The Tourist (2010)

Title, Year:  The Tourist (2010)

Director:  Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

I didn’t like The Tourist for many reasons. 

Reason # 1:  The film is set in London, Paris, and Venice and there is a cynical, anti-American subtext that is threaded throughout the film.  I normally enjoy watching Johnny Depp create his quirky characters on-screen, but his performance turns out to be a one-note, not so subtle commentary on “stupid Americans”.  This kind of prejudice, in an American studio-backed film no less, is thankfully rare. 

Reason # 2:  The constant, embarrassingly frequent reminders that Angelina Jolie is attractive and apparently makes every guy she comes into contact with weak at the knees was annoying and distracting.  I don’t know if it was a poor attempt at humor or if she is starting to have this kind of thing embedded in her contracts, but it was really unnecessary.

Reason # 3:  The script was poor.  The dialogue was amateurish.  The plot twists were able to be seen a mile away.  I won’t give it away, but the ending leaves quite a few holes in the story line.  For a film that garnered two of the most popular movie stars of our time, this was a very weak attempt at utilizing them. 

Reason # 4:  Johnny Depp’s hair and beard were awful.  I know this is not a good reason to dislike a movie.  However, for someone who has always been a very cool, idealistic movie star and talented actor, he just looked like he was sleep walking through the film.  He is known for using every bit of his personality and appearance to bring out a character.  Maybe this was another knowing wink that Americans have poor hygiene and don’t know how to use a comb properly or when to get a haircut, but if so it didn’t seem that way.  It just seemed like both Johnny and Angelina got paid for a pretty lengthy vacation in Venice and that Johnny probably did like the rest of us and let himself go while on vacation.  The audience, it seems, just got robbed. 

Skyline (2010)

Title, Year:  Skyline (2010)

Director:  The Brothers Strause

My wife and I have a running joke that Eric Balfour is something of a bad luck charm for TV and film projects.  The one exception being the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which went on to be a huge cult hit.  Eric Balfour’s character was actually killed off in this episode.  Lucky for them, had he stayed around it would have likely not seen a second season.

I’m not trying to be mean, but this guy shows up as secondary characters in many things and never seems to find a bit of success.  So, when a movie like Skyline comes out, gets a theatrical release, and promotes Eric Balfour as the lead actor, I’m thinking “this is going to be awful” and “it will be a terrifically bad movie that will no doubt be a ship I will enjoy watching sink”.  Really cheesy, bad movies are sometimes fantastic to watch.  They have to be done with the sense that the filmmakers involved, down to the actors starring in it, really seem to believe they are working on something special.  On that note, Skyline is a terrifically wonderful B-movie. 

Where do I begin?  This movie shamelessly takes key points from better films of the ‘aliens-attack’ genre and tries to blend those into something of a unique vision.  The opening credits steal the font and visual style directly from the Transformers films.  The rest contains very recognizable theft from films such as the 2005 War of the Worlds, Independence Day, and even the recent District 9.  The story gets so wonderfully ludicrous that my wife and I laughed out loud.  I can’t give the plot points away.  Seriously, if I was 12 years old and seeing this movie for the first time it would probably be my favorite film.  Just so you know that’s not a compliment.  When I was 12, I’m pretty sure I thought Jean Claude Van Damme’s Bloodsport was high art. 

I think Skyline is a little piece of B-movie perfection.  Does that mean I am telling you to go watch this movie?  Not really.  I think you’ll know whether or not you share a viewpoint with me on bad movies that mean well.  If you think you do, then I say run out and rent this film.  My 12 year old self says “it was AWESOMELY RAD MAN!”. 

The Fighter (2010)

Title, Year:  The Fighter (2010)

Director:  David O. Russell

It sounds cliché’ to say, but The Fighter is truly a film that sneaks up on you.  The dramatic momentum builds throughout the film and, as in the best sports-based dramas, inevitably overwhelms you with emotion.  To me, what sets this film apart from other sports films is that the family drama within, as well as the superb actors delivering the roles, makes you forget that you are even watching a “sports film”.  This film is in a class with the first Rocky and, one of my favorites, Miracle. 

The Fighter tells the true story of Dicky Ecklund and Micky Ward, two brothers who share a mother and a love for boxing.  Living in Lowell, Massachusetts, Dicky famously stood ten rounds with Sugar Ray Leonard in the seventies and has since become a drug-addled dreamer and a disappointment to everyone except himself and his mother, played by Melissa Leo.  Christian Bale delivers a truly great performance as Dicky.  Melissa and Christian create the kind of lived in, completely transformative performances that become legendary.  Seriously, they are that good at becoming these characters and making you “know” these characters as much as one possibly can within the constraints of a movie.  Mark Wahlberg plays Micky with a solid, stoic calm that largely went unrecognized in the press that this film received, but I feel he served the character well.  Amy Adams was also very good as Charlene, the only girl to dare to step between Micky and his family.  Amy portrays a strength that I’ve yet to see in her other films and she delivers on this opportunity to demonstrate her range. 

The family element is strong in this film.  Micky and Dicky have seven sisters, some who share a father with Dicky and some with Micky.  I’ve read that they cast ladies from the Lowell area to portray the sisters, they are all unrecognizable.  They do a fine job by adding to the atmosphere and helping to demonstrate the roots these brothers share.  These are people from a lower working class, struggling area of Massachusetts.  The year is 1993, but the economic conditions they face are timely to other areas of the country today.  The struggle that these people have is relevant. 

The only other piece of the story I will elaborate on is that the film centers on the relationship between the brothers, Dicky and Micky.  I won’t give anything else way.  The film is named The Fighter and I feel that this can be a term used to refer to any of the characters profiled in this film.  You will see what I mean when you watch it, and watch it you should. 

The Fighter was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar and lost to The King’s Speech, a film I have yet to see.  It must be good though, because The Fighter is top-notch movie making. 

Rango (2011)

Title, Year:  Rango (2011)

Director:  Gore Verbinski

As a father, I’m a big believer in truth through marketing.  I like to understand via a trailer or promotional material whether or not the film will be suitable for my child.  As a consumer, I know I have a responsibility to research, Rango is rated PG – for language, rude humor, action and smoking - but that cautionary description doesn’t really tell you whether or not the film will be suitable for your child in my opinion.  Pixar has spoiled family audiences by providing fun, thoughtful entertainment that successfully weaves plotlines, dialogue, and characters into movies easily enjoyed by kids and adults alike.  I think it’s ok to say that what Pixar delivers on a current basis (whether you take any of the Toy Story films or The Incredibles as examples), is nothing short of magic and some of the best films Hollywood has to offer these days.

Now back to Rango.  Rango, the movie, tries really hard to be a thoughtful, almost existential examination on finding one’s purpose and strength in this life.  There are speckled moments of reference to spaghetti westerns of old as well as to the person providing the lead voice, Johnny Depp.  These feel like insider clips designed to make the adults attending the film feel good that they pick up on them.  Rango, the character, is a lizard who ends up stranded in an unnamed desert and stumbles onto a town of fellow animal inhabitants that is ruled by laws of the old west and a questionable tortoise as mayor.  The town has a severe water shortage and Rango, through a series of events, has to make a choice to believe in himself and work to unravel the mysteries plaguing the town. 

The movie is the first animated film by Industrial Light and Magic, and it does contain top notch visuals and sound.  The characters are cast with appropriate voices.  Johnny Depp is his usual quirky self as the lead lizard.  Isla Fisher is cast as a fellow lizard with issues controlling her reactions to fear.  Bill Nighy is the voice of Rattlesnake Jake, and a perfect piece of casting. 

Here are my issues with Rango.  I thought it was boring overall, which is a cardinal sin for an animated adventure.  The attempts at humor largely fall flat and the story is way too dense for children to really engage.  Also, I wasn’t bothered by the use of language in the film but more so by the dark nature and tone of the overall film.  Way too much for a movie clearly marketed as a children’s film.

You can keep Rango, I’ll wait for Cars 2.   

Review: Morning Glory (2010)

Title, Year:  Morning Glory (2010)

Director:  Roger Michell

Morning Glory is intended to be a frothy romantic comedy, a “chick flick” if you will, constructed around an expose’ of the current state of television news.  The movie didn’t drum up much box office during its theatrical release and the critical response was middling at best.  Yet I was intrigued enough to watch this film, as it seemed similar to movies like as Broadcast News and Working Girl, both from the 80’s and both biting commentaries of their time as well as successful films. 

This film is pretty entertaining, but it doesn’t dig deep enough into the more interesting issues and instead focuses on the entertainment factor.  I understand though, because movies for “adults” are becoming fewer and fewer in major Hollywood releases and from a business perspective it just makes more sense to go for some laughs, in hopes that people will flock to the theater to get away from the stresses of modern life.  The irony is that the more interesting aspects of this film skate around an argument troubling the news media today…“shall we entertain them or inform them?”  The movie begins to imply that good news can do both, but by the end of the film I felt like I had just been told all that really matters is to sit back and have a good time.  I think it was too much to layer into a film that the studio just really wants to use as a tent-pole romantic comedy.  Alternative programming built for date night!

I hope I don’t seem too negative, because I did find the film very entertaining, even if a bit disagreeable.  The basic set up involves Rachel McAdams as a workaholic morning news producer trying to save a failing morning show.  Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford play seasoned anchors with different philosophies.  Oh, and of course there is a love interest, played by Patrick Wilson (of Watchmen and Little Children).   Jeff Goldblum has a minor part as the boss of the failing news show and resigned to let it go.  Goldblum has a great way with words and he steals every scene he’s in.   The film gets really funny when the morning crew decides to go for broke and try to boost ratings by doing anything and everything to bring in viewers.  I won’t spoil anything, but there are some good laughs. 

Here’s a question, should a movie entertain or inform…or both?  I think some of the best films ever made have found a way to do both.  Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t place Morning Glory in that best film category, but it’s not a bad way to spend an evening.  After all, I was entertained and kept thinking about what it was trying to say afterwards.  That’s an accomplishment. 

Review: Cloverfield (2008)

Title, Year:  Cloverfield (2008)

Director:  Matt Reeves

The fictional film packaged and presented as “found film footage” has become an increasingly inventive way for filmmakers to capture audience interest since the granddaddy of them all, “The Blair Witch Project” sold-out shows back in 1999. In an interesting note, these films are almost always promoted primarily via a grass-roots Internet campaign.  They rely solely on buzz and word of mouth, taking full advantage of our 4G connected, faster than lightning world.  With films such as “Paranormal Activity” parts I and II making major coin at the box office, this has become a cool Hollywood cliché…really a fixture of the industry.   These films are usually cheap to produce, can survive without major stars, and are marketed with very little expense and effort.  I say…what’s not to love?  The audience gets a great cheap thrill and the movies really work from a business perspective. 

Now, about “Cloverfield”…this is a very good movie.  Everything works.  The film sets up the drama by introducing us to a group of friends in their mid-twenties.  Rob, the average guy with the not so average job (his apartment overlooks Central Park and must cost a fortune).  Hud, Rob’s best friend and slight comic relief.  Beth, Rob’s ex.  Marlena, the object of Hud’s affections.  Rob’s brother and his girlfriend also factor into the equation.  Basically, Rob misses Beth and regrets that they are not together so much so that he can’t focus on the fact that he has a job waiting for him out of the country.  They are all at Rob’s going away party on fine New York evening. 

Just when you start to forget what movie you are watching, tragedy strikes.  The city becomes engulfed in turmoil caused by some unknown “thing”.  The friends that we’ve been introduced to all ban together to help Rob get across Manhattan, through all the madness, to try and save Beth. 

The director, Matt Reeves, and screenwriter, Drew Goddard, use several visual devices to stir your emotions and keep the tensions at a high level.  The “thing” is at first only shown through glimpses that are captured via Hud’s camera.  This is the “less is more” method of unveiling the creature and this works wonders for the suspense in the film.  There is also a clever use of old film footage from when Beth and Rob were together that keeps popping up in the film.  This adds to the dramatic weight of the mission in a wonderful way.

I can easily say the “Cloverfield” is by far my favorite “found film footage” movie.  The running time clocks in at about 75 minutes, so it doesn’t overstay its welcome.  The run time may be short, but the filmmakers make use of every single minute.  I highly recommend you watch this movie. 

Review: Iron Man 2 (2010)

Title, Year:  Iron Man 2 (2010)

Director:  John Favreau

I’m writing this review after my third time viewing the film.  Does that mean I think it is one of the best movies of 2010 or any year? Absolutely not!  That’s just who I am…I LOVE super hero movies.  It’s only fair that I include that “disclosure” at the start of this review, so that you understand my bias. 

Ok, now about “Iron Man 2”.  It’s not as good as the first “Iron Man”.  I can’t tell you exactly why, other than to say the magic is just less.  It was such a kick watching the first “Iron Man”.  Seeing the origin of the character and getting introduced to Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark.  Downey plays Stark as a man-child whose possibly not as cool with the ladies as he likes to think he is and he gets by on his near super-human intelligence and wit.  The wit is all Downey, not really a trait that Stark exhibited in the comics, but a welcome one on-screen.  And let’s face it, “Iron Man” was really hyped because moviegoers were reintroduced to the formidable personality and comedic timing of Robert Downey Jr. 

“Iron Man 2” has moments of superb visual effects and action set pieces, such as the Expo showdown that sets up the finale.  Oddly, it also contains some poorly conceived action, as witnessed in the near laughable attack that Mickey Rourke’s Whiplash unleashes on an Italian racetrack.  I can take a lot of over the top things in movies, but someone please tell me why Whiplash would not take the opportunity to strike Tony down when he has a clear opportunity…instead allowing Stark to kick open a suitcase that explodes ever so perfectly into a form-fitting Iron Man suit???  Please!

To sum it up, Downey seems to be enjoying himself less in this film.  Since the movies really rest on his shoulders, that fact is bound to translate to down to the viewer. 

Review: Faster (2010)

Title, Year:  Faster (2010)

Director:  George Tillman Jr.

“Faster” is not a very good movie, no beating around the bush.  This is an action film with a lot of cool potential, but sadly the film (ironically titled) never quite kicks into gear. 

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson stars as Driver, a guy fresh out of prison with a major score to settle.  Let me say, I am a big fan of The Rock (as he will always be known to me).  The problem is the script doesn’t let him do much aside from strut around like a man possessed, showing off his extremely scary neck muscles, and hunting down the scoundrels who murdered his brother in cold blood.  The writing strips the personality away from the usually very charismatic Rock.  This movie is a cross between “The Crow” and “Pale Rider” in storyline and plot devices, however not nearly as good as either of those films. 

It’s really not worth anymore of my time documenting this sad case of a film.  The cinematography offers some decent landscape shots and I have a soft spot for any film that uses cool images of a Chevelle SS (I think it was a 1970 model), but alas that doesn’t a movie make. 

Review: 127 Hours (2010)

Title, Year:  127 Hours (2010)

Director:  Danny Boyle

One major problem with movies today is the lack of mystery and true emotional interaction.  The onslaught of viral information that is on the web “in your face” style would have seemed to be unimaginable just 10 to 15 years ago.  It is this hyper, plugged in mode of existence that the filmmaker Danny Boyle sprang from, having directed “Trainspotting” and “Slumdog Millionaire”.  He knows how to use music and visual images to provoke a thoughtful response.  He creates a sense that you are connected to what is going on on-screen because these elements are so powerful and resonant that you want to see what comes next. 

In ”127 Hours”, based on the life experience that Aaron Ralston chronicled in his book “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”, the outcome of the film is known before you begin – unless you have managed to avoid any and all film commentary over the course of the last year.  Aaron goes on a binge of biking and exploration through a beautiful Arizona canyon landscape and becomes trapped, his right arm pinned to a canyon wall by a bolder.  The next 127 hours of Aaron’s life are truncated to about 60 minutes on-screen. 

The film aims to paint Aaron has someone who needs no one else.  An independent spirit whose most enjoyable moments are spent alone, heading out on a hiking retreat, released from the fast food, fast moving ways of our current society.  For a brief time, Aaron comes across two young explorers, played by Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn.  Aaron uses his knowledge of the canyon area and experience to help guide and show them some of the secrets of this magical place.  He makes a connection then sets off once more to continue his journey, alone and free to roam.

Without sharing more detail than I have to about the rest of Aaron’s journey, I will say that James Franco shines in the remaining moments of the film.  When Aaron gets stuck, you see all the emotions that one would expect.  I found myself thinking…wondering if I would be this strong, if I would be able to handle this?  When Aaron is forced to make the toughest decision, either make a dramatic sacrifice or succumb to the event, there appears to be no real choice at all.  I was rooting for him to survive.  Boyle uses images of Aaron’s past and visions of what Aaron perceives to be his future to take you into his mind and show the audience a glimpse of the thoughts he had during his nightmarish ordeal.  The result is an interactive, exciting vision of human courage.

What is evoked more than anything in this story is that what matters most in life are the connections we make; to family, to friends, to everyone we meet.  These are connections that we often take for granted, as did Aaron, with a deep regret.  What looms over the story is the fact that Aaron did not bother to tell anyone where he was going.  He chose complete isolation and thus created no possible scenario for rescue. 

“127 Hours” is about the will to survive that exists in us all.  It is about the courage that we all have within ourselves.  It is about the experience of our personal lives and how that experience is not only enhanced by the connections we make with others, but the fact that those connections are essential to our existence.