Rhapsidiom

Rich Raddon

2008-11-25T19:22:00.001-08:00

I haven't posted anything here for a while, but the following story just breaks my heart:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-raddonresigns26-2008nov26,0,5947908.story

Penelope (2008)

2008-03-01T19:24:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / March 1, 2008

When I was little, I had a Miss Piggy puppet. One night I awoke with an achy arm. The first thing I beheld was that fierce-eyed Miss Piggy doll, and my little-kid brain decided she must have bitten me. (The truth is, Kermit the Frog probably saw us sleeping together.) Regardless of the reason behind my arm pain, I’ve had a Miss Piggy phobia ever since. Had I seen “Penelope” when I was that age, I would have dropped over dead. But even at 31 years old, the premise still made me nervous.

“Penelope” is a delightful fairy tale about a girl who is born with a pig’s nose. Actually, it’s her nose, but it resembles a pig’s nose. As an infant, she also has pig’s ears, but we don’t see those when she’s older. Penelope (Christina Ricci, “Black Snake Moan”) had a rich great, great, great grandpa on her father’s side who fell in love with a young lady from the wrong side of the tracks. Because of peer pressure, he opted to break the impoverished gal’s heart. She committed suicide.

The dead girl’s mother was a witch (yes, a real witch) and she placed a curse on the grandpa’s posterity so that the first-born daughter would have a pig’s nose. Lo and behold, the forthcoming generations of children were all boys until Penelope was born.

Penelope’s parents are elite socialites with highly publicized lives. But when they have Penelope, her mother panics and keeps the baby in hiding. When Penelope is dating age, her mother tirelessly tries to marry her off to another “old-money, blue-blooded” young man; because, as legend has it, that is the only way to break the pig-nose curse. The only trouble is, when the dashing suitors see Penelope’s face, they literally become dashing suitors: rich kids running like they’re headed for the bank in October 1929.

“Penelope” isn’t your typical Cinderella story. It’s weird and whimsical like a Roald Dahl tale. It is well made, well cast and well worth seeing. Yet, it is one of those hypocritical comedies like “I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry” (2007); except, instead of telling us not to ridicule gays (while ridiculing gays), “Penelope” suggests that we shouldn’t make fun of unusual-looking people while making fun of unusual-looking people.

Catherine O’Hara plays Penelope’s mother, entertaining us with an amusing blend of her Kate McCallister from “Home Alone” (1990) and Delia from “Beetle Juice” (1988). She’s perfect for the role. And we get to see a street-smart side of Reese Witherspoon, who is also one of the film’s producers. James McAvoy plays Max, Penelope’s potential love interest.

Again, “Penelope” seems to want to be a message movie. It is aimed squarely at the fragile self-esteems of young girls, ages nine to 17. It is a tale of self-acceptance that oddly reneges on its preparatory good works, pulling the moral out from under us (and its lead character).

But no matter, it seems it was all for naught, anyway: Near the end of the movie, we’re given a sight gag where a dwarf actor, Peter Dinklage, is rowing a miniature boat. And the audience laughs. Ha ha. Ho ho. Indeed, the very same audience who was just moments before appalled by the other characters’ thoughtless laughter at Penelope’s birth defect. … We’re fast learners.

Directed by Mark Palansky
Christina Ricci / James McAvoy / Reese Witherspoon
Comedy / Romance 102 min.
MPAA: PG (for thematic elements, some innuendo and language)

U.S. Release Date: February 29, 2008
Copyright 2008: 250

Semi-Pro (2008)

2008-02-29T19:56:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 29, 2008

“Semi-Pro” is semi-funny. But then again, any movie that has Will Ferrell karate-chopping a grizzly bear in the neck is worth checking out.

The year is 1976. The town is Flint, Michigan. And the game is basketball. Jackie Moon (Will Ferrell) owns, coaches, pre-game-announces and plays power-forward for the Tropics, an American Basketball Association (ABA) team. He is also the team’s “expert choreographer” and promoter.

A one-hit wonder, Moon got all his money from his song “Love Me Sexy,” a comical, steamy little tune that evokes Barry White. The Tropics’ motto, which is enforced by Moon, is ELE (no, not Extinction Level Event, you “Deep Impact” fans) but simply “Everybody Love Everybody.” Don’t forget: This is the ‘70s.

But changes are afoot. The ABA is quickly going under. And at the end of this current season, four ABA teams will merge with the NBA and become professional franchises. The four teams with the best records will be exalted and the losers will be extinct. The problem is, Jackie Moon’s Tropics are more entertainers than basketball players (but not like the Harlem Globetrotters).

And that brings up a good point. Basketball fans shouldn’t expect to see a comical version of “Hoosiers” (1986). Let’s remember, this is a Will Ferrell movie, after all; and though he’s a tall man, you don’t get the feeling from the movie that basketball is one of his hobbies. Indeed, Ferrell’s “Blades of Glory” (2007) with Jon Heder has more ice skating than “Semi-Pro” has basketball, which is fine. The point is, don’t expect a big basketball flick.

“Semi-Pro” is great at resurrecting the ‘70s. We get nice touches like jokes about the variations on the “high-five” (there were many), America’s newest food crazes, Pong, the invention of new basketball plays and “Mother, Jugs & Speed” on a movie marquis, which did in fact hit theaters in 1976.

Aside from the bout with Dewie the Killer Bear (which gives a shout-out to “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story”), the funniest scene involves a crowded poker table, a not-loaded handgun and the words “jive turkey.” The movie is worth seeing for this one scene, but I’m not sure anybody younger than 18 should see it. It’s not that it’s dirty, it’s just reckless.

Overall, “Semi-Pro” isn’t a bottom-rung comedy like “Witless Protection.” It’s more along the lines of “Hot Rod” (2007): funny but not hilarious; good but not great. “Semi-Pro” missteps by having Will Ferrell semi-worried and semi-responsible, instead of turning him to his usual full-blown mania. If you’d like to see Will Ferrell in a worrisome role, on the other hand, make sure you see “Stranger Than Fiction” (2006). It is, without question, his best movie to date and one of the best films of 2006.

Directed by Kent Alterman
Will Ferrell / Woody Harrelson / André Benjamin
Comedy / Sports 90 min.
MPAA: R (for language and some sexual content)

U.S. Release Date: February 29, 2008
Copyright 2008: 249

The Winners of the 80th Annual Academy Awards

2008-02-25T01:07:00.001-08:00

2007 was a pretty good year for cinema. These are the results of the Academy Award-winners in each of the 24 categories for outstanding film achievements. The Academy Awards were presented on Sunday, February 24, 2008, at the Kodak Theatre. For more information, visit www.oscars.org

1. Best motion picture of the year:
O “Atonement”
O “Juno”
O “Michael Clayton”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”

2. Achievement in directing:
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “Juno”
O “Michael Clayton”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”

3. Performance by an actress in a leading role:
O Cate Blanchett in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”
O Julie Christie in “Away From Her”
X Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en Rose”
O Laura Linney in “The Savages”
O Ellen Page in “Juno”

4. Performance by an actor in a leading role:
O George Clooney in “Michael Clayton”
X Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood”
O Johnny Depp in “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”
O Tommy Lee Jones in “In the Valley of Elah”
O Viggo Mortensen in “Eastern Promises”

5. Performance by an actress in a supporting role:
O Cate Blanchett in “I’m Not There”
O Ruby Dee in “American Gangster”
O Saoirse Ronan in “Atonement”
O Amy Ryan in “Gone Baby Gone”
X Tilda Swinton in “Michael Clayton”

6. Performance by an actor in a supporting role:
O Casey Affleck in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”
X Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men”
O Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Charlie Wilson’s War”
O Hal Holbrook in “Into the Wild”
O Tom Wilkinson in “Michael Clayton”

7. Adapted screenplay:
O “Atonement”
O “Away From Her”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”

8. Original screenplay:
X “Juno”
O “Lars and the Real Girl”
O “Michael Clayton”
O “Ratatouille”
O “The Savages”

9. Best documentary feature:
O “No End in Sight”
O “Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience”
O “Sicko”
X “Taxi to the Dark Side”
O “War/Dance”

10. Best documentary short subject:
X “Freeheld”
O “La Corona (The Crown)”
O “Salim Baba”
O “Sari’s Mother”

11. Best foreign language film of the year:
O “Beaufort” (Israel)
X “The Counterfeiters” (Austria)
O “Katyn” (Poland)
O “Mongol” (Kazakhstan)
O “12” (Russia)

12. Best animated feature film of the year:
O “Persepolis”
X “Ratatouille”
O “Surf’s Up”

13. Best animated short film:
O “I Met the Walrus”
O “Madame Tutli-Putli”
O “Meme Les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)
O “My Love (Moya Lyubov)”
X “Peter & the Wolf”

14. Best live action short film:
O “At Night”
O “Il Supplente (The Substitute)”
X “Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)”
O “Tanghi Argentini”
O “The Tonto Woman”

15. Achievement in cinematography:
O “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”
O “Atonement”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “No Country for Old Men”
X “There Will Be Blood”

16. Achievement in visual effects:
X “The Golden Compass”
O “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”
O “Transformers”

17. Achievement in film editing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “Into the Wild”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”

18. Achievement in sound editing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “Ratatouille”
O “There Will Be Blood”
O “Transformers”

19. Achievement in sound mixing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “Ratatouille”
O “3:10 to Yuma”
O “Transformers”

20. Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score):
X “Atonement”
O “The Kite Runner”
O “Michael Clayton”
O “Ratatouille”
O “3:10 to Yuma”

21. Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song):
X “Falling Slowly” from “Once”
O “Happy Working Song” from “Enchanted”
O “Raise It Up” from “August Rush”
O “So Close” from “Enchanted”
O “That’s How You Know” from “Enchanted”

22. Achievement in art direction:
O “American Gangster”
O “Atonement”
O “The Golden Compass”
X “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”
O “There Will Be Blood”

23. Achievement in costume design:
O “Across the Universe”
O “Atonement”
X “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”
O “La Vie en Rose”
O “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”

24. Achievement in makeup:
X “La Vie en Rose”
O “Norbit”
O “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”

Witless Protection (2008)

2008-02-25T00:46:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 25, 2008

Benny Provenzano, my former karate instructor, taught us a Code of Ethics. The first one was “Look for the good in all people, and make them feel worthwhile.” That was later amended to “…and help them develop self-esteem.” Out of respect for that code, I can say perhaps Larry the Cable Guy is noble. There has to be something noble about wanting to make people laugh.

During his new movie, “Witless Protection,” some of my fellow audience members laughed, though I did not. I just don’t think gallows humor or redneck jokes are funny. As my fellow critic Luke Hickman observed, Larry the Cable Guy (and Jeff Foxworthy) keep “beating that dead, redneck horse.”

And somehow, I feel like a bully when I review these types of movies. First of all, they intend to be stupid. Even the title suggests an insult, referring to its lead character as witless. In some weird way, calling a meant-to-be-stupid movie stupid is actually a compliment, as it is acknowledging that its objective was successfully attained. Moreover, movie critics’ reviews of these kinds of flicks are largely unnecessary, because anyone who sees the trailer or hears the name “Larry the Cable Guy” already knows exactly what to expect.

But I care enough about the cinema to look into this movie, rather than turning my nose up at it. Admittedly, I quickly dismissed Larry the Cable Guy’s movie, “Delta Farce,” as the worst movie of the year in 2007. And it probably was. But “Witless Protection” is an improvement (albeit slight); and as a major motion picture release, it deserves an observant review, just like any other film. (Why does this review all of a sudden feel like Jerry Maguire’s infamous “The Things We Think and Do Not Say: The Future of Our Business” memo?)

There are some common threads through Larry’s movies. He seems to enjoy the good-hearted, good ol’ boy character who foolishly fumbles his way into “doing some good,” despite his seemingly blatant incompetence. In “Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector” (2006), he tackles a food poisoning epidemic. With “Delta Farce” (2007), he basically remakes a lesser version of “Three Amigos!” (1986).

In “Witless Protection,” Larry Stalder (Larry the Cable Guy) is a small-town law man, a sheriff’s deputy in Amicus County, Mississippi, who’s dedicated to his work. In fact, Larry even practices his police skills along with training videos and various homemade rigs that simulate the rigors of law enforcement. Ultimately, Larry aspires to become an FBI agent.

Naturally, he sort of gets his chance. A group of mysterious men in black blow through Larry’s town, escorting an unhappy woman named Madeleine (Ivana Milicevic). It turns out that the men in black are FBI agents who are transferring her under the safety of the witness protection program to testify in a corporate-scandal trial in Chicago. But of course, Larry assumes that Madeleine is being kidnapped and kidnaps her from the FBI. A chase ensues as Larry plans to personally deliver Madeleine safely at the trial. All the while, the FBI agents follow behind, and so do those who wish the girl harm.

In addition to this story line, you can expect slapstick, redneck jokes, plenty of bodily functions and gross-out humor. Indeed, there’s a pea green projectile vomiting scene that rivals “The Exorcist” (1973). And, of course, you get Larry’s standup routine metaphors, such as “…busier than a blow-up doll at a frat party,” or “…faster than Angelina Jolie adoptin’ jungle pigmies.”

“Witless Protection” has some senseless dialogue that I’m not sure how it made it into the movie. For instance, at one point Larry says, “You can’t make an omelet without crackin’ a few walnuts.” A line like this is inexplicable. If you think I’m being nitpicky, consider this exchange: “Are you insane?” “No, I’m Larry.” Or how about, “I’m going to miss your bodily functions.” There’s a difference between intentional, dumb writing and just plain laziness.

Setup and pay-off is a screenwriter’s trick that’s just like it sounds: There is something set up that we know about that comes back around again, later in the story, as the pay-off. As far as setups and pay-offs go, “Witless Protection” has a real winner. Larry sticks a corn cob into the FBI guys’ vehicle’s tailpipe. The camera shows us a close-up. Action, action, then the camera shows another close-up of the corn cob stuck in the tailpipe. More action, action, and finally, we see popcorn blowing out of the tail pipe. Nothing else happens, just some popcorn. … What? Perhaps the point was that we were expecting the corn to be some effective form of sabotage, and it was harmless. Again, I say laziness.

There’s something else I can’t figure out: Is Larry the Cable Guy truly making fun of rednecks or is he celebrating them? It’s probably a combination of both. But it’s peculiar to me that he chooses to embody the persona of that which he ridicules. He is ambiguous in this way.

Another example of that ambiguity is a scene where Larry unleashes a stream of racial slurs, suggesting that a man he thinks is Arab is associated with terrorism. Now, is this an actual racist comment about the fears of having various ethnicities live and work in America, or is it Larry the Cable Guy making fun of ignorant people who exhibit racist behavior like this? The cartoon, “Family Guy,” has been accused on many occasions of blatant racism and political incorrectness. But the intent is to show how ignorant, irrational and small-minded it is to think and act like Peter Griffin.

Larry the Cable Guy’s movies tend to have other unmistakable targets for both tribute and criticism. In “Witless Protection,” there’s a nod to the U.S. troops, and there’s an attack on post-9/11 airport security. These attention-getters are always conspicuous, but these films would be smarter to employ more subtlety. Indeed, there’s nothing subtle about Larry the Cable Guy’s characters or his movies.

Obviously there’s a market for this kind of humor, or these movies would not continue to be produced. My laughing, fellow audience members lend additional proof to this notion. So, how can we fairly judge a film when it seems to be a matter of taste? If the filmmakers accomplish what they set out to accomplish (which is easier to determine than it sounds), and the advertising accurately represents the movie, then we can ask no more.

“Witless Protection” intends to be stupid and gross and replete with redneck humor. And so it is, which means, even if these things don’t match your tastes or mine, they are excusable. But the reason I rated this movie as one to avoid is because it is guilty of the inexcusable, which is laziness. It’s one thing to finish a film and say, “This movie is dumb, just like we planned.” It’s another thing to finish a film and say, “Well, I guess that’s good enough…” No, it isn’t.

Directed by Charles Robert Carner
Larry the Cable Guy / Ivana Milicevic / Jenny McCarthy
Comedy 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sex-related humor)

U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 247

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

2008-02-23T08:11:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 23, 2008

Note: The following preface is unusually lengthy but worth reading.

True story: In 2001, my friend Zach Ziegler and I were watching “Jackie Chan’s First Strike” (1996), a movie that I recommend, because it has Chan’s best-ever usage of a prop: “the ladder scene”; it’s unforgettable.

Even so, in our arrogance Zach and I discussed Chan’s tendency to do all his own stunts, and we decided that we were unimpressed; and since I had taken karate for 10 years, I felt confident that we could make our own movies, too, and do just as well, despite our budgetary restraints.

We began filming and cast various other friends and family members. That was our first mistake. Our second mistake was Zach’s decision to film without a screenplay or any pre-written dialogue; instead, we foolishly relied on improvisation and creative whimsy. Our film, which is inexplicably titled “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” (2000), is a simple story, a thriller, about a young man’s search for his missing cousin. (I should review it someday, just for fun.)

Anyway, it was time to shoot the climactic scene. We were planning a martial arts fight scene atop a six-story parking garage in downtown Wheeling, W.Va. I was supposed to be kicked over the edge of the parking structure but hang onto the side and dangle, Jackie-Chan style.

Lucky for me, my intelligent friend, Jason Marsh, refused to have me perform the stunt over the actual six-story edge. Instead, I’d simply hang over a wall that had no drop at all. I agreed begrudgingly. When we performed the stunt, I lost my grip and my feet hit the ground on the other side of the wall. To my horror, at that moment, I realized that I would have fallen to my ignominious death had I not listened to Marsh.

But that’s not the end of the story: On another day, Zach and I returned to the parking structure unsatisfied. We still needed to shoot the dangling-Jason footage. So, I slowly lowered myself into position to hang one story up. This gave the illusion of my desired six-story hang. I hammed it up, swinging my legs and pretending to climb up. But again, to my horror, when it was time to pull myself up, I had reached exhaustion and could not do it.

Soon Zach came to pull me up, which eventually worked, but not without painful effort and broken glasses. It turns out that amid the idiocy, someone saw me swinging from the building and dutifully called 9-1-1. By the time the fire trucks (plural) and police cars (plural) arrived, Zach and I were casually driving out of the parking garage, looking innocent. I’m ashamed to reveal that I was 25 years old at the time.

I began with this personal prelude for the three lessons it teaches: 1. In the movies, when you see a guy hanging off a ledge and he climbs back up, unless that guy is Jackie Chan, he couldn’t really do that. 2. When they say “Don’t try this at home,” we should listen. 3. I respect Jackie Chan and am humbled anew at his stuntman-martial artist prowess. Admittedly, making movies is not as easy as it looks.

Eerily similar to Zach and me, “Be Kind Rewind” is about two pals who also think they can make movies just as well as Hollywood. In fact, they even remake “Rush Hour 2” (2001), a movie starring Jackie Chan, and they film a scene depicting one of them hanging from a building. I laughed out loud from the instant recollection of my embarrassing memory. But you know what? My scene was better.

Like the zany documentary “Cinemania” (2002), “Be Kind Rewind” is made especially for movie lovers. Mike (Mos Def) works in a video store in Passaic, N.J. called Be Kind Rewind. The store only rents VHS tapes, and has the following motto: one video, one day, one dollar, everyday. Also, despite its dilapidated condition, the store is a historical landmark, as it is the birthplace for the great jazz musician, Fats Waller.

Of course, there’s a corporate presence trying to tear down the store and refurbish the entire block. (This plot line also previously happened in Wheeling.) Meanwhile, amid the pressure of competing with the Blockbuster-like competition (West Coast Video), Be Kind Rewind struggles to remain afloat.

So, when its owner, Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover), goes on a “business trip” to spy on his competitor, he leaves the store in Mike’s capable hands. But when his pal Jerry (Jack Black) unwittingly and ridiculously becomes magnetized, the result is a store full of erased VHS movies.

In order to keep the business going, Mike and Jerry begin making “Sweded” films, which means they star in shorter, hilarious, low-budget, homespun remakes of the titles customers request, such as “Ghost Busters” (1984), “The Lion King” (1994) and “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), just to name a few. And, only in the movies, the homemade movies become all the rage, a neighborhood craze.

From the previews, you might think that the Sweded remakes are the primary focus of “Be Kind Rewind.” Unfortunately, they’re not. In fact, it’s a shame that the movie doesn’t stick to this winning concept. Instead, it has several plots afoot, which take considerable time to develop and resolve. This is a miscalculation on writer-director Michel Gondry’s part.

Indeed, the brilliance behind “Be Kind Rewind” is that it makes us, the audience, crave to see more and more of the low-budget films within the film. That’s a funny and amazing trick that Gondry pulls, because we usually hate low-budget films!

Had Gondry stuck with the golden idea to have Jack Black remake movies we’re all familiar with, “Be Kind Rewind” could have been excellent, possibly even a masterpiece. The inventive and ingenious ways that Mike and Jerry come up with to film special effects scenes give us a wink from the professional filmmakers behind the camera.

“Be Kind Rewind” is worth seeing, particularly if you’re a film buff, solely for its in-joke tributes of classic films of the past. And though I’d recommend seeing the movie first, you should check out the film’s Web site: www.bekindmovie.com

I read somewhere that the best way to learn how to critique movies is to try to make one yourself. And so it is with a few of the most respected movie critics: The legendary Graham Greene wrote the screenplay for “The Third Man” (1949). The monumental James Agee worked on writing the adaptation of “The African Queen” (1951). And my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, wrote the screenplay for “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” (1970).

But not even the great Roger Ebert did his own stunts. I guess not everybody can be a stuntman gone movie critic. … Any attempts were probably not survived.

Directed by Michel Gondry
Jack Black / Mos Def / Danny Glover
Comedy 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual references)

U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 245

Vantage Point (2008)

2008-02-22T03:37:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008

“The Blair Witch Project” (1999) supposedly cost a mere $22,000 to produce … surely “Vantage Point” cost even less than that.

“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over, with different camera angles. That’s right, we’re shown the same 23 minutes of events, six times.

The setting is Salamanca, Spain, modern-day, Aug. 11 to be exact. In an open plaza, 150 countries’ leaders and representatives are attending a “World Summit Against Terrorism,” where the president of the United States, President Ashton (William Hurt), is about to announce his counter-terrorist strategy, a plan that will finally enable western and Arab nations to reach an agreement and live harmoniously … only in the movies, right?

As we have been shown through relentless, merciless advertising for this movie, a sniper shoots the U.S. president while he’s at the podium. Two bombs explode. Havoc and chaos ensue. The Secret Service scurries to find the assassin(s). What I have just described is basically the whole movie, except we get to see a few additional minutes with each replay.

I don’t know about you, but I was looking forward to “Vantage Point” with great hope. It seems like a good idea, right? Well, it is a good idea if it’s done well. I happen to know this because this revision-and-retelling technique of the narrative has been done masterfully before by Akira Kurosawa in “Rashômon” (1950). While watching “Vantage Point,” I couldn’t help but wonder if director Pete Travis and writer Barry Levy had ever seen Kurosawa’s film. After all, it is required viewing.

“Rashômon” investigates a murder by showing us each various, discrepancy-filled perspective of individuals associated with a murder. One point that is effectively made in Kurosawa’s film is that the specifics of an event can vary greatly from witness to witness, notwithstanding liars. “Vantage Point” even fails to illustrate this concept, because each instant replay is the same, suggesting that everyone saw the incident the same way. Ludicrous.

Next I thought of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” (1948), because almost the entire film takes place in one room: Two weird dudes strangle a guy, place him in a chest, and invite his family to have dinner in that same room. Incidentally, it’s not boring, either. But “Vantage Point” essentially takes place on the same stage, so to speak, and quickly becomes monotonous.

What about “Groundhog Day” (1993)? Isn’t it also tedious? It can be somewhat tiresome if you’ve seen it before; but overall that movie works because Bill Murray’s character changes his actions with each new February 2. A “Vantage Point” version of “Groundhog Day” would have us watch the events of Bill Murray’s first Groundhog Day, over and over. Very fun.

And here’s another gripe: The movie is called “Vantage Point,” let’s note. One of the movie’s taglines reads, “8 Strangers. 8 Point of View. 1 Truth.” Adding these facts together, and considering that the event is shown six times, it seems clear that we are to understand that we are seeing what these people are seeing through their subjective points of view.

Simply put, “Vantage Point” looks more closely at these characters’ actions during the event, but the camera (which we identify with) still usually remains an omniscient, third-person observer. The tagline leads me to believe that we’ll see something similar to the subjective point of view found in “Cloverfield.” But not so.

When we do get through the twists and turns and learn the plot secrets, we are both disappointed and disgruntled. “Vantage Points” gives us mechanical dialogue (which is repeated), and several heinous car wrecks that the characters walk away from … I’m talkin’ wrecks that crash-test dummies couldn’t survive.

Each time the movie would “rewind” to start another retelling, the packed theater would groan or laugh (and this is not a comedy). As the movie progressed, the laughter became more frequent and intense. I was honestly waiting for Leslie Nielsen to be onscreen any minute.

You might wonder how “Vantage Point” could go wrong with such a stellar cast: Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt. Well, I learned the hard way from “The Devil’s Own” (1997), starring Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, just how bad big-star movies can be. It has happened before, and it has again with “Vantage Point.”

Lastly, I end with a helpful illustration of what it’s like to watch “Vantage Point.” Note the fun:

“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over.

“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the …

“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end …

“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and …

“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and that’s …

“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and that’s it.

Directed by Pete Travis
Dennis Quaid / Matthew Fox / William Hurt
Drama / Action 90 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense violence and action, some disturbing images and brief strong language)

U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 244

Charlie Bartlett (2008)

2008-02-22T03:31:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008

“Charlie Bartlett” proves, on multiple levels, that looks can be deceiving. At first blush, “Charlie Bartlett” looks like a typical, flash-in-the-plan, coming-of-age, high school movie. But it’s better than that. Similarly, on the surface, the Charlie Bartlett character himself appears to be nothing more than a rich, nerdy kid, but he is more than he seems.

Like Keebler, “Charlie Bartlett” is uncommonly good, especially when considering the movie within the context of its genre. Many high school movies merely focus on partying, sex, and at most, teenage rebellion of one kind or another. “Charlie Bartlett” hones in on the crux of teenage angst, which is the all-consuming desire for acceptance, popularity and being well-liked. This film also underscores how teens are unstable adults-in-training, with genuine stressors of their own.

A film that effectively conveys all the aforementioned, while also entertaining us with many laughs, is a significant accomplishment.

Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yelchin) is an exceptionally bright and charismatic 17-year-old. He has been expelled from several private schools for his mischievous enterprises (and yes, I mean to write “enterprises” because that’s what they are). Finally, Charlie is sent to Western Summit High, a public school where he develops an inconvenient affinity for the unhappy principal’s daughter, Susan (Kat Dennings).

At first, Charlie is not well received. He shows up on his first day of school in his smug, prep-school garb, which serves as a bull's-eye for the local bully, Murphy Bivens (Tyler Hilton), the best character of the movie. “Murph,” as he is often called, is worth the price of admission.

But Charlie, a young man of means who’s wise beyond his years, quickly devises a scheme where he becomes the school’s on-site psychiatrist, giving advice and prescribing medication to his fellow students. This extra-curricular activity changes everything and is the premise of the movie.

Robert Downey Jr., who plays Principal Gardner, gives the best performance in the film. This role encompasses many facets, and Downey owns every one of them. It is Principal Gardner’s conflict with Charlie that provides the most interesting subplot. Their turbulent relationship and verbal exchanges are captivating. Gardner struggles to be a father and a principal; and Charlie struggles to be a son and a student. And in the middle of their struggling, they collide and understand each other.

“Charlie Bartlett” is inevitably reminiscent of “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986), “The Breakfast Club” (1985) and especially “The New Guy” (2002), starring DJ Qualls. In fact, “Charlie Bartlett” is what “The New Guy” wanted to be … or should have been.

Last but not least, I should make mention of Anton Yelchin, whom you might know from “Hearts in Atlantis” (2001) or “House of D” (2004). Born in Leningrad, Russia (much like Viktor), Yelchin is an actor who seems capable of being just as comfortable on stage as he is on the screen. Though he may not look it, with his boy-next-door appearance, Yelchin is versatile. I suspect that we will see him in a vast range of role types as he gets older, much like Emile Hirsch’s wide variance between “Into the Wild” (2007) and the upcoming “Speed Racer.”

Directed by Jon Poll
Anton Yelchin / Robert Downey Jr. / Kat Dennings
Comedy / Drama 97 min.
MPAA: R (for language, drug content and brief nudity)

U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 241

The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008)

2008-02-22T03:26:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008

“The Spiderwick Chronicles” is a surprisingly entertaining fantasy that exceeded my expectations. I can comfortably recommend it as a rental for your family, provided your children aren’t too young. Though it’s rated PG, “The Spiderwick Chronicles” should definitely be PG-13. It is violent, has mild gore (but gore nevertheless) and frightening, mythical monsters, such as trolls, goblins and ogres. I don’t want to dismiss this PG-13 assessment too lightly; there is a scene where a child sticks a knife in an adult’s chest. It’s a little shocking, to say the least, especially for a PG movie. (See my review of “Fool’s Gold,” fifth paragraph.)

About 80 years ago, an astute man named Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) compiled an incredible record of remarkable information. In this book he catalogued all of the typically unseen creatures, pleasant and unpleasant, which inhabit our unobservant world. The author titled his book “Arthur Spiderwick’s Field Guide to the Fantastical World Around You,” and it was his life’s work.

Decades later, in the present-day, Spiderwick’s relatives move into his long-since-abandoned house. A mother (Mary-Louise Parker), her daughter Mallory (Sarah Bolger) and two twin sons, Simon and Jared (both played by Freddie Highmore) quickly learn that their home has an unsettling (and unsettled) history.

When Jared discovers a book that he is warned not to read, he reads it anyway. (Naturally, he’s a teenager.) Strange events begin to take place, including a reawakening of an 80-year-old war: It turns out than an evil ogre named Mulgarath (Nick Nolte) desperately wants Spiderwick’s Field Guide, so he can learn the temperate creatures’ secrets and destroy them.

But Jared and his family have a helper named Thimbletack (Martin Short), guardian of the Field Guide. Now, this Thimbletack creature is easily the neatest character in the film. He’s a tiny, elfish-looking guy whose temper turns him green, much like the Incredible Hulk. At which point, he can only be appeased with honey. Cute.

“The Spiderwick Chronicles” has common threads with “The Neverending Story” (1984), “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” (2005), “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and the many “Harry Potter” movies. Chances are, if you liked those, you’ll like this.

What impressed me about “The Spiderwick Chronicles” was its dark notes. There are fluffy fantasies where everything is rainbows and lollipops, except for a solitary antagonist. In these cases, good and evil is black and white, cut and dried.

And then there are fantasy worlds that are parallel with our own, which means they are complicated, and good and evil are intricately entangled. We get examples of this when we find out what happened to the kids’ father, or when we see Aunt Lucinda’s (Joan Plowright) arm.

With fantasy worlds like that, sometimes you’re better off sticking with the real world.

Directed by Mark Waters
Freddie Highmore / David Strathairn / Martin Short
Fantasy 97 min.
MPAA: PG (for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements)

U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 243

Fool's Gold (2008)

2008-02-22T03:19:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008

Who knew that Malcolm-Jamal Warner was still around? You might remember him as Theo Huxtable from “The Cosby Show.” In “Fool’s Gold,” he plays Cordell, a loan shark’s thug. Casting Warner counts for something … but it’s just not enough.

“Fool’s Gold” is the poor man’s “Into the Blue” (2005), not that “Into the Blue” exemplifies refinement. Even though “Fool’s Gold” is an oceanic treasure-hunt movie, surprisingly little of it takes place under water; whereas, “Into the Blue” makes sure its characters get wet. And though I’m nothing to write home about while wearing my swimming trunks, Paul Walker and Jessica Alba Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson ain’t. Like I said, a poor man’s “Into the Blue.”

Still, most critics were probably too hard on “Fool’s Gold.” It doesn’t try to swing for the fence, and I think we all know that going in. “Fool’s Gold” is simply a vehicle for re-pairing McConaughey and Hudson again (remember “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”?), giving us plenty of McConaughey with his shirt off, and a light-hearted, beach-fun movie that will be just in time for a summery DVD release. Filler.

Despite its superfluousness, there are a couple parts of “Fool’s Gold” that are of note, which make the remainder of this review worth reading, even though the movie isn’t worth seeing: There is an ugly little scene that feels wrong for such a silly, PG-13 romantic comedy. A damsel in distress bashes the bad guy in the face with a rock. Ouch. In retaliation, the bad guy knocks the damsel out with a punch in the face. Ha, ha hilarious. We sure are havin’ fun on our date, aren’t we, Honey?

As prudish as it may sound, it’s overlooked content like this that indulges a movie that has a scene where a character rips the pulsating, beating heart from a live man’s chest, and still escapes an R rating (“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”). Also, scenes like this eventually allow movies like “Beowulf” (2007) to slink by with a PG-13 rating, even though Angelina Jolie’s costume is basically her birthday suit … plus a tail. This slippery slope follows the result of allowing a camel to stick his nose in your tent during a sandstorm; eventually, you’ll have a whole camel in your tent.

The other questionable scene from “Fool’s Gold” is similar: An explosion occurs underwater that launches a sword into the air. The sword sticks in the deck of a yacht, landing in front of a young girl, between her legs. What makes this scene suspect is the camera angle: The shot is filmed from deck-level, focusing the sword in the center of the foreground and the girl’s spread-open legs in the nearby background. And the cinematographer lingers, holding the shot for an unseemly amount of time.

I realize the controversy over rating systems and content is a tired topic. But it’s important that we try to maintain and improve this current system, because a careful study of film history will reveal former systems of regulation that conservative and liberal viewers alike would oppose. In the meantime, for you viewers who don’t trust the MPAA system, I have three suggestions: 1.) Read my reviews. If it’s PG-13 and should be R, I’ll let you know (according to my opinion, of course). 2.) Look up the movie in question on www.imdb.com and click on the MORE link associated with the “Plot Keywords.” This list is indicative of the movie’s content. 3.) Visit www.kids-in-mind.com, but be warned that this site’s descriptions are explicit, insomuch that it could be counter-productive for those who wish to avoid entertaining their thoughts with “questionable content.”

As for “Fool’s Gold,” we’ve got Matthew McConaughey playing a ditzy, air-headed version of his usual onscreen persona, but this time he’s a treasure-hunter named Finn. He and his wife, Tess (Kate Hudson), have searched for a $500 million treasure that sunk around 1715, but to no avail. Tess is unhappy with Finn and is filing for a divorce, much to his dismay.

Meanwhile, Finn gets in deep water with a loan shark called “Bigg Bunny,” a name which he insists is one word but all of his shops’ signs spell it as two. Just when Finn happens onto a significant clue during his treasure hunt, Big Bunny becomes a life-threatening hindrance.

To make an irrelevant and long plot summary shorter, Finn and Tess team up with a millionaire (Donald Sutherland) and his Paris Hilton-like daughter (Alexis Dziena) to try to find said treasure. But the motley crew must also race against their competition: Bigg Bunny and his goons, as well as another seasoned treasure-hunter.

The back story on the treasure is suspiciously lengthy and complex, as is the quest for the treasure itself. Indeed, this smacks of screenwriters’ sleight of hand: distract the viewers with a bunch of impenetrable smoke, and they won’t realize it’s a shabby plot. Another example of this is “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” (2007).

But again, “Fool’s Gold” doesn’t claim to be Academy Awards material, and pretty much anything is better than “At World’s End.” So, if you like Matt McConaughey, Kate Hudson and dumb movies, have at it. Besides, it has Theo Huxtable!

Directed by Andy Tennant
Matthew McConaughey / Kate Hudson / Donald Sutherland
Adventure / Romance 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for action violence, some sexual material, brief nudity and language)

U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 242

Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins (2008)

2008-02-20T00:11:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 20, 2008

The biggest problem with “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” is that it wears out its welcome. The 114-minute runtime might as well be three hours, thanks to the last 15 minutes. Granted, “Welcome Home” is funnier than I expected, but still not as funny as Martin Lawrence has been in the past. If you’re a non-believer of Lawrence’s abilities, see “Blue Streak” (1999), one of his best movies.

In “Welcome Home,” Martin Lawrence is somewhat reined in as R.J. (Roscoe Jenkins) Stevens. Because his role has a sad undercurrent, in many scenes he’s the straight man. (“Straight man” in the comedic sense.) This miscalculation also occurs in “Daddy Day Camp” (2007), a lesser movie whose very similar story line made the same mistake by putting Cuba Gooding Jr. on the bench instead of in the game.

R.J. Stevens is the successful talk show host for “Access Hollywood,” a television program that appears to be a hybrid mix between Oprah and Jerry Springer. Stevens is also the author of a motivational, self-help book titled “Team of Me.” And last but not least, Stevens is engaged to Bianca Kittles (Joy Bryant), a recent winner of the hit reality TV show “Survivor.”

Just when life seems like it couldn’t be better for Stevens, his parents call and invite him to come back home to Dry Springs, Georgia, to enjoy a four-day family reunion celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. It’s been nine years since Stevens has been home, and he has his reasons for that.

To name a few, the fancy Hollywood man incurs the ferocity of family scrutiny, including several physical scuffles. Also, Stevens has always sought approval and validation, particularly from his father, but has never received it. However, most of his grief comes from a fierce, competitive rivalry with his cousin, Clyde (Cedric the Entertainer), whom he blames for losing the girl of his dreams, the love of his life, Lucinda (Nicole Ari Parker).

Now, I pause a moment from the plot summary to point out that Lucinda’s introduction is one of the great Hollywood entrances in the history of cinema. It’s true! Though it’s a standard convention for the first glimpse of “the pretty girl,” Parker’s first scene ranks up there with the moment we first see Harry Lime (Orson Welles) in “The Third Man” (1949).

As you might have guessed, the festivities of the family reunion, such as the barbecue, the softball game, the fish fry and the obstacle course provide a backdrop for the feuding cousins to compete, while a not-so-ideal fiancée and an old flame simmer on the sidelines.

“Welcome Back, Roscoe Jenkins” has a solid cast, from James Earl Jones as Papa Jenkins, to Michael Clarke Duncan as Sheriff Otis, Roscoe’s brother. But the funniest actor is easily Mike Epps as cousin Reggie; he even steals the show from Martin Lawrence.

There are, however, “unpleasantries,” such as Betty, played by Mo’Nique. As a contrast to Nicole Ari Parker’s entrance, Mo’Nique’s character is initially the most over-the-top, overdone, overbearing affliction of film since Jar Jar Binks. “Saw 19” should feature Betty and Jar Jar in a room together as its gruesome curtain-raiser. Another misfortune found in “Welcome Home” is an overboard, rough sex scene, which is the most ridiculous of its kind since “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” (2006). Oh, and there’s even a parallel rough sex scene to match involving two dogs. … Hilarious, just like whoopi cushions are hilarious.

You know, we’ve seen “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” before. In fact, it was just last year, except it was cast with white people: “Mr. Woodcock.” Seann William Scott leaves home and a bunch of bad memories behind and becomes a famous self-help book author. But when he must return to his home town again, he’s forced to face his ugly memories, which, in this movie come in the form of Billy Bob Thornton or Mr. Woodcock, his abusive gym teacher. If you’re itching to see this story played out, “Welcome Home” is the better of the two.

Although it’s utterly irrelevant now, since it was omitted from the movie altogether, there was something about the trailer that bothered me: Because Lawrence plays a talk show host, another character makes a joke about him being a male Oprah or “Op-bro.” Get it? … Who wrote that? Isn’t it obvious that “Bro-prah” works better? Maybe that slipped through during the writers’ strike.

I don’t know why I care, but a few things were omitted from the trailer, including the Nell Carter shower reference. The revised scene, as it is in the movie, is strained and cumbersome and doesn’t work nearly as well. Nevertheless, an unkind but funny Forest Whitaker impersonation compensates for the deletion.

As for you Martin Lawrence fans, there’s good news: Though I have my doubts, he’s got another crack at bringing us an even funnier movie with his upcoming “College Road Trip,” which is scheduled for release on March 7.

One final note: “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” has some additional footage during the credits, but it’s not worth sticking around for. When the credits roll, you can roll. Buhlee-dat!

Directed by Malcolm D. Lee
Martin Lawrence / James Earl Jones / Cedric the Entertainer
Comedy 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content, language and some drug references)

U.S. Release Date: February 8, 2008
Copyright 2008: 240

Definitely, Maybe (2008)

2008-02-19T00:37:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 19, 2008

Flowing down the relentless stream of forthcoming romantic comedies, once in a great while, comes a romance of genuine authenticity, a film that carefully conveys the complexities of real life. “Definitely, Maybe” is one such movie, poignant and endearing, and I recommend it.

What makes “Definitely, Maybe” excellent is obviously not its title, but its accurate portrayal of how scary it is to not know if you’re settling down with the right person. I clearly remember the pains of dating, falling in love, breaking up and returning to dating again. And because every relationship is complicated and imperfect, you can be with the right person at the right time and still not know it.

If you can relate to what I just wrote, then I think you’ll appreciate this movie. If not, “Rambo” is still in theaters.

Upon picking up his daughter, Maya (Abigail Breslin), from school, Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) finds that there’s been a psycho-sociological disaster – sex ed. class. This leads to two things: We hear 11-year-old actress Abigail Breslin repeatedly (and needlessly) roll call male and female genitalia, and Maya learns of the concept of a kid being “an accident,” prompting her to ask if she herself fits such criteria.

Now, this question takes on special significance, considering that Maya’s parents are getting divorced, a fact that troubles her greatly. But this movie isn’t about Maya, it’s about Will and his love-life leading up to Maya. Told primarily as a bedtime story-flashback, I’d argue that the movie’s inciting incident is Maya’s request to hear the story of her parents’ relationship. Playfully, yet begrudgingly, Will explains the story of the three loves of his life, one of which is Maya’s mother, but the little girl must figure out which of the three flowers is the one she blossomed from. Breslin ensures that this investigative query is cute.

Now, having seen the previews and reading what I’ve written thus far, you might think you have “Definitely, Maybe” figured out. But you don’t. This little film has numerous surprises, which are always refreshing, and it doesn’t completely give way to the traditional Hollywood ending.

What’s tricky about this film, and perhaps its most impressive element, is how all three of Will’s love interests (played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher) are simultaneously likable. This extremely difficult but necessary feat is important because we, the audience, must all be able to choose our favorite candidate for Maya’s mom; but at the same time, if we’re wrong, still be happy with the correct choice. Films fail when the person the audience is cheering for doesn’t make the cut: I cite Bambi’s mom as my example. Who hasn’t cried over that letdown?

Another impressive aspect of “Definitely, Maybe” is that each actress (Breslin, Banks, Weisz and Fisher) gets the opportunity to show her stuff with crucial dramatic moments where the nuances of the performance become intricate. All but Fisher pass the test. Fisher, who plays April, is very lovable, but when it really counts (and you’ll know when that is because it pertains to a gift), she fails to deliver. On the other hand, she has a challenging scene with Reynolds after a birthday party that’s surprisingly heavy, almost Ingmar Bergman heavy, and she does just fine. And I should mention that at first, I wished Hugh Grant had been cast in this role, but Ryan Reynolds (who has a Ben Affleck quality) passes with flying colors.

“Definitely, Maybe” isn’t perfect, but it’s worth two theater tickets on date night. Having written that, I might mention that some people may flinch to hear young Abigail Breslin say the “b-word,” or hear a brief discussion of homosexual and multi-partner sexual activity. These unnecessary additions were inserted for comedic effect.

Overall, “Definitely, Maybe” has much to admire. It’s refreshing to see a mainstream, widespread release remain a little more faithful to the real world, than say, “50 First Dates” (2004). Could this movie potentially be among the best romances of 2008? Definitely, maybe.

Directed by Adam Brooks
Ryan Reynolds / Abigail Breslin / Elizabeth Banks
Romance / Drama 112 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content, including some frank dialogue, language and smoking)

U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 239

Step Up 2 the Streets (2008)

2008-02-16T19:50:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 16, 2008

Much like Jay Leno or circus clowns, “Step Up 2 the Streets” has some kind of charismatic appeal that allows it to please us more than it should. Most dance movies solely rely on choreography to entertain the audience, but “Step Up 2” also has charming actors (or acting charmers) who distract us from the non-dance nonsense. I cite as my example Robert Hoffman, who plays Chase. Watch the eyes.

And, of course, there’s Briana Evigan, whose Andie “midriff” West character has been dazzled by dancing all her life: “I remember the first time I saw someone move like they were from another planet,” she says, “I couldn’t take my eyes away.” Now Andie’s street moves and her mischievous dance crew called “410” (pronounced 4-1-Oh) captures onlookers’ gazes in that same mystical way.

But like most dance-movie dancers, Andie busts her moves and moves her bust to deal with the loss of someone special, in her case, her mother. (A close relative’s death almost always begins dance movies: “Stomp the Yard” (2007), “How She Move” (2008).)

Having been entrusted with Andie’s care, her mother’s best friend, Sarah (Sonja Sohn), cracks down on Andie and threatens to send her to Aunt Alice’s place in Texas, that she may be whisked away from the bad influences of her street life in Baltimore. (The logic is sure: Everybody knows Texas doesn’t have bad crowds.)

Luckily, though uncharacteristically, Tyler Gage (Channing Tatum) intervenes and convinces Sarah to give Andie one last shot at MSA, aka the Maryland School of the Arts. Of course, the institution has a fine dance program, specifically for ballet, hence the tie-in and justification to call this sequel “Step Up 2.” The “streets” part comes in later …

Yes, Channing Tatum played the lead role in the first movie, “Step Up” (2006), which is about a hoodlum street-dancer who starts dancing with a ballerina, of sorts. But it turns out that Tatum and ballet only have brief appearances in this sequel. In fact, “Step Up 2” seems so sure that its audience wouldn’t have the attention span for ballet that it cross-cuts between ballet practice and street dancing practice. It’s always nice to feel underestimated.

As Andie progresses away from her old lifestyle, there is a tug-of-war for her time and talent. “Step Up 2” relies on The Streets versus The Higher Education dilemma; except in this movie, “the streets” happens to also mean the big dance competition, lest we miss the message. (Such spoon-feeding slights the audience, yet again.)

The interesting thing about “Step Up 2” and the countless other movies like it, is what I call “the consolation compromise”: The target audience drawn by such a movie is, presumably, much like its characters. The movie celebrates individualism, but also recognizes that even the most unique people can still learn from “The System” or societal norms. Indeed, there’s always a point in movies like this where the nagging parent(s) or disciplinary educator sees the misfit in his or her element and admits fault. This is a consolation compromise, but I guess the target audience would disapprove if the parents or the school were altogether correct. After all, we mustn’t alienate the ticket buyer.

But just once, wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a film where the odd duck “figures it out” and finally grows up (like most of us eventually have to do)? Never mind that; let’s just keep making the same movie, instead.

Country singer Brad Paisley has a song called “Letter to Me,” which is about the insights that he’d write in a letter to a 17-year-old version of himself. In this song, he sings, “Each and every time you have a fight, just assume you’re wrong and dad is right.” This seems more true to life than the eating of crow that goes on in “Step Up 2.”

Amid this rash of street-dance films, “Step Up 2” is one of the best I’ve seen. Hi-Hat, Dave Scott and Jamal Sims, the movie’s choreographers, have unmistakable talent. And the dancers defy the natural mobility of the human body, the law of gravity, and probably several laws of physics. This being the case, be sure to keep watching through the end credits.

I must admit that I like dance movies, probably because they remind me of martial arts movies: The flimsy plots are merely a vehicle for showcasing stellar stunts. And with snappy lines like, “Don’t sweat it. Everybody’s just hatin’ on ya ‘cause you’re dope,” we can even tolerate a little overused story line, right?

Despite the shameless tying up of loose ends at the end of the movie, “Step Up 2” is surprisingly entertaining. The dancing is fabulous and the soundtrack compelling and complementary. And though I never thought much about movie-trailer-makers until I saw “The Holiday” (2006), “Step Up 2” has an effective trailer that represents it well.

But above all, know this: The rain-dance scene (from said trailer) is worth the price of renting this movie. And without a doubt, the best dancer in the film is the character called Robert Alexander III or “Moose” (Adam G. Sevani). He moves like Michael Jackson on speed, played in fast forward.

Directed by Jon Chu
Briana Evigan / Robert Hoffman / Adam G. Sevani
Drama / Romance 98 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for language, some suggestive material and brief violence)

U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 237

American Brooke

2008-02-16T09:09:00.000-08:00

I wrote about Brooke White before, in this post.

Now Brooke is branching out. I missed it, but apparently she was featured during a Super Bowl commercial about American Idol. There are also some videos and photos of her over here at the American Idol site.

I have to confess, this seems a little strange for me. I visited White a while back at her house, and we talked about the possibility of collaborating on some musical numbers. (I still think of her voice when I think of writing.) Nothing ever really came of that, probably on account of my own endeavors at the time (I was pursuing some film interests). She was also in the process of putting together a band at the time, and was concerned over that. But as she articulates about herself in one of the American Idol videos at that site, I have always thought of her in terms of a singer/songwriter. So a part of me feels reticent to watch her go down this avenue, but another part really, really wants to cheer her on. Plus, I think if this does turn out to be the vehicle to propel her into stardom (I am certain this is not her primary goal, but the music itself), she will ultimately supersede the glitter and glam of the pop forum. I can't imagine anything else. It's built into her. She's great that way.

I am excited to see how it comes, and I confess, I'll be paying a lot more attention to American Idol now than I ever have before.

This is also pretty moving.

And three "yes's."

WHERE HAVE I BEEN?!

Update:

Somebody's found some stuff of her at age 16. This is the kind of music I live for. If we can have a revival of that golden era of the singer/songwriter, I would love nothing more.

We're Back! Also, a bit of the state on grace.

2008-02-15T19:58:00.000-08:00

Yes, it's true. I haven't touched this thing since joining a certain political campaign. See, I've been brainwashed in the torturous milieu of that whole rigmarole. But that's all water under the bridge now.

In any case, I return from the unknown abyss -- and gaging by the amount of viewership this site receives, I can comfortably say that not much has changed. I can also comfortably say that probably few of you are reading this right now. Except maybe that I sent you here.

I just finished watching Richard Dutcher's States of Grace, and I must say, I am surprised that I have not covered it before. I think, however, that may be because it was better the second time around. That is, I think I was better able to suspend disbelief. Also, maybe being starved from movie inundation has reversed the curse. It's true that there is a certain saturation point at which all movies either start to blend into one, or a movie has to be really, really extraordinary to stand out.

Now I'm convinced that I just needed to mature a little in my movie-appreciation skills. This movie is superb. It may end up being Dutcher's best film, though, we'll never know until we get there, of course. But judging by his recent expedition (actually, recent is a relative term, since he's been heading down a certain path for a while now) into the deeper realm, he may not be able to regain quite the touch he brings to this film. In fact, there's a line in the film I feel typifies his work here. An exchange takes place between the two Mormon missionaries. The first says, "You know there's a difference between being a good Christian and just being a fool," and the second replies, "It's a fine line sometimes." While this is a topic probably best reserved for another post (I've hit on it in the past), I believe Dutcher was trying to walk such a line at the time.

This work magnanimously approaches the essence of redemption, as the title suggests. And it has just enough moments that go beyond the mundane, so it's a film that it would not have been otherwise. Granted, the dialog can stretch on for lengths too long, and occasionally I felt bothered by the seeming ridiculousness of it all, but every time this happened, when I took a step back, it all seemed completely plausible after all. In fact, I think this film has staying power, and may actually receive wider praise someday.

Right now I think Mormons are too close to the film to appreciate it; they are too culturally and politically blinded. There are Mormons who have sworn to never watch it (and probably non-Mormons who have sworn not to for differing reasons). A part of me understands this. There's actually a Dutcher film that I have sworn not to see for the time being as a statement against some of his marketing tactics. Maybe I'm a fool, walking that line. Perhaps some of you would have similar weird compunctions.

But I highly recommend watching States of Grace -- and try to do so with an open mind.

Jumper (2008)

2008-02-15T01:11:00.001-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 15, 2008

What I am about to confess is absolutely true: I am fearful of flying kites, because I have great anxiety that I will be lifted off the Earth. To cope with this fear, I lie on the ground while kite flying. And, I am even more afraid of being spontaneously teleported somewhere else, particularly faraway places (like the Moon), and not knowing where I am or how to get back home again. Though, I’d probably figure it out pretty quickly if I were on the Moon.

“Jumper” stirred within me the latter phobia. David Rice (Hayden Christensen) seemed to be a normal 15-year-old kid, until one day he fell through a frozen pond and teleported himself into his local library. Neat. But let’s see him try that again. He does, and it works, again and again. And since David’s life at home and school was miserable, he ran away … or should I say “jumped” away.

Yes, this ability is called jumping, and one who jumps is called a jumper. Let’s discuss the movie’s portrayal of this jumping. Though the movie is based on a novel by Steven Gould, the screen depiction of the jumps owes a lot to Nightcrawler’s (Kurt Wagner) teleportation in “X2” (2003), even down to the hazy, residual particle-cloud aftermath and the jumping sound effects.

But this isn’t a criticism; why fix something that’s not broken? In fact, one clever convention in “Jumper” is the way we learn to recognize the jump sound. There are many instances during the movie when we hear the jump but don’t see it. This technique is entertaining, because it adds extra moments of brief suspense and anticipation.

And let’s just be honest and call a spade a spade: “Jumper” is nothing more than a superhero movie. All of the elements are present: You’ve got this loser kid who’s picked on by a bully in front of a compassionate, sweet, should-be girlfriend. You’ve got that awkward discovery-of-powers moment, complete with the mind-numbing “I need to learn how to use these powers” sequence. Oh, and there’s the tiresome “hide my powers from my girlfriend” game. And, of course, you have to have the battles with other powerful beings.

Thankfully, Hayden Christensen doesn’t sport any brightly colored tights. And interestingly, he’s more of an anti-hero (along the lines of Wolverine), because David is rather selfish and arrogant: “Once I was a normal person, a chump, just like you.“ And there’s even a moment during a newscast when David sees people in distress that he could help but doesn’t.

Unfortunately for David, there are jumper police, of sorts. Samuel L. Jackson plays another one of his eccentric roles as Roland, the apparent leader of a group called Paladins, religious fanatics who kill jumpers because such a power is a blasphemous abomination. “Only God should be able to be in all places at all times.” (The word “paladin,” by the way, means a knightly defender of a noble cause.)

But the Paladin plotline is strictly to add antagonism, ensuring battle scenes and action flick criteria. How much better might the movie have been if the screenwriters had simply pursued the pros and cons of being a jumper? If that sounds boring, think of David trying to maintain two jobs in two different countries … or two families!

“Jumper” is rated PG-13, and part of that warning should be for protecting young children from Hayden Christensen’s “Star Wars”-esque acting. In addition, there’s one F-word (and it’s not Fresno) and a gruesome but bloodless stabbing. Interestingly, I don’t recall any guns in “Jumper,” which is an impressive feat for a modern-day action flick.

The fun thing about “Jumper” is that it gets you thinking, wondering where you might jump if you had that ability. And even though the movie actually goes the extra miles to authentically film in various locations around the globe, it still seems like it lacks imagination, somehow. Admittedly, I couldn’t figure out where else I’d have him jump to. The head of the Sphinx is a nice touch, but what about the Moon, even if just for a second? Is he an interplanetary jumper? We’ll never know.

If I were a jumper, I bet I’d end up landing in front of an oncoming train, like the time travelers in that ‘80s TV show called “Voyagers!” But truthfully, I’d just be happy to jump my way out of the inescapability of parking garages, which is another irrational fear of mine.

Directed by Doug Liman
Hayden Christensen / Samuel L. Jackson / Jamie Bell
Fantasy / Adventure 90 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence, some language and brief sexuality)

U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 236

Over Her Dead Body (2008)

2008-02-05T23:16:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 5, 2008

There’s simply no avoiding it: Things go wrong on your wedding day, no matter how carefully you’ve planned. But even if your wedding cake topples onto the ground, you can still come back from that. If you should die, however, well, there’s no coming back from that. … Or is there?

The unfortunate bride-to-be in “Over Her Dead Body” does come back, and she haunts her fiancé’s new girlfriend. That’s the movie’s premise, and it’s a fun one. When Kate (Eva Longoria Parker) is killed by an ice sculpture of an ambiguous angel, her groom, Henry (Paul Rudd), takes it pretty hard.

In fact, for about a year he mopes around, unwilling to leave his apartment, unless he’s going to his clinic where he works as a veterinarian. Luckily, Henry’s sister Chloe (Lindsay Sloane) is an intrusive busybody who insists that he visit a psychic to try to contact his dead fiancée.

Reluctantly, the skeptical Henry sees Ashley (Lake Bell), a psychic/caterer. And when the psychic and Henry start to get better acquainted, ghostly Kate begins to harass Ashley, the only living person who can see her. The movie unfolds in an entertaining manner as we watch Ashley attempt to deal with her relentless phantom menace.

Paul Rudd demonstrates excellent comedic timing and delivery as Henry. “Over Her Dead Body” has a few decent laughs and is comparable to this year’s “27 Dresses.” Both romantic comedies are sure bets for enjoyable rentals.

There was, however, a mysterious undercurrent of viciousness seeping from this movie. Unlike most romantic comedies, there is an absence of innocence in “Over Her Dead Body,” despite its bittersweet moments. It’s hard to identify, specifically, but you might see what I mean if you watch it.

Last year’s filmmakers must have been revisiting “Ghost” (1990), because both “The Eye” and “Over Her Dead Body” borrow a lot from that Patrick Swayze-Demi Moore hit. The similarities are hard to miss.

But when it’s all said and done, “Over Her Dead Body” is decent; but more importantly, it can serve as a consolation to couples who have ever had something royally screwed up at their wedding. So just remember: It could always be worse than your best man’s inappropriate toast or your unwatchable wedding video … but not by much.

Directed by Jeff Lowell
Eva Longoria Parker / Paul Rudd / Lake Bell
Comedy / Romance 95 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)

U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 234

The Eye (2008)

2008-02-05T00:10:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 5, 2008

I once worked at “Wylie Eye & Dental,” a family business where the wife is an optometrist and the husband a dentist. Cute, huh? All incoming calls to the office had to be directed to the appropriate department. But for some reason, when patients called in for an optometry appointment, an alarming percentage of them would ask, “Can I talk to ‘The Eye?’”

Yes, inexplicably, they’d ask for “The Eye,” as if we had some big, pulsating, vein-protruding, all-seeing eyeball behind a blue-velvet curtain, always asking for its slippers and cigarettes, waiting to receive phone calls. Funny, none of the dental patients (who were presumably the same people) ever asked for “The Tooth.” Go figure.

Needless to say, it was difficult to shake the thought that I was going to review a movie about my old boss, “The Eye.” If only … it surely would have been cleverer than this remake.

That’s right; “The Eye” stars Jessica Alba and is a remake of a Chinese film by the same name. It’s even funnier to me that this movie is called “The Eye,” singular, when it’s actually about two eyeballs, plural. OK, well, which eye?

Sweet, sweet Sydney Wells (Jessica Alba) is blind and has been since she was five years old. Over the past 15 years or so, she’s adapted quite well to her disability, and “The Eye” demonstrates this by resorting to the overdone cliché where the blind person saves the seeing person from getting hit by a bus.

But there’s good news: Sydney is getting cornea transplants from an unnamed donor, a surgery which should restore her sight. There is, however, a problem. Her donor’s eyes have seen (and continue to see) very unpleasant things, which evokes frightening experiences for the newly seeing Sydney.

You get the idea. “The Eye” is not scary, but it supplies at least two really good jumps, though they’re those cheap Gotcha! moments. “The Eye” is like a broken record, because its plot developments keep replaying the same events in the same sequences to the point that it’s tiresome. Oh, and there’s one scene that’s not supposed to be funny, but I laughed out loud. It’s supposed to be very dramatic, where something bad happens to Sydney, but it’s ridiculous.

If I’m not mistaken, “The Eye” is one of Alba’s first films that she has been entrusted to carry alone with her own name. I commend her for taking a role where she doesn’t look glamorous at every moment; though, the frosty-glass shower scene to “throw the lusty males some PG-13 crumbs” was insulting. Despite that, I was most impressed with the various treatments that she underwent to get her eyes to look as they do, barring that wasn’t all digitally inserted.

My best friend, Bill Barnes, is also an optometrist. (I’m up to my eyeball, singular, in O.D. friends.) When he attended optometry school, he’d get to enjoy a fancy dance called “The Eye Ball.” Get it? Eyeball? Yeah, undeniably corny, but even that’s cleverer than “The Eye.” In short, “The Eye” isn’t worth your time or your money: Visit the dentist, instead.

Note: If you’d like to see a very good thriller about a blind woman, then I recommend “Wait Until Dark” (1967), with Audrey Hepburn.

Directed by David Moreau and Xavier Palud
Jessica Alba / Alessandro Nivola / Parker Posey
Thriller 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence/terror and disturbing content)

U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 233

Strange Wilderness (2008)

2008-02-02T16:37:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / February 2, 2008

“Strange Wilderness” shows promise and potential for hilarity (yes, that’s a word). In fact, this movie has brief, fleeting strokes of brilliance, probably similar to what Benjamin Franklin experienced before inventing the light bulb (yes, that’s a joke).

I know it was supposedly Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb, or more accurately, one of his cronies whom he never gave credit to. Film history suggests as much.

And just as I have unwisely strayed from the matter at hand, as seen with the above demonstration, “Strange Wilderness” strays from the strength of its inspired concept: a group of ignorant goofballs wing producing a nature show.

“Strange Wilderness” unfolds mostly through a flashback. As it opens, Peter (Steve Zahn) is on the phone explaining his failed attempts at filling his father’s big shoes. You see, Peter’s dad was a famous nature show host with his own television program called “Strange Wilderness.” After his father’s death, Peter inherited the show and tried to carry the torch.

Next we see flashbacks of Peter and his idiotic, moronic and degenerate friends filming the show, while obviously knowing nothing about animals. The best parts of “Strange Wilderness” are those that show footage of wildlife with Peter completely fabricating his narration, making it up as he goes along. Here is an example of Peter’s voice-over during a clip that shows monkeys gamboling about: “Monkeys make up over 80 percent of the world’s monkey population.” Or, consider the narration while we’re shown a clip of innumerable sea lions: “No matter how many sea lions are eaten by sharks each year, it never seems like enough.”

As you can tell, these parts are laugh-out-loud funny. But they are few and far between. Had “Strange Wilderness” stuck with its concept, it could have been exceptional. But what does it do, instead?

Well, we get a story line where “Strange Wilderness” is about to be taken off the air. Peter’s competitor’s show is stomping his into the ground. But when Bigfoot’s cave is found, yes, Bigfoot, the two nature shows race to see who can film the Sasquatch first. This also sounds like it has potential to be funny; and though it has its moments, it’s not.

I will admit that if you watched “Strange Wilderness” in a slaphappy mood, you would probably have a good time. It’s easily far funnier than this year’s silly comedies thus far, such as “Meet the Spartans” and “First Sunday.” But just know that “Strange Wilderness” earns its R rating, and is outlandishly crude with its sexual humor, including nudity and sexuality, though these aren’t mentioned in the MPAA warning. It is no “Superbad” or “Knocked Up,” but “Strange Wilderness” approaches the former.

And considering that the point of “Strange Wilderness” is to make people laugh, it’s a moderately successful movie. I laughed a number of times. But the reason I ranked it “OK” (rather than “Mediocrity”) is one scene that is nothing short of hilarious: If you see “Strange Wilderness,” watch for the repetitive clip of the toothy shark. It’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time.

Directed by Fred Wolf
Steve Zahn / Allen Covert / Jonah Hill
Comedy 87 min.
MPAA: R (for nonstop language, drug use, crude and sexual humor)

U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 231

One Missed Call (2008)

2008-01-31T22:05:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 31, 2008

The first movie release of the year is always sketchy. If you try the first Friday’s flick, you take your chances. “One Missed Call” is one such example; it was released on January 4 and is somehow still in theaters.

“One Missed Call” is supposed to be “a scary movie,” but here is a list of things that are scarier: flowers, butterflies, cotton candy, puppies, Garfield and the first day of kindergarten.

Sure, I realize that it’s fashionable to update the cinema to correspond with our technological age. That’s why we’ve had flicks like “You’ve Got Mail” (1998), “Firewall” (2006) and this year’s “Untraceable.” But why, oh why do we need a movie where people are terrorized by their cell phones? I mean, that’s already a fact of everyday life, isn’t it? Perhaps that was the filmmakers’ underlying, sad-but-true joke. If so, it’s a costly, needless joke, much like this movie.

Actually, “One Missed Call” is yet another remake of yet another Japanese horror film called “Chakushin ari” (2003), which, roughly translated, means “Even though this movie is unmistakably similar to “The Ring” and “The Grudge,” it’s different, honest.”

No it’s not.

“One Missed Call” gives us a group of friends in their twenties who begin to be terrorized by their cell phones’ inexplicable, incoming calls that allow them to hear their own voices responding to their awful, near-future deaths … talk about bad news. Hence the movie’s tagline, “What will it sound like when you die?”

The movie’s primary strength is its lead actress, Shannyn Sossamon, who looks like she could be Jessica Alba’s sister, though she’s not. Hers is the only credible performance in the film, considering what she has to work with. You might recognize her from “The Holiday” (2006), “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” (2005) or “A Knight’s Tale” (2001). Edward Burns, who’s usually decent, is disappointing as Jack Andrews, the cop who tries to help Beth (Shannyn Sossamon).

Because its characters are facing supernatural phenomena, “One Missed Call” can cheat and sidestep the rules of plausibility. And it’s not the movie’s incredulousness that bothers me; it’s just that once we find out why (not how, mind you) these killings are happening, we aren’t convinced or satisfied. This last statement, unfortunately, is one that I cannot elaborate on without revealing too much, so I won’t.

But I can write this: When we find out why the maniac in “Untraceable” is killing people, it sort of makes sense. We can buy the reasoning, as crazy as that sounds. On the other hand, when we find out why the killings are occurring in “One Missed Call,” we wish our cell phones would have called us about 87 minutes earlier with bad news.

Directed by Eric Valette
Shannyn Sossamon / Edward Burns / Azura Skye
Thriller 87 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and terror, frightening images, some sexual material and thematic elements)

U.S. Release Date: January 4, 2008
Copyright 2008: 230

Mad Money (2008)

2008-01-30T23:19:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 31, 2008

Why is it so alluring to think about instantly becoming filthy rich and all the things we’d buy and do with that money? If you’ve never pondered such a thing (first of all, that’s weird), and second, try it right now. I don’t know about you, but there’s something about this universal mental exercise that magically excites me.

Whatever that phenomenon is, it’s the very same one that makes “Mad Money” so much fun. There’s nothing Oscar-worthy about this movie, but I’ve ranked it as a rental because it is so enjoyable. If you ever want an easy, happy, feel-good film, “Mad Money” is the one for you. I can’t go so far as to call it excellent, primarily because it’s not quite worth theater prices. (But hey, if you do instantly become filthy rich, knock yourself out and see it in the theater. Heck, buy the whole theater.)

The story of “Mad Money” is told through a flashback. It follows that classic narrative technique like the one in “All About Eve” (1950), where it begins near the end, catches us up on everything that’s already transpired through flashbacks, then shows us what follows after the point where the movie began.

As a result, we know from the beginning that our criminal masterminds get busted, because several characters are being interviewed in an interrogation room, which supplies the storyline for said flashbacks. Part of the intrigue of the movie is seeing exactly what crime was committed, by whom, and how these thieves finally get caught. So, yes, “Mad Money” is basically a heist flick, another criminal caper peopled with colorful characters.

The ring leader of these is Bridget (Diane Keaton), a 60-something, upper-middle-class woman who’s used to having an employed husband (Ted Danson) and all the comforts of life, including a cleaning lady. But when financial ruin falls upon them due to her husband’s perpetual unemployment, Bridget enters the work force. And because of her “maturity” and lack of previous work experience, Bridget settles on being a janitor at the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.

While making her rounds as a janitor, Bridget discovers that the Federal Reserve destroys a million dollars each day, simply because the bills are tattered and worn out. She devises a plan for robbing the bank, and seeks strategically employed accomplices to assist her, which is where Nina (Queen Latifah) and Jackie “Katie Holmes” come in. And that’s the plot: The three ladies continue robbing the bank, over and over again, because the money they steal is untraceable and let’s face it, irresistible.

Keaton, Latifah and Holmes have a good onscreen chemistry together. It appears that they enjoyed making this movie, and that energy transfers into the audience. There’s a nice dead-horse theme that’s repeatedly beaten about how we should not want too much. And unfortunately, the movie also has a useless subplot about Latifah’s character not having sex for many years, like we care. Oh, and the legal details become conveniently rubbery at points, but songwriters are allowed strained rhymes, so screenwriters should be granted similar leniency from time to time.

Directed by Callie Khouri
Diane Keaton / Queen Latifah / Katie Holmes
Comedy 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual material and language, and brief drug references)

U.S. Release Date: January 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 229

The Orphanage (2008)

2008-01-30T16:15:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 30, 2008

“The Orphanage” is almost a masterpiece but not quite. Why not? Because it astounds then lulls, astounds then lulls. Had it been able to maintain its astonishing qualities throughout, or at least a pace that doesn’t drag, then “The Orphanage” would surely have been a masterpiece.

Even so, it’s still excellent. Notice its MPAA rating is “R.” Now notice why it’s rated R: “for some disturbing content.” This means that “The Orphanage,” which has no nudity, sex, excessive profanity or graphic violence, is rated R basically for its “creepiness” … and rightly so.

I don’t get scared at movies; at least, I thought I didn’t. But I was notably anxious during “The Orphanage.” It’s not that it’s scary, as much as it’s creepy. In fact, “The Orphanage” is the creepiest movie I’ve seen since “The Exorcist” (1973) or “Pet Semetary” (1989). Remember Zelda, the twisted, sick sister that was hidden away “like a dirty secret”?

And yet, “The Orphanage” is not a slasher film, nor would I even call it a horror film. It is a potent, effective thriller, as well as a mystery. But here’s the part you’re not going to believe: In all actuality, “The Orphanage” is essentially a haunted house, ghost movie!

Last June, in my review of “1408,” I wrote that I couldn’t think of a haunted house movie that is truly good. Then, an insightful, anonymous commentator replied that Alejandro Amenabar’s “The Others” (2001) is a haunted house movie that is truly good. And I had to agree. Now, we can confidently add “The Orphanage” to that short list.

Laura (Belen Rueda) lived at the Good Shepherd Orphanage as a child until she was adopted. Later, as an adult, she and her husband buy the dilapidated, uninhabited orphanage and plan to remodel it. They have a 7-year-old son named Simon (Roger Princep) who is HIV positive and also adopted. The couple plan to take care of their son, as well as other special-needs children.

But there’s a problem. Awful things have happened at this orphanage, and awful things are yet to happen. Simon, who’s known to have imaginary friends, claims to have new companions, much to his skeptical parents’ displeasure. They play games with Simon, who draws pictures of the unseen children for his parents to see. One of them called Thomas (Oscar Casas) wears a strange sack on his head.

Inexplicable events begin to unfold. An elderly lady who claims to be a social worker starts coming to the orphanage. Also, one day Simon vanishes. “The Orphanage” follows Laura’s desperate search for her ill son and her discovery of the orphanage’s past, including Simon’s mysterious little friends.

Set in Spain, “The Orphanage” is filmed in Spanish with English subtitles. If you have an aversion to subtitles, which many do, overcome it and see this film. Sensitive viewers might be distressed by its “disturbing content,” some of which is freak-accident-related, but you can always close your eyes for a second.

“The Orphanage” doesn’t settle for those cheap, overdone Gotcha! moments designed to keep the audience on edge. I’m not claiming there aren’t jumpy surprises, but these are done well and relevant to the plot. The suspense and dread that mount in “The Orphanage” come from its superior screenplay, set design, costumes, cinematography and overall directing. For example, watch carefully how the camera pans back and forth, left and right, when the adult Laura is playing the knocking-on-the-wall game of tag. Also, notice how the creepy film footage within the film itself puts to shame anything we saw from “The Ring” (2002).

No spoilers follow: The end of “The Orphanage” seems to be an attempt to please every audience member. Its ambiguity allows us to understand it however we wish; but I believe there is still a “right answer,” and I believe I’ve arrived at it after pondering the film.

“The Orphanage” gave me some of the biggest jumps I’ve had in the theater. It was a memorable viewing experience. Not only did the projectionist accidentally begin with “27 Dresses,” he or she played the first 10 minutes of “The Orphanage” twice. And when I left the theater, a blizzard had befallen our town and buried my car. But I was glad; the inclement weather gave me something less eerie to think about on my drive home at 12:30 a.m.

Directed by Juan Antonio Bayona
Belen Rueda / Roger Princep / Oscar Casas
Thriller / Mystery 100 min.
MPAA: R (for some disturbing content)

U.S. Release Date: January 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 228

How She Move (2008)

2008-01-29T19:40:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 29, 2008

“How She Move” is the latest movie to feature “step dancing” (but not verb conjugation), and I have a feeling it won’t be the last.

For those who aren’t familiar with step dancing, it appears to be an energetic blend of hip hop, break dancing, cheerleading, gymnastics and stomping around rhythmically. In fact, “stomp dancing” would be a more accurate name; but in any case, step dancing is fast, intense and usually entertaining to watch.

But “How She Move” is merely a poor retread of last year’s better step-dance movie, “Stomp the Yard,” except our new protagonist is female. All in all, they’re both the same movie, even down to the death-of-a-sibling inciting incident.

Raya Green (Rutina Wesley) lives in the inner city (somewhere within close driving distance to Detroit). Determined to rise up out of the hopelessness of her rough neighborhood, Raya excels academically at a private school with high hopes of attending medical school in the future.

When Raya’s sister dies from drug addiction, she’s compelled to leave her studies and return home, forced to face the problems she was trying to elude. One such issue is her family’s poverty, which poses a problem when it comes to paying for med school.

But Raya is a dancer, as was her sister, and it appears they always have been. Step dancing seems to be the competitive entertainment of choice among the primarily Jamaican inhabitants of her community. And if a dancing crew can step well enough, there’s money to be won at local step competitions.

So, you can see where this is going. In fact, “How She Move” is more predictable than the sunrise. Yes, Raya has to struggle with getting involved again in stepping (and its unsavory associates) in order to compete at the big dance contest in Detroit called the Step Monster Competition.

“How She Move” has some impressive dancing (which I, admittedly, could never physically imitate), but even so, I’ve seen better.

I’ve read complaints online about the music that the dancers step to. Step dancing in and of itself produces percussive sounds (or “music,” I suppose), so some would argue that no accompanying soundtrack is necessary. “Stomp the Yard” and its sparse soundtrack seems more like cheerleading than dancing to me, so I actually prefer the musical backdrop of “How She Move.” Besides, the percussive stomping is plenty audible amid the music.

Overall, “How She Move” is rather unremarkable, unmemorable, unoriginal and probably not worth your time simply because you’ve already seen this movie before, several times. Here we have rental-worthy dancers stuck in a mediocre screenplay.

Directed by Ian Iqbal Rashid
Rutina Wesley / Dwain Murphy / Brennan Gademans
Drama 94 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some drug content, suggestive material and language)

U.S. Release Date: January 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 227

Meet the Spartans (2008)

2008-01-29T08:09:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 29, 2008

Today’s news headlines indicate that a disabled, U.S. spy satellite that weighs around 20,000 pounds and is about the size of a small bus has fallen out of orbit and will likely plummet back to Earth … somewhere. Having heard this news, all I could think about while sitting in the theater watching “Meet the Spartans” is I hope that satellite lands on me, right now.

No such luck.

If it’s not obvious from the trailer, “Meet the Spartans” is in the same silly vein as “Scary Movie” (2000), “Date Movie” (2006), and “Epic Movie” (2007), and, in fact, is basically “Epic Movie 2.” And if you’ve seen any of these winners, you’ll know that these movies strain (and I mean strain) to get laughs by threading several recent movie plots together with a merciless barrage of pop culture references and shameless advertising (and I mean shameless).

Typically, these movies select a primary target, and “Meet the Spartans” aims its spoof at “300,” which was a well-received hit of 2007. But of all the movies that could have been ridiculed from the past year, “Meet the Spartans” attempts to parody a film whose thin plot leaves little to work with: Basically, all that happens in “300” is a two-hour, repetitive blood bath by the sea.

And yes, you might be wondering, what movie could be more deserving of such scrutiny? But if “300” is as fun as playing with a stick, “Meet the Spartans” is just a stick, no playing and certainly no fun.

If you’ve ever watched the TV cartoon “Family Guy,” then you’ve seen effective parodies. “Family Guy” sticks closely with the source material, only deviating slightly (albeit deviously) from the original it is imitating. And better still, “Family Guy” points out small oddities about the show it’s spoofing. Even “Weird Al” Yankovic recreates comedy songs that are so close to the original version, we might not realize they are parodies unless we’re paying attention to his new lyrics.

Though “Meet the Spartans” follows “300’s” plotline events very faithfully, it wanders way, way off the path from the nature of the original material. For instance, during the scene where King Leonidas and Xerxes’ messenger discuss unpopular topics by a gaping hole, somehow, Britney Spears and the American Idol judges show up. And I’m tellin’ ya, if one person gets kicked into that hole, 100 do. Now, this might have been humorous if “300” had countless hosts of people getting kicked into a hole, because it would have been peculiar enough to mock. But that wasn’t the case; instead, “Spartans” chooses to evoke Sanjaya. See what I mean?

I can compliment “Meet the Spartans” on one thing: Sean Maguire, who plays Leonidas, closely resembles and impressively impersonates Gerard Butler, “300’s” Leonidas. Speaking of casting, there is something I can’t figure out: Why in the world does Carmen Electra always agree to play in these movies? She’s been in “Meet the Spartans,” “Epic Movie,” “Scary Movie 4,” “Date Movie,” “Scary Movie,” etc. Obviously, she either likes this type of humor or the money’s good.

If you are careful about which PG-13 movies you choose to see, “Meet the Spartans” is probably one you’d opt to skip. It mimics its seedy inspiration, “300,” and is filled with crass, vulgar, gross-out humor. If you still choose to see this movie, halfway through the end credits there’s additional footage, including more attempts at a comical portrayal of child abuse, in case the first round wasn’t funny enough for you. (I will admit that this is an example of “Spartans” trying to mock a peculiarity of “300,” but child abuse is like cancer: It’s never funny.)

My filmmaker friend, Barrett Hilton, has told me in the past that I’m too hard on the movies I hate. After all, this is somebody’s art I’m writing about. I’ve considered his critique of the critic carefully. Then, last year gave us a great character that added to Barrett’s sentiments named Anton Ego, a ferocious food critic who writes the following thought in “Ratatouille”:

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read, but the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”

Well, I was touched by this until I saw “Meet the Spartans.” I’m convinced that even if I typed a whole review of binary code (which, in fact, I have), it would still be more meaningful, funnier and more entertaining than “Meet the Spartans.”

(Oh, and legendary film critic Stanley Kauffmann’s movie reviews are more meaningful than most movies.)

Directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer
Sean Maguire / Carmen Electra / Ken Davitian
Comedy 84 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content throughout, language and some comic violence)

U.S. Release Date: January 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 226

Untraceable (2008)

2008-01-28T09:26:00.000-08:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 28, 2008

In 1978, the first of a series of shocking horror films called “Faces of Death” was released. This documentary (and its successors) claims to be a compilation of various footage that captures actual deaths, which is sometimes gruesome. It turns out that much of the “Faces of Death” footage is artificial.

But what “Faces of Death” threatened to deliver then is nearly commonplace now and easily found on the Internet. Saddam Hussein’s hanging was captured on a cell phone video and available for the world to see online. In fact, viewing live executions has become disturbingly popular.

Sensitive readers (like my wife) should skip over this lengthy, juicy paragraph and continue reading at the next: Let’s not forget the darkest form of filmmaking, snuff films, which are underground and obviously illegal movies that supposedly record actual violence, rapes and murders. (The movies “8MM” (1999) and “Vacancy” (2007) are about snuff filmmaking.) During my sophomore year of college, I happened into a dorm room full of guys watching something that I believe was an authentic snuff film: On this video I saw some dude hanging upside down by a chain while a group of deranged maniacs peeled his skin off in strips. It could have been some twisted Nine Inch Nails promotion, as their music was supplied for the soundtrack, but only Jeff “Time-deat” C. could tell me for sure (and I wish he would inform us on the comments page). My untrained eye was pretty sure it was real, so I left the room appalled and sickened. (Oh, and Jeff, by the way, it was my mom who ratted on you for having that pet snake in the dorms, unbeknownst to me at the time. Sorry.)

Anyway, all of this lengthy prelude is to introduce the potential validity for the premise of “Untraceable.” Sure, this movie has aspects that require a little suspension of disbelief; but overall, “Untraceable” is a fairly intelligent, modern thriller that would not disappoint as a rental choice for your spooky movie night.

Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) works for the Cybercrime Division of the FBI. Hers is the duty to scour for scumbags on the Internet who are breaking the law, typically through fraud, thievery and sexual crimes. But when Marsh gets a tip to check out “Kill With Me.com,” she discovers that the URL offers a literal invitation. (By the way, to preempt your curiosity, I checked www.killwithme.com and found an amusing surprise. Check it out after you’ve seen the movie.)

Yes, in “Untraceable,” some nutcase is capturing and restraining victims in his or her basement, setting up live, streaming video of the sufferer’s fatal afflictions. And the more people who visit the site, the faster the killer’s lethal contraptions kill the victims. The means by which death is administered varies but is always diabolical and creative.

I know, I know … couldn’t the FBI easily zero in on the location of the killer or simply shut down the site? Yes, but not in this movie. This killer is exceptionally intelligent, not to mention tech-savvy, and lots of “techy-speak” is thrown around to try to quell the concerns of astute critics, such as yourself, who pose legitimate gripes such as these. But just go with it.

“Untraceable” was made in the capable hands of Gregory Hoblit, the man who gave us “Frequency” (2000), one of the best films that year. In Hoblit’s new film we get nice touches like an overcast, gray world, which is ominous and unpleasant. And at the same time, our protagonist passes a traffic accident (totally unrelated to the story) where a body lies motionless. These details stir uneasiness within us, evidence of a good thriller.

Part of the fun of a Whodunit or a “Who’s doin’ it” is trying to figure out the identity of the killer. “Se7en” (1995), a must-see crime thriller, waits for most of the film to reveal the recognizable actor who plays the killer. Whereas, “Insomnia” (2002), another great crime flick, necessarily reveals its killer’s famous face about halfway into the movie. Both of these approaches are effective. But “Untraceable” doesn’t tease our curiosity enough with the Whodunit question. Even so, the reasons why the killer is committing such heinous acts are pretty good, which is a rarity for this genre.

Oh, here’s a little challenge for those who see this movie: Unless I totally missed something obvious (which is possible), there are two characters who aren’t where they’re supposed to be and seem to essentially vanish. This question, though small, is never answered, at least, not that I noticed. If you caught what happened to these two characters (the two who were in the empty room where the lamp is tipped over), then please submit a comment on this blog.

I like “Untraceable” because it is somewhat original: Web site visitors aren’t fans but accomplices assisting in murder. Interesting. The killer may have unrealistic, elaborate plans, unbelievable luck, remarkable financial means and too much extra time, but it’s still intriguing, all the same. And I also appreciate how “Untraceable” is deranged without going overboard into the depths of unwatchable grotesqueries.

“Untraceable” seems to point its mouse finger at origins such as reality TV, a craze that is possibly mutating into our watching live executions online. We might wonder why anybody would want to watch that. But then again, why would anybody want to watch horror films?

Regardless of whether the killing is real or unreal, we are still entertaining ourselves with the portrayal of violence and murder. Perhaps we just like the thrill of viewing as a mere proxy, safe and secure, while asking ourselves the “what if?” question: What if that were me? What would I do in that predicament? Or, perhaps we’re just glad it’s not us hanging upside down from a chain at a Nine Inch Nails party.

Directed by Gregory Hoblit
Diane Lane / Billy Burke / Colin Hanks
Thriller / Crime 100 min.
MPAA: R (for grisly violence and torture, and some language)

U.S. Release Date: January 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 225