REVIEW: Bridesmaids/Fast Five

And so the trend continues where I review two movies that might prompt readers to sing "One of these things is not like the other."

And no, I can't really find much common ground between Bridesmaids and Fast Five - not even in the sense of finding similar faults with them, as I did for Thor/Water for Elephants.

Ah, but in this crazy world we live in, the twain shall meet with Bridesmaids and Fast Five. Because I saw them back to back. At a drive-in, no less. And I hope that doubling was intentional. Something male driven versus something female driven. (Yes, pun intended)  One for him, one for her. The chick flick versus the dick flick.  One could even argue which movie is which. But both of them delivered even better than I expected.

Bridesmaids has been sold as a raunchy movie by girls for girls - sort of an estrogen-fueled Hangover.  And indeed, Bridesmaids proves that girls can drink, screw, and have a serious case of diarrhea onscreen  with the best of any men. Hell, Bridesmaids isn't five minutes old before it earns it R-rating.

But that's not what surprised me.

What surprised me - and what makes Bridesmaids more than just another raunchy comedy - is just how much heart it has.

That's not to say it gets all sticky and sweet and sentimental - at least, not to excess. What it does say is that Bridesmaids really loves its characters. And perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised, considering the lead and the co-writer is Kristen Wiig.

Wiig is one of the most naturally funny women on the planet. She can take even the lamest SNL material (which is abundant) and make it funny with only body language. She's been great in supporting roles in Paul and Aventureland, but this is the first time she's had to carry a movie - and she does it with aplomb.

Wiig plays Annie, who is going through a rough time.  Her baking business went under, and she has precious little luck with men, always seeming to settle for the easy lay who takes advantage of her. So when her best friend since childhood Lillian (the always appealing Maya Rudolph) asks Annie to be her maid of honor, it seems like it's finally Annie's chance to shine - until she meets fellow bridesmaid Helen (Rose Byrne).

A game of one-upmanship ensues. It rankles Annie to no end that Helen and Lillian have only known each other a little while - yet Helen is one of those perky uber-organizers who seems to get nothing wrong - while everything Annie tries is a disaster.

As a number of Judd Apaptow-produced movies do, Bridesmaids goes on a bit too long, running more than two hours. The filmmakers could have stood to trim as much as 15 minutes from it, dropping some subplots that are repetitive, such as Annie's romance with a kindly cop.

When Bridesmaids works, though, it works very well indeed. The comic stuff is mostly dynamite, and I especially liked the work of Melissa McCarthy as bridesmaid Megan, who doesn't have to rely solely on "I'm fat" shtick to steal scenes left and right.

But while people will laugh at Wiig's breakdown on an airplane or the dress-fitting from hell (think Pepto) people will remember Bridesmaids because there's real feeling between the characters - not only between Annie and Lillian, but with Helen too, who turns out to be more of a human being than anyone expected.

And let's just say, without giving too much away, that if you were a Wilson Phillips fan back in the day, as I was, Bridesmaids will leave you with a giant smile on your face.

GRADE: A-

Fast Five left me with a smile on my face as well. And that was the biggest surprise of all to me.

I have long disavowed this franchise. When the original film came out, I wasn't all that impressed by the trailers - so I was surprised when it opened so well. I went to see it to find out what the fuss was all about. After I saw it, I still didn't know what all the fuss was about. Slackly directed by Rob Cohen, the film was neither fast nor particularly furious. Not to mention it boasted two of the most vacuous leads ever to stumble into movies, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.

I thought the sequel, 2 Fast 2 Furious, was marginally better because it had a better director in John Singleton, but marginally better in this case only meant "tolerably mediocre." So I bailed on Tokyo Drift and whatever they called the fourth one. I didn't feel like I missed anything.

So I wasn't going to bother with Fast Five at all, but then I saw the reviews were actually pretty decent. And when I saw it paired with Bridesmaids, I thought well, what the hell. And I'm glad I did. Because what the hell I got was what the first film should have been - a fast and furious B-movie.

Director Justin Lin, who has helmed the series since the third insallement, handles the action quite well. It's fast, yes, but not so fast as to be incomprehensible. There were quite a few moments when I said "Aw, bullshit" out loud - but I was smiling because Lin, unlike Cohen, doesn't take any of this terribly seriously.

Yes, Diesel and Walker are still stuck inside the proverbial paper bags, but what helps this fifth movie greatly is the presence of an actor with real charisma, Dwayne Johnson. He holds the screen as well as he usually does, which in this case means that when he and Diesel get into a fistfight, I was SO rooting for The Rock. It was actually kind of perversely fun.

The film struck me as a high-tech version of The Dukes of Hazzard, only without wry commentary by a balladeer like Waylon Jennings.  And hey, I loved the Dukes when I was a kid. This film does what any popcorn movie should. It brought out the 10-year-old kid in me.

GRADE: B

REVIEW: Thor/Water for Elephants

OK, I know what you're thinking. "Reviewing Thor and Water for Elephants together? Geez, Eric, you're seeing pink elephants! Those movies have nothing in common!"

Actually, they have quite a bit in common. And yes, the "Pink Elephants" scene in Dumbo is wonderfully trippy and one of the greatest animated sequences of all time.



All that said, I promise I have not been drinking copious amounts of champagne. Here's the deal: Water for Elephants and Thor are both dramas that portray their fantastical worlds very well. However, when dealing with more earthbound matters, and specifically with romance, both movies falter.

Seeing the trailers for Thor, I thought it would be the other way around. The scenes set in the worlds of the gods looked dopey and overwrought. But those are the best scenes in Kenneth Branagh's movie.

Much has been made of Branagh's Shakespearean leanings and how they inform the film. And indeed, the story here is not that far removed from something the Bard might have penned. Wise, aging king Odin (Anthony Hopkins) prepares to hand over the throne to his loyal but impetuous son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth). Thor rashly provokes war with alien race and pisses off Odin, who banishes Thor to Earth, leaving in charge his crafty younger son Loki (Tom Hiddleston).

The otherworldly scenes in Thor constantly run the risk of seeming silly, even for the comic book genre, but Branagh holds them together well, not only because of his Shakesparean leanings, but because he's a strong action director - always helpful in a comic book flick.

And yet when Thor crashes to Earth, so does the movie. The scenes in our world just aren't as compelling, largely because they shoehorn in a romance between Thor and a pretty scientist played by Natalie Portman. Portman does what she can, but any actress worth her salt could have played Portman's part, so her  considerable talent goes to waste, as does Kat Dennings' comedic skill in the role of Portman's snarky best buddy.  Double shame.

Worse yet, the romance feels only obligatory. It's there because it's "supposed" to be. But Thor has enough drama without it. I  particularly liked Loki's characterization as a not quite good/not quite bad guy, which gave his character a depth it might not have had otherwise.  Best of all is Hemsworth, who is ideal in the title role. He strikes just the right balance of heft and humor, selling both equally well. He's so much fun to watch,  I'd like to see Thor get another movie of his own, outside of his role in next year's The Avengers.

Now, about those elephants ...

Water for Elephants, based on the bestseller by Sara Gruen, gets so much right, that I wish it didn't get as much wrong as it did. It sells itself as a romance, and yet the romantic scenes are the weakest in the film.

On the plus side, Water for Elephants marks Francis Lawrence's arrival as a director to take seriously. Constantine showed us he had an eye. I Am Legend showed us he could craft a solid action flick with surprising dramatic weight. And Water for Elephants proves that he can truly tell a story that doesn't rely quite so heavily on CGI creatures.

It was no surprise that Water for Elephants wonderfully captures the atmosphere of a circus. With gorgeous art direction by Jack Fisk (There Will Be Blood) and sumptuous photography by Rodrigo Prieto (Brokeback Mountain), I could practically smell the sawdust.

But Water for Elephants' success is not merely a matter of technical prowess. Screenwriter Richard LaGravanese excels at telling stories with a fantastical air (e.g. The Fisher King), which goes a long way towards evoking the magic of a circus. And with Lawrence's sturdy hand, the film feels wonderfully old-fashioned. Dramatically, this is something that would fit comfortably in the Turner Classic Movies lineup. Even the potentially off-putting anti-animal abuse angle is effective, packing much more punch than anything PETA could crank out.

And yet, strangely, the movie fizzles as a romance, which is supposedly its big selling point. It's not the fault of the individual actors. Reese Witherspoon is appealing as ever playing the circus' star attraction, and Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) is ideally cast as the domineering ringmaster, who happens to be Witherspoon's husband. And yes, even the Twilight hunk, Robert Pattinson, holds his own nicely as the animal doctor who comes between them.

For some reason, though, he and Witherspoon strike no sparks. As it did in Thor, the romance here feels undercooked. It may be that Witherspoon and Pattinson have little chemistry - and it may be that Pattinson's role is a bit underwritten. I understood why he fell for her - but I did not understand why she would fall for him, other than the fact that Pattinson  was less likely than Waltz to beat her up.

Fortunately, the strengths of Thor and of Water for Elephants make both movies highly entertaining. I only wish both of them could have fully lived up to their potential.

Thor: B


Water for Elephants: B+

Summer movie preview 2011

MAY 6

Jumping the Broom: A poster I saw for this movie claimed it would be "the most talked about film of the summer. Umm, no. The most talked about movie of the summer will have brooms, but it won't be this one, however appealing it may me.

Something Borrowed: Looks like a fairly appealing rom-com that could be a long overdue coming out party for Ginnifer Goodwin. Might also be good counter-programming to ...

Thor: I was a little dubious about this when I saw the trailers. I still have scary memories of Thor from that cheesy Hulk/Thor TV movie in the 80s. But with Kenneth Branagh directing, I have to take a look.

MAY 13 

Bridesmaids: At long last, a Judd Apatow comedy for the ladies. Early screenings (including one at Miami University in Oxford have built a lot of positive buzz, which says this is more than just The Hangover for chicks.

Priest: Because Legion, from the same star/director team (Paul Bettany/Scott Charles Stewart)  was just BEGGING for a do-over. Yawn. 

MAY 20

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: I've always thought this series was overrated, and by the end of the incomprehensible third movie, I and the filmmakers were out of gas. I won't be checking this one out unless the reviews are promising.

MAY 27

The Hangover Part II: Unlike most people, I don't drink. Like most people, I though The Hangover was very funny. Still, I get the nagging feeling sequelitis will kick in. Just how many times can you get these guys smashed before it turns into a movie about rehab?

Kung Fu Panda 2: The original was one of DreamWorks' best movies. I just hope this series doesn't go the way of Shrek and burn itself out.

JUNE 3

X-Men: First Class: The trailers for this look promising, and this is much more interesting than another Wolverine movie would be. I'm cautiously hopeful this franchise can get back on track.

JUNE 10

Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer: This seems like one of those kid-lit movies that will do moderately well and sink without a trace. Or will this be more Diary of a Wimpy Kid territory? We will see.

Super 8: J.J. Abrams makes his Spielberg movie, with Spielberg himself producing. Probably the summer movie I am most anxious to see.

JUNE 17

Green Lantern: I have increasingly liked Ryan Reynolds as a leading man over the years, and the director is the underrated Martin Campbell, who made the best Bond movie in many years (Casino Royale). High hopes.

Mr. Popper's Penguins: Jim Carrey steps into another literary classic. Let's hope this one turns out a little better than the underwhelming animated Christmas Carol.

JUNE 24

Bad Teacher: Call me crazy, but Cameron Diaz is not who comes to mind when I hear the words "bad teacher." Maybe that's why this is supposed to work?

Cars 2: Cars was the Pixar film that I loved the least, so this is the first Pixar film in awhile I'm not aching to see. That said, I'm definitely there. Never underestimate this studio's capacity to surprise. I didn't expect this to be a spy caper.

JULY 1

Larry Crowne: Tom Hanks directs and stars for the second time (after That Thing You Do), with Julia Roberts along for the ride. Nia Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding) writes. Good enough for me.

Monte Carlo: The trailer for this Selena Gomez Prince and the Pauper-style vehicle doesn't look very good, but the co-writer and director is Thomas Bezucha, whose previous feature was The Family Stone, which I really liked. Wait n' see.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon: Wow. Here I was ready to dismiss this out of hand, and the trailers, especially the second, actually look kinda cool. Could it be that shooting in 3D has forced Michael Bay to craft action scenes so that they actually make sense? Again, wait n' see.

JULY 8

Horrible Bosses: The film has quite a good cast (Jason Bateman, Colin Farrell, Jamie Foxx, Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston) but the director is Seth Gordon, who last made the barely tolerable Four Christmases. The jury is out.


Zookeeper: I really like Kevin James, but must he waste his time on crummy-looking Adam Sandler-produced vehicles that waste his talent?

JULY 15

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II: As one of maybe four people left on Earth who doesn't know for sure if Snape is a good guy or a bad guy, I'm psyched, along with several other million people on Earth.,

Winnie the Pooh: Call me crazy, but I may be a little more excited to see this than Harry's final chapter. A Pooh feature made by the classic Disney animators, with songs by Zooey Deschanel? Cue ear to ear grin.

JULY 22

Captain America: The First Avcnger: Of all the comic book movies, coming out this summer, this one is the one I am most eager to see. I'm actually least familiar with the Captain America lore, so most of it is new to me. This one is novel in that it's a period piece. And the director is Joe Johnston, an underrated helmer of solid popcorn fare (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, Jurassic Park III). Sold. And given the news events of this week, this one might be an even bigger hit than anyone thought.

Friends with Benefits: The premise seems exactly the same as this year's No Strings Attached - only this one stars Natalie Portman's wilder half, Mila Kunis. That, and the fact that the director is Will Gluck, who made the terrific Easy A, sells me. Better yet, Emma Stone is in this one too.

JULY 29

Cowboys and Aliens: With Indiana Jones and James Bond? By the guy who directed the Iron Man movies? Are you kidding?

Crazy, Stupid Love: Look, it's Emma Stone again! And Ryan Gosling And Steve Carrell! And Julianne Moore? Are you kidding?

The Smurfs: Oh well. Two outta three ain't bad. Call me Gargamel, but I am really and truly tired of CGI charcaters cashing in on nostalgia, be it for the Chipmunks, Yogi Bear or the first Blue Man Group. Feh.

AUGUST 5

The Change Up: At first I yawned when I saw this was a body-switch comedy with Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman. Then I realized it was written by the guys who wrote The Hangover, and directed by the guy who made Wedding Crashers. There's hope yet.


Rise of the Planet of the Apes: Again, I yawned at the idea of a sequel to a reboot no one much liked, but the trailer actually looks fairly decent.

AUGUST 12

The Help: Must be the summer of Emma Stone, which is more than fine by me. This time she stars in an adaptation of the Kathryn Stocker novel. Can Stone hack it dramatically? I have every confidence she can.

30 Minutes or Less: Sounds like a bit of a comedic spin on Dog Day Afternoon, with Jesse Eisenberg forced to rob a bank with a bomb strapped to his chest. Eisenberg reunites with his Zombieland director, Ruben Fleischer. No word yet on a Bill Murray cameo.


Final Destination 5: Ladies and Gentlemen, the film with the most redundant and contradictory title of 2011!

AUGUST 19

Conan the Barbarian: Released in: 3D. Depth of characters: 2D. Probable grade: 1 D.

Fright Night: Two things about this movie blow my mind. One, the distributor is Walt Disney Pictures. Two, the director previously made Lars and the Real Girl. Wow. Just ... wow.

One Day: Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess as a will they or won't they couple, from the director of the excellent An Education? Yes, please.

Spy Kids 4: Used to be that a new Robert Rodriguez film would pique my interest. Then he casts Jessica Alba in the lead. Whoops.

AUGUST 26

Apollo 18: Looks like The Blair Witch Project crossed with Apollo 13. And this has been delayed for months.Not sure what to make of it.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark: Even if Guilliermo Del Toro is only producing and not directing, I'm still intrigued. 

These are 10 Ways to Save the Movies?

EW, rampant list-makers that they are, have come up with yet another compilation, although this one is more interesting than their umpteenth take on the best summer songs of all time. (Just put "I Get Around" at number 1 and call it a day, OK?)

This list suggests Ten Ways to Save the Movies. There are some good ideas here - but some are more practical than others.

1. For every jumbo-size, CGI-filled, action-adventure extravaganza a studio greenlights, it should commit to one modestly budgeted drama or comedy. - A fine idea in principle, but I'm not sure it works in the real world. Or at least what passes for the real world in Hollywood. Look, folks, we can whine about the death of the American cinema all we want, but as long as we have Scorsese, Spielberg, Joel and Ethan Coen, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan, Darren Aronofksy, etc. the American Cinema is going to be just fine. What I WOULD suggest is spreading out the release dates of Oscar-quality films throughout the year, so that we get more than just one during the summer and none during the spring.

2. Don't Remake Good Movies, Remake Bad Ones. - Another fine idea. Just because it's a remake doesn't automatically make it bad. The Bogie version of The Maltese Falcon was the third attempt. But it would also be nice if a studios development department didn't consist mostly of old movies and tattered copies of TV Guide

3. Stop Killing Us with Your Popcorn - Oh, c'mon. Look, I'm all for healthy eating, but is this REALLY a reason people dislike the moviegoing experience"? No. In fact, studies have shown that when theaters try to switch to healthier popcorn, patrons say, "Puke. We want the unhealthy stuff!" I'd suggest adding one word to this idea: Stop Killing Us with Your Popcorn PRICES. This is why I never buy concessions at big theater chains.

4. Treat 3D Like Good Silverware: Only bring it out for truly special occasions. Hear frickin' hear! I want to see what Martin Scorese does with 3D in Hugo Cabret, but that's about it. And quite honestly, even though I trust Peter Jackson, I really don't care about seeing The Hobbit in 3D. The Hobbit on the big screen is lure enough for me.

5. Embrace the On Demand Button: I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I am a fervent advocate for the theatrical experience. And I strongly believe that since people watch so many movies at home, that's a BIG reason why they think of the theater as their own personal living room when they DO go out. However, I think On Demand is a good solution for indie flicks without massive advertising budgets. Indeed, I saw All Good Things on demand (solid little film)  - but I did so mainly because no theater in Dayton played it.

6. Admit you're jealous of TV - and start hiring its best writers: I'm not enough of a TV creature to comment with thoughtfulness on this idea. However, I know one particular friend of mine will agree wholeheartedly with this idea, just for the quality of AMC TV shows alone.

7. Before a film gets a green light, someone involved with the project — the director, the star, the boom-mic operator — has to believe it will be a good movie: This suggestion is made in the spirit of avoiding movies like The A Team, etc. And I agree with that. But believe it or not, no one sets out to make a bad movie. I don't think even Uwe Boll does that. A wiser suggestion might be "Just because something was once a popular TV show, game or toy doesn't mean it will make a good movie." Do not rely on nostalgia alone as your attraction.

8. Can the commercials: I don't so much mind the 15 or so minutes of ads that show on the digital projector before the movie itself starts. Like it or not, I've come to accept it as part of the landscape. But for the love of god, don't hit us with MORE ads after the pre-reel is done! I heartily applaud the idea of more cartoon shorts, though.

9. No more than four screenwriters per script: Generally speaking, if you see more than four names on a movie, that means it's been rewritten, pre-marketed and focused grouped to death.

10. Create separate screenings for schmucks: If only. The whole problem with schmucks is they don't know they're schmucks. Or worse yet, they don't care if they're schmucks. Be more specific: Have screenings for cell phone users and for people with squawling children.

As many of EW's readers have pointed out, the staff forgot one BIG suggestion: BRING DOWN THE PRICES. If theater owners can't or won't charge less for tickets or concessions, at least offer the occasional discount, like the Bargain Tuesdays that used to be a regular feature in the area. Only one chain theater that I know of in Dayton still has cheap day, and I'm sure it's going to fade away since it's gone from all but one venue. Regal has never offered it at all. It would be nice if theaters in Dayton adopted the AMC Theatres practice of cheap showings for screenings before noon - when the schmucks are too lazy to get out of bed. I'm sure customers would appreciate all the more when gas prices go off the charts.

Any other bright idears?

BIG small screen catch-up

It's been quite awhile since I've reviewed anything I've seen on the small screen, so here are quite a few capsule reviews to swallow. I'll try to keep these pithy:

Missing: Sterling Costa-Gavras drama about a man searching for his missing son in Chile and has his ideology shaken in the process. Great work, as usual, by Jack Lemmon. GRADE:  A

Cyrus: Disappointing black comedy has a good cast (John C. Reilly, Jonah Hill, Marisa Tomei), but needlessly gimmicky camerawork and an overly bitter tone undo it. GRADE: C

The Leopard Man: Underrated Val Lewton chiller about a wild leopard on the prowl. Castanets never sounded so scary. GRADE: A

Broken Blossoms: Lesser-known film by DW Griffith isn't as visually florid as his more famous works, but its dramatically powerful. Racist iconography toned down from Birth of a Nation, but still prevalent.  GRADE: B+

Marty: No, not a Scorsese picture, but the 50s film that won Ernest Borgnine a well-deserved Oscar. Pretty much deserves its reputation; only drawback is an abrupt ending. The girl, Betsy Blair, was Mrs. Gene Kelly at the time. GRADE: A-

The More the Merrier: Delightful comedy is superior to the other Jean Arthur/Charles Coburn pairing, The Devil and Miss Jones. Joel McCrea adds to the fun. GRADE: A-

Jane Eyre: The best-known film version of the Bronte classic benefits from terrific atmosphere created by director Robert Stevenson, who later went on to direct Mary Poppins. Leads Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles are great, but Mia Wasikowska bests Fontaine in current remake. GRADE: A-

Isle of the Dead: More Val Lewton fun, with Boris Karloff alternately chilling and sympathetic. GRADE: B+

Here Comes Mr. Jordan: The original Heaven Can Wait is nothing less than wonderful and actually very moving. Claude Rains is terrffic, as he always was, in the title role. GRADE: A

Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer: Fascinating story of a powerful man undone by his own hubris, and, the documentary would have you believe, a few powerful enemies. That can't be proven, but what's beyond dispute is that Spitzer could have made  a difference - and he blew it. GRADE: A-

Red Dust: As expected, Clark Gable and Jean Harlow generate major heat in this tropical drama, and so does a surprising Mary Astor, the third point in their love triangle. Major debit: Ugly racist Oriental caricatures. Still better than the remake, Mogambo. GRADE: B+

Z: The film that made Costa-Gavras' name, and rightly so. Superior editing and camerawork make the drama crackle, even if it is a little too sprawling. GRADE: A-

Victor Victoria: Like so many post-50s musicals, this one is a bit flat-footed and strains too hard for effect, Tootsie was the better "drag" movie the same year. Even so, excellent work by Julie Andrews and Robert Preston make it well worth seeing. GRADE: B+

The Wolfman: It's a typical Hollywood story: Technically superior but dramatically wanting. The film is beautifully designed, but the script is half-baked, especially in the underwriting of the lead character. GRADE: C+

Running on Empty: There may not have been a better actors' director than Sidney Lumet; although the Judd Hirsch character is a tad overbearing, affecting work by River Phoenix and Martha Plimpton make the movie linger. GRADE: A-

These Amazing Shadows: A movie that covers the National Film Registry in 90 minutes is going to be a little superficial, but this documentary remains a great testamant to the power and importance of the moves.

The Actress: A minor George Cukor effort isn't nearly as effective as his best movies, but good performances from major players like Jean Simmons, Spencer Tracy, Teresa Wright and Anthony Perkins (in his first film) make it stick. GRADE: B

Prince of the City: Underrated police/court procedural by Sidney Lumet is one of his best. Very nearly the equal of Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon. GRADE: A

Jesus Christ Superstar: A good musical soundtrack turns into a weird botch of a movie that suffers from a massive failure in tone. It doesn't know just how seriously too take itself. It's too gaudy to be reverent and too reverent to be guady. Show-offy visuals by director Norman Jewison are extremely distracting. GRADE: C

HE SAID/SHE SAID: Scream 4

"Scream 4 bombs" a recent Yahoo headline declared breathlessly - and inaccurately, in more ways than one.

A "bomb" is a movie loses a lot of money for its studio. And that's not correct in this case.  Scream 4's opening was softer than expected,  but Wes Craven and Co. will make their money back in fairly short order. More importantly, however, Scream 4 is not an artistic bomb. It's a return to form, and the best film in the series since the first.

It's a good thing I liked it too, because my colleague Hannah Poturaski gives a big shout-out to the Scream series.

Let me start this with saying I am extra biased in favor of all things Scream. Since the original film in 1996, this has, and always will be, my favorite trilogy. Granted I was eight when the first film came out but it wasn’t long after that I saw it. When a see a reference or hear someone talking about the trilogy I get as giddy and giggly as a school girl. Not joking.

(Wow, eight. Maybe I shouldn't feel so awkward about the fact that there was a girl who looked like she was six at my screening.)

I saw the original Scream last year, and it holds up extremely well. It's always been my favorite film by Wes Craven - yes, even more so than Nightmare on Elm Street. It was  the rare horror film that was sharp, funny scary and bloody. (There is a difference in those last two  adjectives).

Then the inevitable sequels followed, and they were OK as far as sequels went. Scream 2 was solid, but Scream 3 was a bit of a mess. It got the job done well enough, but writer Kevin Williamson's departure from the series did the third movie no favors. It seemed like an all too typical pattern was forming: Excellent first movie followed by increasingly inferior follow-ups.

Williamson returns to the fold this time, and Scream 4 breaks the pattern. Though it's not quite as good as it could be, it's more entertaining than many people have seem willing to admit.

The hook of the Scream movies has always been that its characters are hip to the rules of horror movies. And that's as true as ever, considering how much the landscape has changed since the first Scream. When that movie came out in 1996, cell phones were only starting to make inroads. I saw the original with a crowd last year, and the line "What were you doing with a cell phone, son?" got a big laugh. Moreover, in the years since, quality has drained from American horror movies like guts drain from a carcass in the "torture porn" movies - a phenomenon Scream 4 cannily acknowledges right off the bat.

As all the Scream movies have done, Scream 4 opens with a bloody prologue, which folds in upon itself in ways that are more fun to watch than to describe. It's Williamson and Craven's way of avoiding a common sequel trap. Too often, sequels forget or over-amplify what people liked about the original classic. The Nightmare on Elm Street films were good examples. The sequels drowned in blood, tits and smart-ass Freddy Krueger wisecracks, but usually forgot to be ... you, know ... scary.

Scream 4 does not forget to be scary, even if It does push too many "We know all the film references" buttons. If a person were nudging at me as often as this film does, I'd have that person brought up on assault  charges.  The film didn't need to try so hard. The references are clever, yes - but they're not the only reason the Scream series exists. Craven stages a number of very effective scares, including a suspenseful parking garage attack, and one scene where a character goes on a major masochistic streak is genuinely unnerving.

The cast certainly goes a long way toward keeping the interest up. It's always fun to see the surviving originals, and most of the newcomers are good too, especially Rory Culkin as one of the film geeks and Emma Roberts playing Sidney's cousin. Roberts has begun to convince me that she belongs in leading lady territory with her aunt.

Hannah liked the young cast too, though she was a touch less enamored of Roberts:

I was impressed by how well the line-up of younger actors delivered in their characters/lines/nuances, etc. Hayden Panettiere as the hot film buff Kirby was probably my favorite character in terms of the new cast. Emma Roberts as Prescott’s cousin Jill was so-so; her acting was really good up until it became over-the-top. But I have to think of it in terms of the bigger picture, in which her exaggerated acting works. This would be way too long of a review if I listed all the new characters but I enjoyed those played by Marley Shelton (Grindhouse, Sugar & Spice), Shenae Grimes (“90210″), Anthony Anderson, Rory Culkins, Adam Brody, and Alison Brie (“Community”).

Having seen it twice when she wrote her review, Hannah noted:

The film made great use of foreshadowing, a lot of which isn’t picked up on until the killer is revealed — at least for me. The writer and director definitely threw in a lot of plot twists/characters solely to throw the viewer off guard, which I appreciated.

Everyone combines to make Scream 4 a lot of fun, and it's nice to see the franchise regain its footing. But since this series is so hung up on rules, I would suggest following a very important one that is ignored by most horror filmmakers - quit while you're ahead.


GRADE: B+

REVIEW: The Conspirator

Robert Redford's new film calls itself The Conspirator, but it's not really about Mary Surratt - and that's part of its problem.

The movie details the aftermath of the Lincoln assassination, focusing particularly on Surratt (Robin Wright), the most controversial figure in the case. Many people over the years, myself included, have raised their eyebrows over the fact that Surratt was hung with John Wilkes Booth's confidantes, when evidence suggests that at worst, she was an accessory. There are other schools of thought that say Surratt was fully an accomplice - so much so that "she built the nest" in which Booth hatched his plots.

Unfortunately for Surratt, the person who says she built the nest is her own defense attorney, Union war hero Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy). He is thoroughly convinced of Surratt's guilt but takes her case at the behest of Senator Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson). Johnson believes Surratt's rights are being steamrollered in the names of revenge and swift justice.

Redford and his screenwriter James D. Solomon clearly aim to contrast the Surratt cast with the lack of scruples resulting from the war on terror. I won't spend my time dwelling on the comparison except to say that it's revealing to draw the parallels.

What I was more interested in was the personal stories - but the film does not succeed in telling all of them. McAvoys plays his character with conviciton, and it was fascinating to witness opposing forces at play. I only wish that conflict were more in evidence in the character of Mary Surratt. We see plenty of Aiken's soul, but precious little of hers.

I disagree with those who fault Wright for the opaqueness of Mary Surratt. As anybody who has seen Forrest Gump should remember, Wright is more than capable of playing a multi-faceted character. Clearly,  Solomon's aim was to make Surratt something of an enigma, so we never can tell for sure just how guilty she was. And that's the character Wright played. We will never know just how complicit Mary Surratt was. The answer to that question has been lost to history - if, indeed,  a definitive answer ever existed at all.

However, I think Solomon's reach exceeded his grasp. I understood his intent, but I think he went too far in concealing Mary Surratt's soul. That deficiency stands out when McAvoy is so compelling, as is Evan Rachel Wood, playing Surrat's bewildered daughter.

Redford and Solomon err too in emphasizing extraneous characters and subplots. The film has a wartime prologue and a post-execution epilogue, neither of which is necessary. Good actors like Alexis Bledel and Justin Long are wasted on subplots that add nothing to the story.

Even with its faults, The Conspirator is worthwhile. Still, I expected better with this pedigree. The story of the madness that extended beyond the Civil War is indisputably great - but the movie is only, disputably, good.

GRADE: B

REVIEW: Win Win

To say Win Win  is the best film I've seen so far this year is to say very little - not when a year has been as underwhelming as this one. However, I can say with utmost confidence that this wonderful movie will still be one of the best films of the year come December.

Co-writer/director Tom McCarthy remains one of our keenest observers of humanity - in all of its guises. None of his characters ever turns out to be as clear-cut as they seem at first. As his stories progress, they gradually reveal new layers - some of them appealing, some of them regretful - all of them fascinating.

Take Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti), for example. He's an eminently decent guy, but he's also a frustrated one - frustrated enough that he becomes the legal guardian of an elderly client (Burt Young), because said client has a deep-pocketed estate that would bring Mike some badly-needed extra income.

That decisions ultimately brings into Mike's life the old man's grandson - a taciturn teen named Kyle  (Alex Shaffer) who rarely says more than five words at a time. But he's more than he seems to be as well. At first glance, he appears to be a sullen, withdrawn boy who doesn't much care for anyone. But he turns out to be a gifted wrestler - something that's advantageous to Mike, who is a high school wrestling coach. And there are still more secrets in store.

I notice that I've spent more time than I typically do describing the plot. Most of the time I try to keep that to a bare minimum because I try to be sensitive about spoilers, and because so many Hollywood films these days tell their whole stories in their ads.  Win Win revels in more than what's obvious, and that makes it fascinating.

And its strength is not just in the writing and acting.  There are lots of knowing visual details too, such as the very first shot of the movie, which shows Giamatti jogging, his back to the camera - and then two other joggers easily outdistance him. Without saying a word, Win Win establishes that it's a movie about a character feeling like he can't keep up.

McCarthy hasn't worked all that often, with only three films as a director - The Station Agent and The Visitor being the others. But in these three films, McCarthy shows more of the world than most filmmakers do in their entire careers.

When we screw something up or talk about how flawed we are, we often say, "I'm only human." Win Win shows that side, but  reminded me that being human entails what's good about us too.

GRADE: A

30 Day Film Challenge: Favorite Actor and Actress

I'm catching up and doubling up on the 30-Day Film Challenge because I'm woefully behind - but also because the themes for two days fit together so nicely.

First off is a film starring my favorite actor. The choice of actor is easy - that's Jimmy Stewart. (It has always seemed wrong to call him James, even though he was never once billed as Jimmy).

The choice of a Stewart film, though? Not so easy. I already cited his best performance, from Hitchcock's Vertigo, and my goal is not to repeat titles.

So where did that leave me? It struck me that two styles dominated Stewart's acting. There was the kindly
"aw shucks" persona most people remember him by. But there was also the darker, despairing Jimmy - the Jimmy that came out after he flew bombing missions in World War II. That Jimmy was prominent in Anthony Mann westerns like Winchester 73 - but I wanted to pick something that fused the the two styles.

I finally settled on It's a Wonderful Life - a familiar choice, to be sure. But one of the many brilliant things about that movie is that Stewart takes his "aw shucks" persona and completely turns it on its head. He goes to some dark places in this movie, and people tend to forget that - partly because, I think, they flinch at it. They only want to remember that nice George Bailey. But George Bailey had a dark streak without which he was an incomplete person. Just watch this scene between him and Donna Reed on the phone. It's all at once romantic and tormented.



The choice of my favorite actress is also easy. That's Judy Garland. But for her film, I wanted to go with a not so obvious choice. People remember her as a singer, and rightly so - but they also remember her as a tragic figure. Sadly, there is truth in that also, but that shouldn't dominate her memory when at her best she was so full of life and charm. I wanted to pick a performance that subverts both reputations. One is The Clock, from 1945, made right after Meet Me in St. Louis and also directed by the great Vincente Minnelli, who by this time was her husband.



It's notable in that it's her first film in which she doesn't sing a note - and she still makes you smile while breaking your heart. It proves what a great actress she was, even apart from her peerless singing skills.

PS - It's a real kick in the head to see Robert Walker play such a gentle character - in stark contrast to his villainous turn in Strangers on a Train.

PPS - What a shame that my two favorite actors never appeared together on film, even though both of them were MGM contract players. They were both in Ziegfeld Girl - but alas, shared no scenes.

The 30 Day Film Challenge Day 7

Day 7 of the 30 Day Film Challenge isn't so lucky - not when you consider film content. My choice for the scariest film I've ever seen is The Exorcist. It still chills me to the bone harder than any other film out there.

I've heard too many people claim this film isn't scary or even laugh at it. I can only shake my head and say it sucks to be them not to be affected in some way by such a traumatic story.

It isn't so much the possession that scares me - it's the deterioration of a young girl's soul, whatever you think the cause might be. It's not the bedroom scenes that scares me the most - it's the medical procedures, especially the spinal tap (shudder). That's only a a hint of what's to come. And a hint is often more frightening than the real thing.

Just to make sure this post isn't all gloom and doom, I'll share a lighthearted story about The Exorcist (I'll let the irony of that phrase sink in for a second.)

My dad saw this film in its original release. Like most people, he came out of the theater rattled. So what's the first thing that he hears on the radio once he turns on his car? "Tubular Bells."

AAAAAAAHHHHH!

The 30 Day Film Challenge Day 6

I was going to double up on the challenge like I did yesterday, but I really wanted this entry to stand alone - a film from my childhood.

There are many films from my childhood. Most of those are Disney films. But there is another film above all others that stands out, because it's the first film I can remember seeing in a theater.

What is now called the Victoria Theatre in Dayton used to have the slightly shorter name of Victory Theatre. And back in those days, they would play "cult" films. When I was about 5, they played Yellow Submarine. The experience has never left me, since my two major claims to fame are Beatlemania and movie-mania.



This clip goes up to about where the song starts, so I'll pick it up from here.

In the town, where I was born, lived a man, who sailed to sea ...

You'll now have that song stuck in your head all day. You're welcome.

The 30 Day Film Challenge Day 5: Sniffle

More 30 Day Film Challenge - hey, I posted this one after midnight, I'm playing fair and I'm trying to catch up!

It's all too easy to start my waterworks. There are lots of movies that make me tear up: The Wizard of Oz. E.T. Just about anything by Pixar. Heck, sometimes even Singin' in the Rain makes me well up sometimes because it's so beautifully performed. I'm a sap.

Not many films had the effect that Schindler's List did, though. I saw this devastating film five times in a theater. Many people couldn't manage that. The first time wiped me out. Then I kept going back, trying to analyze the film technique, geek that I am.

I never managed it. Once they liquidated the ghetto I was always done for and I would start sobbing. And I don't care how many people complain about the "I could have got more" scene. Yeah, it's a bit much. Yeah, it's a little overwritten. But dammit,  it Gets. Me. Every.Time. And that's before the memorial scene at the end, which pushes me even further. I don't watch this film often, but whenever I do, it stays with me for a long time.

Big screen catch-up

Ever since I got back from Florida I've been swamped in one way or another, so I need to catch up with some big screen titles I haven't reviewed. By now, some of these are on disc or close to it; if that's the case, I will indicate as much.

The Adjustment Bureau: Endearingly silly thriller that becomes less credible the more one thinks about it, but it's actually rather smart about its loopiness - and it works primarily because Matt Damon and Emily Blunt have terrific chemistry. GRADE: B+

Blue Valentine: Searing anti-romance that haunted me for weeks. Features heartbreaking performances by Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling that sum up too many dysfunctional couples. And for me, the film shed a lot of light on that age-old question "How did that (lovely girl) end up with that (douche)?" GRADE: A+ (On disc May 10)

Gnoemo and Juliet: I expected nothing more than a cute kid-pic, and got basically that, but I also got something that was charmingly weird and not afraid to show it. The Elton John song score is quirky to say the least. GRADE: B (On disc May 24)

Hall Pass: A lot of folks slammed the Farrelly brothers' latest comedy, but I found it one of their better efforts in a while. As is the case in their best work, there's plenty of raunch, but the Farrelly's genuine affection for their characters grounds the film - even if the ending does get a bit too manic. GRADE: B

The Illusionist: A beautifully animated bore. I admire the intent in Sylvain Chomet's adaptation of a previously unproduced Jaques Tati story, and I loved the look of the film, but it never engaged or moved me the way most quality animated films do. I grinned once in awhile but rarely laughed. I had a similarly cool reaction to the overrated Triplets of Belleville. Chomet's work is too emotionally distant for my taste. GRADE: C (On disc May 10)

Insidious: The new poltergeist film from the director of the original Saw starts off very well, building suspense effectively, often by using silence. Then as the scares get more literal, the movie gets sillier, especially when one of the demons bears an unfortunate resemblance to Darth Maul. Still, I applaud it for relying more on character and less on blood. GRADE: B-

Rabbit Hole: Some might think this film depressing, and being about coping after the death of a child, it's certainly not a happy film. What makes it stand out is that it's about the distant aftermath of the tragedy, when the wound is not fresh, but the memory still is. Sensitively and thoughtfully rendered all the way around. GRADE: A

Rango: Delightfully quirky animated romp that looks gorgeous, and of all things, most reminds me of Chinatown. A nice return to form for director Gore Verbinksi, whose strength as a director got submerged under all the clatter and clutter of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. GRADE: A

Unknown: As was the case with Taken, Liam Neeson's presence and strong action scenes propel the movie, but if anything the plot is even more far-fetched. Like way too many movies these days, it tries to hard to pull the rug out from under the viewer via third act twists.  GRADE: B-

The 30 Day Film Challenge Day 4: Favorite sci-fi film

Catching up on the 30 Day Film Challenge - hey, no one said anything about consecutive days!

A lot of people claim that they don't "get" 2001: A Space Odyssey. And that's actually appropriate considering it contemplates nothing less than the infinite and our place in the universe. Even with the dated trappings (the Pan Am shuttle, the kitschy furniture that looks like it's from 1967 - heck even the title is dated now), the movie still feels futuristic and timeless because it wonders about things like few other movies do. If it were more concrete and explainable, it would be a lesser film.

Other contenders: Aliens, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Close Encounters of the Third Kind

The 30 Day Film Challenge - Day 3: Funniest film

I thought this would be hard, but it's not. Many comedies make me laugh a lot, but none makes me laugh as much as Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot.

But it isn't just the volume of laughs that counts. Yes, there are many jokes here. Many great ones. But they're so great, that I laugh just as much every time I see them. For instance, the dialogue at 6:56 in this clip never fails to slay me.

Whenever I see  Some Like It Hot, it feels like it's the first time. That is the mark of a truly great comedy - and indeed, any truly great movie.

Other titles considered: Bringing Up Baby, Dr. Strangelove, Blazing Saddles, Airplane!

The 30 Day Film Challenge - Day 2: My least favorite film

The way things are goin, they gonna crucify me

Yesterday I talked about how it was hard to choose my favorite film. Today I have to choose my least favorite film. And that's not hard at all. Bad Boys II doesn't just scrape bottom. It crashes through the bottom and finds a new pit in which to fester.

This requires some context. Most of Michael Bay's movies are merely bad, like say, Armageddon. It was a trial to sit through, but I made it to the end with only a sneer on my face.

Bad Boys II, on the hand, is not merely incompetent but offensive. I trudged out of that theater mad enough to strangle Mickey Mouse. And Disney didn't even release the movie.

At the time, I was having fun writing reviews as what I called "Memos to Jerry Bruckheimer," who sometimes gives us good bang for the buck with movies like Crimson Tide. With Bad Boys II, there was less than no sale. For at least a week afterward I felt like I had been forced to bathe in raw sewage and take a couple of swallows to boot.

I was so furious, I banged out what has to be the most scathing critique I've ever spat out. What follows may not be appropriate for children under 17, which pretty well describes Bay's mental age. But I wrote him and Jerry this anyway.

Bad Boys II

Review by Eric Robinette

Grade: F-

Starring Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Gabrielle Union, Joe Pantoliano, Jordi Molla and Peter Stormare, who should be having interesting discussions with their agents now

Shoddily written (if you can call it that) by Ron Shelton and  Jerry Stahl, from a “story” (term used loosely) by Shelton and Cormac Wibberley & Marianne Wibberley

Offensively Overdirected by Michael Bay

Memo to Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay

From a truly disgusted film critic

Good God, Jerry and Mike. Where do I start in writing about “Bad Boys II?” I’ve always known you guys are the premier purveyors of cinematic wretched excess, but until this movie I didn’t know that you’re also a couple of sick fucks.

I know that’s harsh, guys, but what else am I supposed to think about a movie that wallows in being as repulsive as possible? What am I to make of the chase scene in which dead bodies spill out the back of a van, and a pursuing car beheads one body?

And what the hell was the deal with the shot that shows two rats fucking, Mike? Has it been your secret ambition to be a documenatarian for National Geographic, and this is the best you could come up with? Or is that how you learned about the deed and you wanted to share? Between this and the lovemaking among the parachutes in “Pearl Harbor,” you guys sure must have had some interesting experiences in your youth, I’ll tell you that.

If the audience at my screening is any indication, I guess the point of these two lovely scenes is humor; the lemmings laughed loud and long at both of them. I weep for humanity. I guess this is what becomes of audiences after years of the desensitizing your movies have caused. You really do reap what you sow.

I know I sound like a tightwad, but you know what? I don’t care. I’ve fallen for your brainless action romps before (I actually liked “The Rock”) but until now, you’ve never gone to such lengths to be offensive. It’s like you guys sat together and said, “Let’s take a big chunk of our money and see just how much shit we can get away with.”

But what’s the point of spending all that money if you get nothing from it? Mike, you have a reputation for being one of the more, um…aggressive action directors we have, and I’ll actually admit, you’re not without talent. But you have an uncanny ability to sabotage your own good ideas.

For instance, in one of the highway chases, the villains are driving a car carrier, and they detach the cars one by one, so bingo—instant obstacle course. Good idea, Mike. Too bad you totally fucked up the execution. There are so many edits in the scene---cutcutcutcutcutcutcutcutcutcutcutcut---that I couldn’t tell where anyone or anything was.

Then there’s the shootout in the druggies’ house in which the camera whips around in a circle from one room to another, ducking through bullet holes and the like. Yeah, you ripped it off from “Panic Room” and “Swordfish,” (which, ironically, ripped off you), but it’s still a good idea. SO WHY DO YOU KEEP CUTTING AWAY FROM IT AND INTERRUPTING THE FLOW??

And the word flow reminds me---why in God’s name is this movie two and a half hours long? So you could include the scene in which Will Smith and Martin Lawrence discuss a bullet wound in the butt and a crowd of department store shoppers think they’re gay lovers? The shot of the little kid asking, “Daddy, what’s an erection” was an especially charming (cough) touch.

And what’s with the scene in which a young kid taking Lawrence’s daughter on a date is terrorized by Lawrence and Smith, who waves a gun in his face and asks him, “You ever have sex with a man? Want to?”

If you had to have a cheap joke like that, a writer with half a brain would have at least included a scene of the boy slapping the daughter around or something. But nooooo. You use the scene for a cheap laugh and make your stars and yourselves look like homophobes in the process. It’s especially dispiriting to see Will Smith stoop so low. Did you kick him an extra million to get him to say those lines?

There’s so much more I could talk about, like the scene in which the camera ogles a dead woman’s breast implants, but even you should have the smarts to get my point by now: You went too far this time. It’s enough to make me want to retreat to the relative comfort of “Charlie’s Angles: Full Throttle.” At least McG and his gals aren’t into necrophilia.

I know Mike was the one calling the shots on this, Jerry, but since you’re his boss, you share responsibility for Bay’s misdeeds.  It’s a shame because I had liked most of your movies lately. With “Remember the Titans,” “Black Hawk Down” and “Pirates of the Caribbean” under your belt you actually seemed to have acquired taste, “Bad Company” and “Kangaroo Jack” notwithstanding. But you’ll have to make something as classy as “Vertigo” to get back in my good graces. And, no, making me sick with one of Bay’s chase scenes does NOT count.

Yes, there should be room for dumb action movies where every other shot is an explosion---but for every kind of movie, there is a line of taste to be drawn, and “Bad Boys II” crosses it by a country mile. It’s the worst movie of this year, and of your careers.

Now I’m sure you and the less discriminating members of your audience would respond to me by saying, “Man, it’s only a movie.” Or as somebody on the Rolling Stone message boards so delicately put it, “ya its sick humor but it didnt stop the whole theature from rumbling with laughter.this is what i want some critqes to do for a change. Grow a spine and pair of peanuts. then untighten their azcrack so they can stop breaking wind out of their ears and crapng out of their mouth”

You must be so proud to have such articulate defenders, guys. I’ll tell you and your defenders what, though. I’ll actually take that advice. I’ll grow a “spine and a pair of peanuts” when you grow a brain and a sense of decency. But I don’t think I’ll hold my breath.

The 30 Day Film Challenge - Day 1: My favorite film

Facebook has a fun new game going on called the 30-Day Film Challenge. Being a film buff, I can scarcely resist  a Film Challenge. And since I can't keep my mouth shut when the subject turns to movies, I'm going to expand and expound upon each choice in this blog.

For the first day, you are asked to name your favorite movie. And that's not such an easy thing for a film buff. Presented with that ubiquitous query, we are bound to rattle off title after title. When I get asked this question I always name three movies (more on the other two below).

Forced to name one, however, I always choose one by the greatest director of all time. And that choice is Vertigo. And among Hitch's films, that's actually an easy choice.

Why? Well, consider the fact that I first saw it on the USA Network, via a crummy, faded print that was edited for time, and not very cleanly to boot. Even with all that, the movie still entranced and devastated me.

As Martin Scorsese has pointed out, it was remarkable that directors like Hitchcock could work within the studio system making films that were commercial and simultaneously very personal statements. And yet, at the time, it was perhaps a little too personal for some people. Commercially, it did OK but wasn't one of Hitch's bigger hits. Critics tended to be dismissive, with one cracking that Vertigo was another "Hitchcock and bull story."

Time has been generous to the film, however, which is slightly ironic because of the way the movie plays with time. Vertigo, better than any other movie, captures the timeless state of a dream - how a dream feels at times like you're lost in a fog - and how at other times it amplifies your most intense emotions - especially when the dream turns into a nightmare.

The story revolves around Jimmy Stewart trying to remake a lost love - and since I've been through some heartache recently, Vertigo would probably resonate all the more if I watched it now.

No matter when I see it, though, Vertigo washes over me and envelops me.  And like all the greatest movies do, it feels different every time I see it - not unlike a dream.

Other titles considered: Citizen Kane, A Hard Day's Night

REVIEW: Sucker Punch

Wow. I didn't know that Zack Snyder was actually Benjamin Button.

Well, what else am I to think after seeing the confounding visual confetti that is Sucker Punch? Clearly, the man is aging backwards. How else to explain the observation that has first feature film, the Dawn of the Dead remake, is his most mature work, while each subsequent movie has become increasingly juvenile? Were it not for the fact that his next film is the Superman reboot, I'd say Snyder's good and ready to film Dora the Explorer: The Geographic Epic! 

I imagine if I were to stumble across the creation of the Sucker Punch screenplay, by Snyder and Steve Shibuya, it would be like a text message exchange between two teenagers hopped up on Red Bull and aerosol huffing. Like so:

Zack300: So Steve, I've got this AWESUM idea for a movie!!!

Steve ShiBOO-YA: Yeah? Well it be as cool as that 72-hour X-box marathon we had last weekend??

Zack300: Better! Ya see, it'll have this big battle that's in, like, World War I, only it'll have planes and those big blimps, and things will be blowing up everywhere!!! 

Steve ShiBOO-YA: SWEET!! Hey, I got an idea! Let's write this together! We'll also have the German soldiers be, like, steampunk robots!

Zack300: Oh, I know what would be cool! We could have this big, like, hero robot that the good guys can ride, and then it flies and they shoot stuff down from the air!

Steve ShiBOO-YA: Nice! And then we can have the main guy shoot down the warplanes with a pistol!

Zack300: Yeah! And then in the next scene, they'll fight these dragons n' stuff! We can have one be a baby dragon, and then the mama dragon gets mad and breathes FIRE on em!!!

Steve ShiBOO-YA: YESSSSS!

Zack300: Hey, how bout this: Let's have the heroes be girls with guns n' swords!

Steve ShiBOO-YA: Babes! Can we make em so we see their boobs??

Zack300: Aw, I'd like to but my folks would kill me. Their no fun. We can put em in tight outfits and push-up bras, tho!

Steve ShiBOO-YA: Wow! Your a genius!

---------------
Or something like that.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything wrong with a movie that's an adolescent fantasy per se. And it's not like the action is your typical blizzard of editing with a paper shredder. Unlike Michael Bay, Snyder knows how to stage an action scene competently and with panache. Visually, Sucker Punch looks fabulous. All of Snyder's movies do.  Sure, the slo-mo has gotten a bit old, but he doesn't OD on it here. But the visual design is imaginative. I'm not sure why one of the sets has movie posters from golden-age Warner Bros. musicals like My Dream is Yours and Gold Diggers of 1933, but it's a nice touch for movie buffs.

While Sucker Punch is consistently ridiculous, I was rarely bored watching it. Snyder paces it well, and I found it more entertaining than the leaden, self-important Watchmen.  Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish and especially Jena Malone give committed performances, as if the whole thing actually meant something.

The problems are failures of tone and nerve. The divisions between fantasy and reality are never clearly explained. The action scenes, snazzy as they are, feel so unreal that I never believed the characters were actually in jeopardy. Only once does Snyder cross-cut between the action scenes and the "real world," such as it is, so when he does, it throws the movie off-center.

To make matters worse, Snyder tries to throw in a third-act twist that makes zero sense. And as if that weren't bad enough, he seems to want to take the whole thing seriously, after treating the previous two-thirds like they were so much visual Pop Rocks. No sale.

Snyder recently said that his Superman reboot would be his most "real" movie since Dawn of the Dead. God, I sure as hell hope so. As it stands, his movies remind me of another DC Comics hero, via the 60s Batman series, which would have the SOCK! POW! and ZAP! titles. Sucker Punch, however, is more of an OOF!


GRADE: C-

Elizabeth Taylor, 1932-2011

After Elizabeth Taylor died on Wednesday, I came to regret The Flinstones even more than I already did. That movie, of all movies,  represented the only chance I ever got to see Liz on the big screen in a movie in first release.  That's only too telling about the state of movies today.

I'm not going to get all sentimental and claim that her cameo was a bright, shining light that made the movie good for about five minutes. Not even Taylor could pull that off. Still, Liz Taylor was Liz Taylor, and I was grateful for any reason to experience her star power, however displaced it might have been.

That film only made me wish all the more I could have experienced her charisma at full force in a movie theater. Even on the diminished contours of the TV screen, she was absolutely entrancing. One of my favorite glamor shots of all time was the moment in Father of the Bride where she is revealed in her wedding dress via multiple mirrors. This shot made me forget to breathe for a few dazzling seconds.

It wasn't just that her beauty was otherworldly, it was that she actually seemed open, engaging, approachable. She wasn't an ice queen, she was passionate, and that passion was magnetic.

Sometimes that passion was taken for granted. While scrolling through the abundance of tributes for Elizabeth Taylor Monday, I came across this interesting quote from UK film critic Barry Norman, who said:

"She was actually not at all a bad actress. In films like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? she was extremely good."

Perhaps Mr. Norman meant well, but that struck me as condescending. Too often, when someone is a beauty, we as a society tend to act surprised when they actually have talent. And that's galling when it should have been obvious with Liz.

Her most notorious role was no doubt Cleopatra - but she and Richard Burton made two much better films - Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? (for which Liz won an Oscar) and Franco Zefereilli's The Taming of the Shrew, in which both of them aced Shakespeare. No small thing, that.

In my book, her best performance may be in Suddenly Last Summer. Yes, it's an overheated drama - it's Tennessee Williams, after all - but Liz more than held her own with no less than the great Kate Hepburn. Author A. Scott Berg quoted Hepburn herself as saying that Taylor "preferred being a movie star to being an actress. But don't be fooled, because I think she is a brilliant actress, truly brilliant. Especially with the Williams stuff."

But Kate boiled down Liz's essential dilemma when she said that Liz preferred stardom to actual acting. Stardom seemed to fuel her. But by the same token, she was a magnet for trouble and tragedy, not always of her own making. As at least one tribute  pointed out, "She was a star at age 12, married at 18 and a divorcee the same year. She became a bombshell goddess at 19 and a widow at 26."  For even other famous people, that range of experience takes an entire lifetime.

Even her scandals affect me personally now. I've been going through some struggles in recent weeks. I won't bore you with the details, but it's been tough - sometimes tougher than I think I can handle.

And yet, Taylor survived one of her most brutal scandals. When she took up with Eddie Fisher, who left Debbie Reynolds for Taylor, Reynolds and Taylor were not exactly on the best of terms for quite some time. And yet on Wednesday, there was Fisher and Reynolds' daughter Carrie saying, "If my father had to divorce my mother for anyone, I’m so grateful that it was Elizabeth. This was a remarkable woman who led her life to the fullest rather than complacently following one around." Reynolds herself paid lovely tribute to Taylor.

If that sort of thing can be forgiven, that gives me hope for my relatively meager troubles.

Still, no one summed up Taylor's legacy better than her son, Michael Wilding, who said "Her remarkable body of work in film, her ongoing success as a businesswoman, and her brave and relentless advocacy in the fight against HIV/AIDS, all make us all incredibly proud of what she accomplished.

"We know, quite simply, that the world is a better place for Mom having lived in it. Her legacy will never fade, her spirit will always be with us, and her love will live forever in our hearts."

Amen.

PS - Costar Paul Newman paid her fine tribute some years ago on TCM. Watch and listen.

REVIEW: Paul

I have a thing for Pauls. Paul is my favorite Beatle. And Paul is my favorite movie thus far of 2011.

Yeah, I know, that's a bit of a goofy lead, but it's more than a bit of a goofy movie, which makes it all the more delightful. It continues the adventures of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who made their names in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, the ingenious spoofs of zombie movies and action flicks, respectively. They also co-wrote the script for Paul.

This time, however, director Edgar Wright is not at the helm. Taking his place is Greg Mottola, who made Superbad and the shamefully undervalued Adventureland. Although Mottola isn't a visual stylist like Wright. all of Mottola's movies have an excellent feel for character, which is what makes Paul more than just a goof on E.T. This may look like an alien stoner movie, and Paul does smoke weed, but it's not Dazed and Confused Close Encounters. There's an underlying sweetness and affection running through the movie.

At first, I was a bit afraid that, as is too often the case, the trailer gave away most of the best gags and told the whole story in two minutes: two British uber-geeks on a UFO trek stumble across the world's most laid-back alien,voiced by Seth Rogen. Problem is, he's in the run from agents played by Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio.

As the film unspools, however, it keeps surprising and playing off the strengths of its cast and crew. Mottola has an especially good feel for working with comic actors, given that Hader has appeared in all three of Mottola's films, and Wiig has starred in the last two. Both of them are fun to watch, with Wiig hilariously playing up the satire of her character being a wacky Creationist. When we first meet her, she's wearing a T-shirt that says "Evolve this!" with a cartoon showing Jesus blasting a hole through Charles Darwin's head. Love thy neighbor, indeed.

In addition to the sharp satire, Pegg and Frost's screenplay crams in a plethora of references to the works of George Lucas and especially Steven Spielberg. I can't help but love a film that takes a playful shot at Mac and Me, the awful 1988 E.T. ripoff that overflowed with McDonald's product placement.

The movie does falter a bit in the home stretch when it shoehorns in an over-the-top action sequence that feels out of place because action isn't Mottola's forte, and because it throws off Paul's genial tone. Regardless, I was smiling too widely and laughing too much to care. As that other Paul once sang, Venus and Mars are all right tonight - and so is Paul.


GRADE: A-