guppy's film reviews

Coraline

2009-02-08T21:39:00.003-05:00

Year: 2009
Director: Henry Selick
Notable Actors: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher (voice actors)
Score: A-
Summary: Very good if imperfect twisted not-really-for-kids story.

Coraline is an animated stop-motion film based on a Neil Gaiman book of the same name. Basic premise: little girl Coraline Jones (Fanning) has just moved to a new town -- I don't recall ever hearing it specified -- from Michigan and isn't happy. She doesn't like her new town or her new house, her mother and father (Hatcher and John Hodgman respectively) or the only other kid in the neighborhood. But hidden in the house she finds an entrance to a mirror world, with far superior duplicates of everything and everyone, including her parents, although she's a bit perturbed at how everyone there has buttons for eyes.

One can't help but compare Coraline to The Nightmare Before Christmas -- they're both stop-motion and both are directed by Henry Selick. I find Coraline substantially more cohesive, and as fondly as I remember Nightmare, I'm happier without most of the musical numbers. The animation is also much smoother, as the technology and techniques have advanced substantially since then.

Generally speaking, I feel very positively about the movie. I'm a big fan of stories of this nature -- the sort that appear at first blush to be kids' films, but are actually quite dark. The voice acting is very good and the characters are well-defined. I particularly like that Coraline isn't saccharine-sweet -- she basically means well, but she's not without her rough edges.

I thought the film's length was perfect, but its pacing could have been better. I'm not sure it's possible to correct the pacing issues without negatively affecting its length, however. At 101 minutes, it felt perfect. I never felt bored or found myself fidgeting. That said, the rising action could have stood a little more drawing out. There's nothing wrong with what's there, but I went to see a twisted story, and I'd have like a bit more twist. It happens a little too quickly for my taste. I'd reiterate, though, that what's there is quite well done. Similarly, the dénouement is a bit too pat, although it's hard to explain why without plot revelations.

I also take issue with the revelation of a major plot point. The plot point itself is perfect, important and well-suited. But the way it's revealed doesn't make much sense, and the dialogue for the scene is poorly-written.

I do want to emphasize that this one isn't really for young kids. It's animated, yes, but it's got several scenes that are pretty much made of nightmares as far as children are concerned.

Coraline's strengths outweigh its weaknesses by a pretty significant margin. Go see it if you like Neil Gaiman, dark stories or skilled animation. Give it a miss if you actively dislike morbidity.

Quarantine

2008-10-16T07:02:00.004-05:00

Back from hiatus! Also reviewed this week: Religulous.

Year: 2008
Director: John Erick Dowdle
Notable Actors: Jennifer Carpenter
Score: B+
Summary: Fun "Boo!" horror flick that's worth seeing once.

Quarantine is the latest film to tackle the first-person perspective used by and The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield. It follows a two-person news team documenting an LA apartment building whose residents are suddenly sealed into their building by the authorities. Unlike, say, Blair Witch, it's a pure adrenaline piece focused primarily on sudden scares than on psychological or atmospheric ones.

Angela Vidal (Carpenter) is a local news reporter assigned to do an interest piece on the local fire department. She and her cameraman, Scott (Steve Harris), tag along when the department responds to a call, and wind up at a nearby apartment building for an emergency of an unknown type. One of the people investigating the incident is abruptly attacked, and the entire group ends up sealed inside the building without any warning or explanation.

There's nothing unexpected about Quarantine. You can predict most of the film before walking into the theater, if you know the premise. But it's a well-shot and effective and will make you jump, which is what you should want if you're going to see it. There isn't much else to the story; it will live or die for a given viewer based on whether they were looking for that experience.

I would suggest strongly that you see the film in theaters if you're going to. Like Cloverfield, Quarantine is best experienced communally, at night, and on a large screen at loud volume. Watching it by yourself in the middle of the afternoon on a 15" CRT will rob it of a lot of its effect. For this reason I don't think the DVD will be a big success. But if you have the opportunity for a nighttime theater viewing, it's a worthwhile experience.

Religulous

2008-10-16T06:47:00.003-05:00

Back from hiatus! Also reviewed this week: Quarantine.

Year: 2008
Director: Bill Maher
Notable Actors: Bill Maher
Score: C
Summary: Mildly entertaining yet sneering and pointless quasi-documentary that will put off even people who agree.

I can't figure out why Religulous was made. I really wanted to like it -- I'm a longtime Bill Maher fan and our opinions tend to coincide. But it's nothing but a big middle finger to theists, and while atheists and agnostics will snicker, it just feels mean-spirited.

Religulous is basically footage of Bill Maher interviewing religiously-inclined strangers about their beliefs and ridiculing them for holding those beliefs. His stance is an agnostic one: he can't find any proof one way or the other, so he reasons that the only sensible position on religion is to be uncertain, and that those who express certainty are irrational because they can't possibly be certain. That position makes a lot of sense to me, because it's pretty much the one I hold. But from there the film veers off course. It simply doesn't have an audience.

If you're religious, it will be pretty hard for you to come away from Religulous without feeling tremendously insulted. Frequently it seems like that was the goal -- to shame religious viewers into reconsidering their beliefs. But I don't know a single person who responds that way to criticism. I think the instinctive reaction of religious viewers will be to turtle up angrily and ignore any salient arguments made.

If you aren't religious, there are some chuckles to be had, and I did enjoy them. Most of them are in the form of Pop-Up Video-like correction captions. But there are only a few really funny scenes, and I spent the rest of the time cringing at how badly I thought Maher's arguments would be received by their intended targets.

Religulous feels like a Maher vanity project. It apparently intends to convince the very people it's insulting, and I think that means making it was ultimately pointless. I can't recommend it.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

2007-12-27T00:42:00.000-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: Tim Burton
Notable Actors: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Sacha Baron Cohen
Score: A-
Summary: Top-notch execution of perhaps the most morbid musical ever made.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a film adaptation of a famous Stephen Sondheim musical. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I have never seen the production, though of course I'm familiar with the basics, so this review will necessarily be focused on the execution of the film and not its faithfulness to the original production. I am told that a few songs have been excised from this version, but I have no firsthand knowledge of it.

It would be wise to familiarize oneself with the premise before going to decide if Todd is up your alley or not, because it won't be to everyone's taste. It's extremely morbid and fairly gruesome. As with the musical, the film follows Sweeney Todd's return to London and his quest for revenge on Judge Turpin (Rickman), the man who exiled him and stole his wife. Todd (Depp), formerly known as Benjamin Barker, is a barber and plans to murder him. While he's at it he begins murdering other customers as well, and Mrs. Lovett (Carter) -- the lady who runs the meat pie shop below -- turns them into meat pies and sells them. I told you it was morbid. You'd never expect something like this from the guy responsible for Into The Woods. It is, however, prime Burton fodder. (Another disclosure: I'm a longtime Burton fan.)

The first thing to note is the visuals. Burton made a highly effective choice with his palettes; the occasional flashbacks to Todd's idyllic past are vivid and brightly colored, but the scenes taking place in the present are cast in muted blues and yellows and reflect the darkness of the scenes unfolding in them. The set design is effective as well; the locales pictured do an excellent job of evoking the desired moods, particularly Todd's barbershop and Mrs. Lovett's hellish bakehouse.

The second, of course, is the singing -- this is a musical, after all. The major cast is fairly famous, which means they were cast as actors first and singers second; fortunately, they're all at least serviceable singers. The weakest link musically is probably Helena Bonham Carter, whose voice is a bit thin for the job, but she carries it reasonably well, and truth be told I can't see anyone else in the role. She pulls off exactly the right sort of unhealthy look for meat pie shop proprietress Mrs. Lovett. Depp and Rickman are both adequate as well. All three shine during the parts with vocal harmonies, which are probably the best moments musically. Depp and Rickman are also good fits for the acting roles; Rickman showed his talent at turning on the sleaze as Snape in the Harry Potter films, and Depp's intensity is very much appropriate for the off-the-hinges Todd. It's worth noting that this is the first role for Todd's daughter Johanna (Jayne Wisener), and they appear to have taken the opportunity to cast an excellent singer for the part -- she's unquestionably the strongest voice in the cast.

As I said, Sweeney Todd isn't for everyone. There's a lot of gore, although it doesn't look particularly real, and even without that the story is pretty macabre. But if you've got the stomach for it, it's a terrifically well-made production that's very much worth your time.

I Am Legend

2007-12-15T00:15:00.000-05:00

We're back after a long time in which there wasn't much worth seeing!

Year: 2007
Director: Francis Lawrence
Notable Actors: Will Smith, Alice Braga
Score: A-
Summary: Very well-made post-apocalyptic survival story with top-notch acting.

When I first saw the trailers for I Am Legend, I didn't know what to think. There have been a lot of post-apocalyptic stories told before, but I was intrigued enough to go check it out, and I'm very glad I did.

While the opening scene is strong, Legend's basic setup is unremarkable for its type: following a huge viral catastrophe, we follow what may be the only survivor of the human race. It departs from that blueprint immediately, though, as the survivor is actually fairly well-equipped and well-trained, and rather than simply trying to survive, he is trying to rectify the original disaster. He's also not completely alone, as his dog Sam is with him. In most films of this type, the survivor is alone, has few supplies and is trying to survive each day in the face of isolation. In Legend, the protagonist has a solid enough base to survive day-to-day, but lives in fear of the night and the darkness.

I should mention that Legend is based on a 1954 science fiction novel by Richard Matheson. I am given to understand that it is a very solid take on the book, but some details are notably different. It is also the third attempt to adapt the book, following 1964's The Last Man On Earth and 1971's The Omega Man, but differs significantly from both.

The primary element worth addressing is Will Smith's performance as survivor Robert Neville, which is note-perfect and very nuanced. There's very little other acting to address, as he is the sole human on screen for most of the film, but Smith does a slam-dunk job -- you really get a feel for what his character has gone through in the three years or so after the disaster.

The strong script is well-paced and moving. It is, however, a pretty heavy film, whose primary theme is isolation -- don't go in expecting something lighthearted. The film clocks in at an agreeable 101 minutes; I was never bored and I did not wish it were longer.

It's been a few months since I've been to the theater for lack of anything I wanted to see. Legend was a superb choice for my return and I recommend it highly.

Stardust

2007-08-16T17:05:00.000-05:00

Playing catch-up! Also reviewed this week: Knocked Up, Transformers and The Simpsons Movie

Year: 2007
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Notable Actors: Ian McKellen, Peter O'Toole, Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Ricky Gervais
Score: B+
Summary: Charming fairy tale provided you enter with the right expectations.

Stardust is Neil Gaiman's second "real" film project, a follow-up to 2005's MirrorMask (reviewed here). It's a fairy tale, and provided you know that going in, it's one very much worth seeing.

Stardust is a story set principally in two locations. The first is the English country town of Wall, so named for the large wall nearby. The second is the magical kingdom of Stormhold, located on the other side of the wall, unbeknownst to most of the world.

Without giving away too much of the plot, a star has fallen. Our protagonist promises his love, Victoria, that he will cross the wall and bring the star back as proof of his devotion; unfortunately, others are vying for the star as well. Also in pursuit of the star are a trio of witches and several princes, sons of a dying king; the star represents longevity for them. All of them are rather evil, conniving sorts. It's difficult to go into to much more detail without spoiling the story, which would be a shame.

Stardust has a rather, uh, star-studded cast, if you'll excuse the pun -- but mostly they're in the supporting cast, with the exception of Claire Danes' Yvaine (who is excellent, by the way). By far Robert De Niro will be the fan favorite for his turn as Captain Shakespeare; I felt the role was a little too over-the-top and silly, meant to appease a wider market, but De Niro does handle the role terrifically and charismatically. Ricky Gervais is excellent in a bit part as a shady merchant, and the entire cast of princes, too numerous to name here, contribute an excellent humor to the film. I was stunned to see Michelle Pfeiffer as Lamia the witch; it's nice to see some of acting's old school players lending their support to what will probably be a cult project. Peter O'Toole's cameo is worth noting as well, and while I know it's a minor part Ian McKellen serves admirably as the film's narrator.

I'm sorry to say that I did not pay particular mind to the music, but neither did it rub me the wrong way, so I suppose it was serviceable. The visuals are well in keeping with a fantastical story like this one, although they aren't nearly as exotic as previous Gaiman project MirrorMask, and there are some good effects on show here, although the witches' fire was a tad overused.

I saw Stardust with a group. On our way out, one of the people I saw it with commented that the movie was going to suffer because it "didn't know who it was aimed at." His point was that it looks very much like a children's story, but also contains all kinds of death and sex and what-have-you. This is probably important for you to know if you are considering taking your children to see it, although I don't think it's anything most kids would have much trouble with.

I want to clarify what I mean when I describe Stardust as a fairy tale, because that's critical to your evaluation of whether or not you'll like the movie. There's a lot about it that is fantastical or even illogical. If you're going to get any pleasure out of the film at all, you're going to have to suspend your disbelief. If it bothers you, think about how logical gingerbread witches' houses or bears eating porridge are. If you can handle that, Stardust is a wonderful time that I recommend highly.

The Simpsons Movie

2007-08-16T17:02:00.001-05:00

Playing catch-up! Also reviewed this week: Knocked Up, Transformers and Stardust

Year: 2007
Director: David Silverman
Notable Actors: Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Harry Shearer, Hank Azaria
Score: B+
Summary: Definitely enjoyable, but basically a triple-length episode of the show.

The Simpsons has been running for almost twenty years now. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that there would be a movie at some point, and fans by and large were cringing in fear that when it was made it would be spectacularly bad, especially since for the last several years fans have considered the series in decline. I'm happy to say that the movie is enjoyable.

The movie's staff appears to be largely the same as the TV show's staff, including the voice actors, so things will pretty much look and sound the way you're used to them. The only notable difference is the inclusion of some CGI, which is used well and fits with the rest of the film's visuals.

The show's voice acting has always been one of its strong suits despite a large cast being voiced by a relatively small set of actors. Since the cast here is the same, the usual high standards are in evidence.

The pacing is the film's biggest issue. While consistently entertaining, the opening act is definitely the strongest. It peters off somewhat for the middle act before coming back for a stronger finish in act three.

The Simpsons Movie is a very entertaining if unambitious package. Provided you don't go in with overly high expectations I think it's a worthwhile experience.

Transformers: The Movie

2007-08-16T00:41:00.000-05:00

Playing catch-up! Also reviewed this week: Knocked Up, The Simpsons Movie and Stardust

Year: 2007
Director: Michael Bay
Notable Actors: John Turturro
Score: C-
Summary: Trite and tired in virtually every way, but that was to be expected, really; way too long. Does feature lots of things blowing up.

A lot of us have been awaiting the Transformers movie. We saw the show when we were kids and we have a lot of nostalgia invested. The good news is that Transformers does a lot of what the show did. The bad news is that the show doesn't hold up very well either now that we're grown up.

If you slept through the '80s, or weren't born yet, Transformers are big robots. That, uh, turn into other things, mostly cars. There are two main factions: the Autobots (the good guys) and the Decepticons (the bad guys), who are at war with each other. Transformers deals with their first contact with humans.

To understand the film's problems, consider the source. The Transformers television series is based on a line of toys. I want to emphasize that -- the toys are not spinoff merchandise from the show. The toys were the genesis of the property.

If you were expecting to see a lot of things blow up, and not much else, well, congratulations. You'll like Transformers. The rest of us will be dissatisfied with the hackneyed plot, unlikeable characters and inane take on Transformer technology.

The plot I can almost forgive. No one really expected this movie to have any substance. But for some reason, the filmmakers opted to write truly terrible dialogue, especially for the Transformers themselves. No one wants to hear Optimus Prime say things like "my bad." It's shameless pandering that should not be rewarded. Big fans of the series will, however, mostly be pleased with the inclusion of some of the most popular Transformers, including Bumblebee and Optimus Prime.

The movie's pacing is another major source of problems. The first action scene was a long time coming, and it was the first enjoyable part of the film. While that scene was excellent, viewers should not be subjected to the tripe presented up until that point in order to reach it. Later action scenes went on far too long, such that I was bored even with things blowing up all over the screen. The film drags overall as well.

It pains me to say that Transformers mostly reaches the goals it was aiming for. Unfortunately, those goals weren't worth aiming for.

Ratatouille

2007-06-29T20:50:00.001-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: Brad Bird
Notable Actors: Patton Oswalt, Ian Holm, Peter O'Toole, Janeane Garofalo
Score: A-
Summary: Another excellent addition to the Pixar line.

Pixar is one of the great success stories of American animation. Once in a while the studio will make something subpar -- but for Pixar, "subpar" just means "slightly less amazing." I'm happy to announce that the newest Pixar offering, Ratatouille, is another top-notch film deserving of the studio pedigree.

Ratatouille is the story of, yes, a rat. A rat named Remy who doesn't want to be like the other rats -- one who has watched master chef Gusteau's cooking shows and read his book, "Anyone Can Cook," and who has a genuine gift for the art. But of course the restaurants of Paris can't have rats in their restaurants. The public simply wouldn't stand for it. So he settles into an arrangement with the otherwise-incompetent beginning chef Linguini. Of course, the owner of the restaurant, Chef Skinner, isn't thrilled with the idea of being upstaged by Linguini, and so the stage is set.

Ratatouille is written and directed by none other than Brad Bird, whose resume boasts such modern classics as The Iron Giant and The Incredibles. His work here gives Ratatouille a wonderful spark of liveliness from end to end -- the screen is constantly full of bright, active visuals that really engage the viewer.

I can't say that any single voice actor took top honors, but the strong ensemble cast voiced every character appropriately. Every major character is represented very well; standouts include Remy himself (Oswalt) and a wonderfully understated Colette (Garofalo).

The script is great as well. The characters are charismatic, and there's a joke around every corner, particularly late in the film. The animation is a real achievement as well, full of bounce and fascinating to watch. It may be a bit long for a film largely aimed at kids, clocking in at 110 minutes, but I enjoyed every minute of it.

This is the best Pixar film since Finding Nemo and I recommend it highly. It's sufficiently child-friendly to take the kids, an important feature in a family film, and adults will enjoy it as well. Highly recommended and one of the more memorable films of the year.

Bridge to Terabithia

2007-06-23T11:05:00.000-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: Gabor Csupo
Notable Actors: AnnaSophia Robb, Robert Patrick
Score: B+
Summary: A well-done, honest take on Katherine Paterson's Newberry-winning novel.

Katherine Paterson's award-winning novel, Bridge to Terabithia, is (deservedly) required reading at a huge number of elementary schools nationwide, despite the place it held for some time on the American Library Association's banned books list. When word of the upcoming Bridge to Terabithia film was released, a lot of people -- myself included -- were terrified that the novel would be bastardized for mainstream viewers. I'm happy to report that that is not the case.

Terabithia is the story of Jess Aarons (Josh Hutcherson) and Leslie Burke (Robb), two fifth-grade children who meet at school and become friends. Social outcasts at school, they invent a make-believe fantasy world in the woods by their homes. Unfortunately, it's a bit difficult to elaborate further on the plot without spoiling some critical details.

The number one thing you need to know about Terabithia is that the trailers are lying to you. Released in a period notable for a string of "real" fantasy films, many unfamiliar with the book were expecting another Narnia or Lord of the Rings, and this one is nothing like those movies. The trailers, for whatever reason -- likely an attempt to cash in on the genre's recent popularity -- portrayed it that way; unfortunately, that means that the people who went to see it expecting Narnia were disappointed, and a lot of book fans didn't see it at all because they thought it was a perversion of the original. Do not under any circumstances allow the trailers for Terabithia to influence your viewing decision.

Overall, the movie does an admirable job of capturing both the letter and the spirit of Paterson's book. The story, most importantly, is intact and well. Perhaps most impressive: where many movies, particularly those aimed at a younger audience, tend to take a single message and push it throughout the length of the feature, Terabithia -- as in the novel -- is rife with multiple layers and themes, and it conveys each of them very well.

Robb is the standout actress as Leslie Burke. She absolutely shines in the role, which lends great support to the story. I'm afraid I was less enthused with Hutcherson's turn as Jess; he didn't feel committed to the role, and it detracted from the immersion. His father (Patrick), however, is excellent.

The other element I didn't like was the CGI. There isn't much, so it didn't have too much of a negative impact, but what there was seemed out of place, and I felt the mere presence of CGI in the film cheapened it.

A word of warning. The book is typically read by children of about the same age as the protagonists, and the movie will likely be seen by the same. Which is fine -- but it's exceptionally heavy material for that age, so if you're going to bring your kids along you should make an evaluation of their maturity.

Terabithia is a very good film based on an excellent novel. Above all, it comes across as genuine, and that's what counts most in a film like this one. Hats off to director Csupo.

Nota bene: Hutcherson comes off better following a second viewing. The clumsiness with certain lines remains, which is what set off alarms for me, but other, more important parts of the role are really very nuanced.

Knocked Up

2007-06-04T00:39:00.001-05:00

Playing catch-up! Also reviewed this week: Stardust, Transformers and The Simpsons Movie

Year: 2007
Director: Judd Apatow
Notable Actors: Seth Rogen, Katherine Heigl, Paul Rudd, Kristin Wiig
Score: B
Summary: A fun ride that successfully straddles the line between guys' movie and chick flick.

Knocked Up is the latest from Judd Apatow, creator of Freaks & Geeks and The 40-Year Old Virgin (reviewed here). It's the story of tremendously mismatched couple Ben Stone (Rogen), a stoner layabout type, and up-and-coming TV personality Alison Scott (Heigl), who get drunk at a club, go home together and, well, the title pretty much says the rest. Alison has to deal with her pregnancy's impact on her career and the scorn of her family, and Ben is terrified of the whole idea.

The plot is fairly predictable, as you might expect, so it's really the jokes along the way that make the film, and fortunately those abound. Although a minor character, my favorite lines came from Alison's bitchy coworker Jill (Wiig), who continually tears Scott down when she's supposed to be supportive. Rogen has plenty of good lines as well, but it's his charismatic personality that keeps the role going.

It's a bit difficult to pigeonhole Knocked Up. On the one hand, the trite plot just screams chick flick romantic comedy, but the humor is decidedly more geared towards men. It's hard to say which way the public will go on this one; if couples manage to get to the theater, I think they'll enjoy it, but the elements that appeal to each crowd might keep the others too wary of it to attend. Most of the people I talked to who hadn't seen it weren't sure what to make of the movie.

There's not much more to say. Knocked Up's not the best movie I've ever seen, but it's pretty decent. I definitely liked it more than Apatow's previous effort. It's a good film to see on a catch-up kind of basis -- if there's not a "must-see" movie in theaters, say, or once it hits DVD if you're looking for something to watch at Blockbuster. It's a fun ride, but nothing life-altering.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

2007-05-28T01:11:00.000-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: Gore Verbinski
Notable Actors: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Jonathan Pryce
Score: B-
Summary: Entertaining, yet sloppy.

Okay, here's the short version that everyone is really waiting to read: yes, the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie is much better than the second one.

The slightly longer summation is this. Pirates 3 is an entertaining film, but it's got problems. Go see it and be entertained, but don't expect a masterpiece. I think that's what people were expecting, really, so not such a big deal there. It's difficult to get into a plot summary without spoiling the previous films, so suffice it to say that the film deals with the loose ends left in the previous installment.

Pirates 3 picks up a little while after the previous installment ends, opening with an unnecessary and somewhat awkward introductory sequence, the upshot of which is that the authorities are giving the pirates quite a lot of trouble and that the pirates need to do something if they would like to continue to exist. The message is important to the plot, but it's not delivered terribly well.

After that, everything gets moving, and I mean fast. There's a lot to keep track of in Pirates 3, and if you don't pay attention you're going to miss tons of important details. Also, the film was shot at the same time as the previous installment, and it seems as though the writers forgot that we wouldn't be seeing them the same way. It's been a little while since I saw Pirates 2, and I didn't remember a whole bunch of important things that apparently happened near the end of that movie. Pirates 3 can't really stand on its own; it needs the context of the other two films to make any sense at all.

That's one side of the problem. The other is exactly the opposite: in addition to relying too heavily on the previous films, it introduces several elements that weren't mentioned at all in the first two movies, which really serves to blindside the viewer. It's odd that we've never heard anything about these elements -- or worse, that things that weren't even remotely touched upon about our characters in the preceding stories are placed front-and-center here. There's even an argument to be made that there's some revisionism at work, and you need to be willing to ignore that.

I'm not sure why some of these new elements and revisions exist. Most of them are unreasonable, and some are barely even used. It's easy to say that they needed to fill screen time, but at 168 minutes, the film wouldn't have suffered from some trimming down.

Acting-wise, of course, Depp is on top. Rush is great as well. Bloom is approximately on par with the preceding films, but nothing special -- he's done better elsewhere. I was pleasantly surprised to find that -- and I realize this is a minority opinion -- Keira Knightley turned in a better performance than her previous two Pirates outings; perhaps that's just improved dialogue speaking, but I liked her in this one, and I'm not normally a Knightley fan. Most of the rest of the cast does a fine job as well -- it's the charismatic and colorful cast of characters that really give the Pirates films their charm and personality, and that's in full effect here.

Readers may wonder why, given the problems I noted, I didn't rate Pirates 3 more harshly. I didn't do that because, despite all its flaws, it's entertaining, and that's what we're really here for. It's based on a Disney ride, for Pete's sake. How deep did you really expect it to be?

We've all seen the first two Pirates films, so you may as well finish up the story and go to see it. It's even a decent film, and I expect you'll enjoy it, as I did. But it still doesn't live up to the bar set by the first film.

Hot Fuzz

2007-04-21T11:45:00.000-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: Edgar Wright
Notable Actors: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost
Score: A-
Summary: A ton of fun, everything Shaun of the Dead wasn't.

Hot Fuzz is the story of crack London police officer Nicholas Angel (Pegg), a cop so good at his job that his colleagues arrange for his transfer to the sleepy town of Sandford, where he can be out of the way and stop making them look bad.

Fuzz was made by the same team that made 2004's acclaimed Shaun of the Dead; while Shaun didn't grab me, it received a warm public reception. Fuzz, on the other hand, is incredibly funny and the best time I've had in a movie theater in quite some time.

Pegg is perfect as Sergeant Angel, which, frankly, I didn't think he would be. Angel is a by-the-book, hard-nosed cop, and having associated Pegg with his role as mild-mannered Shaun in Shaun of the Dead, I expected him to have trouble with such a different part. Pegg co-wrote the film with along with director Edgar Wright, and his involvement in the script helps his fit with the role. Also worth a mention is Nick Frost as Angel's inept partner, Danny Butterman. Frost does a great job, and his character is charismatic rather than irritating, unlike his character in Shaun.

While Pegg and Frost are front and center, the supporting cast members -- all of whom are equally familiar faces -- are top-notch as well, and the film wouldn't work nearly as well without them. Of particular note are the other members of the Sandford Police Service, all of whom are memorable individually rather than as a collective.

One concern I had going in was that, while I had enjoyed the jokes in the previews, I wasn't sure the rest of the movie would maintain the same high standards. I was also a bit worried that some of the gags seemed contrived. Happily, neither of these concerns were warranted. The movie is more or less continuously funny, and even the more absurd jokes flow smoothly with the plot. Something I particularly liked: in addition to the "primary" jokes, there are a whole bunch of subtle throwaway jokes you might miss if you're not paying attention.

Besides its function as a traditional comedy, Fuzz is also a spoof of over-the-top action movies. One might expect the Hot Fuzz team to encounter difficulty in shooting action scenes, given their previous projects, but quality camerawork and direction are used to great effect and the end result comes out looking superb.

Hot Fuzz is a spectacularly entertaining film from start to finish and one of the best movies I've seen this year. Highly recommended.

300

2007-04-16T01:03:00.000-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: Zach Snyder
Notable Actors: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey
Score: C
Summary: A great big pile of mediocrity.

When I first saw previews for 300, it didn't really grab my attention and I was prepared to dismiss it, but then people starting telling me how much they were looking forward to it, so I gave it another look. I ended up with a free ticket courtesy of Best Buy, and it still took me over a month to get around to seeing it. Having finally done so, it appears that I should have trusted my instincts.

300 is based on Frank Miller's graphic novel (read: comic book) series about the battle of Thermopylae, and follows King Leonidas of Sparta. You may remember Miller's name from 2005's Sin City, which is likewise based on one of his graphic novel series, and comparison of the two is virtually inevitable. There are some similarities -- both films are highly stylized and extremely violent, for example. The big difference? Sin City is a much better film.

If you've seen any of the previews, and it's difficult not to have done so by now, you've almost certainly seen the "This is Sparta!" clip. If you haven't, well, there isn't much to tell. Leonidas kicks some guy and yells "This is Sparta!" with overly long pauses in between each word. If you've watched that scene, you've basically watched most of the movie, which consists almost entirely of only two elements:

Fight scenes, in which the superbly trained Spartan warriors kill a huge number of people
Yelling scenes, in which the Spartans scream and shout at their opponents about how great Sparta is

As you can imagine, this makes the movie's 117 minutes drag on far too long, as you've already seen everything the movie has to offer inside the first half hour. By the first hour I was ready for it to be over. Add in a dull script and directing that sets new records for overacting and you've got a film that just isn't very interesting to watch.

What 300 does right is the effects. A lot of money was thrown at this movie, and it shows. Visually it's an interesting affair, with dashes of surreality sprinkled liberally throughout the film. The CGI effects are also superb; it's sometimes difficult to tell where the CGI ends and the rest begins. I've been told that much of the film is actually acted in front of a green screen, which speaks to the talent of the cast (and helps place the blame for the hamminess at the director's feet). The stylized art style works well for the movie and helps convey its graphic novel roots.

You should know going in that the movie isn't even close to historically accurate; that's not a negative, but it's definitely something to remember.

300 isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but it does very little to distinguish itself. For a two-hour movie, there just isn't very much there. Save your money and see something less average.

Zodiac

2007-03-09T23:39:00.000-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: David Fincher
Notable Actors: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr.
Score: B+
Summary: Solid and well-made semi-documentary about an infamous 1960s California serial killer; structure has a few issues and film runs a bit long.

I've been looking forward to Zodiac since I first saw a preview for it, mostly because it was being directed by David Fincher, whose work I've loved without exception in the past. I'm happy to say that it did not let me down, though I do have a few quibbles. I should note that the Zodiac killer really existed, and is credited, if that's the right word to use, with several serial murders in the San Francisco area. Zodiac is a retelling of the story of his investigation.

SF Chronicle crusader née cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Gyllenhaal) is more or less the central figure on the story, and while he doesn't do anything wrong, per se, he doesn't really have the screen presence necessary for the role. He is thus upstaged by SFPD inspector David Toschi (Ruffalo) and especially by colorful reporter Paul Avery (Downey Jr.), who are emblematic of otherwise very strong casting.

The script is pretty solid and does a good job of keeping you up with the investigation, but it's full of cuts to later dates and times, and all this jumping around leaves the viewer with a disappointingly poor grasp of time. The cuts are labeled, but when the cut for "four days later" and "four years later" take the same amount of time, things start to run together a bit. There is one well-constructed scene that represents the exception to this rule. Along similar lines, the movie runs long at 158 minutes; I was never bored, but the length did draw me out of the experience a bit. This is largely due to the nature of the story, but the fact is that the meandering costs the film some points.

It took me a while to decide what I thought of the ending, but eventually I decided that Fincher did with it what he was responsibly able, and I think others will draw the same conclusion.

Zodiac's a good film and evidences Fincher's usual high standards, but it suffers some flaws that keep it from making my A-list. The nature of the film and their common director means that it will inevitably be compared to Se7en, and Zodiac's just not at that level. Worth seeing, but not as strong as some of the other entries in Fincher's catalog.

Reno 911!: Miami

2007-03-04T23:14:00.000-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: Robert Ben Garant
Notable Actors: Danny DeVito
Score: C
Summary: I have no idea why this is a feature film.

Okay, I'll admit it. I like Reno 911! It's been a guilty pleasure of mine for a few years now; it's inconsistent, but when it's on, it's really on. Unfortunately, I can't be as excited about Reno 911!: Miami.

For those unfamiliar with it, Reno 911! is a Comedy Central show that parodies long-running police tagalong program Cops. It follows the life and times of the hopelessly incompetent Reno Sheriff's department (which doesn't exist, incidentally; Reno has its own full-fledged PD). The interesting thing about the show is that it doesn't have scripts. Each scene has a loose outline of what needs to be accomplished, but the actors improvise all the details. I have been given to understand that each 22-minute episode is created by whittling down about four hours of footage. While this leads to some uneven notes, overall the result is a lot of fun.

The good news is that Miami is more consistently entertaining than the roller coaster of highs and lows that is a season of the show. The bad news is that it's rarely particularly brilliant and there's no good reason that this is a movie instead of maybe a two-part episode of the regular show.

I haven't seen all of the show's episodes, but there is a new (or at least new to me) deputy (Mary Birdsong). She is the focus of only one joke, which is brought up maybe twice. I don't know why she exists.

The only actor whose work stands out this time around is Thomas Lennon as Lieutenant Jim Dangle, and that may be because his role as head of the department is meatier than the rest. The remainder of the cast has phenomenal chemistry, however, so they work very well as an ensemble.

The film has only occasional moments of brilliance, but those are excellent, and the movie is reasonably consistent throughout. It is very short, however, weighing in at only 84 minutes, lending weight to my argument that it should have been part of a regular season. And some of that could have been cut without losing much.

The film has been criticized for having a plot. I can understand the complaint -- I had the same issue with Super Troopers, for example -- but in this case I felt the plot was necessary to hold the movie together.

I don't regret seeing the movie, but I don't know that I'd recommend it to everyone. Give it a look if you're a fan of the show and nothing else catches your eye. It's not bad entertainment, there just isn't enough there to warrant a full-scale film production.

Breach

2007-03-03T18:00:00.000-05:00

Year: 2007
Director: Billy Ray
Notable Actors: Chris Cooper, Ryan Phillippe, Laura Linney
Score: B-
Summary: Decent quasi-documentary on an infamous Cold War intelligence breach.

Breach is a retelling of the story of FBI operative Robert Hanssen, who was convicted of selling secrets to the Soviet Union. While I'm not wholly informed on the subject, I believe that's one of few things that are kept true-to-life; in fact, I'm pretty sure the main character is completely fabricated.

Chris Cooper (The Bourne Identity) steals the show as Hanssen, and is the only particularly noteworthy actor in the film. Hanssen himself was a fascinating guy, and Cooper handles the role well. The others -- Phillipe especially -- are serviceable enough, but do little to distinguish themselves.

Unfortunately, there isn't much else to say about the film; it works more despite its assets than because of them. I can't even remember if there was a musical score, and the cinematography is acceptable but not exceptional.

It's hard to know how to rate Breach. I was interested in it, and I know I enjoyed it, but I think that's because I was interested in the real story. There's nothing standout about the script, the audio, the visuals... nothing, really, other than Hanssen. The film's worth seeing, but don't expect to be blown away by anything.

Smokin' Aces

2007-02-04T00:26:00.000-05:00

Also reviewed this week: Alpha Dog

Year: 2006
Director: Joe Carnahan
Notable Actors: Ben Affleck, Jason Bateman, Common, Andy Garcia, Alicia Keys, Ray Liotta, Jeremy Piven, Ryan Reynolds
Score: B
Summary: Looks like mindless fun, plays like a slightly overly complex dramedy.

Damned if there isn't a lot of marketing behind Smokin' Aces. I've been seeing ads for this movie everywhere from CNN to Xbox Live.

Here's the setup: the Mafia is on its last legs, with aging, ailing mob boss Primo Sparazza (Joseph Ruskin) as the only remaining major player. But there's one guy who has the dirt to put Sparazza under: Buddy "Aces" Israel (Piven), a Vegas entertainer turned dabbler in crime who has recently been offered immunity in exchange for his testimony. So, of course, Sparazza wants him dead. This makes Israel a flashpoint for all kinds of plotting and backstabbing and what-have-you, the most central of which is a $1 million bounty on his head -- well, heart (you'll see) -- which, of course, draws several of the best hitmen around. And, well, with that many hired guns around, I guess it's hard not to step on each other's toes.

The FBI wants Israel alive, of course, so he can testify against Sparazza. The team sent to protect him is headed up by Agent Messner (Reynolds), under the direction of Deputy Director Locke (Garcia).

The resulting mess can best be described as chaos on film. With all of these people bearing down on a single hotel penthouse suite, everything pretty much goes haywire, as you might expect.

Joe Carnahan both wrote and directed this movie, and it shows. While it provides a certain cohesion from which a film this (unexpectedly) complex benefits, this fact also creates two large problems. One, Carnahan sometimes forgets that we're not inside his head, so he jumps around a lot during the exposition. Two, he thinks his little creative touches are just so interesting, so he likes to rub our faces in them. For example, no one ever actually calls Buddy Israel "Aces." The only time that nickname comes up is when other people discuss him, inexplicably using this three-part name, which happens several times during the film. And Carnahan has Piven play with cards constantly, which looks dumb and has no bearing on the story.

I was looking forward to seeing Jeremy Piven in another starring role, since I've liked him since the first time I saw PCU on Comedy Central. Unfortunately, his character isn't very likeable, though it's tough to say whether that's Piven's doing or just the fact that Israel is kind of a sleaze.

Alicia Keys and her partner (Taraji P. Henson) do a creditable job as a southern black hit team, but they're such caricatures you can just tell their lines were written by a white guy. They're so over-the-top it's distracting, and that's unfortunate.

Other than that, I'm sorry to say that this star-studded cast doesn't do much to distinguish itself. Everyone fills their roles adequately, but few are really great. All I could think when I saw Liotta was, "Man, that's Ray Liotta? He's really let himself go." Most of the assassins are memorable, but that credit lies more with Carnahan for their creation than for any particular skill in their portrayal. One exception: one of the three Tremor brothers, and I'm honestly not sure which one, is top-notch and very entertaining.

Unfortunately I can't explain why I described the movie as complex, as it would require major plot spoilers. Let me just say, then, that I spoke to the friend I saw it with for several minutes after the movie to make sure we were on the same page.

Smokin' Aces is worth seeing. It's an absolute overload, if nothing else. But I can't call it A-list cinema.

Alpha Dog

2007-02-03T23:55:00.000-05:00

Also reviewed this week: Smokin' Aces

Year: 2006
Director: Nick Cassavetes
Notable Actors: Bruce Willis, Emile Hirsch, Justin Timberlake, Sharon Stone
Score: B+
Summary: Moderately effective sorta-kinda true story with a couple of bumps.

Alpha Dog is an odd breed of film. It's based on a true story -- that of Jesse James Hollywood -- but changes even elements as basic as the players' names. I had to refer to Wikipedia to get a feel for what was true and what was altered. However, it seems that between the time I read the Wikipedia article and the time of writing, that information was edited out for reasons unknown. There is a Wikipedia on Hollywood, but I advise against reading it (and have not linked it) because it would spoil the plot of the movie.

The basic premise of the film is that strung-out deadbeat Jake Mazursky (Ben Foster) owes money to local drug dealer Johnny Truelove (Hirsch, a stand-in for Hollywood). Mazursky and Truelove get in a fight that leaves neither happy, and when Mazursky steps up the retaliation, Truelove vows revenge. While attempting to take that revenge, they stumble upon Mazursky's 15-year old brother Zack (Anton Yelchin), and on the spur of the moment abduct him. The remainder of the film is spent with the question of Zack's fate hanging in the balance as the responsibility of looking after him is shifted from person to person. A sizeable portion of that time is spent with Zack in the care of Frankie Ballenbacher (Timberlake), considering the awkward position Ballenbacher is in.

Against all odds, Timberlake presents the strongest performance. He's a sympathetic character, and it's hard not to feel bad for him as the situation degenerates around him. For a guy with basically nothing noteworthy on his acting resume, Timberlake handles the part very well, doing a superb job of conveying Frankie's emotions and thought processes.

Hirsch gave me the most trouble, and it's not because he did a bad job, exactly. I think it's just a question of miscasting. Hirsch is too damn likeable for the part. That works to his advantage, in part -- Johnny Truelove is a charismatic guy. But he's also a complete bastard, and Hirsch doesn't convey that well.

The movie is well-paced for the most part, but I do question a few of the director's choices. Some of the scenes seem completely unnecessary, although one of them does give rise to one of the funniest moments in the movie, if your sense of humor -- like mine -- has a mean streak.

I had no idea what I was walking into when I went to see Alpha Dog. I figured out that it was a true story pretty quickly, but the film's story stands on its own without that to prop it up. It's a solid and moving film that I think is worth seeing, despite its flaws.

Casino Royale

2006-11-19T22:39:00.000-05:00

Year: 2006
Director: Martin Campbell
Notable Actors: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Judi Dench
Score: B
Summary: Kind of formulaic, but a damn sight better than the last three Bond flicks.

If you haven't heard, Casino Royale is the newest installment -- number twenty-one -- in the James Bond series, the last since Die Another Day four years ago. It's a complete series reboot -- James has just been promoted to 00 agent status and nothing in any of the other movies has happened. It's also set in the modern day, which makes for an unusual starting point for Bond.

Casino Royale also brings us a new Bond, with Daniel Craig replacing four-movie veteran Pierce Brosnan. To my mind this is a good thing; while Brosnan made a good Bond at first in Goldeneye, he seemed less happy in the role with each passing movie. Of course, that leaves the question of whether Craig is a solid replacement. I'm happy to report that he fills the role admirably and with much more charisma than I expected. My only complaint with him is that once or twice I had a hard time hearing what he was saying. Well, that and he looks like an idiot when he's running.

After a brief introduction, we're greeted with an old-style Bond montage opening. Historically, I haven't liked those, but I quite enjoyed this one. A word of caution, however: this is the first Bond movie I caught in a proper theater, so it's possible that I'd have liked the others more if I'd done the same with them.

The movie's plot is slightly convoluted. The first large chunk of the movie is only tangentially relevant, though it does feature a pretty impressive parkour scene. From there we move on to a quick bomb plot at an airport, and then there's a banker or something but I couldn't be much bothered to remember the details since it was totally unimportant.

All of this nonsense is a leadup to a poker game. That's right, a poker game. See, all this stuff about bombs sets the stage for terrorism, that being the watchword, and at the end of the day somebody has to finance all that stuff. In this case, that someone is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a brilliant if deranged financier. Whose, uh, eye weeps blood occasionally, not that it matters. He's lost a lot of money as a direct result of the airport business in the early segments, and as a result he is setting up a high-stakes poker game so that he can win the money back. Bond's government arranges his participation due to their obvious interest in Le Chiffre's financing of terrorism. The catch? It's a $10 million buy-in, winner take all, and Bond is playing with British money, which means that if he loses, MI6 has handed a huge terrorist bloc a great deal of money.

Bond is joined by new Bond girl Vesper Lynd (Green) and local contact Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini). Lynd is a solid choice as a Bond girl, much better than the past several choices; she is attractive and intelligent, and has some depth, whereas other recent picks have usually maxed out at two of those traits. Green handles her well. I'd also like to recognize Judi Dench's excellent work as M, a role she has filled for the last several movies.

I have to say that Casino Royale is a substantial improvement over the last few Bond films, which ranged from dull to outlandish to downright stupid. No one would be happy with a Bond film that wasn't at least a bit over the top, and we get that here, but the film avoids the almost cartoonish action sequences of the last three. While we do have some of the requisite explosions and all that, they aren't overused as they have been in some other films. The script -- and Craig himself -- make for a grittier Bond experience than we've seen lately. However, it is a bit predictable. I saw several of the major plot devices coming long before they actually occurred, and I expect others will as well, so don't expect any mindboggling twists. The script also suffers from mild schizophrenia, as the movie has a number of segments just barely held together with the main plot, and it likes to jump back and forth between them.

All in all, Casino Royale is a solid update to the Bond franchise and an auspicious start for Craig. It rescues the series from the downward spiral in which it's found itself for the last ten years or so and sends it off in interesting directions, but it is unlikely to replace series fans' favorite films.

Stranger Than Fiction

2006-11-16T01:09:00.000-05:00

Year: 2006
Director: Marc Forster
Notable Actors: Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhall
Score: A-
Summary: Easily the most charming film Will Ferrell has ever made. Quirky and very enjoyable; much better than expected.

I've been saying for some time that I'm not really a Will Ferrell fan. Stranger Than Fiction is forcing me to reevaluate that position.

The premise is this: Will Ferrell is Harold Crick, extraordinarily boring IRS auditor. He does everything by the numbers -- literally, as he pretty much counts everything, including number of times he brushes his teeth and the number of steps to his bus stop. His by-the-numbers world is shaken up, however, when he meets -- well, audits -- Ana Pascal (Gyllenhall), a quasi-revolutionary baker.

Here's the twist: Harold is the protagonist in an author's story, and the author plans to kill Harold off. Here's the twist on the twist: Harold is also a real person. (This literary twist forces Harold to consult a literary theory professor for advice.)

This sorta-kinda frame story is where most of the comedy comes in. Crick can hear the narrating voice of the author, although no one else can. Thus, Harold knows that his death is imminent.

That said, the film is really a love story first and a comedy second. Not that the movie isn't funny -- I was laughing throughout the movie. But more often I was smiling at the plot and the characters. Pascal exudes charisma; Crick is... well, okay, he's an incredibly dull person, but it's hard not to like him anyway.

If all this sounds like a strange setup for a movie, you're right. It's very strange. Especially since there's never really an explanation for the writing-about-a-real-person premise. Frankly, though, I prefer the lack of explanation to the hokey, fantastical story that writer Zach Helm would have had to come up with otherwise.

The film isn't the kind of thing I've come to expect from Ferrell, which may explain why I liked it so much. Gone are the deliberately hammy, overly loud phrases that I've associated with Ferrell in the past. He plays the role perfectly with wonderful understatement. The film needs that in order to have a strong anchor and not become another ridiculous comedy.

Stranger Than Fiction probably isn't going to make a showing at the Oscars this year. (Then again, how often do worthwhile films do that?) But it's a very charming film that I think is worth seeing and that I'll probably pick up on DVD when it comes out, and I recommend people go see it.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

2006-11-04T22:39:00.000-05:00

Year: 2006
Director: Larry Charles
Notable Actors: Sacha Baron Cohen
Score: B+
Summary: Very over the top and sometimes cringe-inducing, but pretty funny.

If you've been living under a rock for the past few weeks, some background: Borat is a personality created by English comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. Borat Sagdiyev originally appeared as a segment on Cohen's "Da Ali G Show"; he is a fictional TV personality from Kazakhstan, coming to the US to film a documentary on the customs of the country along with producer Azamat Bagatov. However, he gets sidetracked when he sees an episode of Baywatch on his hotel TV and falls in love with Pamela Anderson. The result is a cross-country trip to meet and wed Pamela.

Kazakhstan -- the real one -- was horrified at Cohen's portrayal of their country, and it's easy to see why, as the picture painted is pretty abhorrent. They launched a massive PR campaign to keep people from being frightened off, which is why you've been seeing TV spots about how great Kazakhstan is lately. They felt the need to counteract Cohen's depiction of their customs.

The thing about Borat is that it's filmed as a documentary. Most of the "actors" in Borat have no idea that they're acting. Cohen went completely in-character for the movie, which means that most of the others really thought he was a visiting Kazakhstani filmmaker. That act got him access to a number of places he probably wouldn't have been able to get into otherwise, from a TV studio to an Alabama dinner party.

I only have one real complaint about it. Like the original Borat segments, some of the same jokes tend to resurface. On the whole, though, it stays pretty fresh.

I don't want to go into much detail as the spontaneity is what makes the movie enjoyable; that's going to make for a short review, but I think that's preferable to spoiling chunks of the movie. So all I'll say is this: Borat is pretty good. It's not the best movie I've seen, but I was laughing pretty consistently through most of it.

One other thing I should note: I'm not really a fan of Da Ali G Show. When it's on target, I think it's very funny; it's a too inconsistent to make my A-list, though, including the Borat segments. In contrast, I found Borat consistently entertaining, so if you're not a big Ali G fan, don't let it scare you off from Borat.

Man Of The Year

2006-10-15T20:34:00.000-05:00

Also reviewed this week: The Departed

Year: 2006
Director: Barry Levinson
Notable Actors: Robin Williams, Christopher Walken, Lewis Black, Jeff Goldblum
Score: A-
Summary: Rather fun but pointed political meta-comedy.

Okay, everyone is going to say pretty much the same thing when they talk about Man Of The Year. Yes, the obvious analogy is Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. See, Man Of The Year is about political satirist Tom Dobbs (Williams), whose audience urges him to run for President after being fed up with indistinguishable, useless career politicians. That's pretty much what people are doing in real life these days -- it's hard not to have at least heard about the (nonexistent) Stewart/Colbert ticket all the kids are pushing these days. But that's not really what the film's all about.

Okay, it is, sort of. Jon Stewart analogies aside, the film's a pretty blatant political commentary on those useless career politicians. But that doesn't mean it doesn't do a good job, or that it isn't worth your time.

Comedian Tom Dobbs hosts a political comedy show, but there's some sharp commentary going on at his show; the film likens him to Bill Maher and the rest of that crowd. One of his audience members tells him to run for President; he laughs it off as a joke at first, but after a little while, begins to think about it. His candidacy starts as a joke, but becomes increasingly serious as time goes on.

There's a kink in the system, though -- literally. See, this year they've chosen to roll out a new electronic voting system created by a company called Delacroy (an obvious, harsh jab at real-life e-voting giant Diebold). Only there's a problem: there's a glitch in the system that seriously distorts the election results, discovered at the last minute.

I like Robin Williams' movies, but I don't care for his standup, and I think this movie made me realize why. In his standup, Williams acts like a squirrel on speed, jumping frenetically from topic to topic, and that doesn't do much for me. In comedies like Man Of The Year, he does pretty much the same thing, but the film provides a certain amount of context, a framework for him to work within. It works very well here and Williams is, of course, the star of the show. Everyone likes Christopher Walken, of course; Lewis Black's inclusion is a nice nod to his role as real-life political satirist. As you'd expect, though, Williams is the show-stealer.

Man Of The Year is designed to be a commentary on a number of things: career politicians and political parties, electronic voting, and yes, Jon Stewart. It's not perfect, but it does a lot right. First off, yes, the film is very funny. I want to focus more on two other aspects, however.

First, while you'd expect a film like this to be heavily biased towards the left, I felt it did a fairly good job of balancing its snark; the jabs aren't so much at any one party as they are the entire two-party system. I don't know that I can call it "bipartisan," but that was a big bullet to dodge and I think they did a good job with it.

Second, I think I'm on to writer/director Barry Levinson. Above, I called Man Of The Year a meta-comedy, and I did that for a reason. The film is essentially about a comedian calling attention to some serious political issues. I have this sneaking suspicion that that's exactly what Levinson is trying to do with this film: call attention to some real-life serious political issues. A lot of people these days are talking about how they don't see much to distinguish the two major U.S. political parties; that theme features heavily in the film. Likewise, there's a lot to be concerned about with electronic voting systems, principally the lack of a paper trail; again, it's a major feature in the film.

Only Levinson can say for sure whether that was his goal or not. If it was, I think he did a pretty good job and I hope it works. If not, well, it's still a lot of fun as a comedy.

The Departed

2006-10-15T20:19:00.000-05:00

Also reviewed this week: Man Of The Year

Year: 2006
Director: Martin Scorsese
Notable Actors: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin
Score: A-
Summary: Quality mob film, pretty much the kind of thing we expect from Scorsese.

The Departed is probably going to get a lot of whining about how it's based on a Chinese film (Wu Jian Dao) and why can't Scorsese make an original movie and blah blah blah and while that's true, it's really not the point. The Departed is a good movie with a strong cast.

The setup is pretty simple. Our scene is Boston (actually, it's New York City for most of the film, but shh), and our players are the State Troopers and the Irish mob. Each side has a mole in the other's crew, Billy Costigan (DiCaprio) for the "staties" and Colin Sullivan (Damon) for the mafiosos. Costigan is pretending to work for crime boss Frank Costello (Nicholson), but is really tipping off the police to what Costello is doing. Damon is doing the same thing inside the PD for Nicholson, under the noses of Police Chief Queenan (Sheen) and his lieutenant, Dignam (Wahlberg). The film is essentially a big game of back-and-forth.

The acting takes center stage. The big stars here are DiCaprio, Nicholson and -- believe it or not -- Wahlberg. I don't have a strong opinion on DiCaprio's work, but he captured most of my attention during the film; one of his stronger appearances, I think. Damon was a bit less memorable, in contrast. Likewise, while Sheen was a likeable character, I found Wahlberg more interesting to watch. Nicholson probably takes top honors, though; I generally find him a bit inconsistent, but he hit just the right note of sleaze with Costello. Also keep an eye out for Alec Baldwin; I'm a longtime fan of his, and while he gets limited screen time, he makes it count.

The script is a bit convoluted. I'm embarrassed to admit that -- whether due to bad seats, as I got pretty much the last seat in the house, or my own incompetence -- for a little while I had difficulty visually distinguishing Damon and DiCaprio, and was thus confused about the premise for a little while. Once I was certain I understood what was going on, everything clicked pretty well. The conclusion wraps everything up fairly well, though it's a bit abrupt; still, I'd rather have it that way, since the movie feels a bit long at 152 minutes.

Overall the film is nothing particularly new or adventurous for Scorsese, but it's exactly the kind of film he makes, and he makes them well. The Departed is worth seeing, and will probably be a popular pick on DVD.

Little Miss Sunshine

2006-08-19T23:36:00.000-05:00

Year: 2006
Director: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris
Notable Actors: Greg Kinnear, Toni Collette, Steve Carell, Alan Arkin, Paul Dano
Score: A-
Summary: Twisted, smart comedy, very much worth seeing.

Little Miss Sunshine is a new comedy directed by husband-and-wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, which works much better than you'd think. It's the story of Olive, a little girl with beauty queen aspirations, and her dysfunctional family: Sheryl (Collette), Olive's mother, who is trying to hold her family together; Richard (Kinnear), her husband, who is obsessed with his own self-improvement plan; Frank, Sheryl's gay, suicidal Proust scholar brother; Dwayne (Dano), Sheryl's son, who has taken a vow of silence and absolutely loathes his entire family; and Olive's drug-abusing, foul-mouthed grandfather and pageant routine coach. The plot revolves around the family's mission to get Olive to the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant.

The most obvious concern here is that it was directed by a married couple. I'm happy to report that it's not a problem at all -- the directing is very solid, no complaints here. If you're like me and didn't like Steve Carell's last movie, I am again happy to say that this one fared much better. It's a smart movie that doesn't always go for the obvious joke, or the obvious plot device.

As you might expect, Sunshine is really about the characters, all of whom play pretty well together. The best dynamic is between uncle Frank and brother Dwayne, neither of whom are particularly happy people; they spend a good chunk of time commiserating, since Frank has been placed under Dwayne's supervision to make sure he doesn't try to kill himself again. Alan Arkin is also top-notch as the grandfather, who is a drug-abusing, porno-watching, foul-mouthed advice giver. The entire cast gives good performances; Arkin and Carell are probably the most interesting, though.

Sunshine clocks in at a pretty reasonable 101 minutes. It doesn't drag, but I did find myself checking the time once or twice. Some of the jokes get repeated a couple of times and wear a little thin, but for the most part the humor is fresh; similarly, once in a while something happens that really makes you cringe, which I don't generally care for, but I didn't have any consistent problems.

Little Miss Sunshine is a very dark comedy with a great cast and great directing that thinks outside the box. It's worth your time and your nine bucks, so I recommend giving it a look.