First, a note to Onvoy employees. You will get an inadvertent laugh - a giggle, really - over the name of one of the characters. It happens early on and is repeated a few times. Don't worry about it, just have your little chuckle, try not to annoy anyone sitting nearby and get your head back in the movie. Consider it a little extra bang for your ticket buck.
Up in the Air is a wonderful, intimate actor's movie. George Clooney is wonderful as a consultant who travels around the country firing people. He takes his work very seriously and his always-on-the-move lifestyle even more so. Vera Farmiga is a kindred spirit he meets on the road (you'll recognize her when you see her -she's been in several things you've seen in the last decade), while Anna Kendrick plays a recent college grad who shadows Clooney's character to learn the ropes.
I wanted the first half of the movie to continue forever. Getting to know the characters, hearing the Gilmore Girls-caliber dialogue (although delivered much more leisurely), seeing the different sights around the country was all wonderful. But movies are about change and a couple of big changes are thrown at the characters. Even so, the personal turmoil that results was fascinating to observe.
The ending of Up in the Air is about as perfect as you can get. Director Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking, Juno) is proving his mettle as a guy who sets his characters in motion and just lets them live. If this is what he can do on his third movie, I can't wait to see his 20th.
Unless you're a 14-year-old girl, you won't recognize Anna Kendrick. She was in the two Twilight movies and not much else. Think of her as a brunette Kristen Bell, which is a high compliment from me. Bell's Veronica Mars was a great anti-hero and could have been a cartoon in lesser hands. Kendrick both looks and acts like Bell. Let's hope she picks more movies like Up in the Air and fewer like Twilight in the future.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Blind Side and Invictus
I'm a little tardy with these two reviews - I'll have to refund half of your subscription price. With The Blind Side and Invictus, we have two of the best sports movies in recent memory and they couldn't be more different.
The Blind Side is the more-or-less true story about an NFL player's down-and-out beginnings and his luck to be taken in by a wealthy football-loving family. What I liked most is that it wasn't about the game but about how the connection between the teenage boy and the materfamilias formed.
This is Sandra Bullock's third movie of the year and easily her best. She plays a southern society wife to a T and it would have been worth the price of admission just to see her performance. Fortunately, the other main characters was also perfectly cast, so we are treated to a top-notch film.
Do I have to say how wonderful Sandra Bullock looks? She has the skin of a porcelain doll, the body of a college girl and a smile that turns this middle-aged cynic into a gushing fanboy. Need I say more?
Finally, be it known that The Blind Side becomes an almost-perfect movie because it doesn't have a come-from-behind win at the end. No clock counting down, no Hail Mary catches, no game-winner interceptions. In not using the cliché of a last-second win, The Blind Side puts itself in a rare place where the sport is less important that the characters we've grown to appreciate over the past two hours.
Invictus is poem by Robert Frost or somebody and appears to be somewhat inspiring. That's all you need to know about the title. Rugby is a game somewhere between futbol with the use of hands and football without helmets or pads. Rugby makes no sense to me and that's all you need to know about the game.
Invictus takes place in South Africa just after the end of apartheid and (no spoiler) how Nelson Mandela used the national rugby team to help unite South Africans. Matt Damon plays the relatively unknown captain of the SA rugby team while Morgan Freeman plays the iconic Nelson Mandela. Both do an outstanding job.
Directed by Clint Eastwood, Invictus displays the typical Eastwood touch - a great story, told patiently and without cheap gimmicks. That we don't understand rugby or SA politics doesn't matter. I don't think the politics is as simple as black and white or that Mandela was the benevolent grandfather-type. It's a great story nonetheless, fact or fiction.
Unlike The Blind Side, there is a big game at the end and a countdown clock, but it's secondary to the struggle to get to the big game. In fact, I thought the big game was actually just a semi-final match. Eastwood didn't over-explain rugby nor give the World Cup too much due. It was just another game for the players but a healing ritual for a country that had never been united. Invictus is a great sports movie in particular and a great movie in general.
Interestingly, at the beginning of 2009, would you have believed that not only would we see two mainstream movies set in South Africa (Invictus and District 9) but that both would be pretty darn good?
2:04/2:06
postscript January 2, 2010
I should also have mentioned that for both of these movies, when the lights came up at the end, nobody moved. It's not uncommon for people to stay in their seats long enough to read the cast credits but not the entire audience. Most of your average crowd jumps up as soon as the movie ends and shuffles towards the door. For both of these movies, I sensed that all the other patrons, like me, wanted to savor, reflect or have some other emotional experience but NOT leave. I consider the lingering behavior to be another sign of a well-received movie.
The Blind Side is the more-or-less true story about an NFL player's down-and-out beginnings and his luck to be taken in by a wealthy football-loving family. What I liked most is that it wasn't about the game but about how the connection between the teenage boy and the materfamilias formed.
This is Sandra Bullock's third movie of the year and easily her best. She plays a southern society wife to a T and it would have been worth the price of admission just to see her performance. Fortunately, the other main characters was also perfectly cast, so we are treated to a top-notch film.
Do I have to say how wonderful Sandra Bullock looks? She has the skin of a porcelain doll, the body of a college girl and a smile that turns this middle-aged cynic into a gushing fanboy. Need I say more?
Finally, be it known that The Blind Side becomes an almost-perfect movie because it doesn't have a come-from-behind win at the end. No clock counting down, no Hail Mary catches, no game-winner interceptions. In not using the cliché of a last-second win, The Blind Side puts itself in a rare place where the sport is less important that the characters we've grown to appreciate over the past two hours.
Invictus is poem by Robert Frost or somebody and appears to be somewhat inspiring. That's all you need to know about the title. Rugby is a game somewhere between futbol with the use of hands and football without helmets or pads. Rugby makes no sense to me and that's all you need to know about the game.
Invictus takes place in South Africa just after the end of apartheid and (no spoiler) how Nelson Mandela used the national rugby team to help unite South Africans. Matt Damon plays the relatively unknown captain of the SA rugby team while Morgan Freeman plays the iconic Nelson Mandela. Both do an outstanding job.
Directed by Clint Eastwood, Invictus displays the typical Eastwood touch - a great story, told patiently and without cheap gimmicks. That we don't understand rugby or SA politics doesn't matter. I don't think the politics is as simple as black and white or that Mandela was the benevolent grandfather-type. It's a great story nonetheless, fact or fiction.
Unlike The Blind Side, there is a big game at the end and a countdown clock, but it's secondary to the struggle to get to the big game. In fact, I thought the big game was actually just a semi-final match. Eastwood didn't over-explain rugby nor give the World Cup too much due. It was just another game for the players but a healing ritual for a country that had never been united. Invictus is a great sports movie in particular and a great movie in general.
Interestingly, at the beginning of 2009, would you have believed that not only would we see two mainstream movies set in South Africa (Invictus and District 9) but that both would be pretty darn good?
2:04/2:06
postscript January 2, 2010
I should also have mentioned that for both of these movies, when the lights came up at the end, nobody moved. It's not uncommon for people to stay in their seats long enough to read the cast credits but not the entire audience. Most of your average crowd jumps up as soon as the movie ends and shuffles towards the door. For both of these movies, I sensed that all the other patrons, like me, wanted to savor, reflect or have some other emotional experience but NOT leave. I consider the lingering behavior to be another sign of a well-received movie.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Everybody's Fine
Everybody's Fine is a character study about a retiree who is being protected by his kids. When he finds out, he is terribly disappointed in both his children and himself. The movie uses an interesting way to show covert communication - as the man spent his career making telephone cables, we saw pictures of telephone poles while we heard his children talking to each other. Maybe you had to be there but it worked.
Everybody's Fine is a good actor's movie, with Robert DeNiro in fine form playing against three of the younger generation's best, Drew Barrymore, Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale. I usually hate Rockwell, as he frequently plays slimeballs and is very good at it. Here, I liked his character a lot - that's good acting.
Beckinsale is always one of my favorites and doesn't disappoint. The movie used another technique, showing all of the children in flashback as 10-12 year-olds. Beckinsale as a 10-year-old was played by Beckinsale's daughter, Lily Sheen. I saw her name in the credits so I was looking for her. It was quite amazing - Lily has her mother's smile and eyes (Kate's big brown eyes - see my posts for Whiteout). Having someone with a resemblance that strong was another nice touch in a move full of them.
All in all, I recommend Everybody's Fine as a good drama.
1:35
Everybody's Fine is a good actor's movie, with Robert DeNiro in fine form playing against three of the younger generation's best, Drew Barrymore, Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale. I usually hate Rockwell, as he frequently plays slimeballs and is very good at it. Here, I liked his character a lot - that's good acting.
Beckinsale is always one of my favorites and doesn't disappoint. The movie used another technique, showing all of the children in flashback as 10-12 year-olds. Beckinsale as a 10-year-old was played by Beckinsale's daughter, Lily Sheen. I saw her name in the credits so I was looking for her. It was quite amazing - Lily has her mother's smile and eyes (Kate's big brown eyes - see my posts for Whiteout). Having someone with a resemblance that strong was another nice touch in a move full of them.
All in all, I recommend Everybody's Fine as a good drama.
1:35
Ninja Assassin
I had a miss-impression about Ninja Assassin. I thought it was going to be a Hong Kong-style chop-socky film, which it kind of is, but get this: it is a movie about Japanese ninja, set in Germany, with an English and Korean cast, some playing Americans. Strange accents and unfamiliar actors aside, Ninja Assassin is exactly what you'd expect it to be.
Having seen many Hong Kong action pictures lately, I expected a whole lot of gravity-defying, slow motion CGI shots. There weren't that many. Both in visual style and story, this movie was much like the old-fashioned dubbed Japanese karate movies we watched on Saturday afternoons growing up. The CGI didn't really dominate and the story was your basic invincible hero tale where he finally has a showdown with his old master. Recommended for a time when you want a modern old fashioned karate movie.
1:30
Having seen many Hong Kong action pictures lately, I expected a whole lot of gravity-defying, slow motion CGI shots. There weren't that many. Both in visual style and story, this movie was much like the old-fashioned dubbed Japanese karate movies we watched on Saturday afternoons growing up. The CGI didn't really dominate and the story was your basic invincible hero tale where he finally has a showdown with his old master. Recommended for a time when you want a modern old fashioned karate movie.
1:30
Fantastic Mr Fox
This movie bugged me. It was stop-action or claymation or something and the animals were plain old creepy. Mr Fox was voiced by George Clooney, who is so familiar I could visualize him reading the lines. You really don't want the voice actors to overshadow the graphics. I'd skip the movie entirely, and that includes for children unless you want to encourage nightmares.
1:21
1:21
A Serious Man
I just didn't get A Serious Man. It's a Coen brothers movie so it's quirky, that's a given, but I never figured out the point of view. It's about a Jewish college professor whose life starts falling apart.
I wasn't sure if they were making fun of Jews or promoting them, but I didn't like any of them. I wasn't laughing with them and I certainly wasn't laughing at them. Religion aside, they were all nut-jobs and not the fun kind of nut-jobs.
I thought it just might have been me, but the theater was about a third full and no one else was laughing, either. You know you're in trouble when the second biggest laugh was when the guy who plays Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory makes an appearance. He didn't have to say anything - he merely stuck his head out a door and we all laughed. Oh, the biggest laugh? It was when the professor was given a recommendation for an attorney - Ron Meshbesher. For non-Minnesotans, Meshbesher is a Minnesota institution and the mere mention of his name caused the theater to go wild. That's a bad thing to say about a comedy.
Don't even get me started on the ending. I advise skipping A Serious Man because it is seriously not funny.
1:40
I wasn't sure if they were making fun of Jews or promoting them, but I didn't like any of them. I wasn't laughing with them and I certainly wasn't laughing at them. Religion aside, they were all nut-jobs and not the fun kind of nut-jobs.
I thought it just might have been me, but the theater was about a third full and no one else was laughing, either. You know you're in trouble when the second biggest laugh was when the guy who plays Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory makes an appearance. He didn't have to say anything - he merely stuck his head out a door and we all laughed. Oh, the biggest laugh? It was when the professor was given a recommendation for an attorney - Ron Meshbesher. For non-Minnesotans, Meshbesher is a Minnesota institution and the mere mention of his name caused the theater to go wild. That's a bad thing to say about a comedy.
Don't even get me started on the ending. I advise skipping A Serious Man because it is seriously not funny.
1:40
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Back to the Future
Willow Creek Theater is running retro movies every weekend; see my post about Jurassic Park. Today was Back to the Future; last week was The Christmas Story ("You'll shoot your eye out, kid"). Back to the Future is pretty much a perfect adventure story. It told a novel story - still novel today, really, and is so visually interesting, it begs to be viewed on the big screen.
Alas, where Willow Creek showed a film print of Jurassic Park, Back to the Future was digital. Maybe the source was a DVD, maybe some special theater-type of file, but digital nonetheless. It wasn't pretty. There was pixelation around the edges of objects and the colors were a bit washed out. Same thing goes for The Christmas Story last week.
I've seen many a modern digital movie and I can no longer tell the difference between film and digital. I consider this progress and don't consider myself a purist, so show me modern digital all you want. But the differences between film and home digital are still staggering. I imagine that whatever the source is that Willow Creek uses, it is more like home quality than modern digital. If you used a digital projector like we have at work and shot it on a wall 10-15 feet high, you'd see the same issues.
While I was watching Back to the Future, I did a little math. The screen at Willow Creek auditorium 7 is about 32 feet wide, which makes it 18 feet high. Let's assume they're showing us a Blu-Ray quality source. Blu-Ray is digital the same way your computer screen is, where your computer screen might be 1024x768 pixels, Blu-Ray is 1920x1080. A Blu-Ray DVD is 1080 pixels high. An 18-foot tall screen is 216 inches. Dividing it through (1080/216), you get five pixels per inch. That's a huge pixel and you'd notice if the building blocks of your film experience were a fifth of an inch high, even if you're sitting 20-30 feet away. I suspect Willow Creek's source is a little higher quality but still nowhere near modern digital projection quality. If you're going to go to the trouble to go to a theater, you might as well watch film, not TV.
Next weekend is Raiders of the Lost Ark. Like Jurassic Park, Raiders must be on film or I won't bother. The following weekend is Christmas Vacation, which I'm going to skip no matter what.
The guy at the theater said they may not be able to get Raiders next weekend. If so, they'll substitute The Goonies. I saw The Goonies when it came out in 1985. I wasn't impressed. After seeing how many people raved about it over the years, I was curious and watched it on DVD in October, 2005. I was even less impressed than I remembered after seeing it 20 years earlier. If they substitute The Goonies for Raiders of the Lost Ark, I'm skipping it, film or not.
Finally, in Back to the Future, Marty's girlfriend was played by Claudia Wells, a then 19-year-old ingenue. Seeing the movie today reminds me just how pretty that girl was but, alas, she got out of the business shortly after Back to the Future. Her character was played by Elisabeth Shue in the two sequels. It's too bad. Claudia was quite the cutie.
Alas, where Willow Creek showed a film print of Jurassic Park, Back to the Future was digital. Maybe the source was a DVD, maybe some special theater-type of file, but digital nonetheless. It wasn't pretty. There was pixelation around the edges of objects and the colors were a bit washed out. Same thing goes for The Christmas Story last week.
I've seen many a modern digital movie and I can no longer tell the difference between film and digital. I consider this progress and don't consider myself a purist, so show me modern digital all you want. But the differences between film and home digital are still staggering. I imagine that whatever the source is that Willow Creek uses, it is more like home quality than modern digital. If you used a digital projector like we have at work and shot it on a wall 10-15 feet high, you'd see the same issues.
While I was watching Back to the Future, I did a little math. The screen at Willow Creek auditorium 7 is about 32 feet wide, which makes it 18 feet high. Let's assume they're showing us a Blu-Ray quality source. Blu-Ray is digital the same way your computer screen is, where your computer screen might be 1024x768 pixels, Blu-Ray is 1920x1080. A Blu-Ray DVD is 1080 pixels high. An 18-foot tall screen is 216 inches. Dividing it through (1080/216), you get five pixels per inch. That's a huge pixel and you'd notice if the building blocks of your film experience were a fifth of an inch high, even if you're sitting 20-30 feet away. I suspect Willow Creek's source is a little higher quality but still nowhere near modern digital projection quality. If you're going to go to the trouble to go to a theater, you might as well watch film, not TV.
Next weekend is Raiders of the Lost Ark. Like Jurassic Park, Raiders must be on film or I won't bother. The following weekend is Christmas Vacation, which I'm going to skip no matter what.
The guy at the theater said they may not be able to get Raiders next weekend. If so, they'll substitute The Goonies. I saw The Goonies when it came out in 1985. I wasn't impressed. After seeing how many people raved about it over the years, I was curious and watched it on DVD in October, 2005. I was even less impressed than I remembered after seeing it 20 years earlier. If they substitute The Goonies for Raiders of the Lost Ark, I'm skipping it, film or not.
Finally, in Back to the Future, Marty's girlfriend was played by Claudia Wells, a then 19-year-old ingenue. Seeing the movie today reminds me just how pretty that girl was but, alas, she got out of the business shortly after Back to the Future. Her character was played by Elisabeth Shue in the two sequels. It's too bad. Claudia was quite the cutie.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Jurassic Park
Yes, Jurassic Park. Willow Creek started running a series of retro movies on the weekends. They are promoting them as “Midnight Showings” but yesterday I noticed a sign that said they are also playing on Saturday and Sunday mornings at 10:30. I wish I'd known that over the past month when they ran Die Hard and The Princess Bride. It's strange that they e-mail the movie schedules to me every week but don't bother to include info about the retro movies series.
I'm happy to report that Jurassic Park holds up pretty well for a 16-year-old movie. The print, apparently an original 35mm copy - complete with the occasional scratch - looked as good as anything in theaters today. After all these years, I still can't tell which dinosaurs were CGI and which were models. The movie is still a thrill ride and still the standard by which all sci-fi movies must be compared.
The science, inevitably, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. A lot of things in dino research, computers and science in general have changed so some of the dialog and plot points seem hokey, but the tension and adventure are as good as in any movie I've seen in the last 16 years. I'm glad I got a chance to see Jurassic Park in the theater again. It reminds me why I go to the theater so often. Really good movies on the big screen are a fantastic experience.
1:59
I'm happy to report that Jurassic Park holds up pretty well for a 16-year-old movie. The print, apparently an original 35mm copy - complete with the occasional scratch - looked as good as anything in theaters today. After all these years, I still can't tell which dinosaurs were CGI and which were models. The movie is still a thrill ride and still the standard by which all sci-fi movies must be compared.
The science, inevitably, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. A lot of things in dino research, computers and science in general have changed so some of the dialog and plot points seem hokey, but the tension and adventure are as good as in any movie I've seen in the last 16 years. I'm glad I got a chance to see Jurassic Park in the theater again. It reminds me why I go to the theater so often. Really good movies on the big screen are a fantastic experience.
1:59
Thursday, November 12, 2009
You Guys Have Disappointed Me
It was announced yesterday that Dollhouse, my beloved uberdark and stylish sci-fi series was cancelled. It seems I didn't recruit enough people to watch the show to keep it afloat. But as you can see from my September posts, I most certainly tried.
So it's your fault, not mine. You, and several million more people, should've watched. You guys have disappointed me.
Four Dollhouse episodes have aired this season. There are seven in the can and two in production. The network says they will air all 13 at some point. Series creator Joss Whedon says he's going to retool the last ep to make it a fitting final ep, allowing us who believe in the show unreasonably to have a little closure.
To all of you who gave Dollhouse a try, even if you didn't stick with it, thank you. To the rest of you, you suck.
So it's your fault, not mine. You, and several million more people, should've watched. You guys have disappointed me.
Four Dollhouse episodes have aired this season. There are seven in the can and two in production. The network says they will air all 13 at some point. Series creator Joss Whedon says he's going to retool the last ep to make it a fitting final ep, allowing us who believe in the show unreasonably to have a little closure.
To all of you who gave Dollhouse a try, even if you didn't stick with it, thank you. To the rest of you, you suck.
The Men Who Stare at Goats
I'm going to flag The Men Who Stare at Goats for false advertising on two counts. First, there is only one guy who stares at goats, and the scene from the commercials where one goat in a line of four keels over is actually an out-take, not even in the movie. Second, the previews are cut like the movie is a comedy, but it's not. It alights with funny moments but is no comedy.
The Men Who Stare at Goats is at its core a war movie, taking place in Iraq in 2003. It ambles through the story - appropriately - because it plays like an indy film, though maybe with big-budget explosions. I'll skip the synopsis because it doesn't really have a plot, just a series of wandering incidents (which is not a bad thing). My recommendation is to save this one for rental. It's a good, but not great, anti-war war movie, not in the same league as George Clooney's Three Kings or the similarly themed Catch-22.
I couldn't help but see through the movie's fourth wall. The psychic soldiers called themselves "Jedi," which is fine, but the character of the reporter was played by Ewan McGregor, who actually played a Jedi master in the recent Star Wars movies. Either it was unintentionally funny or they ran with the inside joke too far. In other characters, I could see The Dude in Jeff Bridges' performance and a titch of Uly McGill in Clooney's guy (from O Brother, Where Art Thou?). Throw in Kevin Spacey chewing up the scenery and it got to be a bit much.
All in all, I think The Men Who Stare at Goats should have been a smaller movie. Its cast consisted of some of the best actors in the business today but they made it tough to see the movie for what it was and instead we saw movie stars in an actor's movie. Like I said, see it sometime but no need to rush to the theater.
1:28
The Men Who Stare at Goats is at its core a war movie, taking place in Iraq in 2003. It ambles through the story - appropriately - because it plays like an indy film, though maybe with big-budget explosions. I'll skip the synopsis because it doesn't really have a plot, just a series of wandering incidents (which is not a bad thing). My recommendation is to save this one for rental. It's a good, but not great, anti-war war movie, not in the same league as George Clooney's Three Kings or the similarly themed Catch-22.
I couldn't help but see through the movie's fourth wall. The psychic soldiers called themselves "Jedi," which is fine, but the character of the reporter was played by Ewan McGregor, who actually played a Jedi master in the recent Star Wars movies. Either it was unintentionally funny or they ran with the inside joke too far. In other characters, I could see The Dude in Jeff Bridges' performance and a titch of Uly McGill in Clooney's guy (from O Brother, Where Art Thou?). Throw in Kevin Spacey chewing up the scenery and it got to be a bit much.
All in all, I think The Men Who Stare at Goats should have been a smaller movie. Its cast consisted of some of the best actors in the business today but they made it tough to see the movie for what it was and instead we saw movie stars in an actor's movie. Like I said, see it sometime but no need to rush to the theater.
1:28
Thursday, November 5, 2009
I Love You, Beth Cooper
On June 30, I posted that I Love You, Beth Cooper was going to suck, mainly on the evidence that lead actress Hayden Panettiere gave an inappropriately racy interview. The movie came out on DVD this week so in the interest of science - Science I tell you! - I decided to give it a view.
First, let's do the numbers. I Love You, Beth Cooper opened on July 10 (Hi, Q) in over 1800 theaters. In its first week, it grossed a terrible $7.5M, followed by a paltry $5M for week two. After that, its theater count dropped by more than half as it started moving to dollar theaters. I Love You, Beth Cooper finished its theatrical run with a grand take of $14.7M. The movie only cost $18M, so the studio will probably make a small profit after home video and cable. Nonetheless, I think we can say that ILYBC was a financial disappointment.
After posting my I Love You, Beth Cooper sucks essay, I checked out the credits. ILYBC was directed by Chris Columbus. I didn't even have to look up his resume. Columbus - why is that name so memorable? - directed the first two Harry Potter movies, Home Alone, Mrs Doubtfire and one of my personal favorites, Adventures in Babysitting. Would Chris Columbus make a dog of a movie? Is a guy with that much talent capable of directing a dog? I was very curious.
I also think I need to rephrase my original postulate. Saying a movie will suck is a little broad. Bad movies can do well at the box office; good movies can play to empty theaters. Based on the evidence in June, I should have said that I Love You, Beth Cooper will not perform well at the box office. Not as catchy as "It will suck" but more accurate. Nonetheless, after viewing on DVD, how is it?
I Love You, Beth Cooper is pretty good. Denis, the high school valedictorian and uber-geek, gives a no-regrets speech that riles up pretty much everyone in the school, including Beth Cooper, the girl he was alphabetically next to for four years but had never talked to. He's essentially marked himself for a beating by insulting Beth's older, steroid-using Army Ranger boyfriend. Valedictorian-boy and his best friend, who was outed during the speech, have a graduation party that is attended by no one, until a bored Beth and two of her friends show up. A little later the Ranger and his buddies show up and tear the place apart. The five teenagers escape by car and begin a series of mobile adventures. By the end, Denis realizes that he had no idea who Beth Cooper was and she has her eyes opened to all the possibilities ahead of her.
The movie strikes a nice tone throughout, with Beth being outwardly adventurous to cover up low self-esteem and Denis always a minute away from a beating. It's a pretty intelligent movie and gets cheap in only a few places. All-in-all, for the teen romp genre, I liked in a lot.
And what about that nude scene Hayden pumped? There is a locker-room scene, sure, complete with dropped towel and a little side-boob, but nothing we haven't seen on episodes of Friends. Well, maybe a titch more but hardly anything racy.
So why did Hayden give the sexy interview? I suspect the studio realized they had a problem. I Love You, Beth Cooper is no Superbad (the teen romp-com genre standardbearer), so it can't really sell itself. It also opened in the middle of summer amid other comedies, romantic comedies and full-on action pictures. They knew it was going to get lost and it did. What they really needed to do to make the movie succeed was to change its opening date to April or May where the graduation theme would seem more appropriate and have less competition. Where is that time machine when you need it?
So if you're looking for a good light comedy, I Love You, Beth Cooper will get the job done. While you're at the video store, make it a Chris Columbus double feature and pick up Adventures in Babysitting.
First, let's do the numbers. I Love You, Beth Cooper opened on July 10 (Hi, Q) in over 1800 theaters. In its first week, it grossed a terrible $7.5M, followed by a paltry $5M for week two. After that, its theater count dropped by more than half as it started moving to dollar theaters. I Love You, Beth Cooper finished its theatrical run with a grand take of $14.7M. The movie only cost $18M, so the studio will probably make a small profit after home video and cable. Nonetheless, I think we can say that ILYBC was a financial disappointment.
After posting my I Love You, Beth Cooper sucks essay, I checked out the credits. ILYBC was directed by Chris Columbus. I didn't even have to look up his resume. Columbus - why is that name so memorable? - directed the first two Harry Potter movies, Home Alone, Mrs Doubtfire and one of my personal favorites, Adventures in Babysitting. Would Chris Columbus make a dog of a movie? Is a guy with that much talent capable of directing a dog? I was very curious.
I also think I need to rephrase my original postulate. Saying a movie will suck is a little broad. Bad movies can do well at the box office; good movies can play to empty theaters. Based on the evidence in June, I should have said that I Love You, Beth Cooper will not perform well at the box office. Not as catchy as "It will suck" but more accurate. Nonetheless, after viewing on DVD, how is it?
I Love You, Beth Cooper is pretty good. Denis, the high school valedictorian and uber-geek, gives a no-regrets speech that riles up pretty much everyone in the school, including Beth Cooper, the girl he was alphabetically next to for four years but had never talked to. He's essentially marked himself for a beating by insulting Beth's older, steroid-using Army Ranger boyfriend. Valedictorian-boy and his best friend, who was outed during the speech, have a graduation party that is attended by no one, until a bored Beth and two of her friends show up. A little later the Ranger and his buddies show up and tear the place apart. The five teenagers escape by car and begin a series of mobile adventures. By the end, Denis realizes that he had no idea who Beth Cooper was and she has her eyes opened to all the possibilities ahead of her.
The movie strikes a nice tone throughout, with Beth being outwardly adventurous to cover up low self-esteem and Denis always a minute away from a beating. It's a pretty intelligent movie and gets cheap in only a few places. All-in-all, for the teen romp genre, I liked in a lot.
And what about that nude scene Hayden pumped? There is a locker-room scene, sure, complete with dropped towel and a little side-boob, but nothing we haven't seen on episodes of Friends. Well, maybe a titch more but hardly anything racy.
So why did Hayden give the sexy interview? I suspect the studio realized they had a problem. I Love You, Beth Cooper is no Superbad (the teen romp-com genre standardbearer), so it can't really sell itself. It also opened in the middle of summer amid other comedies, romantic comedies and full-on action pictures. They knew it was going to get lost and it did. What they really needed to do to make the movie succeed was to change its opening date to April or May where the graduation theme would seem more appropriate and have less competition. Where is that time machine when you need it?
So if you're looking for a good light comedy, I Love You, Beth Cooper will get the job done. While you're at the video store, make it a Chris Columbus double feature and pick up Adventures in Babysitting.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Catching Up - October Edition
Surprise! I didn't miss any reviews this month. In addition to the movies reviewed in October, I saw Capitalism: A Love Story but opted not to review it, so I successfully reviewed every movie I intended to this month. So, there's no need for this post, then?
Well, how about some of the movies on DVD I saw this month?
I rewatched Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the hit from last year. It's still pretty good on the second viewing, although seeing Marshall from How I Met Your Mother in the altogether is still disturbing.
I watched Jumper again, also from last year. Even with Hayden Christensen's famous non-acting ability, I enjoyed it in the theater. It doesn't hold up too well on the second viewing but if you haven't seen it once, it's a good pick for when you're in the action mood.
I watched Mamma Mia! not once, but twice. As campy as it is, the musical numbers are just so fun, I couldn't help myself.
I first caught The Cell in August of 2000 and haven't seen it since. At the time I thought it was a decent story with impressive visuals, and I more than think that today. A psychiatrist who goes into the minds of comatose patients electronically is asked to go inside a serial killer's mind in order to find his last victim. It gets pretty wacked inside someones mind - I know mine is - and between the real-world thrills and the inner-mind surrealism, the movie was very tense, very visually stimulating and very well done.
Earlier this year, I caught the preview for The Brothers Bloom at least 10 times. I planned to go see it but then a NetFlix envelope informed me it was already out on DVD. It was released in theaters in May, just not to one near me. It topped out at 209 screens and took in only $3.5M, but it's a much better movie than that. In fact, it's one of the best movies I've seen all year. Starring Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo as the titular brothers. They're great con men, living off the grift. The younger, whose first name seems to also be Bloom, wants out of the life but his older brother keeps dragging him into the cons.
Rachel Weiss plays an heiress with ADD who wants an adventure even after she finds out the brothers Bloom are con men. Rinko Kikuchi steals every scene as the older brother's girlfriend, who is also their pyrotechnics expert. Early on, he says she probably doesn't know more than three words of English and that's exactly how many she says in the entire movie. One is "Campari," said to a bartender, while the other two are uttered after she accidentally destroys a Prague landmark with what should have been a smoke charge. She's also constantly doing quirky things like painstakingly peeling an apple, then tossing the apple and eating the peel.
There were great little touches like that but the big picture is that The Brothers Bloom is a good picture. Seek it out.
Well, how about some of the movies on DVD I saw this month?
I rewatched Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the hit from last year. It's still pretty good on the second viewing, although seeing Marshall from How I Met Your Mother in the altogether is still disturbing.
I watched Jumper again, also from last year. Even with Hayden Christensen's famous non-acting ability, I enjoyed it in the theater. It doesn't hold up too well on the second viewing but if you haven't seen it once, it's a good pick for when you're in the action mood.
I watched Mamma Mia! not once, but twice. As campy as it is, the musical numbers are just so fun, I couldn't help myself.
I first caught The Cell in August of 2000 and haven't seen it since. At the time I thought it was a decent story with impressive visuals, and I more than think that today. A psychiatrist who goes into the minds of comatose patients electronically is asked to go inside a serial killer's mind in order to find his last victim. It gets pretty wacked inside someones mind - I know mine is - and between the real-world thrills and the inner-mind surrealism, the movie was very tense, very visually stimulating and very well done.
Earlier this year, I caught the preview for The Brothers Bloom at least 10 times. I planned to go see it but then a NetFlix envelope informed me it was already out on DVD. It was released in theaters in May, just not to one near me. It topped out at 209 screens and took in only $3.5M, but it's a much better movie than that. In fact, it's one of the best movies I've seen all year. Starring Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo as the titular brothers. They're great con men, living off the grift. The younger, whose first name seems to also be Bloom, wants out of the life but his older brother keeps dragging him into the cons.
Rachel Weiss plays an heiress with ADD who wants an adventure even after she finds out the brothers Bloom are con men. Rinko Kikuchi steals every scene as the older brother's girlfriend, who is also their pyrotechnics expert. Early on, he says she probably doesn't know more than three words of English and that's exactly how many she says in the entire movie. One is "Campari," said to a bartender, while the other two are uttered after she accidentally destroys a Prague landmark with what should have been a smoke charge. She's also constantly doing quirky things like painstakingly peeling an apple, then tossing the apple and eating the peel.
There were great little touches like that but the big picture is that The Brothers Bloom is a good picture. Seek it out.
Amelia
I was right in a previous post when I poo-pooed Amelia's chances at the box office. After a full week of release, this $40,000,000 film has grossed about $7,000,000. Compare that to Saw VI, released the same day, which has taken in over 20 mil. My theory - not to be taken too seriously - that the more outlandish the promo interviews, the worse the movie's performance, seems to be holding up.
As to the actual quality of Amelia, I'd say the numbers are a bit generous. Although it has the right parts - decent cast, good photography, a legendary heroine - but it falls flat. There was no chemistry between stars Hilary Swank and Richard Gere. Gere is 15-years older, relatively, than Amelia Earhart's husband. It showed and was distracting. So was a tangent featuring Gore Vidal. The movie just didn't gel. In a way, the more interesting parts of Earhart's life were ignored and a PG soap opera version of her love life was substituted.
The ending contained little suspense but since we all know what happened, or rather, we all know that no one knows what happened, it should have been infinitely suspenseful. Instead, the movie dropped hints and possibilities like they were litter, making you think they knew something you didn't. In the end, none of the hints were followed up on, leaving me, for one, scratching my head.
Finally, Hilary Swank's performance was just awkward. She may have looked like Earhart but she acted like a child in a toy store, always wide eyed and excited. And the accent. Swank used an accent similar to the one Cate Blanchett used for Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator. As Earhart was from Kansas, I have trouble believing she spoke that way. But if she did, there's no way she would have been a celebrity in a mass communication world. Unfortunately, Amelia Earhart never had a chance. Unfortunately, as well, this is the movie they chose to make about her life.
1:46
As to the actual quality of Amelia, I'd say the numbers are a bit generous. Although it has the right parts - decent cast, good photography, a legendary heroine - but it falls flat. There was no chemistry between stars Hilary Swank and Richard Gere. Gere is 15-years older, relatively, than Amelia Earhart's husband. It showed and was distracting. So was a tangent featuring Gore Vidal. The movie just didn't gel. In a way, the more interesting parts of Earhart's life were ignored and a PG soap opera version of her love life was substituted.
The ending contained little suspense but since we all know what happened, or rather, we all know that no one knows what happened, it should have been infinitely suspenseful. Instead, the movie dropped hints and possibilities like they were litter, making you think they knew something you didn't. In the end, none of the hints were followed up on, leaving me, for one, scratching my head.
Finally, Hilary Swank's performance was just awkward. She may have looked like Earhart but she acted like a child in a toy store, always wide eyed and excited. And the accent. Swank used an accent similar to the one Cate Blanchett used for Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator. As Earhart was from Kansas, I have trouble believing she spoke that way. But if she did, there's no way she would have been a celebrity in a mass communication world. Unfortunately, Amelia Earhart never had a chance. Unfortunately, as well, this is the movie they chose to make about her life.
1:46
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Life
We've been in the new television season for over a month now and I've been somewhat underwhelmed. Oh, there's some good new stuff and some good returning shows, but today I'm going to take issue with the cancellation of a show from last season.
Life was an hour-long cop drama that aired on NBC for two seasons, the first being the strike-shortened 2007-2008, then a full 22-episode second year in 2008-2009. Life was about LA cop Charlie Crews, who spent 12 years in a maximum security prison after being convicted of killing his best friend and the friend's wife and daughter. Being a bad cop, Crews was constantly being beaten in stir by convicts and guards alike.
After getting exonerated, he was given an eight figure settlement and a detective's badge. Not really wanted by the police department, he was assigned a partner, Dani Reese, who was the lowest detective on the depth chart, a non-dry alcoholic who was on probation for partaking of the evidence during a narcotics deep cover assignment.
Crews had all kinds of idiosyncrasies. Suddenly free from incarceration, he enjoyed the outdoors, fast cars, fresh fruit and hookers. While in the big house he also adopted the principles of Zen, which he would trot out at what his partner would consider the least convenient times. He sounds odd but he was very endearing.
And hardly a successful practitioner of Zen. One of the reasons he negotiated for the gold shield was to be able to use department resources to investigate - covertly - the murders for which he was framed. And investigate he does. Over the course of the two seasons, he finds first the hit man, then the people behind the hit, all the while earning the respect of cops who thought he was dirty for 12 years.
Why am I waxing nostalgic today? Because I just saw a promo on the USA network. Their tag line is “Characters Welcome.” Charlie Crews was definitely a character. Maybe not Monk, but the equal (or better) of Mary Shannon on In Plain Sight, or the guy from Burn Notice, or the doctor of the rich and famous on Royal Pains and certainly better than the guys on Psych or the immediately forgettable White Collar.
Why pick on USA? Follow this:
Life aired on NBC.
Life was produced by Universal Studios.
USA Network is owned by NBC-Universal.
Life was a good show with great characters.
USA Network says “Characters Welcome.
Since they had the producers and cast under contract, couldn't they just have moved the show - and 4.5-5 million regular viewers - over to USA for the third season? It would certainly beat some of the lame shows or reruns USA has on now. Alas.
Life was an hour-long cop drama that aired on NBC for two seasons, the first being the strike-shortened 2007-2008, then a full 22-episode second year in 2008-2009. Life was about LA cop Charlie Crews, who spent 12 years in a maximum security prison after being convicted of killing his best friend and the friend's wife and daughter. Being a bad cop, Crews was constantly being beaten in stir by convicts and guards alike.
After getting exonerated, he was given an eight figure settlement and a detective's badge. Not really wanted by the police department, he was assigned a partner, Dani Reese, who was the lowest detective on the depth chart, a non-dry alcoholic who was on probation for partaking of the evidence during a narcotics deep cover assignment.
Crews had all kinds of idiosyncrasies. Suddenly free from incarceration, he enjoyed the outdoors, fast cars, fresh fruit and hookers. While in the big house he also adopted the principles of Zen, which he would trot out at what his partner would consider the least convenient times. He sounds odd but he was very endearing.
And hardly a successful practitioner of Zen. One of the reasons he negotiated for the gold shield was to be able to use department resources to investigate - covertly - the murders for which he was framed. And investigate he does. Over the course of the two seasons, he finds first the hit man, then the people behind the hit, all the while earning the respect of cops who thought he was dirty for 12 years.
Why am I waxing nostalgic today? Because I just saw a promo on the USA network. Their tag line is “Characters Welcome.” Charlie Crews was definitely a character. Maybe not Monk, but the equal (or better) of Mary Shannon on In Plain Sight, or the guy from Burn Notice, or the doctor of the rich and famous on Royal Pains and certainly better than the guys on Psych or the immediately forgettable White Collar.
Why pick on USA? Follow this:
Life aired on NBC.
Life was produced by Universal Studios.
USA Network is owned by NBC-Universal.
Life was a good show with great characters.
USA Network says “Characters Welcome.
Since they had the producers and cast under contract, couldn't they just have moved the show - and 4.5-5 million regular viewers - over to USA for the third season? It would certainly beat some of the lame shows or reruns USA has on now. Alas.
The Invention of Lying
It's been 11 days since I saw The Invention of Lying and only now do I feel removed from it enough to write a review. The short version is that as a critique of religion and pop culture, it's pretty good but as a funny movie - which it is supposed to be - it's not so good.
All movies, except maybe for newsreels, exist in a fictional universe. That universe may look and feel much like the one you and I reside in but no movie can exist inside the universe in which it takes place. Much to my pleasure, The Invention of Lying starts out by saying it exists in a universe where lying doesn't exist, which most definitively isn't the one I live in. There are some genuinely funny moments at first when we hear people speak their minds, which they frequently do because if there is no dishonesty, there can be no shame. Then, the movie flips gears.
The Invention of Lying turns from a decent comedy to a - what - satire, parody, expose of religion, faith and celebrity? Hardly the gut-busting funnyness we expect from Ricky Gervais. I'm usually up for a good discussion of creation mythology and religion but I just plopped down $6.50 for a comedy, so let's see something with some laughs. Please.
1:34
All movies, except maybe for newsreels, exist in a fictional universe. That universe may look and feel much like the one you and I reside in but no movie can exist inside the universe in which it takes place. Much to my pleasure, The Invention of Lying starts out by saying it exists in a universe where lying doesn't exist, which most definitively isn't the one I live in. There are some genuinely funny moments at first when we hear people speak their minds, which they frequently do because if there is no dishonesty, there can be no shame. Then, the movie flips gears.
The Invention of Lying turns from a decent comedy to a - what - satire, parody, expose of religion, faith and celebrity? Hardly the gut-busting funnyness we expect from Ricky Gervais. I'm usually up for a good discussion of creation mythology and religion but I just plopped down $6.50 for a comedy, so let's see something with some laughs. Please.
1:34
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)