believe that saying yes to everything is the answer to all of life's problems. By the end of the film, he learns the lesson that while it's important to be positive, major decisions require critical thought, not just blindly agreeing to everything. How hard was that to figure out? The audience figures this out waaaaay before the main character does, which just makes for a frustrating experience.
There are an assortment of subplots introduced that could have been potentially interesting like Carl's friends abusing his inability to say no, or the fact that Carl works at a bank and is suddenly giving loans to everyone who asks for one. In our current financial times, this could have been particularly pertinent, but it's abandoned for more wacky Carrey antics.
Any of these minor stories are spurned in favor of the cliched romance which of course involves Contrivance #3 causing Allison and Carl to briefly break up when she realizes he's 'not the man I thought he was' only for them to quickly reconcile by the movies end.
Nothing in the movie feels real or genuine. Perhaps the best example of that is one of the final scenes, which in a way mirrors one of the final scenes in The 40-Year Old Virgin. Without giving too much away, they both involve the main character on a bike chasing after their love interest. If you do see this movie, you'll understand how cheesy and lame this scene comes off as in comparison to the emotion that's packed into the scene from Virgin.
I was excited to see Carrey come back to the genre that brought him, the slapstick comedy, but this was not the right vehicle for him. The film tries to put a fresh spin on a tried and true method of storytelling, but fails completely. Nothing rings true about the story or the characters or the message. If I were you, I don't see a need to waste your time renting it. It'll probably show up on the USA channel fairly quickly anyways, so if you're really a big Jim Carrey fan and you haven't seen it, you can watch it then. Otherwise, just say no to Yes Man. Grade: C-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)