Larry Crowne

Rating: ★★

The Cast Away and the Pretty Woman

Larry Crowne is the sort of movie you watch with anticipation of it being different somewhere along the way. I’m sure you’ve heard the joke by now that it’s two hours of Tom Hanks on a scooter, and that’s pretty much accurate. Obviously there’s a bit more to it than that, but that’s the gist of it. Tom Hanks is on a scooter, and he’s a nice guy who gets the girl. Spoiler? No, because you’ve seen movies about nice guys before. This one is no different. You can see it coming from about a mile away, just like a Vespa.


And there are tons of Vespas in this one. Our story begins with nine-time employee of the month Larry Crowne (Hanks) becoming a sudden ‘non-employee’ of the month when he’s downsized at the local retail store for not going to college. Sacked, and recovering from a crippling divorce in the middle of an awful economy, what’s a man to do? Well, he sells his worldly possessions, climbs aboard a scooter, and goes back to community college. At least that’s what people would do in Nia Vardalos’ world (remember how good her screenplay was for My Big Fat Greek Wedding?). I wonder if she would do the same if she were finally thrown out of Hollywood… Her films since Greek Wedding haven’t left too much to be desired.

There isn’t much to say about a movie that doesn’t have much to say. Larry Crowne is the ultimate everyman, but that doesn’t make him a character. The only true character in the film is barely discernable, and not even the focus. Julia Roberts plays Mercedes Tainot, Crowne’s “Speech 217” teacher - her life is hard, she hates teaching, and her marriage to her husband (Bryan Cranston) is crumbling. She does excellent work, as does Hanks admittedly, and their chemistry together is perfect. But when there’s nothing going on in the film to invest in, how do you invest in the characters? Sure, you can look around and find pieces of yourself… but that only goes so far.

Crowne joins a ‘gang’ of scooter-enthusiasts after making quick friends with the quirky, flirty, and beautiful Talia (Mbatha-Raw). This isn’t the type of gang you might think of. That would require the film to have some sort of conflict or dramatic engagement. No, this scooter gang is the type that might do a drive-by redecoration. Of course it’s hinted that both Crowne (whom she has renamed “Lance Corona”, as if it sounds cooler) and Talia might have feelings for each other, but note that she’s a flighty girl with a free spirit in a movie about a guy who needs a push in his life. That’s all you really need to know. The only true human relationship hinted at in the film is between Crowne and Mrs. Tainot, watching how their own personalities collide and push each other to grow.

It’s important to understand this - Larry Crowne isn’t a bad movie, anymore than Larry Crowne is a bad guy. It’s nice, sweet, and simple. Two hours of good stuff happening to a good guy. A good guy who rides a scooter and helps influence other people. And, this will sound weird, but… remember in That Thing You Do!, how there was so much positive energy floating around that you couldn’t notice that the film was terribly bland until after you finished watching it? Tom Hanks directed that the same way he directs this - positive flow; bland payoff. Once it was over, I felt like I had witnessed something uplifting and genuine, but in reflection while writing this, I couldn’t help but notice the utter lack of spirit surrounding the whole project. It’s as if Vardalos and Hanks simply wanted to pour sugar on something bitter.

Zookeeper

Rating: ★★★

"Don't ever call me 'Bobo' again, damnit"

You’d think that a movie about Kevin James talking to animals wouldn’t be amusing, right? I would think that, too. And, I did, since I started seeing the banners all over San Francisco during my coffee outings with friends and co-workers. We’d joke back and forth about him being a tubby Dr. Dolittle, or Dr. Eatmuch, or whatever. But, those are low blows. Fact is, Kevin James is a talented guy, and a decent actor who gets stuck doing the second-hand Chris Farley shtick for Camp Sandler (you know, Adam Sandler and his best friends; Grown Ups, being as good as it is, is an exception). Here, watching Kevin James have talk soup with a gorilla isn’t as bad as it might seem, simply because of what they’re saying. Of course, you can raise an eyebrow or both about the screenplay taking five writers to finish, but… no, let’s just enjoy the story.

Griffin (Kevin James) is a zookeeper. Get it? That, and he’s a hopeless romantic. The film opens with a seemingly out of place shot of him riding on a horse with his girlfriend, Stephanie (Leslie Gibb). She’s not the one for him, as she turns down his proposal in a heartbeat. Never mind all the stops that were pulled out. Those don’t matter, really. Five years later, Griffin seems to be back on his feet, still working for the zoo, tending the animals, and kind of crushing but not really on the infinitely better-for-him Kate (the infallible Rosario Dawson). I can say infinitely better because there’s a formula at work here that’s as old as animal husbandry. Goofy guy tries to get his hot ex back using goofy routines, only to discover that being goofy is suave and gets a better girl. The difference here is that the animals are hooking him up.

The voices of the animals are as follows - Bernie the Gorilla is Nick Nolte, Donald the Monkey is Adam Sandler, Joe the Lion is Sylvester Stallone, Janet the Lioness is Cher, Barry the Elephant is Judd Apatow, Jerome the Bear is Jon Favreau, Bruce the Bear is Faizon Love, Mollie the Giraffe is Maya Rudolph, Sebastian the Wolf is Bas Rutten, and then there’s simply ‘frog’ by Don Rickles. That’s a hell of a voice-over team. And each actor is perfectly suited for their animals. They’re the most entertaining part of the film, especially the way their dialogue is designed, almost as if to fit whatever extra footage they had of the animals playing around. Their interactions are fantastic.

It’s unfortunate that the film follows as much formula as it does, given the opportunities for gold that it mines; the idea of using the animals’ own mating habits to get Griffin his girl isn’t exactly screenwriting gold, but the execution is loads of fun. Could have run a bit deeper and meant a bit more, and the humor probably could have been either broader or darker (think, oh… Strange Wilderness, for example). But, that might belie the intent of the screenplay. Just to show a sweet story about a man, a woman, their love, and its connection with nature. Or, maybe I’m even reading too much into that. Maybe they just wanted Kevin James to be fat with some animals for an hour and a half. Either way, both intentions were realized, and they pay off was better than it should have been. Predictable ending, but… formula. It’s almost Darwinian.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Rating: ★★

"Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Optimus?"

You know your movie is in trouble when you’re 20 minutes in and there’s no discernable plot. That’s also an indication that your movie is directed by Michael Bay. Also, that it’s part of the Transformers series. A general rule of screenwriting is that you have to hook your audience in the first ten pages (one page equals about one minute). Transformers assumes its audience is hooked from the first trailer, expecting people to shell out money for the tickets like they would for the refills of popcorn. And, of course, they were right. This is one of the biggest films of the year, and there seems to be no stopping it.

What we don’t seem to know about American history is that during the Apollo 11 moon landing, the astronauts discovered alien life. Not just any alien life, but the Transformers. Buzz Aldrin and his team unearthed a transport ship carrying “pillars” that were meant to build a space bridge, transporting pieces of the doomed planet Cybertron to a new location. Where? Well, if you’ve seen the last two movies, you can piece that together. We have the Autobots and the Decepticons locked in eternal war, battling for control of their race. Make? Design? Can we even call the Transformers a race? Whatever. That part isn’t important. What is important, however, is that the Autobots have formed an alliance with the humans and there’s… a war. Again. For a third time.

The flaw in the Transformers movies is that there’s the plot, and then there’s the action. And then there's the last hour of the movie that the two shall never meet. Think of it like the old adage - “Sex scenes in movies help drive the plot. Plot in porn helps drive the sex scenes.” The action scenes in Transformers, and in most action movies these days, drive what little plot there is. And by drive, I mean hammer. Right into the ground. There’s excess, and then there’s “a film by Michael Bay”. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the mythology the films have set up, let me break it down for you. There’s this kid, Sam Whitwicky (Shia LeBeauf) who got a car. Not just a car, but a classic Chevy that is actually a transformer. And there are other Transformers and they do some things. That’s really the extent of it. Yes, fans will cry “foul!” over that description, but that is sincerely all there is to make of it. If you can go further and not make me laugh, be my guest.

The problem, and this is the most integral problem of the whole franchise, is that it’s hard to care for a hunk of metal. The only reason that people are involved at all is, instinctively, because these hunks of metal come with power windows, four-wheel drive, automatic locks, plenty of trunk space, but absolutely zero personality. So, to circumvent that, we’re given Shia LeBeauf and John Turturro. That, and a slew of other actors. Frances McDormand, Patrick Dempsey, John Malkovich, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson... all actors too talented for a mess like this.  I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a fan of Megan Fox - I think she has a lot more on the ball than people are giving her credit for; and there’s a lot of talk about the disputes between her and Michael Bay during the filming of these films (hence her being replaced in this). But, that’s a story for another article. The point is, the actors are the best part, and the dialogue, no matter how inane, is always well delivered. Michael Bay has that part right - the easiest way to hook your audience in an action film is good, quick dialogue; not just big, loud explosions.

Bay is a talented filmmaker who makes bad movies. Sure - the story goes that with the second Transformers, that got critically destroyed, there was no script, the actors improvised most of their lines, Megan Fox wasn’t even present for most of the filming, etc. There’s all that - and then there’s the fact that even while Michael Bay can direct his actors to say things well, and then put a couple of big, snazzy explosions in between those lines, he just can’t tell a coherent story. There’s the miracle film of his called The Rock, and then there’s everything else. Big, pretty, loud, fun =/= intelligent.

Bad Teacher

Rating: ★

Bad teacher, worse car-washer.

There’s a special place in Hell reserved for people like Elisabeth Halsey. She’s a drunk, drug-abusing, materialistic gold-digger, and makes no bones about it. If you took one look at the woman, you’d think trophy wife, and move on. As well you should. What you wouldn’t think, however, is “teacher”. Role model, etc. Of course, that’s all part of the joke of the movie. Get it? Of course you do - it’s spelled out to the point where it isn’t funny anymore. Bad Teacher takes the idea that made Bad Santa so funny, and pile drives it into slapstick oblivion. Where in Bad Santa, the Santa was a criminal posing as a Santa. In Bad Teacher, this woman is actually a teacher, posing as a good person. The joke is lost in the translation.

I don’t really get it anymore.

More after the cut--

Horrible Bosses

Rating: ★★★

Cry me a *beep* river, Charlie. 

Part of my process for reviewing whatever it is I watch, I sit down and read as much about the film as possible - be it production notes, or other reviews. Reading other reviews for Horrible Bosses, I’m surprised that the film has taken off as well as it has. Certified “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes at 75%, and many critics have given it three-four stars. Note - this of course doesn’t mean that I didn’t thoroughly enjoy the movie. It’s a comedy perfectly suited to my tastes, even if a bit sloppily executed. In the realm of “awful workplace” comedies, it falls just short of the greatness achieved by 9 to 5 or Office Space (the granddaddy of them all). Still, though, even on reflection, Horrible Bosses takes pinches of both and creates something unique to itself.

More after the cut--

Gangs of New York

Rating: ★★★★

They're about to literally stomp the yard.

The critical divide over this film is astounding, even after almost ten years since it was released. The general consensus seems to be "it's an excellent film, but a touch unnecessary". I can understand that, and in some ways I'm inclined to agree. But, when reviewing a film, it's important to not think of it in an existential way (unless, of course, it requires that). What the film is, regardless of its necessity, is a sprawling epic and a beautifully told story. Filled with large characters and passionate direction. In some ways, it's a masterpiece. In other ways, it's just a damn good film.

Most people understand the word 'masterpiece' as being the singular pinnacle of an artist's career. I've always understood it to mean a piece of work that reflects the artist being at the top of their game. And by that definition, Martin Scorsese's career is loaded with masterpieces. So much so that the standard of 'masterpiece' becomes a bit higher for him. Gangs of New York, as Roger Ebert once remarked (and I'm saying this here because I've agreed with him for almost ten years now), would have been any other director's masterpiece. But in a filmography that contains Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, The Age of Innocence, etc.... it falls just short. A towering achievement, nevertheless, but not 'his masterpiece'.

More after the cut --

Super 8

Rating: ★★★★

Taking lessons from JJ Abrams

I'd call it the best Spielberg movie never made, but his role as a producer limits the truth of that statement. His signature is all over the film, especially in terms of the craft. But, I think that has more to do with J.J. Abrams (Lost, Star Trek, etc.) than anything else. Super 8 is most definitely a love letter to Steven Spielberg, and if the multiple shots of people looking just slightly off camera, the musical cues, and the treatment of the action is any indication, Abrams is most definitely in love. I've heard the film referred to as Stand By Me meets ET meets The Goonies, but... adding The Goonies to that list sort of insults the film. I say this, because I've always hated The Goonies, and I always will. But, that's for another post. 

More after the cut--

The Ballad of Jack and Rose

Rating: ★★

Another argument for the dangers of home schooling.

The Ballad of Jack and Rose furthers my argument that if The Parent Trap had only been about one child, it would have been a psychological drama. Haley Mills of course never had the near clinical sense of vacancy that Camilla Belle has as an actress. That isn't a knock on Belle, merely an observation - this character seems perfectly tailored to her abilities as a young actress. She's wonderful here, in ways that she isn't in other things. Of course, comparing this film to, oh... 10,000 BC is a bit like comparing this film to The Parent Trap. This is a film that deals with deep emotional issues, and some oddly specific parts of human nature - yet, it never manages to go as deep as it might suggest. And the film's director, Rebecca Miller (daughter of The Crucible's playwright Arthur Miller, and also Daniel Day-Lewis' wife), might not have been ready to delve into the story she presented. 

More after the cut--

There Will Be Blood

Rating: ★★★★

I drink your milkshake.

If Daniel Day-Lewis tells you he’s a Mohican Indian, you believe him. If he tells you he has cerebral palsy and can only use his left foot, you believe him. And if he tells you he’s an oil man, you will agree. He’s taken much criticism in his wild approaches to method acting, but I’ve often said in his defense - yes, the journey might be outlandish, but it’s all about what’s on screen. It’s the performance, not just the preparation.

There Will Be Blood is a dark comedy, in the same way that Lars Von Trier’s Dogville is; it is sound and furious, satirizing nothing. A rare period piece that feels lifted from its implied period, rather than feeling filmed in 2007, the film takes place between 1898 and 1927. I’m always pleased when a period film manages not to suffer from what I call ‘Yesterday Syndrome’. The film has an early American, as well as an oily and slick, feel. Paul Thomas Anderson’s screenplay is derived from only pieces of Upton Sinclair’s novel “Oil!”

More after the cut --

Trust

Rating: ★★★★

If you're looking for a film that sums itself up, or answers the tough questions it proposes, this isn't the film for you. Consider it to be a less vacuous version of The Lovely Bones - but, without a realization that there's some form of God or Heaven. And it's that supreme grounding of reality that keeps Trust from being almost too much to handle. If the film had taken any other route, it would have been exploitative of its drama and lead actress, and deaf to the complaints it would gather. Thankfully, David Schwimmer makes a multitude of brave decisions in his direction of the film - the bravest of which, I fully believe, is showing the villain's face. He's real - and you probably know someone exactly like him. That's the real terror. 

More after the cut--

Nine

Rating: ★★

Directing is easy. Yes, no, yes, no.

The lyrics in the first song seem to set up the rules for the movie. Maestro Contini is a director going through one hell of a mid-life crisis. He is making a movie, but has no script - a sort of poignant nod to his life having no direction. Much like the movie he's in has no direction. Guido, our anti-hero, wants to be "everywhere at once, though that's a contradiction in terms". Nine suffers the same fate: it's too many places at once, never stopping to focus on the good ideas it hints at along the way. Another indication of the film comes from a small exchange of dialog between the director and his costume designer. She tells him "directing is easy, maestro. 'Yes, no, yes, no'". Apparently, she nailed Rob Marshall's intent when direction this misguided take on the Broadway musical. Apathetic. 

More after the cut--

Win Win

Rating: ★★★

He's still shocked he did Shoot 'Em Up.

Movies like Win Win don't really have a purpose. Movies don't need a purpose, in general, but Win Win also doesn't have a point. It is what it is, and it's there, so we have to accept that. Thomas McCarthy usually makes films with points; strong character pieces like The Station Agent and The Visitor. I think the point here might have been about winning, but... maybe I'm just over-thinking everything. Win Win is more of a loss/profit. Really, there isn't anything wrong with the film Sure, some of the performances are a bit... loose,  but mainly everything falls in to place. The problem with the film is that everything falls into place too neatly toward the end. For such a weird story, it needn't be this straightforward. 

More after the cut--

X-Men: First Class

Rating: ★★★

Even superheroes get ice cream headaches. 

It takes a certain kind of superhero film to get me going. They either have to be extremely operatic (consider X2: X-Men United) or grounded in gritty realism (The Dark Knight, anyone?). Thankfully, X-Men: First Class, dubbed by Richard Roeper as a "pre-boot" (you know, like "prequel and reboot"), found a way to be both without feeling contrived. The first two films, helmed by Bryan Singer, found that balance easily. Then Brett Ratner took over the franchise and made X-Men: The Last Stand completely cartoonish and unbearable. Then, Wolverine took a step closer to the realism that was required, but... well, managed to screw that up, too. Matthew Vaughn, who directed Kick-Ass last year, brings it back to good and manages to capture Bryan Singer's impeccable tone with his entry. It's funny, it's dark, parts of it are incredibly sad, and it's exciting. 

More after the cut--

Take Me Home Tonight

Rating: ★

That 80's Movie

I think the most ironically unsatisfying thing about this movie is that it is funny. But, when I look back on it, what was I laughing at that wasn't a hollow punchline I had heard before? In other, better movies, no less. More so than acting as an homage to 80's movies, it acts as an homage to the 80's itself - a decade where people were just discovering excess and learning what cocaine was. The characters here aren't really characters, but stereotypes of the characters they should have been. It's a thin veil, but someone had to inhabit it. It's a shame, though, that the actors uniformly do a good job. They just don't have anything to work with.

More after the cut--

Hobo With a Shotgun

Rating : ★ ★ ★

Spare your change

If you don't get the joke right away, you'll be uncomfortable for the next 90 minutes. Hobo With a Shotgun is a special kind of movie; consider the way that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre explains its purpose solely by its title. It's in Texas, and someone massacres people with a chainsaw. Hobo With a Shotgun is just that - there's a homeless man, and he has a shotgun. That's never a good combination. We've seen this plot before, though - numerous times. Part Taxi Driver, part Walking Tall, part any "old man fights back" movie, this is neo-Grindhouse in its ugliest form. Of course, Grindhouse cinema, almost by definition, isn't pretty. Shoddy production values, you'll find poorly edited reels of film with scratches on them, boom microphones hanging in the shots... (not here, though, thankfully). 

Grindhouse, by a sort of... standardized definition - low-budget filmmaking in the hands of a skilled director, made solely to mess with you. That, simply, is Hobo with a Shotgun. To drive home the Grindhouse point even more, the only reason this film exists is because of 2007's Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez Grindhouse. It comes in two parts, and has fake trailers in between each actual movie. Machete was one of them. This is one of the others. It was created by the director, Jason Eisman, for Canadian showings of their film. Amazingly, it got enough support to become a full feature film.

More after the cut--

Priest

He can bench press that.

I learned a word today. I think it perfectly captures my feelings of Priest. The word is "desultory"; adj. - lacking a plan, purpose, or enthusiasm. Priest, in effect, is desultory. Loosely based, almost in name only, on a series of Korean graphic novels that found their way to American early in the 2000's, the film takes place on a post-apocalyptic alternate world, sometime in the future, where a church of warrior priests have eradicated an evil race of vampires. The film is directed by Scott Charles Stewart, whom you may remember directed Legion - another movie about men of God fighting the good fight against demons and undead alike. Stewart seems to have stonewalled his own career, essentially making the same movie twice. And he's taught moviegoers a valuable lesson - good trailers don't make good movies. 

More after the cut--

Kung Fu Panda 2

The wild bunch

Perhaps the most important aspect of Kung Fu Panda 2, and I never thought I would type this, is that the series is aging with its fans. So much so that I could expect Panda 3 to be the most adult of the series. They've already started exploring more personal themes than the last entry, which mostly took the themes of following your heart and believing in yourself and employed them. Here, the story deepens more than you might expect, dealing with themes of adoption, unrequited love, and acceptance of others. More importantly, the imagination of the film has grown ten fold. 

More after the cut--

The Town

The Town - doing it better than Point Break since 2010.

In 1997, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon gave us a soft an emotional tour of Boston in Good Will Hunting, as they knew it growing up. They explored the values of hope and family. In 2007, ten years later, Ben Affleck went it alone and took us back to Boston with Gone Baby Gone, exploring themes of loss and grief, right and wrong. In 2010, Affleck took us to the doorstep, sat us down on the curb, and said "Watch." The town, Charlestown, to be specific, lives and breathes by itself - the central hub of bank robberies in New England. The film's opening quotes tell us that the trade is almost a birthright - something you're born into, or against. And for the four lads in this film, it's the only life they know. And they'll go to incredible lengths to protect it. 

More after the cut--

Please Give

Throw Mama From the Apartment

When Jack Nicholson in As Good as it Gets was asked "how do you write such great women?", his novelist character responds "Write a man, take away all reason". Nicole Holofcener didn't take that advice, and she's probably the best writer of women in Hollywood, behind in the indelible Woody Allen, that is. I don't think anyone can top him. But, as he's in a class of his own (it can be said that Woody writes Woody's women well, and that's it), Nicole Holofcener might be the best in the game. For a further example, seek out Lovely & Amazing, her feature from 2001, also starring Catherine Keener. Please Give and Lovely & Amazing aren't too similar in content, but the aftertaste is the same - you've just witnessed something daring and tangible. Something more exciting than most things studios push out these days. Please Give is a darkly sweet comedy about the destructive and oddly uplifting power of guilt - and, subsequently, what it does to a person. Or, rather, a group of people. 

More after the cut --

Dorian Gray

Caspian done goofed.

You would think that turning an Oliver Wilde novel into a sensationalized, nearly exploitative camp piece of pulp fiction might prove impossible. But, Oliver Parker would prove you wrong. Shamefully so, seeing as how his adaptations of other Wilde works, like An Ideal Husband or The Importance of Being Earnest, have been lauded and for good reason. Even more amazing, Dorian Gray failed to find a distributor in the United States, and was doomed to a "direct to DVD" release, after a theatrical release in the United Kingdom. As it stands, though, Dorian Gray is all about the atmosphere in this version, not so much about the preservation of Wilde's wit nor the story itself. It's unfortunate, but that's what we're left with at the end of the film. Lots of pomp, very little circumstance. 

More after the cut--