|
Rating: 
Starring: Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Christina Applegate, Jim Gaffigan, Ron Livingston, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Leighton Meester, Rob Riggle, Kristen Schaal, Natalie Morales, Kelli Garner___________________________ Director: Nanette Burstein Rating: R Running Time: 97 Mins. Release Date: September 3, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
New Line Cinema, Offspring Entertainment, and Warner Bros. Pictures. Written by: Geoff LaTulippe. |
|
| “Please…just tell me that you trust me.” – Erin (Drew Barrymore)
Drew Barrymore returns to the big screen in yet another romantic comedy, her umpteenth by some counts, and this time, she stars opposite her real life romantic partner, Justin Long. In “Going The Distance”, Drew and Justin play a couple who meet in a bar over the old-fashioned arcade game “Centipede” and quickly fall head over heels for one another. As quickly as they fall in love, they encounter a major challenge – Drew’s character, Erin, is moving from New York to California to complete school once her journalism internship ends. Justin Long’s Garrett is a music executive for a fledgling but successful record label in the heart of New York City. Quickly, Erin and Garrett agree that nothing between them will be serious and they will simply hang out until Erin’s departure. Problem is…each may have found the person they were meant to be with and that simple little goodbye becomes a long-distance relationship which both eagerly commit to, naturally against the advice of their closest friends and family. As you can tell, “Going The Distance” does not break any new ground with its set up, premise, or ultimate execution. In some ways this movie is the standard romantic comedy with overprotective siblings, trash-talking friends, and inevitable arguments and love scenes. In tossing all of that in together with a robust R-rating, “Going The Distance” seems and feels more alive and edgy than it really ever proves to be. In other words, there is a lot of running around without really getting anywhere. What the R-rating does provide for is an interesting pace and feel to the film for much of its first half. Director Nanette Burstein, also a documentarian, seemed to recognize, thankfully, that Barrymore and Long have a natural ease and comfortableness with one another. There courtship and falling in love scenes really are believable and a bit heartwarming. At times, Burstein allows her leads to improvise and dialogue in a freeform style that makes the film feel more real than other big studio romantic sitcom-style films ever could hope to. Barrymore and Long are fun together and simply great to watch. This film’s lack of a filter, however, yields its positives but also amplifies the negatives to a deafening roar. And while for many, “Going The Distance” will be an easy and entertaining watch, its haphazard and scattershot rhythm through the middle and concluding portions were distracting and too awkwardly executed for me to ignore. Even if and when I was laughing out loud. Presumably in their early 30′s, although I do not think we ever really learn of Erin and Garrett’s actual ages, Erin is nearing the end of an internship with a newspaper that may or may not hire her. At one point, she tells Garrett that she has given up every one of her dreams for a guy once before, and she cannot let it happen again. So, with that history then, why she would ever agree to enter into a 6-week fling is never really explored or explained. I kept wondering if Erin was really all that stable a personality, but Garrett never really worries and so I guess I shouldn’t really either. Garrett, a sort of marketer/A&R rep/sales guy for his record company hates the commercialism his label now embraces and wants to quit. However, he is completely content to stay in New York City and hang with his two crass, funny, and equally misdirected best friends, Box and Dan (“Saturday Night Live”‘s Jason Sudeikis and “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia”‘s Charlie Day, respectively). However, meeting Garrett and his friends, as nice and likable as they all are, would certainly raise some red flags for Erin – so driven and determined to finish that internship and college journalism degree. But Erin never really questions Garrett or worries about his life plan so, again, I shouldn’t really worry either. Except that screenwriter Geoff LaTulippe wants us to ignore the fact that Erin may be unstable mentally and Garrett has no vision for his life and eventually presents as rather self-centered. Essentially, I really didn’t know if I wanted these two to work through things and stay together and at point, I sort of wished they just called the whole thing off. Moving things along, Christina Applegate shows up as Erin’s big sister, Corinne, who seems to point out all the right concerns involving Erin and Garrett. But then again, I should nevermind…Erin and Garrett are in love and we should just watch them frolic for a few weeks, have awkward and formulaic arguments, failed phone sex, and rushed visits across country and believe that this is normal and this happens in everyday life. The film also repeatedly fails to strike a balance between a sweet nature or a more caustic wit, rendering the film a bit schizophrenic. Are we watching a kind and embraceable love story with a few over-the-top shock comedy moments? Or are we taking in an edgy, vulgar, almost boorish comedy with a romantic kindness at its core? Nanette Burstein’s mismanagement of the film makes it impossible to tell and Geoff LaTulippe’s script simply tries way, way too hard in attempting to appeal to the male and female audience in equal parts. However, with all of those problems acknowledged, I was entertained throughout the film. I laughed out loud a lot, especially with Garrett’s friends, Box and Dan, and all their self-absorbed cluelessness. Although playing a stock and stale caricature present in almost every romantic comedy, Christina Applegate does the best she can with her big sister role. Caught in some rather uncomfortable situations, Applegate has great comedic timing and has some witty exchanges with stand-up comic Jim Gaffigan, who plays her loving husband, Phil. Despite being anchored down by a few major problems, I can readily admit that this movie will be loved by many and for a lot of good reasons. “…Distance” provides abundant humor and likability for people to glom on to; as long as they can ignore the leaps of faith we are asked to take, some head-scratching decision-making by the characters, and the sweet and sour taste of the movie in general. Ultimately, “Going The Distance” means well but simply cannot complete the obstacles it sets out for itself. |
|
Should I See It? |
|
|
YES People love funny movies, despite obvious flaws. At times, “Going the Distance” is a very funny movie. Although it tries way too hard, men and women will find equal things to enjoy here, assuming the R-rating is not an issue. Could Drew Barrymore be any more likable and engaging on screen? It seems that she is nicer and more down-to-earth each time out. She is really terrific here. |
NO Unsure whether it wants to be vulgar and crude or sweet and kindhearted, “Going The Distance” may swing too wildly on the pendulum of taste for viewers. Sometimes, it tries to be both at the same time. This film needs a center point and the movie cannot find it. Other than some great scenes near the beginning of the film with Barrymore and Long, there isn’t really anything innovative or original here. You have grown weary of the romantic comedy genre and no rating, actors, or plot points are going to change that fact. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, Iris Bahr, Louis Herthum, Caleb Landry Jones, Tony Bentley, Shanna Forrestall, Justin Shafer, Becky Fly, Denise Lee, Logan Craig Reid, Daniel Moskowitz___________________________ Director: Daniel Stamm Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 87 Mins. Release Date: August 27, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
Strike Entertainment, StudioCanal, Louisiana Media Productions and Lionsgate. Written by: Huck Botko & Andrew Gurtland. |
|
| “Mr. Sweetzer? How you doing…Cotton Marcus…” – Rev. Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian).
Although its mere existence may scream retread or cliche, “The Last Exorcism” is a low-budget psychological horror film that is almost the best exorcism film I have seen in a long, long time. Shot as another “found footage” and/or faux-documentary style horror film (“Blair Witch Project”, “[REC]“, “Quarantine”), the movie is yet one more movie about a young girl (why never a boy?) possessed by a demonic force and seemingly in need of the dangerous procedure which will rid the demon from her body and allow her to live a normal life. So admittedly, I yawned and then laughed when viewing the trailer and marketing. However, I must admit that “The Last Exorcism” is almost much better than one might ever expect and provides a fresh and unique take on the exorcist movie sub-genre for almost all of its expeditious 87 minutes. So why then a 2-star rating? Note I said almost. Opening in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, we meet Rev. Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian), the leader of a small Baton Rouge church who is married with a young hearing-impaired son. From the outset, we focus exclusively on Marcus and his family and learn how Cotton became a preacher. The son of a preacher, Cotton had really no choice growing up and was trained in the “family business”. We learn that Cotton performed his first exorcism at the age of 10, under his father’s proud and watchful eye. Now in his late-30′s, Cotton merely goes through the motions as his community’s religious leader, even openly questioning whether he still carries the belief and faith necessary to be a church pastor anymore. A recent exorcism tragedy has brought Cotton to the decision to hire a documentary film crew to reveal a shocking secret — the Marcus family’s nearly 200 exorcisms have been hoaxes, elaborately staged ruses which have allowed people to believe they are healed and earned the Marcus family a sizeable amount of money. Cotton, acknowledging that exorcism requests arrive on a daily basis, has decided that the very next request will be the one that he uses as the means of hopefully debunking the practice of exorcisms once and for all. Did you know this from the trailer? Neither did I. And the movie soars from the outset, presenting something altogether different and stylistically more innovative than anything previously revealed in the film’s marketing and promotion. But, 2-stars? Stay with me… The request comes from Louis Sweetzer (Louis Herthum), a deeply religious and troubled father of two who claims that his 16-year old daughter, Nell (Ashley Bell), is possessed. Cotton briefly skims the letter and sets out to make his last exorcism. Arriving with an arrogance he cannot mask, Cotton meets and convinces Louis to allow the camera crew to document the proceedings and settles in to work his magic. After a rough encounter with Louis’ son, Caleb, Cotton meets Nell, who presents as a sweet, sheltered, mild-mannered, and emotionally stilted teen, eager to be normal again. Cotton rigs the room and gets everything ready, although rather carelessly as Caleb catches one of Cotton’s “techniques”. There is a lot more to share but doing so would ruin much of the intrigue that director Daniel Stamm generates. Naturally, Cotton thinks he has achieved his final success both for the Sweetzer family and for his bigger purpose but, as is obvious to anyone watching, he may not be able to leave the Sweetzer family’s situation as easily as he thinks. What makes this film so good for so long is the naturalistic quality that the film creates. The performances by Patrick Fabian and Ashley Bell as Rev. Marcus and Nell, respectively, are quite exceptional. Fabian shines throughout the film and nails the jaded, slightly shameful, and self-doubting preacher that Cotton Marcus is and has become. Ashley Bell’s work here as the possessed Nell is riveting. Bell easily travels from octave to octave, playing every emotion believably. At times, Nell’s actions and behaviors will make you recoil as well as make you feel empathy for her situation. As Cotton connects more and more with Nell and feels more compelled to help her through whatever she is experiencing, you buy in and cannot help but become engrossed in the happenings at the Sweetzer farm. For 80 minutes or so, this is really fantastic entertainment. The script by Huck Botko & Andrew Gurtland is complex in emotion, well-written, and organic to its core. Stretches of “The Last Exorcism” are so compelling that I ignored the fact that tense moments are supported by background score, which would never exist in a “found footage” documentary. At the time I found it to be a forgivable gaffe. Forgivable until the film’s rapid and unexpected freefall from something potentially memorable into something completely inane and insulting to a viewer who has bought into the story, the world, the experience. It is aggravating, almost beyond logic and reason, that “The Last Exorcism” sacrifices all of its good for the most implausible and brain dead conclusion one could ever imagine. Other reviewers have forgiven the film’s final moments, claiming that the rest of what precedes it is too good to dismiss. Perhaps, but the ending is so spectacularly bad, empty-headed, shortsighted, and completely vapid that you cannot help but think that you had to have been imaging the great movie you were just watching. Removed from seeing it, I am angry at this movie. I am furious at “The Last Exorcism” for wasting everything it had going for it. Shot for a meager $1.8 million and utilizing minimal CGI and/or special effects, this movie should be heralded and championed as overcoming its odds and perceptions and standing out as an unsettling, disturbing, and even thought-provoking analysis of religious fanaticism in today’s culture. Perhaps in honor of Nell’s character, the creative minds behind “The Last Exorcism” allowed some kind of demonic Hollywood entity to possess their movie and screenplay. I will leave it up to you to decide whether you want to invest in “The Last Exorcism” or not. For me and virtually everyone in attendance at my viewing, people were talking refund, laughing at the film, and/or bagging on it in general. And such a shame because Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, and this film’s viewers deserve a rich dividend for investing in something that ultimately serves as cheap and as tawdry as Cotton Marcus’ exorcism parlor tricks. |
|
Should I See It? |
|
| YES
Fans of suspense and horror films are going to absolutely want to see this. Many, better than I, will probably forgive the ending and be surprised by the unique take on material which might appear to be tired and drained of any originality. The performances by Ashley Bell and especially, Patrick Fabian are worth seeing. And yes, Bell is contorting her body without use of CGI or effect. |
NO
The ending ruins everything good in the film. The marketing does not reveal that this is a faux-documentary, so unsuspecting viewers may be confused by a film which appears to be a horror film and is something more cerebral. This PG-13 rating is pushing it. Some very adult themes and dialogue, unrelated to the exorcism moments, are on display and will be unsettling to most teenagers – or parents of teenagers. These films seem blasphemous to you. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Gerard Butler, Jennifer Aniston, Jason Sudeikis, Adam Rose, Christine Baranski, Jeff Garlin, Peter Greene, Siobhan Fallon, Joel Garland, Jeff Kolotouros.___________________________ Director: Andy Tennant Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 106 Mins. Release Date: March 19, 2010 DVD Release Date: July 13, 2010 Box Office: $67,061,228 ___________________________
Relativity Media, Original Film, Madhouse Entertainment and Columbia Pictures. Written by: Sarah Thorp |
|
| “Why can’t people take responsibility for their s*** and move on?” – Nicole Hurley (Jennifer Aniston).
There is a term often used for bad performances in bad movies by big-named movie stars. “Phoning It In.” A derivative also exists – “Mailing It In.” And with “The Bounty Hunter”, we find A-listers Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler learning the definition in pre-production, drawing inspiration from their ample pay checks, and then giving absolutely nothing of themselves to the viewer except dispassionate line readings, contrived emotion, and the actors exude no energy whatsoever. Watching “The Bounty Hunter” is an absolute waste of everyone’s time and it is shameful of Columbia Pictures to foist this on unsuspecting viewers. I reference that Aniston and Butler are A-listers and after this debacle, I wonder for how much longer. Aniston continues to find movie after movie after movie as does Butler. But both of these actors need a quality hit and based on their respective recent decision-making, an ability to tell their agent, “No.” Butler plays Milo, a bounty hunter who is tasked with having to bring in his ex-wife, Nicole, after she misses court on a minor charge. Do you really need to know anything else? An entire movie is built on this premise. The poorly conceived screenplay by Sarah Thorp rings out every last drop of comedy and action and suspense within 10 or 15 minutes. So we take joy in watching Aniston and Butler argue, bicker, and pretend to care about the gibberish they are having to recite. The film is actually quite fascinating after awhile. Rare is the film, with this budget and this cast, which feels like everyone quit midway through. Andy Tennant’s pacing and direction of this film resembles that of a head coach of a sports team that either has lost his/her team midway through the season or simply doesn’t care whether they win or lose. Save an occasional laugh in the beginning of the film, there is nothing worth remembering in “The Bounty Hunter”. An unnecessary, excessive, and tired action/romance which features unlikable characters, cliched action sequences, and a plot so boring and immature, it is nothing short of insulting. Shame, shame, shame Aniston…and Butler…and everyone involved. And if I may speak directly to Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler for a moment, I offer some basic advice for your careers going forward…salvage some credibility and stop trying to find your next hit. Just go act, do good work, and get back in touch with the roles and characters that made you, Jennifer Aniston and you, Gerard Butler movie stars we cared about. Enough coasting you two. Perhaps, the movie’s only worthwhile line (stated above) should be taken to heart. |
|
Should I See It? |
|
| YES
You could care less about what any critic, reviewer, or blogger says about the films you want to watch. Jennifer Aniston running around in short skirts, high heels, and form fitting tight shirts will make this appeal on a surface level to certain audience members. You are ready to be punished for 106 minutes.
|
NO
There are worse movies out there, but this one is exceptionally uninteresting and terrible. But then again, if they don’t care then why should I? Aniston and Butler seem to want to be anywhere else in the world than on this set. Unfortunately, they stuck it out and fail to connect with each other or the script. Just don’t. Find something else. Please. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Rhys Ifans, Maggie Smith, Bill Bailey, Oscar Steer, Asa Butterfield, Lil Woods, Eros Valhos, Rosie Taylor-Ritson, Sam Kelly, Ralph Fiennes, Ewan McGregor, Sinead Matthews, Kathy Brand.___________________________ Director: Susanna White Rating: PG Running Time: 109 Mins. Release Date: August 20, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
Studio Canal, Relativity Media, Working Title Films, Three Strange Angels and Universal Pictures. Written by: Emma Thompson, based on characters created by Cristianna Brand |
|
| “The one you need is Nanny McPhee…” – Various voiceovers.
Returning to the fantasy world she helped craft and create for the big screen in 2006, Emma Thompson reprises her role as the hideously ugly on the outside, but mystical and magical Nanny McPhee for the 2010 family film, “Nanny McPhee Returns.” Thompson again adapts Christianna Brand’s British novel series with ample amounts of wit, wisdom, and throwback movie magic. After helping the widowed father of seven whip his ne’er-do-well children into shape and find love by the end in the 2006 first film, Nanny McPhee drifted off as quickly as she came. In case you are not familiar or have forgotten from the first film, the rules Nanny McPhee sets are simply that when you need her but do not want her, she will stay. However, when you do not need her but want her to stay, she must go. Arriving on the doorstep, literally, of the Green family, Nanny McPhee comes to the aid of Isabel (Maggie Gyllenhaal). Isabel is a mother of three young children, overmatched and overwhelmed. Managing the farm with her children and working part-time for a potentially senile shopkeeper (Maggie Smith), Isabel has agreed to take in two aristocratic cousins, Cyril and Celia, who immediately want their driver to return them back home. For reasons later realized, the cousins are forced to stay and blending everyone together for a summer or a vacation or even a mere day proves tasking for all involved. Tasking that is until Nanny McPhee arrives with a brisk and stormy wind at her back and the mantra quoted above whistling through the trees on Isabel’s walk home. Resistant at first, Isabel is shocked to find that the Nanny can make everyone follow her directions (her magic cane again playing a role) and Isabel soon is open to the prospects of having Nanny McPhee’s assistance. A sequel of this nature often comes strapped with redundancies and unoriginal ideas. To Emma Thompson’s unyielding credit, she has crafted a whimsical and entertaining screenplay that stays in the same tone as the first “McPhee” film, but carves out its own identity. Thompson takes a slight step back here and allows a well rounded ensemble of children’s actors the chance to propel the movie forward. Maggie Gyllenhaal adopts a rather flawless British accent and moves through Isabel’s emotions effectively. Overwhelmed mothers in family films are often written all the same; desperate, overprotective, and frankly, at times unlikable and smothering. Gyllenhaal conveys much richer and truer emotion than you often get in a family film, which is not only a further reminder of her talent as an actress, but also a reminder that Emma Thompson should really write more movies. With all of its endearing qualities and winning moments, the film buckles here and there. Rhys Ifans (Notting Hill) is a bit too much as the insufferable brother-in-law trying to convince Isabel that she should sell the farm for, of course, his own nefarious means. Additionally, some of the magical moments seem to be akin to something you might find in one of those old made-for-TV Disney films I watched as a kid every Sunday night on television. A sequence involving an unexploded bomb in the countryside feels out of place and forced. But even with the least impressive moments, I smiled. I laughed. I liked what I was seeing. A fellow critic commented before the film started that, “Emma Thompson has never written a bad script…so my hopes are high.” I echo that sentiment. “Nanny McPhee Returns” is enjoyable from beginning to end and lays back on message, focusing instead on providing something that kids will enjoy and their parents will be pleased to share with them. |
|
Should I See It? |
|
|
YES Incorrectly branded as only for girls, the film offers many laughs for boys and girls, men and women. The film has plenty of humor which virtually everyone can enjoy. Even if synchronized swimming pigs and magic canes and improbable events are not your cup of tea, there is still plenty of genuine comedy and emotional connections the film will have for you. Maggie Gyllenhaal is great. Emma Thompson writes well and through the entire film, it is nearly impossible to not enjoy what unfolds before you. |
NO If you did not like the first film, this is very similar to that first movie and in many ways, more of the same. For some, the magical sequences and the goofiness of the film will come off as trite and too cute. Maybe this will appear unoriginal with some obvious references to Mary Poppins. There are some bleak overtones with war and domestic disputes that might be over the head of the littlest ones and in certain familial situations, a bit unsettling. In other words, this may be boring or uncomfortable for some of the kids watching. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Bow Wow, Brandon T. Jackson, Naturi Naughton, Loretta Devine, Ice Cube, Keith David, Terry Crews, Mike Epps, Charlie Murphy, Bill Bellamy, Gbenga Akinnagbe, Chris Williams, Jason Weaver, Teairra Mari, Faheem “T-Pain” Najm, Malieek Straughter.___________________________ Director: Erik White Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 99 Mins. Release Date: August 20, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
Alcon Entertainment, Burg/Koules Productions, Cube Vision, and Warner Bros. Pictures. Written by: Erik White and Abdul Williams (story) and Abdul Williams (screenplay) |
|
| “If you win the lottery…what would you do?” – Kevin Carson (Bow Wow).
The idea for the urban comedy “Lottery Ticket” seems reasonable enough. A just out of high school 18-year old kid wins the state lottery to the tune of $370 million. Stuck living in the projects in an unnamed inner city, the “what would you do?” scenario, in that setting and impoverished environment, is a provocative topic that a well-written screenplay could explore the adversity, the possibilities, and the good and the bad that would come from that event happening. This…is not that movie. Well, to be fair, it is that movie in premise. Kevin Carson (Bow Wow) works at Foot Locker in the mall and lives in a place where danger may not lurk around every corner, but the residents know that something could spring up at any given moment. Kevin lives with his grandmother (Loretta Devine) and along with best friend Benny (Brandon T. Jackson) and the beautiful Stacey (Naturi Naughton), life is delicately peaceful. The opening 20-25 minutes of “Lottery Ticket” takes an interesting approach of introducing us to an abundance of characters who will return throughout the film. We encounter the feared Lorenzo (Gbenga Akinnagbe), the intimidating thug who tells Kevin that he will give Lorenzo multiple pairs of the new Michael Jordan shoes when they are released…or else. We also are introduced to a witty foursome who hang out at the same block every day, the high school crush Kevin never had a chance with (Teairra Mari), and a mysterious old man who never shows his face, but always sticks his hand out with a grocery order that Kevin picks up (Ice Cube). This particular day for Kevin meets a troubling end when Lorenzo arrives at the Foot Locker and brazenly steals shoes and implies that Kevin authorized it. Fired from his job, Kevin stops by the convenience store to pick up the old man’s groceries and remembers to play some lottery numbers for his grandmother. When the clerk, (Faheem Najm, a/k/a R&B singer T-Pain), convinces Kevin that the $370 million prize is too good to pass up, Kevin begrudgingly runs numbers he received from a fortune cookie. Needless to say, the next morning Kevin learns of a most incredible fate and celebrates with his grandmother the fact that they have the winning ticket and 18-year old Kevin is the lone winner of the extraordinary $370 million prize. Winning his prize over the 4th of July weekend poses a problem – the state lottery offices are not open until Tuesday, July 5. Kevin has to keep his win a secret and keep that ticket safe until Tuesday. And it is at this moment that “Lottery Ticket” unravels in a most spectacular fashion. After investing a half an hour to get to that ultimate winning moment, the screenplay by Abdul Williams has no idea what to do with itself. Worse than that, it soon becomes apparent that nearly all of the characters we have been introduced to are nothing more than tired and shopworn old stereotypes or caricatures; actors and actresses who are reduced to playing characters we have seen hundreds of times in urban comedies. Suffice to say, these are not flattering portrayals. The screenplay by Williams and director, Erik White, feels unchecked with the movie veering off in so many directions that “Lottery Ticket” comes off rather amateurish. Erik White, making the leap from music videos to feature films, seems completely lost in his own production. Even if you set aside how poorly shot and edited segments of the film are, the piecing together of scenes is haphazard at best. Slapstick comedy lines up with dramatic moments. Romance and sex scenes are placed alongside awkward attempts at message and meaning. Ultimately, “Lottery Ticket” is a misguided mess of multiple ideas of movies that the filmmakers assume we are just going to embrace and love. But, individual moments are simply not enough in a film that has an opportunity to be smart, thought-provoking, and funny. When you sprinkle in exhausting cliches of mob bosses, bodyguards, gold digging women, and the cringe-worthy sequence where Kevin struts through the community calling out Lorenzo for a brawl and showdown, the movie loses any goodwill it may have generated. Uncomfortably, the film seems to carry a message of violence as a means to resolving most conflicts. Remember, we are discussing a film entitled, “Lottery Ticket”. Bow Wow is still learning how to be a leading man and his performance is not awful but not consistent enough to make a connection. He does generate some chemistry with Naturi Naughton’s Stacey, who is the assembly line love interest Kevin fails to see right before his own eyes. Ice Cube is surprisingly good playing the mysterious old man who eventually shares his identity to Kevin, proving to be a unique conscious for the new millionaire. Pleasingly,the movie is stolen outright by R&B singer and Auto-Tune master, T-Pain, who shows great comedic chops in his brief three scenes as the convenience clerk who sold Kevin the winning ticket. Squandering what might have been for cheap and easy laughs, unimaginative dramatic arcs, pointless violent overtones, and stock and bloodless assembly line characters, “Lottery Ticket” is a shoddy and mediocre film that had the potential to be something interesting and entertaining. A few moments here or there will satiate some, but there are better gambles to take than with this “Lottery Ticket.” |
|
Should I See It? |
|
| YES
Fans of urban-themed comedies will find a lot to like here. There may be enough humor and slapstick comedy to make this a pass for some viewers. There really aren’t any bad performances, although the cameos and supporting performances outshine the leads with T-Pain, Mike Epps, and Ice Cube standing out. This will pass for some as mindless, escapist entertainment. So, if that’s what you’re looking for, by all means… See the movie and fill in this area below (I got nothing left):
______________________________ |
NO
I suppose the teenagers who will be interested will not care, but this film is a mess of drama, comedy, and message that fails to take the time to be all that good at any of these genres. The cliches and stereotypes are especially frustrating because it screams of laziness and cheapness on behalf of the writers and filmmakers. For some, they may even serve as offensive. Whatever message it aims for is lost on me, except I am again reminded that a good fistfight or gun draw can resolve most any conflict. Um…what? The movie is edited and shot rather poorly. Bow Wow’s arm tattoos, covered up by makeup, are still visible in some scenes and frequently the continuity between shots are noticeably off. If you notice them, these production gaffes take you right out of the film. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Anna Kendrick, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons, Aubrey Plaza, Kjartan Hewitt, Satya Bhabha, Chris Evans, Brie Larson, Brandon Routh, Keita Saitou, Shota Saito, Mae Whitman, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Hader .___________________________ Director: Edgar Wright Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 112 Mins. Release Date: August 13, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
Marc Platt, Big Talk Films, Closed On Mondays Entertainment, Scott Pilgrim Productions, and Universal Pictures. Written by: Michael Bacall and Edgar Wright, adapted from the series of graphic novels by Bryan Lee O’Malley. |
|
| “If we’re gonna date…you may have to defeat my seven evil exes” – Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).
Easily the most inventive big studio film of 2010, “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World” is a crazed, over-the-top fantasy film with no care for convention. That it works and is as ridiculously entertaining as it is, forces a tip of the cap to director Edgar Wright and Wright’s adapted screenplay with Michael Bacall, as well as the game and willing cast who take some risks in making a film that could easily leave people scratching their heads and throwing up their hands. Of course you might do that anyway, but the odds are that you will be laughing and smiling when you do it. “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World” is adapted from the multi-part graphic novel series that gained a huge cult following with readers and fell into great hands with Wright. Notable for directing two great spoofs on the zombie film (“Shaun of the Dead”) and the buddy-cop action film (“Hot Fuzz”), Edgar Wright just seems to get the feel, the tone, and the style that a film like this needs. When looking at the premise, this could not have been the easiest film to make. Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is an unemployed 22-year old bass player for local rock band, Sex Bob-Omb, who has just entered into a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with the awesomely named 17-year old Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). Pilgrim dates girls out of boredom because he still longs for his former girlfriend, Envy (Brie Larson), now the singer of a mega-huge band, Clash At Demonhead. Insufferably insufferable, Scott sees in a dream, and then in reality, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a new girl in town who works as an Amazon.com delivery girl. Moving away from Knives comes easy to Scott and the chase is on to become Ramona’s boyfriend. When she becomes equally smitten, a random E-mail arrives in Scott’s inbox from someone named Patel. Disregarding its threats, Sex Bob-Omb play their next show and have it interrupted by a flying man who challenges Scott to a battle. He claims he is Ramona’s first evil ex and Scott must defeat him. Up for the challenge and crushing big on Ramona, Scott battles Patel, only to later learn that to date Ramona, he must defeat her seven evil exes. Some of you have checked out by now and that’s fine. Some of you are intrigued and that’s fine too. I have seen thousands of films in my lifetime and I can safely say that “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World” is unlike anything I have ever seen. If you haven’t figured out from the trailer, TV spots, or other reviews of the film, this is akin to a cinematic video game where Scott must vanquish villain after villain to win the heart of his Ramona. However, don’t mistake that description as reminding us of those wasted moments we have all had watching over someone’s shoulder while they play a video game we could care less about. There is so much more than just CGI-battle sequences and action/martial arts fighting in this film. Oh, so much more. Set in Toronto, we not only get the aforementioned over-the-top crazy stuff, but we also get some unexpected character development. And although Michael Cera may only be able to play the Michael Cera we have seen thus far in every single film he stars in, he remains as likable as ever. He lives with his roommate, Wallace (Kieran Culkin), who is gay and is seeking love in much the same manner as Scott. Wallace is an almost check and balance for Scott, a little bit older, slightly wiser, and also there to push Scott along and mentor him into some kind of normalcy. Oscar-nominee Anna Kendrick darts in and out as Scott’s overbearing big sister, Stacey, and offers some laughs. Perhaps most surprisingly the movie is quite endearing and sweet, even as evil ex after evil ex arrives in the most inopportune moments. Edgar Wright does a masterful job of making this accessible to non-gamers and those who would not dare read a graphic novel series. Spiking in word graphics (“r-i-i-i-i-ngggg” leaps on screen when the phone rings, for example) and infoboxes, which introduce all the main characters, you instantly get the sense that there may be more originality per minute here than most films could ever hope to attain. The film is legitimately funny, with charm in reserve and zips and cuts so quickly that for most of the film, you are never sure what is coming next. When villains are defeated (is that a spoiler alert?), there is no blood or extreme violence. Instead, some exes disintegrate into thousands of coins and on occasion, Scott earns bonuses to take with him to the next level. We learn that no one ever really dies here because if need be, the “game” can be rewound to take a do-over. No one is really ever in danger, but you still want Scott to succeed. Then again, maybe I have some graphic novels to read now. The reality is that if “Scott Pilgrim” was any good at all, this movie would secure its place as a cult favorite. With such great atmosphere, rhythm and pacing, and countless quotable moments, this film will probably be talked about for years. By the final “rounds”, this all may seem a little repetitive and at 112 minutes, I can nod to the argument that the film needs to be trimmed down a bit. Yet, look at the slate of movies to receive a wide theatrical release in the last couple of years and find me one film more unabashedly non-conformist and unique. I’ll wait. Amusing at its worst and original and groundbreaking at its best, “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World” delivers from character to character, scene to scene, and level to level. Even the most skeptical will be surprised, and how many actual video games can claim that type of success. |
|
Should I See It? |
|
| YES
Fans of the graphic novel series simply cannot be disappointed by this, except perhaps what was left out in compressing six books into a nearly 2-hour film. You seek something original, unique, and fun. You haven’t seen a film shot, edited, or presented in this way before. Do not think that you have to know the source material beforehand. Even those most skeptical are going to find something to like, because as much as it is crazed and manic, it retains its charm and “aw, shucks!” sweetness. Edgar Wright is now 3-for-3. Fans of “Hot Fuzz” and “Shaun of the Dead” are going to be quite pleased indeed. |
NO
If you let it, this film will work. Yet, this will just be too much for some people to accept and get into. It starts fast and if you don’t buy in at the beginning, you’re going to be disengaged. Michael Cera may have played Michael Cera one too many times for you by now. Here, he is the same Michael Cera with fighting ability. Some are going to think this whole thing is stupid. Although bloodless and without real consequences to those in the fighting scenes, there is still a lot of fighting, brawling, and video game style violence. So, check this out first if your kids are not allowed to play games rated T for Teen, or really at all. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Julia Roberts, Billy Crudup, Viola Davis, James Franco, Hadi Subiyanto, Richard Jenkins, Javier Bardem, Tuva Novotny, Luca Argentero, Christine Hakim, Mike O’Malley.___________________________ Director: Ryan Murphy Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 133 Mins. Release Date: August 13, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
Plan B Entertainment, Red Om Films, Syzygy Productions, and Columbia Pictures. Written by: Ryan Murphy and Jennifer Salt, adapted from the book of the same name, written by Elizabeth Gilbert. |
|
| “Do you need a Xanax?” – Delia Shiraz (Viola Davis).
Based on an extremely popular memoir by Elizabeth Gamble (“Liz”), “Eat Pray Love” documents Gamble’s journey to find herself after making some profound life-changing decisions. Encapsulating one year in time, Gamble’s journey could serve as both inspiring or narcissistic, depending on your viewpoint. Directed by Ryan Murphy (TV’s “Glee”, Running With Scissors) with sweetness and a caring eye, “Eat Pray Love” features a return to form for Julia Roberts, who delivers a strong performance as Liz. Bookending the film with two specifically moving and affecting scenes, both centered around Liz’s fear of commitment, Roberts again reminds us just how good an actress she truly is. When we meet Liz, the masking and the pretending simply cannot be hidden any longer. She does not want to be married to Stephen (Billy Crudup) and takes the steps to end their marriage. Receiving unconditional understanding from her publisher and best friend, Delia (Viola Davis), Liz bounces into a rather ill-advised relationship with struggling actor, David (James Franco). David, rather obviously, never had a chance. Spinning her wheels with life, her career, and everything else she encounters, Liz informs Delia of her year-long plan. In reality, Liz received a hefty book advance to go on her journey and then convert the experiences into her memoirs. The hows and whys of Liz’s travels are oddly left out of the film, implying that she financed the trip herself. When green light says go for Liz to set out on her journey, she heads to Italy and soon becomes fast friends with Sofi (Tuva Novotny) and settles in with a small little surrogate family of enigmatic personalities. They teach her Italian, introduce her to new cuisine and culture, and, in turn, Liz helps Sofi become comfortable with insecurities we all face. Sticking to her 4-month schedule, Liz ventures out to India to stay and study at an ashram that she was introduced to by David. Juxtaposing the life she left in Italy with the new and more barren life in India seems to bring only minimal difficulties and Liz adjusts rather easily. Meeting a fellow American at the ashram, a man Liz calls Richard from Texas (Richard Jenkins), has rocky beginnings but soon Liz and Richard find a kinship in their quest for spirituality. More on Jenkins’ performance in a moment. Finally, Liz travels to Bali and seeks out a medicine man, Keyut, who she met on a prior trip. After Keyut makes the connection as to who Liz is, he becomes a final catalyst in Liz aligning herself spiritually. However, meeting Felipe (Javier Bardem) brings about an unexpected disturbance to Liz’s plan for inner peace and unity. And so there it is. The journey is complete. Liz eventually finds everything she is looking for, and some unexpected things as well. So, what do we get out of it? Well, for some, the joy in watching her bounce from place to place and make lifelong connections in 4-month intervals. For others, the journey of one woman on a quest to change things that many people most undoubtedly will not see as all that terrible. And so there that is. There is much to like about the film, but in its totality, “Eat Pray Love” just…feels…off. The film is acted very well from a rich ensemble cast and Ryan Murphy and cinematographer, Robert Richardson, have made arguably the most visually appealing film thus far in 2010. You may expect the food in Italy to look sumptuous, the architecture and panoramic views of India and Bali to be gorgeous, but the film nails the little details and hidden charms in each of the locales so well that you can easily get swept up in the fantasy of the moment and place. Add in an impressive soundtrack of world beats and rhythms, and I acknowledge there being a lot to like on the surface. But there is something missing here. And I grasp at the straws of knowing what it might be. Perhaps, I just do not see the decisions made by Liz to be all that necessary and to go one further, they reek of decisions afforded to someone of privilege. I am all for being swept up in a fantasy and like most people, I am guilty of, at certain times in my life, wanting to just disappear somewhere for an indefinite period of time. However, I cannot stop wondering if Elizabeth Gamble’s journey really needed to be so grand and epic. Maybe I just view life differently and that’s the barrier here. In not having read Gamble’s memoirs, but seeing her year afar depicted on the big screen, the decisions she makes seem sudden, misguided, and unwarranted. Then again, I can admire someone with the bravery and courage to do something like this. Add yet, when factoring in the reality of the book deal Liz received, my admiration dips considerably. Sorry, it just does. Should she or shouldn’t she have or whether Liz’s actions were smart and enviable or dumb and pointless are certainly fair point/counterpoints viewers have had with the book and will have with the film. But, I am always going to remember one scene between Julia Roberts and Richard Jenkins in the India vignette. Richard Jenkins is the actor you have seen in every film and is one of the finest supporting character actors working today. He also was recently nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for an extraordinary lead performance in “The Visitor.” I rarely, if ever, have advised people to see a movie for a scene, but the moment I will always carry with me when thinking of “Eat Pray Love” is the power of emotion that Jenkins hits with Roberts at his side. It is an extraordinary moment in a film which should have been full of them. “Eat Pray Love” may resonate with many and polarize others. As a film, it brings solid acting, breathtaking visuals, and one timestopper of a scene along with a lack of connectivity and a heavy umbrella of doubt and necessity. The film means well, and I think its heart is in the right place. But, when looking at the times we live in and the problems everyday people go through , this whole experience and journey Liz Gamble made seems just insular and self-indulgent. She would undoubtedly disagree, as would many of her loyal readers, but who amongst us can do something like this? And that is the biggest stumbling block of all for me. |
|
Should I See It? |
|
|
YES The film’s book has sold over 6 million copies and that fan base have been anticipating this film. I imagine that many of those readers, even with the changes between the book and the movie, will be pleased and happy with the results. Again, it’s hard to ask someone to watch a 133-minute film for one scene, but Richard Jenkins is incredible in the middle of the film. If you are fan of good to great acting, no one delivers a bad performance here. Visually and technically, the film is a joy to watch and the music score is astute and well put together. |
NO If you have any doubts as to whether you are going to like this, those doubts you have will be validated. As a film, the movie is rather empty. It looks wonderful and is well-acted, but lacks an emotional connection that makes the lengthy running time really worth a viewer’s time. The movie plays almost like a series of vignettes and save a flashback here or there, there is never a cohesiveness from moment to moment or experience to experience. The film suffers because of it. I can see people easily ripping this entire thing to shreds and that is never a good place to put your film. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Michael Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson, Dwayne Johnson, Eva Mendes, Rob Riggle, Damon Wayans, Jr., Steve Coogan, Anne Heche, Bobby Cannavale, Natalie Zea, Adam McKay, Derek Jeter.___________________________ Director: Adam McKay Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 107 Mins. Release Date: August 6, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
Gary Sanchez Productions, Mosaic, and Columbia Pictures. Written by: Adam McKay and Chris Hinchy. |
|
| “Aim for the bushes…?!?” – Officer Danson (Dwayne Johnson).
Will Ferrell and Adam McKay have teamed together numerous times through the years and have given us screen characters such as Ron Burgundy (Anchorman), Ricky Bobby (Talladega Nights), and Brennan Huff (Step Brothers), all played by Ferrell and co-written by Ferrell and McKay. Unfortunately, in some instances, the films have not been as funny as their characters, but with their latest collaboration, “The Other Guys”, Ferrell and McKay have thrown enough at the wall here to make this movie really stick. Ferrell stars as Allen Gamble, a forensic accountant turned police officer, who loves being a police officer because of all of the paperwork and administrative things he can do for the precinct. He sits across from Terry Hoitz, a demoted field officer, now sharing desk time with Gamble. Demoted for the mistaken shooting of New York Yankees superstar, Derek Jeter (yeah, he’s in this…), Hoitz is frustrated and despises working alongside Gamble. Played by Mark Wahlberg, exhibiting tremendous comedic timing and skill, Hoitz and Gamble are oil to each other’s water. Hoitz seethes at the rock star status and treatment of fellow Officers Danson and Highsmith (Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson, respectively), who live the stereotypical TV and movie cop life – racing from call to call, recklessly firing their weapons, wrecking cars, blowing things up, risking their lives in daring and unnecessary situations…and soaking in cheers and adulation from the community, the media, and their fellow officers. When a sudden and memorably hilarious…um…”incident” involving Danson and Highsmith leave their “top cop” status in the precinct available for the taking, Hoitz sees an opportunity to reclaim past glory and does everything in his power to convince the unfortunately named Gamble to step up and seize the moment. The film’s subplot revolves around a Madoff-esque tycoon, David Ershon, (Steve Coogan) who is buried in over his head to debts to virtually every international entity imaginable. He has created massive problems for a shadowy and omnipresent global company led by Pamela Boardman (Anne Heche). Ershon has concocted an epic plan to steal money from the New York State lottery commission and Gamble and Hoitz stumble onto the plan in a bizarre connection to improper scaffolding blueprints. Gamble is understandably ecstatic at the find while Hoitz just wants to bust some heads. As you watch “The Other Guys”, you begin to realize that Adam McKay has co-written with Chris Hinchy one of the more spot on satires of this overblown and lazy film genre. Ferrell plays the straight man to the entire precinct and he is as funny as ever here, taking the brunt of everyone’s sarcasm and disrespect. He just keeps smiling and taking it and becomes rather endearing in playing Gamble. Mark Wahlberg may have found another chapter in his career. Opposite Ferrell, his comedic timing is flat out fantastic. I could watch these two bicker and argue and fight for hours. One argument regarding the toughness of a lion and a tuna is already being heralded, and rightfully so, as one of the funniest moments in recent years. I would wholeheartedly concur. Michael Keaton (!) jumps all in playing the embattled precinct captain, who has taken a second job at Bed, Bath & Beyond to help put his son through college. Keaton is obviously having a ball in the role and a running gag of his crowbarring in of a particular outdated pop culture reference is funny each and every time. As a matter of fact, “The Other Guys” soars on several running gags, which are cleverly spiked in throughout. This is a film you laugh with and laugh about after its final credits roll on by (and more on those credits in a moment). Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson are memorable in their extended cameo and when Eva Mendes is revealed as Will Ferrell’s reportedly sloven and haggard wife, you can add yet another layer of comedy between the two lead actors. “The Other Guys” is an uproarious comedy which sees the talented Will Ferrell and engaging Mark Wahlberg return to the top of their respective games. Never taking itself seriously, gleefully mocking and satirizing the buddy-cop action movie in fresh and inventive ways, and throwing anything it can at the proverbial wall, this is a memorable and quotable comedy that delivers far and above any expectations that I, or you, may have heading in. **SPOILER ALERT (of End Credits)** And about those end credits. I will take a moment and state that you should stay and keep watching the credits for one of the most odd and bewildering closing sequences I can ever remember. After watching 100 or so minutes of wild comedy and action, Adam McKay offers a mini civics lesson on corporate corruption and scandal with a series of animated title cards clad in facts, graphs, and flow charts. The information is important, but its appearance in this regard is confounding. Check it out and you tell me. |
|
Should I See It? |
|
|
YES You like to laugh and laugh a lot. Consistently funny from start to finish, this is a tremendously entertaining film. The opening scenes with Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson are flawless in their satire, humor, and unforgettable conclusion. Maybe by seeing it you can explain those end credits. Seriously. This is a really strong return to form for Ferrell and his collaborator Adam McKay. Arguably their best film together. |
NO Your ship has sailed on Will Ferrell movies, or you’ve grown tired of him. Even with him scaling way back and playing the straight guy, it is still Will Ferrell. On its face, this appears to be a good-guy/bad guy cop film with comedic elements. You may feel that this in and of itself is a formulaic idea and as a result have no interest. As with most PG-13 comedies, this pushes boundaries for what may be acceptable for 13 year old kids. If you allow your younger kids to watch PG-13 films, be warned that you may be explaining things you may not have anticipated explaining. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Zach Galifianakis, Jemaine Clement, Stephanie Szostak, Lucy Punch, Bruce Greenwood, David Walliams, Ron Livingston, Larry Wilmore, Kristen Schaal, P.J. Byrne, Andrea Savage, Lucy Davenport, Jeff Dunham, Octavia Spencer, Patrick Fischler, Rick Overton.___________________________ Director: Jay Roach Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 110 Mins. Release Date: July 30, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
DreamWorks SKG, Spyglass Entertainment, Parkes/McDonald Productions, Everyman Pictures and Paramount Pictures. Written by: David Guion and Michael Handelman, adapted from Francis Veber’s 1998 French film, “Le Diner de Cons”. |
|
| “…he is a tornado of destruction…” – Tim (Paul Rudd).
There is something I find consistently funny with Paul Rudd movies, and I think it is simply the man himself. He is hilarious to me, a rather unique actor who can generate laughs by simple reaction, articulation, and presence. I think he is rather underestimated as well and would be curious to see him tackle something dramatic. But, Rudd is firmly entrenched as an A-list comedic actor and he and co-star Steve Carell shoot for the moon in their latest, “Dinner For Schmucks.” Rudd plays Tim, a 6th floor investment executive, who seeks the chance to work on that elusive and exclusive 7th floor of his investment firm. Presenting a rather ridiculous idea to his bosses places him on the company radar and he is invited to a closed door meeting with a couple of 7th floor folks. As with the trailer, we learn that every month, the 7th floor folks have a dinner party wherein they invite the strangest and most bizarre person they can find. At the conclusion of the dinner, company bigwig Lance Fender (Bruce Greenwood) awards a prize to an invitee, which results in some type of bonus or kickback for the employee who brought the dinner guest. Learning of this offers Tim the chance to finally move up to that elusive and previously unattainable spot in the company. Naturally, his breathtaking art curator girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak), finds the idea appalling and Tim’s mere mention of it sends her over the edge. On the eve of the dinner, Tim’s car slams into the body of Barry (Carell), a shlubby I.R.S. agent who also partakes in taxidermy on the side. When not working for a horrifying boss (Zach Galifianakis) who believes he can control Barry with mind control, Barry creates and recreates favorite moments in history, or his life, through the use of deceased mice, which he delicately holds together with wire, string, and other assorted tools and devices. Steve Carell plays Barry in what I could best describe as a controlled frenzy. Lacking any self-esteem whatsoever and desperately alone, Barry simply seeks a friend. So as Barry sees Tim’s kindness and simple gestures as a sign of outreach and friendship, Tim believes he may have just discovered his guarantee for that promotion to the 7th floor. Despite his best and most creative efforts, Tim cannot shake Barry away. In a matter of a couple of hours, Tim’s girlfriend is out of the picture, a psychotic one-night stand returns, and prior to the dinner party, Tim must broker a $100 million investment deal successfully or the organization he works for will cease to exist. And even that goes terribly wrong. Adding in charismatic supporting actors such as Galifianakis, and including Jemaine Clement from “Flight of the Conchords” as gonzo photographer, Kieran, the movie always falls on the side of fun and amusing. We all know where the film is headed – the ultimate dinner and its rather unique attendees, but getting there is the focus on the film. Rudd and Carell are working on their third film together and they are so comfortable with one another that you can almost sense a heightened sense of improv and gamesmanship occurring between the two. Yet, as much of a joy as it is to watch them together, the film struggles to find an even balance between its comedic and dramatic tones. Director Jay Roach swings the pendulum too far in either direction here and even though you are laughing, the comedy comes in stutters and starts. Lacking cohesion or consistency still does not deter from its appeal. When the film wants to be funny, it truly is. When it wants to be heartfelt and dramatic, not so much. (Of course, the woman next to me who kept consistently saying “Oh no…” or “poor guy…” in the dramatic moments would certainly disagree with me…). In totality, “Dinner For Schmucks” is a funny movie housed in a mixed bag of comedy/drama. Paul Rudd and Steve Carell counterbalance well and the film’s titular schmucks are certainly, and rather obviously, a different set of attendees than advertised. Too uneven and inconsistent for some, I was nevertheless entertained by its odd feel and rhythm. Like any meal, you can pick out the flaws of how something can taste better or be prepared better, but you still eat and are pretty satisfied at the end, despite the imperfections. And I was pretty satisfied with “Dinner For Schmucks.” |
|
Should I See It? |
|
|
YES Fans of Carell, Rudd, Clement, and Galifianakis will enjoy this. And again, when the movie is funny, it is really funny. It’s just not funny all the time. The dinner scene, if you can get there, is hilarious and redemptive to the film. Steve Carell gets his big moment here and the movie almost makes you accept the juxtaposition of comedy and drama throughout. An absolute easy watch, this is what most people look for when they want “something funny” and “entertaining” at the movies. |
NO The film is a bit schizophrenic is trying to connect the comedy to the drama. At times it is hard to tell whether it wants to be a heartfelt comedy or a comedy with a message, or just an over-the-top laughfest. I’m still not entirely sure. The film pushes to the limit of a PG-13 rating with its content. Parents who allow younger kids to see PG-13 films should be warned that the film gets away with a lot when compared to other PG-13 comedies. If you are not a fan of silly movies, then this is not going to be your cup of tea. |
|
Rating: 
Starring: Zac Efron, Charlie Tahan, Amanda Crew, Augustus Prew, Donal Logue, Kim Basinger, Ray Liotta, Dave Franco, Matt Ward, Desiree Zurowski.___________________________ Director: Burr Steers Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 109 Mins. Release Date: July 30, 2010 DVD Release Date: TBD Box Office: $TBD ___________________________
Relativity Media, Marc Platt Productions, Charlie Film Productions and Universal Pictures. Written by: Craig Pearce and Lewis Colick, adapted from the novel “The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud” by Ben Sherwood. |
|
| “You’re late. I thought we had a deal?” – Sam St. Cloud (Charlie Tahan).
The tag line reads…”Life Is For Living” and Charlie St. Cloud is trying hard – real hard. He lives on site at a cemetery, working as its caretaker. He works mostly alone, keeps to himself, and has the occasional quipfest with his friend and co-worker, Alistair. Charlie also maintains a daily one-hour game of catch with his younger brother, Sam, in a forest clearing. Every day Charlie is there, and every day Sam is ready – glove in hand, ball in the other, ready to take grounders and tossed pop-ups. What Charlie tends to ignore or forget is that Sam is a ghost – dead from a tragic car accident when Sam was 11. Nevertheless, Charlie and Sam have a pact that neither of them will ever be late for their game of catch and Charlie has seemingly resigned himself to this life, day in and day out. So why does he do it? Guilt? Delusions? The hope that somehow Sam will come back from the grave? Well, one of the biggest problems with “Charlie St. Cloud” is we never really know. In the title role, Zac Efron plays Charlie, an amiable, loving brother, who after winning a sailing regatta with his brother, earns a full ride sailing scholarship to Stanford University. One night, when the boys’ single mother (Kim Basinger) takes a double shift, Sam catches Charlie sneaking out for a high school graduation party. Sam asks Charlie to take him over to a friend’s house and on the way, tragedy strikes and Sam is killed in the aforementioned accident. As you can see from the premise and set up, there is a lot of exposition to “Charlie St. Cloud” and for a few minutes, the film has promise. Efron and his young co-star, Charlie Tahan (as Sam), develop believable chemistry and the film has some affecting power when the tragedy strikes. And then the good film becomes a Zac Efron love fest, because going forward from the tragic events of the story, we observe every nod, wink, smile, wince, cheek quiver, tear, muscle movement, and emotion Efron can muster up close and tightly framed. That Efron’s close ups derail “Charlie St. Cloud” is perhaps unfair. Certainly, he cannot be blamed for the way Burr Steers (17 Again, Igby Goes Down) directs the camera. Realistically, I really have no idea what type of movie “Charlie St. Cloud” wants to be. Steers seems to be unsure himself. Are we dealing with a family-oriented drama, a kids film with intensity, a supernatural thriller, or some hybrid romantic/paranormal/TV-Movie-Of-The-Week? Haphazardly presented post-accident, Efron gives a good effort here and “St. Cloud”‘s failures are hardly his fault. Although the more I think about it… Charlie has endured a tremendous loss, an event which occurred while his brother was in his control. He grieves, often at the cemetery where his brother is buried. He has virtually no relationship with his father, trusts no one, rarely speaks to his mother since the accident, seems to have an ability to see certain people that have died and lest we forget, he plays catch with his 11-year old dead brother. That sounds like one helluva movie with limitless opportunity for motivations, soul-searching, and well-written emotional drama. Look at what’s here to explore. How do we grieve at the loss of someone who died at our hand? How do we let go and yet preserve our memories of those who have passed on? Isolated, shamed, and in pain, how do you ever move past such an event and restore yourself to something close to whole again? How do you simply stop blaming yourself? Well, I wish Burr Steers had a script that had the courage to tackle even one of those questions. But no, instead we get Charlie throwing back sips (sips!) of Jack Daniels and stewing at his kitchen table. Riveting. After seeing the film, my wife and I read a spoiler-filled review of the acclaimed Ben Sherwood novel, which served as the source material. Frankly, I want that movie. Without reading the novel, I can assure you that there are countless changes implemented in this Craig Pearce and Lewis Golick adaptation which seem to soften and polish up some of the character depth and darkness conveyed in the novel. Rare is the film that I wish was darker and plunged deeper into harsher and more disturbing territory, but “Charlie St. Cloud” is certainly one of those few. Charlie does develop a love interest, Tess, played admirably by Canadian actress Amanda Crew. Crew and Efron work well together but again have their connection and chemistry bogged down by poor decision-making in the direction of the piece. When a twist hits in the middle of the film, we should be surprised and gasping, but…I’m sorry…he has such blue eyes, and cries real tears, and those arms and that chest… All in all, “Charlie St. Cloud” the film, and the character, deserved better. Zac Efron deserved better. If ever a film desperately needed more edge, more grit, and more ugly, then we have found it. A couple of good performances cannot save what might have been here. But then again, if a shirtless, romantic, crying Zac Efron is all you want for a couple of hours, Burr Steers has delivered the year’s most rewarding film. Yet, with the effort expended, I bet deep down inside Efron wishes the film were less the 109-minute teen fan magazine honoring his body and appearance and something more relevant, important, and topical. Then again, those eyes are so…so…blue… |
|
Should I See It? |
|
|
YES In his first real move away from light comedy and Disney musicals, Zac Efron shows he is a pretty capable actor, adept at playing an emotionally troubled character. Efron fans, if you are one of them, are going to probably love this. Zac is in virtually every scene and Burr Steers and the lighting director and the cinematographer and probably the screenwriters love putting him on screen. The interesting premise, while squandered away, makes for some interesting thought and debate. Even with the film’s major problems, I am intrigued to check out the source material; namely, the Ben Sherwood novel. For the third time, those eyes are really blue! |
NO What is it you want with this? The film is so saddled with message and sappiness that twists and turns become meaningless and there is little to no emotional connection. The film just sits there and fails to really mean anything. Unless you just want to stare at Zac Efron. I am going to go out on a limb and say that those who read and loved the Sherwood novel will scream “No” audibly at various times during this film. There is so much crying and tears shed that I began to laugh in sad portions of the film. Probably something you will do as well. Why this film doesn’t take more chances – any chances – is beyond me. Everything is too safe and too carefully crafted, almost as if to not offend anyone. |
