RBR: A.C.O.D.

File this one under 'Wasted Potential'. You take an excellent cast that features Adam Scott, Richard Jenkins, Amy Poehler, Catherine O'Hara, Clark Duke, Jessica Alba, and Jane Lynch. You put them in a movie with an interesting story about what kind of people do kids of divorce turn out to be once they become adults. All of that should add up to something pretty great and yet this never reaches those heights. Scott plays the titular A.C.O.D. (which stands for Adult Child of Divorce). His younger brother announces he's going to get married. In order to prepare for the wedding, he attempts to get his estranged parents to start talking to each other once again. Dealing with them dredges up bad memories, so he also seeks out his former shrink (played by Lynch), who never was an actual therapist but still made a lot of money writing a book based on his issues growing up. The way the events play out in this film makes it feel like the pilot for a TV show. A lot of characters get introduced here that have some interesting quirks about them, but never fully get fleshed out. In addition, there's no really clear climax to the film. It really feels like an introduction without any clear resolution. If this had been a pilot, I would have been very invested to see where things go from there. As a standalone movie, I feel cheated. Despite the charming cast, there's nothing to sink your teeth into here. While there are certainly far worse movies that have come out in the past year, I cannot in my right mind recommend this one because I have no doubt that others will end up feeling just as disappointed as I was with this one. Rating: **1/2

Book and movie review: Jack Reacher

As you no doubt know if you regularly read this blog, I began reading Lee Child's Jack Reacher novels after it was announced that they would be adapting one of the books into a movie. I wanted to read them in order and vowed not to see the movie until I had gotten through the book the the film was based on (which was the 9th in the series). It was a bit of fortuitous luck then that I recently bought myself an iPad and have been reading the books at a faster pace on there. At the same time, the film just happened to come onto Netflix instant viewing this past week. Now that I have read the book and seen the movie, here are my quick reviews for both.

Book: At times I've struggled with the Reacher series. I've found some of the stories to either have obvious twists or go too far with Reacher's approach at serving his brand of justice. However, this 9th book that the film was based on, titled One Shot, was one of the best in the series to this point. The best aspects of Reacher's character (his intellect, his steely resolve, his nobility) are emphasized and some of his weaker or more cliched qualities are only hinted at. The story itself moves very well with few slow points. It helps that this time there are plenty of compelling characters, both good and bad. I also enjoyed the fact that its location was a small town in Indiana. I've never enjoyed when one of the books takes place in a larger city where Reacher is constantly butting heads with big time bureaucrats. While there is plenty of action and violence, it's not drawn out in the same way that it has been in some of the other novels. This one is much more of a detective story and for that reason, One Shot is a solid page-turner. Grade: B+

Movie: Many people griped before the film was even released when it was announced that Tom Cruise would play the titular character. Given that the character is described as 6'5", muscular, with blond hair and blue eyes, the last person you would picture in that role is Cruise. I was willing to put that physical disparity aside for the sake of enjoying the movie. However, I ended up still believing Cruise was miscast because of the way he portrayed the character. Reacher is a loner by choice, but Cruise still uses his movie star charm that draws people in not tell them to stay away. Reacher also has a grouchy disposition most of the time, but Cruise still cracks wise and never treats this with the seriousness that he should. The movie also falters like most book adaptations do by taking shortcuts when it comes to delivering the complicated, intricate plot within a two hour timeframe. Three major female characters from the book have been completely removed from the film, leaving the burden on Rosamund Pike, who plays a lawyer who helps Reacher. While Pike can be good, she offers nothing of interest here. The film does a nice job of bringing in some A-list talent for the supporting roles including Robert Duvall, Richard Jenkins, and Werner Herzog as a deranged Russian villain (is there any other role for him?), but they do not do enough with their respective characters (at least in contrast to the way they are developed in the book) to justify their presence here. Despite some adaptation problems and Cruise being miscast, the film is not a total loser. The core story remains intact for the most part and is still interesting on the screen (it's understandable why they chose this one for the adaptation). Director Christopher McQuarrie also does some nice directing, particularly in the opening sniper scene and with an extended car chase sequence. While no doubt a disappointment for fans of Lee Child's books, the film offers some pulpy intrigue for those looking for some escapist fare in a movie. Given that a sequel has already been announced, I'll be interested in both reading the books that lead up to the next adaptation and to see if they address some of the problems that plagued this film. If you're a Netflix subscriber, this is probably worth a watch, especially if you're trapped inside by the weather over the next few days. Grade: B-

It's always hardest on the adults

Check out this trailer for A.C.O.D. (which stand for Adult Child of Divorce), the latest indie dramedy that features one hell of a talented and funny cast.

Die hardly

The old adage goes, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". This is a phrase that doesn't exactly hold true in Hollywood. Instead, studios tend to repeat history because they do remember the past. When a formula works, they reuse it time and time again. One of the most frequently used formulas is the Die Hard formula. For the past 25 years since the original Bruce Willis film hit theaters, Hollywood has frequently used the 'one man overcomes the odds to defeat a group of evil terrorists' trope. It's one thing when we are talking about a sequel to the franchise (which we already saw this year). It's another thing when it's a completely separate film that borrows the framework. So then, what are we to make of a film that not only uses the trope but then also uses the exact same context and setup as another film that was released mere months before it?

That is the question were left answering as White House Down, the latest film from master of disaster Roland Emmerich, hits theaters. Just like Olympus Has Fallen (a film which I have yet to see) did this past spring, our country has been put into peril as terrorists infiltrate the White House and hold our government hostage. Playing the role of John McLain this time (right down to the white tank top) is Channing Tatum playing John Cale, a security guard for the Speaker of the House who has aspiration of working for the Secret Service.

When all hell breaks loose, Cale finds himself as the lone guy able to help protect President James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx, doing a not so subtle job of actually playing President Obama). The two scamper through the White House hoping to avoid death while also trying to eliminate the bad guys. Of course, the film finds time to have this racially mismatched duo crack wise with each other during the down moments, which feels cribbed from Die Hard 3.

We then move on to borrowing from the fourth Die Hard film as the protagonist's kid is put into peril. In this case, the moppet is Joey King, playing Cale's daughter. She's a political junkie who happened to be visiting the White House with her father at the time of the attacks. And of course, to remind us that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, we get several scenes of her finding ways of talking tough and standing up to the terrorists, even though most 10 years would be absolutely petrified by the events that occur in the film.

And if you thought that Die Hard 2 was ignored, you'd be wrong. These domestic terrorists are able to gain access to these government buildings with embarrassing ease largely because of their being at least one, if not more, moles within the President's administration. Apparently, in this America, the concept of background checks is the only thing that is too far-fetched.

I will grant you that director Roland Emmerich will never be confused as someone who makes sophisticated films. If you've seen any of his previous films, you'll know that they require you to stop thinking and just enjoy the goofy ride. I've been able to do that with some of his past films because they are so outlandish in their attempts at putting people in peril. However, after completely destroying the world in 2012, he really had no way of topping himself and thus this film feels like a let down. There are a few moments of zany inspiration, like a rocket launcher being used during a car chase on the front lawn of the White House, but it overall just felt like a noisy rerun of better action films.

There's an attempt to add some gravitas to the picture through its casting. James Woods is the retiring head of the Secret Service. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a Secret Service agent. And Richard Jenkins plays the aforementioned Speaker of the House. They all manage to keep a straight face through this silly plot, but their presence alone isn't enough to improve the overall quality of the film. As for Tatum and Foxx, they seem to be having fun in their respective roles, but they also come off as pale imitations of the real or fictional person they are emulating.

For a film like this to work, there needs to be a true sense of fun, which is absent here. You have to slog through a half hour of obvious exposition to set up every single plot payoff that will come in the film's finale. And as the action starts to pick up, the film spends too much time trying to figure out how reverent it should be when it comes to depicting a White House under siege. I also could have done with one or two fewer twists that come near the films end that unnecessarily overcomplicate the film's plot. I don't have a problem when a film liberally borrows from a successful formula, but White House Down follows it so dutifully that it prevents the film from being the escapist fun that it should be. Grade: C