Considering The Cinema

2012 (2009)

2009-11-13T18:04:00.000-07:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / November 13, 2009

If you’re worried that the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012, you can find worthier ways to spend your remaining time than by watching “2012,” a 158-minute, CGI extravaganza by director Roland Emmerich.

Aside from its special effects, which are usually quite dazzling, “2012” is a disaster of a disaster movie.

You may have heard that some people believe the ancient Mayans predicted the cataclysmic destruction of the Earth and its inhabitants on the winter solstice of 2012. A little research reveals that many scholars of Mayan culture have debunked the doomsday prophecies with rather sunny clarifications. But can we all agree that this is an interesting premise for an action movie? Yes.

“2012” opens with scientists making troubling discoveries. If I got all my movie-science notes correct, there is a spike in unnaturally large solar eruptions, which are shooting mutated neutrinos (whatever those are) to the Earth’s core, thereby heating up its crust, producing increasingly violent anomalies internally and externally around the planet. All this is closely related to the exceptionally rare aligning of the planets in our solar system, which is set to occur on Dec. 21, 2012.

Or something like that. In other words, the Earth and its dwellers will undergo horrendous devastation through earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, floods, etc., and we get to watch.

Emmerich ineffectively tackles his usual challenge of portraying large-scale events while conveying their effects on a diverse ensemble of small-scale victims. His method of alternating the dramatic catastrophes with melodramatic exchanges between characters doesn’t work like it does in, say, Paul Greengrass’ “United 93,” because in this film the tearful conversations and syrupy soundtrack are hollow attempts to elicit our emotional responses.

But despite its trite script, “2012” features a large cast of decent actors like John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, Thandie Newton, and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who all do fine with what they were given.

Emmerich loves to depict destruction. He often makes big, dumb, fun movies like “Independence Day” (1996) and “Godzilla” (1998). “2012” is most comparable to “The Day After Tomorrow” (2004). Both films have the same problem: Special effects are only special when they’re employed to enhance, not replace, the story.

A vast chasm gapes between the filmmakers who design special effects to illustrate their stories and those who contrive stories to deliver their special effects. Unfortunately, Emmerich is mostly the latter.

Directed by Roland Emmerich

John Cusack / Amanda Peet / Woody Harrelson

Thriller 158 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for intense disaster sequences and some language)

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

2009-11-07T00:10:00.001-07:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / November 7, 2009

A promising but unembellished shell-of-an-idea, “The Men Who Stare at Goats” is a comedy whose purpose is to deride the Bush administration and U.S. militarism, in general. It has surprisingly sparse “jokes,” or moments intended to be humorous, and the instances meant to have comedic effect barely evoke a smirk.

“Goats,” let’s call it, suggests that during the ’80s, in the spirit of exploring alternative warfare technology, the U.S. Army dabbled in extrasensory weaponry by attempting to develop a top secret unit of “psychic spies” — super-solider warrior monks who can fight with their minds.

We’re informed by the narration of Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor), an aimless reporter for the Ann Arbor Daily Telegram. While trying to become a wartime journalist in Iraq, Wilton learns of “Project Jedi” and the afore described New Earth Army, which is led by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges in another “Dude-like” role).

The movie’s meandering, stream-of-consciousness narrative follows Wilton who follows the faintly clairvoyant Lyn Cassady, played by a zany George Clooney. These two go everywhere while the thin plot goes nowhere. A characteristically nefarious Kevin Spacey also joins the madness.

Sometimes a film unintentionally will have the misfortune of becoming art that imitates life — distastefully. Through no fault of its makers and by sheer coincidence, “Goats” features a scene where a soldier goes berserk and begins shooting at his fellow personnel stationed at his military base, a sequence that immediately echoes the shootings that occurred Thursday in Fort Hood, Texas.

Films facing this kind of sensitive predicament often will postpone their release date, if possible. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Collateral Damage,” which was initially slated for an October 2001 release — only a month after the Sept. 11 attacks, was delayed four months because of its terrorism theme.

But “Goats” was set to flicker in theaters nationwide Friday only about 24 hours after the Fort Hood incident; unfortunately for this film, the goats were already out of the barn, so to speak. Even so, one wonders why any recent film — much less a comedy — would depict a crazed gunman firing into a scattering crowd in this age of scarily frequent school shootings.

In summary, watching “Goats” is probably not nearly as funny — or as entertaining — as actually staring at real goats. Or put another way, if I were psychic, I would have seen “The Box” instead.

Directed by Grant Heslov

George Clooney / Ewan McGregor / Jeff Bridges

Comedy 93 min.

MPAA: R (for language, some drug content and brief nudity)

Michael Jackson’s This Is It (2009)

2009-10-30T20:18:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 30, 2009

Named after what he intended to be his final concert tour, Michael Jackson’s “This Is It” is a behind-the-scenes musical documentary that was filmed between March and June of this year.

Like many documentaries, it has talking-head interviews and archival reel, but the majority of the film is rehearsal footage of the preparation for the never-to-be concert series. Introductory screen titles tell us the film is “for the fans.” Indeed it is. Jackson’s devotees will revere its revealing intimacy.

Although his untimely death precluded the realization of the aptly named concerts, the title “This Is It” ironically suits this filmic remnant better than it could have represented the tour. Since echoes of the concert’s conception are immortalized by the film, fans still get to see what Jackson’s final tour would have been like — and perhaps an even vaster audience will now see these performances.

If I counted correctly, “This Is It” features 16 live performances, which have been seamlessly spliced together from multiple rehearsals for each song. (This is evident from Jackson’s varying attire during each performance.)

Ranging from Jackson 5-era tunes to some of his most recent songs, the film’s set includes “Human Nature,” “Smooth Criminal,” “The Way You Make Me Feel,” “I Want You Back,” “I’ll Be There,” “Thriller,” “Beat It,” “Black or White,” “Earth Song,” “Billie Jean,” and “Man in the Mirror,” just to name a few.

Jackson’s smooth-as-wet-glass vocal quality is reproduced as beautifully as it is heard on his records. And the revolutionary dancer’s movements are as hypnotic to watch as fire, while we wonder how this 50-year-old convulses and contorts just as nimbly as he did when he was half that age.

The best parts of the film are moments when the benevolent singer humbly coaches his cast and crew.

“This Is It” is rated PG. It has some suggestive choreography, provocatively dressed dancers and costumed ghouls that might unnerve younger viewers.

Jackson’s life was unexpectedly and permanently abbreviated on June 25. Like many swooning and brooding artists before him, Jackson was dismissed and relegated to sideshow obscurity until his death exalted his work anew. One cannot help but feel a sense of loss while watching this film, knowing that it is the last we have of this exquisite entertainer. An artistic giant has fallen; a gentle genius has been stilled.

Directed by Kenny Ortega

Michael Jackson

Documentary 112 min.

MPAA: PG (for some suggestive choreography and scary images)

Paranormal Activity (2009)

2009-10-23T17:08:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 23, 2009

Never have I experienced such a buzzing audience as when I left the theater after watching “Paranormal Activity” — a truly scary, must-see horror film that has become something of a cultural phenomenon.

Entirely set at a San Diego home, the startling events depicted in “Paranormal Activity” span a three-week period in the fall of 2006.

Something awful has been terrorizing Katie ever since she was 8 years old. She doesn’t know what it is, but she knows it wishes her harm.

Katie’s plucky boyfriend, Micah, is determined to solve her problem by setting up a camera and filming their everyday routine — including their sleep — in hopes of capturing some footage of the unexplainable occurrences that have been troubling her.

Similar to “The Blair Witch Project” and “Cloverfield,” the movie itself — or what we’re shown onscreen — consists only of the subject matter recorded by Micah’s camera. This intriguing technique draws us into the film as too-close-for-comfort onlookers, placing us in the presence of the characters’ peril.

Also, the film’s documentary-style appearance and its actors’ naturalistic performances lend “Paranormal Activity” a convincing air of reality.

Of course there will be naysayers who won’t think this film is frightening. No doubt some viewers will even be bored by its absence of gore, violence, sexuality, nudity, and yes, plot.

But it is the film’s stark simplicity that provides its power. “Paranormal Activity” taps into universal, deep-seated childhood fears, like “What was that noise?” and “What happens around me while I’m asleep?”

Micah’s constant filming allows us to hear “the things that go ‘bump’ in the night” and see some visual manifestations of paranormal activity. As with M. Night Shyamalan’s “Signs,” “Paranormal Activity” is a movie in which what we hear — and imagine — is much scarier than what we see.

The film ominously informs us from the beginning that the footage we’re watching has been provided by the couple’s families and the police department. It also keeps emphasizing that the unseen force’s malevolent tormenting will continue to escalate in severity — which it does. Knowing the incidents will increasingly get worse inflicts a profound sense of dread upon us.

So, if you only see one movie in theaters this Halloween, see “Paranormal Activity” — but avoid its spoiler-filled trailers. And if you want to rent a good movie for the spooky season, rent Michael Dougherty’s “Trick ’r Treat” (2008).

Directed by Oren Peli

Katie Featherston / Micah Sloat

Horror 86 min.

MPAA: R (for language)

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

2009-10-16T19:19:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 16, 2009

Writer-director Spike Jonze has somehow taken the abstract concept of childhood and remarkably projected it onto the silver screen. His new film, “Where the Wild Things Are,” is based on the much loved, 1963 book of the same name, by Maurice Sendak.

Though it will be unpopular, I must note that Sendak’s book is another overrated, under-plotted children’s book, much like “Goodnight Moon,” whose affection among adults likely comes from nostalgia rather than literary impact.

In other words, there’s not much story in the book’s 40-some pages to adapt into a feature-length film. But Jonze and his co-writer, Dave Eggers, have provided an example of a filmic adaption that’s still successful, despite having scarce source material.

As in the book, an unruly kid named Max (Max Records) misbehaves wildly before dinner, which incites a conflict with his mother (Catherine Keener). Max is scolded — and in his estimation — banished. His feelings of alienation lead the feral, wolf-suited boy on an adventure where he sojourns in another land, a place where he fits in, where the wild things are.

It is on this undomesticated island that the film’s magic happens. The characters of Max’s new world are patterned after his everyday relationships, much like “The Wizard of Oz,” where Dorothy’s acquaintances, friend or foe, have counterparts back in Kansas.

These thematic parallels of Max’s life are surprisingly poignant. The film is skillfully subtle in the way it represents the boy’s psyche through the circumstances of his wild kingdom, repeatedly calling to mind the introductory plot line that preceded them. This exceptional storytelling technique imitates the manner in which aspects of our lives sometimes show up in our dreams.

Though “Where the Wild Things Are” is rated PG and is considered a family movie, it’s probably not suitable for young children. My fatherly recommendation would be for ages 8 and up, depending on the child. This film is not always warm and cuddly; in fact, it has violent, menacing sequences and portrays a child with serious behavioral problems.

Perhaps most notably, “Where the Wild Things Are” has a bizarre and affecting undercurrent that I can only describe as a longing, melancholy ache that left me with a remnant of sadness. Maybe what stayed with me was the film’s uncanny ability to peer into the minds of children, illustrating their fears, vulnerability and need for validation.

Directed by Spike Jonze

Max Records / James Gandolfini / Catherine Keener

Fantasy 101 min.

MPAA: PG (for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language)

Couples Retreat (2009)

2009-10-09T21:00:00.003-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 9, 2009

Even if you aren’t a film buff, you’re probably already familiar with Peter Billingsley, the debuting director of “Couples Retreat.” He played Ralphie, the boy who wanted a Red Ryder BB gun in “A Christmas Story.” Unfortunately, Billingsley’s first feature-length movie is essentially four bad romantic comedies shoehorned into one.

Dave (Vince Vaughn) and his wife, Ronnie (Malin Akerman), are your typical, busy parents. Their hectic lives and mischievous boys leave them little time for each other. Joey and Lucy (Jon Favreau and Kristin Davis) have been anxiously awaiting their daughter’s departure for college, so they can get a divorce. Shane (Faizon Love) is already divorced but still devastated over losing his wife, so he distracts himself with the companionship of a 20-year-old named Trudy (Kali Hawk).

And Jason and Cynthia (Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell) have had trouble trying to bear a child, which has caused a major rift in their marriage, to the point that they’re also considering a divorce — a plot line that is decidedly not comedic material. When Jason and Cynthia convince their friends to attend an exotic retreat, the eight of them hope for a paradisiacal getaway. But their group vacation has a difficult design of built-in relationship counseling.

It is precisely these counseling sessions (and the reruns of these unpleasant discussions again with their friends) that oddly drag this otherwise brightly colored, picturesque movie into the doldrums of a dull drama. Because “Couples Retreat” is hardly funny — at all — its filmmakers seem to hope that supplying lots of sun-bathed bodies of male and female beauties will sufficiently entertain us.

The movie’s capable cast is an ensemble of generally funny, likable actors who are given little to work with in the way of plot and dialogue. Favreau and Vaughn’s hardships are mostly self-inflicted, however, since they wrote this movie, along with Dana Fox.

Filmmaking requires the hard work of numerous collaborators. I don’t dismiss their efforts lightly. But from a consumer’s standpoint, “Couples Retreat” is an example of apathetic customer service, the cinematic equivalent of a carelessly thrown-together fast food hamburger whose pickles are stacked vertically beneath a bun that’s sliding off in ketchup.

Even though I won’t endorse “Couples Retreat,” there are other movies playing locally that I recommend, such as “Zombieland,” “Surrogates,” “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs,” “All About Steve” and “Whip It.”

Directed by Peter Billingsley

Vince Vaughn / Jason Bateman / Jon Favreau

Comedy 107 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (on appeal for sexual content and language)

The Invention of Lying (2009)

2009-10-02T18:51:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 2, 2009

Each movie exists as its own self-contained universe. Some movie worlds are much like our own, while others are fantastical realms, far removed from reality as we know it.

And occasionally we’re shown places — like the one where “The Invention of Lying” is set — that are mostly familiar, except for some sort of unusual twist. For example, this devious romantic comedy takes place in a world where lying doesn’t exist yet. There has never been deceit, flattery, fiction or dishonesty of any kind. No one has ever “said something that wasn’t.”

Ricky Gervais (“The Office”) plays Mark Bellison, a seemingly unexceptional person who endures daily, verbal assaults, thanks to the candor of his acquaintances. Mark works as an unpopular screenwriter at Lecture Films, a production company whose nonfiction movies consist of a person sitting in a chair, recapping historical events.

He goes on an awkwardly straightforward date with a woman he has long admired, but Mark’s charming intelligence isn’t enough to interest Anna (Jennifer Garner), who’s carefully searching for a moneyed mate from a gene pool that can yield physically attractive offspring.

So far, so good. “The Invention of Lying” gets off the ground with this intriguing premise, a concept that’s akin to Jim Carrey’s “Liar Liar” and “Yes Man.”

Initially the movie is uncomfortably insightful in its ability to reveal just how often we can be unintentionally deceitful in everyday situations, such as the common “How are you?” — “I’m fine,” greeting sequence. But for comedic effect, these characters aren’t able to withhold unpleasant remarks; they seem compelled to confess every thought, regardless of its hurtfulness, without flinching.

One day Mark stumbles onto the invention of lying, which he wields to his advantage in a world where everyone believes anything he says.

What I’ve described thus far provides the basis for smart humor (such as blatantly honest advertising campaigns), as well as some distasteful jokes concerning bodily functions and sexual behavior.

But just when “The Invention of Lying” starts to get repetitive with its one trick — namely, terrifying truthfulness — it reveals ulterior skulduggery: This movie is also a pernicious satire on religion, especially Christianity.

Indeed, this film could have had the alternate title, “The Invention of Religion,” because that’s another creation of Mark’s, suggesting that faith is fabricated. Though this mocking theme is set forth in the guise of a satirical comedy, I suspect some religious-conservative moviegoers may not find “The Invention of Lying” one bit funny.

Directed by Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson

Ricky Gervais / Jennifer Garner / Rob Lowe

Comedy 100 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for language including some sexual material and a drug reference)

Surrogates (2009)

2009-09-25T21:44:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / September 25, 2009

Technological advances breed moral dilemmas and anxieties. The keystone of science fiction story arcs is an underlying question: What if our newfound technology turns against us?

This fearful sentiment provides the foundation of “Surrogates,” a thought-provoking film starring Bruce Willis that’s set in a future where humans live via robotic counterparts. Through these “surrogates,” users operate in the real world remotely, without their corporeal selves ever having to leave the safety of their homes.

While “connected” an operator controls his or her excursionist through a “stem chair,” allowing an out-of-body experience whereby the human feels the sensations through the automaton. Reminiscent of the device in “Brainstorm” (1983), surrogates are equipped with a precautionary measure that protects their users from any catastrophic harm that might befall them.

“Surrogates” opens by summarizing the 14 years of scientific developments that precede the film’s events. When the plot begins, most of the world’s population has already embraced surrogacy, which has virtually rectified many global problems, like crime, disease, and discrimination.

Bruce Willis plays FBI agent Tom Greer, another person who employs his surrogate in his daily duties, that is, until he investigates two unusual homicides that threaten the entire purpose for surrogacy: Humans can be killed while connected to their machines.

Viewers should know that the actors’ performances as the surrogates are, well, robotic — which is intentional. But their human performances are quite authentic, by contrast, which complements the surrogates’ stiffness.

This movie is an inferior cousin to “Minority Report” (2002), an incredible film that also posed intricate moral dilemmas but was effectively able to deliver action and suspense — unlike “Surrogates.”

A cinematic think-piece, “Surrogates” is an intelligent film with ethical underpinnings. It’s accurately rated PG-13, though it has been marketed as a smut-laden action flick, which it is not. I suppose in an attempt to draw audiences to consider their film’s lofty themes, the filmmakers saw fit to pull a bait-and-switch campaign.

And I guess that’s permissible since “Surrogates” nobly engages reflective moviegoers like us with an examination of the balance between our connection with real life, and our obsession to be engaged in the virtual world. (Even the cinema indulges our desires for such vicarious escapism.)

In an age when we play tennis on video games instead of on the court, familiar science fiction themes in films like “Surrogates” are becoming less and less fictional.

Directed by Jonathan Mostow

Bruce Willis / James Cromwell / Ving Rhames

Sci-Fi 88 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence, disturbing images, language, sexuality and a drug-related scene)

The Informant! (2009)

2009-09-18T20:05:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / September 18, 2009

For those who are unfamiliar with the shenanigans of Mark Whitacre, this review is careful not to reveal any surprises surrounding him.

Matt Damon plays this character, who is a real-life person portrayed as an onion-layered enigma who sometimes seems dimwitted — other times brilliant — but always possesses more than we know. He is the exasperating subject of “The Informant!,” Steven Soderbergh’s new crime-comedy adapted from a similarly titled book by Kurt Eichenwald.

“The Informant!” begins by informing us that it’s based on real events, though the characters are composites of multiple people and the dialogue has been dramatized. It is the story of a chatty biochemist who becomes entangled in the corporate misdeeds of his company. Because Whitacre insists that he’s ultimately a good person, he agrees to help the FBI as a semi-effective, semi-bumbling informant. Myriad complications ensue.

Damon demonstrates some depth with this character. During a few scenes Whitacre has to act. It’s always impressive to see a performance within a performance, where an actor convincingly inhabits a character who is simultaneously portraying another persona. (Steve Carell is masterful at this — and Robert Downey Jr. performs actor’s acrobatics in “Tropic Thunder” that are mind-blowing.)

“The Informant!” is comparable to Soderbergh’s other criminal comedies, like “Out of Sight” or “Ocean’s 11,” but it’s not nearly as much fun. It is completely dialogue-driven and probably won’t entertain those who are easily bored by the absence of violence and explosions. Indeed, the film’s R-rating is earned solely for profanity.

To be honest, “The Informant!” is a little boring because it’s a “pay attention and listen closely” movie that’s occasionally amusing but never hilarious.

The saving grace of this film is Damon’s frequent voice-over narration, which exposes his character’s random, tangential thoughts, allowing us to wander around in Whitacre’s wonderings. I was reminded of Saturday Night Live’s “Deep Thoughts — by Jack Handey,” with random commentary about indoor swimming pools, sweaters, butterflies, polar bear noses, etc.

On one hand, “The Informant!” is a timely film, released in a decade littered with corporate scandals and fraudulent financial institutions; on the other hand, after hearing about corruption ad nauseam, a film like this isn’t exactly escapist fare.

Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Matt Damon / Scott Bakula / Tom Papa

Comedy 108 min.

MPAA: R (for language)

9 (2009)

2009-09-11T14:59:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / September 11, 2009

Writer-director Shane Acker’s animated feature, “9,” is a bleak blend of a Tim Burton-looking take on “Toy Story” and this summer’s “Terminator Salvation.” It portrays a grim scenario of dolls versus machines.

Master of macabre, Tim Burton, is one of the producers of “9,” and indeed, his influence is visually apparent. Mere mention of Burton’s name readily calls to mind his familiar style — that morbid brand whose dark threads have woven films like “Beetle Juice,” “Sleepy Hollow,” Corpse Bride” and “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.” This film follows suit.

Accordingly, parents should know that “9” is not suitable for younger children. Its PG-13 rating is about right, as it is a little unsettling, much like this year’s “Coraline,” another animated feature that’s not really a kids’ movie, either.

For starters, “9” has a post-apocalyptic setting where the human race has crossed the self-imposed finish line of extinction, and dead bodies can be seen amid the rubble.

Before his death, an innovative scientist summons life within nine numbered dolls, which become the only living beings left to contend with artificial intelligence run amok. As in “Terminator Salvation,” the characters in “9” inhabit a world where malicious machines scour the ruins for life — only to promptly extinguish it.

The sharp, jagged, mechanical monsters come in various designs, all of them deadly. In contrast, the 8-inch dolls are comparatively soft, fashioned from burlap sacks, looking like a hybrid of gingerbread men (or women) and sock-monkeys.

Resistance seems futile; yet “the resistance” perseveres. Each of the nine dolls has a prominent personality trait that either aids or hinders his or her survival. Because the characters have actual characteristics, these animate dolls display more humanity than the human rebels in “Terminator Salvation.”

These burlap beings are identified according to the ordinal designation found on their backs. No. 9 (voiced by Elijah Wood) is the plucky protagonist whose curiosity and compassion make him a worthy hero.

After 9 is endowed with sentience, we follow his quest to unite a divided 1 through 8 against their common enemies. (Don’t worry: The math is minimal.)

As far as animated films go, “9” spans a wide range of emotions while also providing entertaining and imaginative action sequences. But what makes “9” most intriguing is its conglomeration of many different genres and its heavy-handed commentary on the potential perils of technological advancement among war-prone societies.

Directed by Shane Acker

Elijah Wood / Jennifer Connelly / Christopher Plummer

Animation 79 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for violence and scary images)

All About Steve (2009)

2009-09-04T17:58:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / September 4, 2009

“All About Steve” is better than you’d expect: It’s superior to Sandra Bullock’s “The Proposal,” from earlier this year, and it’s almost as much fun as “Miss Congeniality” (2000). The aforementioned movie and the one under review share themes of individuality and self-worth — both commendable concepts for movies aimed at teenage girls.

Screenwriter Kim Barker’s admirable agenda is carried forth through Bullock’s character, Mary Horowitz, a 30-something who’s still single and temporarily living with her parents again. Mary infamously wears tall, red Wonder Woman-like boots, similar to the sort Lynda Carter wore to play said super-heroine in the late ’70s. But Mary’s fantastical footwear pales next to her vibrant personality. She is excessively chatty, rambunctious and often irritating.

Above all, Mary is an intelligent wielder of words, a trivia buff whose command of synonyms and derivatives can be attributed to her passion for puzzles. (She loves crossword puzzles even more than Stanley Hudson does.) Mary savors her work as a “crossword constructor,” a job that entails creating once-a-week contributions for her local newspaper — which I must confess, made me blush knowingly.

When the lonely bachelorette is set up on a blind date with news cameraman Steve Muller (Bradley Cooper), her overzealous eccentricities scare him away. Steve thinks Mary is crazy — alarmingly so — especially after she misconstrues his polite departure as an invitation to follow him across the country, chasing him as he chases the news.

These two conventional roles are enriched by an unconventional supporting character named Hartman Hughes (Thomas Haden Church), an instigating field reporter determined to get promoted to the anchor desk. And though their roles are small, Ken Jeong (“The Hangover”) and DJ Qualls (“The New Guy”) also complement this ensemble.

Regrettably, Sandra Bullock is usually the Keanu Reeves of actresses, which is to say, she doesn’t have exceptional acting talent, but she occasionally takes little niche roles that work — like this one, or her reluctant, undercover pageant contestant, Gracie Hart. Otherwise, Bullock’s parts are hit or miss. For instance, her performance in “The Proposal” doesn’t work at all, but she’s not bad in “28 Days” (not the zombie movie).

“All About Steve” has a few moments that evoke laughter and some that conjure joy, such as a scene involving a close-call with a tornado, or when she explains why she wears those red boots. It is an enjoyable, feel-good movie that revels in uniqueness.

Directed by Phil Traill

Sandra Bullock / Bradley Cooper / Thomas Haden Church

Comedy 98 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content including innuendos)

The Final Destination (2009)

2009-08-28T18:10:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 28, 2009

There is a rap song that begins, “Six million ways to die — choose one.” In the “Final Destination” movies, there are about six trillion ways to expire, none of them pleasant.

This horror franchise specializes in portraying elaborate, freak-accident deaths, usually befalling young men and women.

“The Final Destination,” which is supposedly the last installment of the series, continues to wring out its bone-dry, bankrupt gimmick. Though the first film was sufficient, here we are with a fourth rehashing where several friends are once again enjoying themselves, until one of them has a premonition depicting an imminent catastrophe.

“The Final Destination” opens at a race track. The visionary leading character, Nick — who’s played by Wheeling-born actor Bobby Campo — foresees a horrendous car crash that will kill him and his friends. After warning his skeptical cohorts and surrounding spectators, they flee the scene whereupon the crash occurs as he had envisioned, except the majority of those who listened to his warning cheat death.

But only for a time.

In these movies death itself is personified as an invisible stalker, preying upon those who should have died. And just like the three previous films, the characters realize what’s happening and try to prevent their fatalities.

When I discussed Campo’s new film with him, he said, “Our object was to see how gruesome and how intricate we could make these deaths.” While it’s true that “The Final Destination” delivers some chain-reaction executions, it spends more time trying to defy audience expectations than it does creating complicated and ghoulish kill scenarios. (The problem with faking out viewers every time is the deception is no longer a surprise.)

“The Final Destination” does deliver one stroke of genius pertaining to its 3-D format: Typically, the fun of 3-D is the alarming perception that something is flying out of the screen toward your face. This movie cleverly exploits this anxiety with a 3-D movie scene within the 3-D movie you’re watching.

But otherwise, most of the blurry 3-D sequences are difficult for your eyes to bring into focus and look artificial — like cartoonish, transparent holograms.

Campo has a charismatic screen presence, and he does fine with this role of looking worried, making ominous predictions and trying to evade death. He told me, “It’s weird to act in a horror movie, because you can’t exactly draw from anything you’ve ever experienced.”

Let’s hope.

Directed by David R. Ellis

Bobby Campo / Shantel VanSanten / Haley Webb

Horror 82 min.

MPAA: R (for strong violent/gruesome accidents, language and a scene of sexuality)

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

2009-08-21T20:38:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 21, 2009

The brazen title of writer-director Quentin Tarantino’s new film, “Inglourious Basterds,” refers to a team of Jewish-American soldiers whose specialty and sole objective is killing Nazis — or as their comedic leader, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) says it, “killin’ ‘Nat-sees.’”

Running 153 minutes, “Inglourious Basterds” unfolds in episodic chapters, some of which play like self-contained short films. In fact, the opening chapter is incredible; its scenario is simple: In 1941 in Nazi-occupied France, German Col. Hans Landa, a so-called “Jew hunter,” visits a dairy farmer who is suspected of harboring Jews.

This first vignette and another later chapter set in a basement tavern are exceptional in the way they build suspense. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace in modern cinema to use quick editing and loud, dissonant music for jarring the audience into feeling tension. But Tarantino has trusted that his spectators will be patient enough to enjoy longer scenes that slowly build genuine suspense.

The trailer gives the impression we’ll be seeing a wall-to-wall war film bathed in blood, but “Inglourious Basterds” is a dialogue-driven drama punctuated only occasionally by explicit violence. Even so, Tarantino fans will be pleased with disturbingly real depictions of strangling, shooting, scalping and a baseball-bat scene that makes the one in “The Untouchables” (1987) seem mild.

“Inglourious Basterds” is an excellent film that is cleverly conceived, smartly written and well executed. It has the all-around craftsmanship of an Academy Award Best Picture contender, though I’m not sure its mid-year release date will afford it the nomination it deserves.

Certain aspects of the film are inspired by actual events and people, but nitpicking historians can take the day off, because much of the movie is fiction.

Those who have an aversion to subtitles should know that you’ll be reading 50 to 60 percent of the dialogue, unless you’re fluent in German, French and Italian.

Understandably, some people have incorrectly assumed that Tarantino’s film is a remake of the 1978 Italian flick called “The Inglorious Bastards,” but this new movie is hardly a retread, despite its nearly identical title. The older film is also set amid World War II, has rogue American soldiers — in France — and some Nazis, but Tarantino’s story is altogether different, not to mention superior.

With “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino delivers another memorable film that’s an odd blend of ferocious, realistic violence and offbeat humor.

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Brad Pitt / Christoph Waltz / Diane Kruger

Drama 153 min.

MPAA: R (for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality)

District 9 (2009)

2009-08-14T16:30:00.002-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 14, 2009

For those who insist that “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” are good movies, I suggest contrasting them with “District 9,” Peter Jackson’s sci-fi action-drama that not only has spectacular special effects, it also has an intriguing story line that’s enhanced by the subtext of its themes. In other words, it’s a blockbuster that’s entertaining visually and intellectually.

“District 9” is presented as a documentary that examines an alien invasion. Starting with archival footage from 1982, the film shows how a gigantic alien aircraft arrives over Johannesburg, South Africa, and looms ominously in mid-air. After three months of silence from the visitors, an organization called Multi-National United (MNU) flies up to the alien ship and cuts its way inside, where it finds bug-like extraterrestrials, struggling and malnourished.

On the ground below the ship, MNU establishes a holding camp called District 9, a slum that becomes home to 1.8 million aliens for the next 20 years after their arrival, during which time, tensions and intolerance between humans and aliens result in escalating unrest.

The costly inconvenience of hosting the invaders has made them a despised nuisance. Humans want the aliens to leave just as much as they want to return home, but their ship is inoperable. Violent and unsettling mayhem ensues.

“District 9” has a bizarre, almost comedic beginning with a pseudo-documentary style similar to a Christopher Guest film, like “Waiting for Guffman.” Then the tone suddenly grows more dire, with footage resembling “Cloverfield” or “Quarantine” — minus the motion sickness.

The aliens themselves are unsightly creatures, seemingly inept delinquents that chew on tires and love cat food more than E.T. loves Reese’s Pieces. Their language is reminiscent of Greedo’s, from “Star Wars,” which means their dialogue is necessarily subtitled.

“District 9” does an excellent job at shaping our initial opinion of the visitors, provoking our contempt and an “us” versus “them” attitude. Then it pulls the rug from beneath us, stirring our compassion and sympathy for the aliens, reversing the target of our disgust to humans.

“District 9” is a blatant, metaphorical commentary on illegal “aliens” and refugee camps, and the moral questions of humanitarianism associated with them. It also addresses sacrificing life in the name of scientific or militaristic progress.

“District 9” is the best film of the summer and perhaps the best film so far this year.

Directed by Neill Blomkamp

Sharlto Copley / Vanessa Haywood / Nathalie Boltt

Sci-Fi 112 min.

MPAA: R (for bloody violence and pervasive language)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

2009-08-07T18:20:00.002-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 7, 2009

The 3- and 3/4-inch G.I. Joe action figures that this movie is based on had a tendency to break in certain places. If “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” were a toy instead of a movie, it would have a broken rubber band, two missing thumbs and no groin.

Apologists will dismiss any criticism of a movie based on a toy line, but after seeing the first “Transformers” brought to the screen with some degree of competence, we know it can be done.

“The Rise of Cobra” is set in the “not-too-distant future” when a weapons manufacturer has developed “nanomites” — fearsome weaponry that can “eat all materials,” including tanks and entire cities.

Naturally, such destructive technology must not fall into the wrong hands, like, say, a budding terrorist organization bent on world conquest. And when that unthinkable scenario occurs, another group of “real American heroes” must counter its attack.

“The Rise of Cobra” gives us some of our favorite characters, such as Storm Shadow, Zartan, a sultry Baroness, and of course, Snake Eyes, whose appearances are quite good. Snake Eyes is played by Ray Park, the incredibly gifted martial artist who also played Darth Maul in “The Phantom Menace” and Toad in “X-Men.”

But unfortunately, many of Park’s combat sequences against Storm Shadow are filmed up close, so we can’t tell what’s happening. That’s how they make older guys like Liam Neeson look fast, but Park doesn’t need close-ups.

As its title suggests, “The Rise of Cobra” is a multi-faceted origins story. We get to learn the origins of Destro, Cobra Commander and the reasons for the bad blood between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. Despite its futuristic, Battle Force 2000 appearance, “The Rise of Cobra” mostly features the earlier characters, which is to say, there is no Serpentor, Crimson Twins, Emesis Enforcer or any other Cobra-La kooks.

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is frequently boring and seldom entertaining. It is little more than a colorful strobe light masquerading as a motion picture. In other words, if you’re not a G.I. Joe fan — circa 1982 to 1986 — don’t even bother with this movie, unless you’re the kind of person who’s easily entertained by blinking Christmas lights.

Note: Readers feeling nostalgic for their Hasbro treasures should visit the invaluable YoJoe.com, and click on the “Toy Archive” link.

Directed by Stephen Sommers

Channing Tatum / Sienna Miller / Marlon Wayans

Action 118 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout)

Funny People (2009)

2009-07-31T18:11:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 31, 2009

Movie previews seem to either reveal too much, or they mislead our expectations. The trailer for “Funny People” does the latter because it suggests a hilarious film fueled by stand-up routines of proven comedians, like Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.

“Funny People” is disappointing, as it is only occasionally humorous — never side-splitting — and overall, just OK.

Now, I realize my lukewarm verdict will amount to blasphemy for some fans, since we’re talking about a film by Judd Apatow, whose cinematic batting average is nearly as consistent as Pixar’s, in terms of viewer appeal. You’ll remember Apatow’s comedic handiwork from “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up.”

“Funny People” sporadically sprinkles mediocre clips of stand-up acts, like we’ve seen on “Seinfeld,” but the film doesn’t revolve around comedy club performers or their scene. In fact, rather than amusement, the predominant tone of “Funny People” is unhappiness.

And why wouldn’t the mood be dismal, since the movie begins with George Simmons (Adam Sandler) getting devastating news that he has a form of leukemia and a grim prognosis. Simmons is a successful comedian-movie star who has earned his clout by paying his dues, trudging up through the ranks of the comedy club circuit.

Sandler’s Simmons character is unmistakably parallel to Sandler himself. Like Sandler, Simmons has starred in a host of moronic movies, where he plays idiotic characters with idiotic voices. (Because “Funny People” features a successful star in an unflattering, autobiographical role, I was reminded of “JCVD,” an uncomfortable film where Jean-Claude Van Damme plays a half-real, compromising version of himself.)

Counterpoint to the Sandler character we have Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), a young and ambitious comedian who, along with his pals, is trying to break into show business. Simmons’ celebrity status requires him to play various publicity events, but he doesn’t feel as funny after learning of his illness, so he hires Wright as his assistant and joke-writer.

The first half of “Funny People” involves the relationship of the two contrasting comedians; the second half seems like a new film altogether, as Simmons tries to right his wrongs and win back his lost love.

Although “Funny People” was written and directed by Apatow, its plot gives the impression that Sandler is symbolically “handing over the reins” to the likes of Rogen, Hill and Apatow. For the past 20 years or so — particularly in the ‘90s — we’ve had Saturday Night Live character movies and Happy Madison productions. Now Sandler and his cronies are passing the torch to a new generation of funny people.

Directed by Judd Apatow

Adam Sandler / Seth Rogen / Jonah Hill

Comedy / Drama 146 min.

MPAA: R (for language and crude sexual humor throughout, and some sexuality)

Orphan (2009)

2009-07-24T21:08:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 24, 2009

In the movies, horror often happens to families that deserve it least. From earlier this year, “The Haunting in Connecticut” depicts a family whose primary haunting victim also suffers from cancer.

“Orphan,” which is also set in Connecticut, afflicts a family already afflicted by the loss of their baby. The characters’ vulnerability evokes our pity for them. Our concern heightens the suspense of watching their peril.

“Orphan” is another “evil child flick,” akin to “The Good Son” (1993), “Godsend” (2004) or “Children of the Corn” (1984). John and Kate Coleman (Peter Sarsgaard and Vera Farmiga) have two children, but after their third child is stillborn, they decide to “give their love to another child who needs it.”

At St. Mariana Home for Girls they find Esther, a 9-year-old orphan from Russia who is well-mannered, intelligent and uncommonly insightful. After quickly deciding that Esther should be a part of their family, the couple adopt her.

But “something is wrong with Esther.” Among other things, she seems to be an evil seed, a cunning master manipulator whose propensity for violence is reminiscent of a Joe Pesci wise guy.

Isabelle Fuhrman plays Esther. In preparation for her role, the young actress learned some sign language and studied Russian to develop an accent, which isn’t always consistent, but it’s an admirable performance for a 12-year-old. Fuhrman’s creepy character demonstrates the power of lighting and makeup: Note the contrast in Esther’s appearance from her introductory scene with her final scene.

This film reminded me of how masterful Alfred Hitchcock was at conjuring terror in broad daylight. It’s genuinely scary when nightmares erupt from typically benign situations or people — such as a child. “Orphan” is disturbing because we wouldn’t expect a child who needs a home to try to destroy it.

Technically, “Orphan” is a thriller and a drama, with moments of horror violence. This film escalates from uneasy to unlikely, to unseemly to unsettling. One of the movie’s greatest strengths is the way it doesn’t rely on supernatural phenomena for its nightmares; instead, it has many cringe-eliciting moments where we think, “Oh no, surely they (the filmmakers) won’t do that” — and sometimes they do.

A note to the sensitive and the squeamish, “Orphan” has several upsetting elements, such as violence involving children, both perpetrated by — and against — children. The stillborn baby subplot could be upsetting for some, as well as a couple of brutal, semi-graphic murders.

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra

Isabelle Fuhrman / Vera Farmiga / Peter Sarsgaard

Thriller / Horror 123 min.

MPAA: R (for disturbing violent content, some sexuality and language)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

2009-07-16T20:09:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 16, 2009

Few visions are more entertaining than seeing an old wizard going berserk and unleashing some angry wizardry. “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” delivers one such display.

In fact, each filmic adaptation of author J.K. Rowling’s series has provided numerous imaginative images, giving double meaning to the phrase “movie magic.” “Half-Blood Prince” represents the series well, with intriguing concepts like memory-filled vials, “liquid luck,” unbreakable vows, and of course, the revelation of the half-blood prince’s identity.

Not all the “Harry Potter” movies are equal, but I’m happy to report that “Half-Blood Prince” is one of the better films (along with “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Order of the Phoenix”).

In “Half-Blood Prince,” Dumbledore seeks to convince Horace Slughorn, a professor of potions, to return to Hogwarts because his memory contains a valuable secret that could finally end Harry Potter’s conflict with Voldemort. This new movie also has the creepy Tom Riddle (Voldemort as a young pupil) played by Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, the nephew of actor Ralph Fiennes, who plays the adult Voldemort.

The “Harry Potter” movies hit the big screen in 2001, and the “Half-Blood Prince” is the sixth installment of the saga. The remaining two films (which both will be adapted from the seventh and final book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”) are slated for release in November 2010 and July 2011.

Looking over the eight-year span of the currently released movies, it’s interesting to see how the three principal actors — Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) — have grown up before our eyes.

This cinematic, age-archiving phenomenon reminds me a little of Michael Apted’s incredible “Up” documentaries, which have revisited several individuals every seven years for the past 42 years (so far) to see how closely their lives have unfolded, relative to their plans.

Assigning a one-word verdict to summarize a movie is as inadequate as trying to label a person using the same method. I’m often asked why I rate movies like the “Half-Blood Prince” as merely “good,” instead of “excellent.” Simple. There has to be room for distinguishing even better films — excellent ones like “Fargo,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Unforgiven” and “Monster.”

And rarer still, the controversial “masterpiece” rating is only given to truly extraordinary films like “Goodfellas,” “Hoop Dreams,” “Life Is Beautiful” and the “Up” documentaries mentioned above.

Directed by David Yates

Daniel Radcliffe / Michael Gambon / Alan Rickman

Fantasy 153 min.

MPAA: PG (for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality)

Bruno (2009)

2009-07-10T18:02:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 10, 2009

Not everyone knows what Sacha Baron Cohen’s films are like. Let’s just say they’re challenging to describe — even in general terms — in a family newspaper.

Those who appreciated his 2006 film, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” will probably love “Bruno” even more. For those who haven’t experienced Cohen’s work before, read on before buying your movie ticket.

The word “obscene” has never seemed so feeble. Cohen makes Judd Apatow’s raunchy productions seem timid. “Bruno” is comparable to Tom Green’s disgusting “Freddy Got Fingered” (2001).

Cohen plays Bruno, a 19-year-old homosexual man from Austria whose flamboyance both earned and lost him a job as the host of a fashion show called Funkyzeit. After getting ousted from Fashion Week in Milan, Italy, Bruno moves to Los Angeles to become an “uber-famous celebrity,” a quest that fills the balance of the 83-minute film with his sordid attempts at notoriety.

Cohen must be admired for his unflinching commitment to his comedic art. An unfortunately unforgettable wrestling match during his “Borat” film situated his face in an unthinkable place. But gross-out humor is only part of Cohen’s gig: He is a master instigator and equal-opportunity offender who obviously aims to shock, antagonize and provoke as many viewers as possible.

Cohen’s filmmaking has made him no stranger to litigation. Much like the methods of the TV shows “Candid Camera,” and more recently, “Punk’d,” Cohen’s gimmick is to use his bizarre characters to elicit reactions from unsuspecting “victims.” Under such unusual circumstances, these regular, everyday non-actors respond to the comedian in surprising ways that land them in his films’ final cut — hence the humor and the lawsuits.

For both “Borat” and “Bruno,” some of the scenes are scripted with actors. The latter has cameos from surprisingly “big” celebrities who chose to participate willingly, as well as some who vehemently did not.

Though Cohen succeeds in amusing, shocking, disgusting and offending, I can’t recommend “Bruno” — even a little bit — despite its having several laugh-out-loud moments. This film is vile and somehow, paradoxically, shameful and shameless. “Bruno” is rated R for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language. (Its original rating was NC-17, which it still deserves.)

Less than 30 minutes into the screening I attended, three 20-something guys vocally refused to watch any more and left the theater. Cohen no doubt would be pleased.

Directed by Larry Charles

Sacha Baron Cohen / Gustaf Hammarsten / Clifford Banagale

Comedy 83 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language)

Public Enemies (2009)

2009-07-02T20:36:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 2, 2009

According to The Encyclopedia of American Crime, by Carl Sifakis, the term “public enemies” was coined by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and was meant to identify armed “stickup men” of the 1930s. The notorious John Dillinger was dubbed “Public Enemy No. 1.,” which Sifakis noted, was a status he attained with a criminal career that spanned only 11 months in 1933 and 1934.

Apparently Dillinger was a somewhat chivalrous bank robber and incredible prison-escape artist whose loyalty to his cohorts even promoted some honor among thieves. Despite his designation as a public enemy, Dillinger was actually widely admired during the Great Depression era as a kind of Robin Hood for insisting that bank patrons keep their money, while assuring them that he only wanted to steal from the bank.

These and many other tidbits from Dillinger’s life are portrayed in Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies,” a convincing period film that features Johnny Depp as Dillinger, Christian Bale playing his pursuer, and Marion Cotillard as his love interest. Mann’s movie is authentically set in many of the historical locations where Dillinger briefly dwelled, including the Biograph Theater in Chicago.

The subtle master stroke of “Public Enemies” is when we see Dillinger watching the film “Manhattan Melodrama” in the theater mentioned above. Mann pulls a clever trick whereby he places us, the viewers, in the same theater with Dillinger, as the images on the movie screen he’s watching eventually fill the screen we’re watching. It’s been done before, but not this well.

For better or for worse, the film’s episodic plot is merely a cycle of bank robberies, gun battles, arrests and jailbreaks — over and over again. Though it is refreshing to see Depp step out of his typically bizarre, macabre roles to play a relatively normal person, overall, “Public Enemies” isn’t overly intriguing. Gangster film fans will know what I mean when I say this movie is more a “Road to Perdition” than a “Goodfellas.”

Certainly Dillinger couldn’t have been worse a menace to society than Albert Fish, one of his criminal contemporaries who was executed in 1936. Fish was a convicted child killer and cannibal who thrilled at the prospect of getting to experience the electric chair. (I bet he was shocked by his disappointment.)

Movies have the peculiar effect of glamorizing war and crime. So does the media. Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” (1994) demonstrates both glamorizers in action by satirizing the way the media tends to sensationalize criminals, which of course, is depicted cinematically with stylistic flair. In the 1930s, Dillinger also captivated the media, and therefore, the nation. Indeed, here we are 75 years after his death, and Dillinger’s name is still appearing in newsprint.

Directed by Michael Mann

Johnny Depp / Christian Bale / Marion Cotillard

Crime 140 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for gangster violence and some language)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

2009-06-24T22:58:00.006-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 24, 2009

Director Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” movie from 2007 is excellent, as far as shameless action entertainment goes. In fact — though it didn’t win — “Transformers” was nominated for three Academy Awards for visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” still provides stunning sound and visual effects (hence my “OK” rating), but its atrocious story is utterly ridiculous, even for Michael Bay — and that’s really saying something. Remember “Armageddon?”

Bay is one of those directors whose movies you enjoy, but you’re a little embarrassed to admit it. In planning “Revenge of the Fallen,” it’s as if the three screenwriters jotted down all their ideas during a brainstorming session and Bay decided to use them all.

The first “Transformers” is about an alien race of two feuding robotic clans that seek to obtain a mysterious cube in order to protect or exploit its power, depending on their heroic or villainous dispositions. A fast-talking teenager named Sam Witwicky gets caught in the middle of the transformers’ battle, thanks to one of his ancestors. Sam is played by the hilarious Shia LaBeouf, whose character in “Holes” (2003) also has forbears whose misadventures implicate him.

As for this sequel, “Revenge of the Fallen” begins two years after the first movie, when the malevolent Decepticons want revenge by attempting to destroy the benevolent Autobots, as well as the human inhabitants of the Earth — oh, and also the sun. Yes, this movie is so dire, the villains aren’t satisfied with merely conquering the Earth, they want to destroy the sun, too. The Decepticons’ destructive objectives are all designed to ensure their posterity and redeem “The Fallen.”

It’s no surprise that “Revenge of the Fallen” is nothing more than a summer-blockbuster-popcorn movie aimed at 14-year-old boys, which is fine — especially if you’re a 14-year-old boy. If you’re looking for plenty of pyrotechnics and Megan Fox wearing cut-off jean shorts, a la Catherine Bach, then this your movie. But if you’re looking for a coherent story, you’ll have better luck with “Armageddon.” Again, that’s saying something.

Variety’s film critic Joe Leydon wrote a book called “Guide to Essential Movies You Must See,” in which he suggests that filmmaking pioneer Edwin S. Porter demonstrated how “spectacle is not enough; movies also have to tell compelling stories.” Indeed. Somebody needs to tell Michael Bay that.

Directed by Michael Bay

Shia LaBeouf / Megan Fox / John Turturro

Sci-fi / Action 150 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material)

Year One (2009)

2009-06-19T17:14:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 19, 2009

For many years now, the American cinema has been suffering from a disease I call the genre parody. Cringe-worthy movies like “Meet the Spartans” and “Dance Flick” spoof other films, such as “300” and “Step Up 2: The Streets,” respectively.

Following suit, “Year One” borrows a great deal from “10,000 BC” and “Apocalypto,” but it’s better than the comedies mentioned above, because it’s not so grossly exaggerated — though it is gross.

Michael Cera plays Oh, the smartest member of his caveman tribe, and Jack Black is Zed, the village idiot. Oh is a gatherer and Zed thinks he’s a hunter. When the odd outcasts are banished from their community, they begin to wander (along with the plot), encountering biblical people and places, such as Cain and Abel and Sodom — of Sodom and Gomorrah fame.

And it comes to pass, verily, that these unlikely heroes are given the opportunity to prove their worth to themselves and those who had doubted them.

Pairing Jack Black and Michael Cera together as a comedic duo was a stroke of casting genius. Clashing Black’s overstated overconfidence with Cera’s understated timidity is funnier than a tickle fight at your fourth-grade teacher’s house. In fact, the first 10 minutes of “Year One” feels like the two actors are trading punch lines during a stand-up comedy skit.

“Year One” is not necessarily a family film. Its PG-13 rating includes “crude and sexual content throughout” and some so-called “comic violence” that’s closer to Scorsese than the three stooges. Because of the biblical humor and vaguely philosophical dialogue, some viewers might sense a mean-spirited undertone of contempt for religion.

Even though “Year One” rates above mediocrity, by all means, go to the movies this weekend and consider seeing “The Proposal” instead. And if you’re determined to watch a prehistoric comedy, I’d recommend “Caveman” (1981), starring Ringo Starr and Dennis Quaid. It has one of the best musical sequences in all moviedom.

Directed by Harold Ramis

Jack Black / Michael Cera / Olivia Wilde

Comedy 100 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content throughout, brief strong language and comic violence)

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

2009-06-12T17:17:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 12, 2009

Two-thirds of “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” ticks away in approximate real time, which means the time it takes for the events to unfold onscreen equals the time they would take in reality. (The cinema typically condenses time, which is how we’re able to watch stories that span days or years in only a couple of hours.)

Notably, this movie’s real-time portion isn’t depicted through long, unbroken takes, as in Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” (1948); instead, the plot is delivered as it is in “High Noon” (1952), with several cuts painstakingly aligned to correspond with the minute-hand of your trusty wristwatch — which amounts to impressive, labor-intensive filmmaking.

Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber, a train dispatcher who works at a rail control center in New York City. He happens to be on duty when a madman who calls himself Ryder (John Travolta) launches a hostage-ransom plot by commandeering Pelham 1 2 3, a subway train filled with passengers. If the city of New York doesn’t deliver $10 million within an hour, Ryder threatens to shoot one passenger for each minute the ransom is late.

Travolta portrays this villain as intelligent and unstable — a loose cannon with the volatility of a Quentin Tarantino henchman. Other actors of note include John Turturro as a would-be hostage negotiator, and James Gandolfini (aka Tony Soprano) as an unpopular New York City mayor.

“Pelham 1 2 3” is a remake of a 1974 movie by the same name. Both films are based John Godey’s novel. Unlike many summer blockbusters, “Pelham 1 2 3” is more than just a big, loud action flick: In one scene, Garber’s worried wife instructs him that he must return home safely, because he needs to buy milk. Another moving moment involves an act of pure heroism by a minor character.

Credible little touches like these engage us in a movie that has many scenes that are merely two actors talking to each other over a radio. But the film’s highlight is Washington’s nuanced performance as a flawed hero and good man. I was reminded of another Washington film — perhaps his best — called “John Q” (2002), where he plays a hostage captor.

By the way, real-time enthusiasts should consider seeing “Timecode” (2000), if only for its quartered screen that reveals four, simultaneously unfolding stories that are uninterrupted by editing. And if you’re fond of hostage movies, I recommend “Hostage” (2005), with Bruce Willis. Remarkably, it’s a hostage film within a hostage film.

Directed by Tony Scott

Denzel Washington / John Travolta / John Turturro

Crime 106 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for violence and pervasive language)

The Hangover (2009)

2009-06-05T03:21:00.002-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 5, 2009

Recounting tales of drunkenness or mentioning the expression, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” always seems to make people laugh — why? I can’t explain their perpetual humorousness, but these two comedic concepts are the foundation for “The Hangover,” and sure enough, they’re still funny in this movie.

Along with being a comedy, “The Hangover” is also a mystery whose plot duration is three days. It begins with a jittery bride receiving the bad news on her wedding day that her groom has gone missing amid the revelry of his Las Vegas bachelor party.

To build the intrigue behind the groom’s whereabouts, “The Hangover” flashes back two days earlier and shows the four friends taking a road trip from Los Angeles to Sin City. As their wild night begins, the film jumps ahead to “the morning after,” where our curiosity is piqued further as we’re shown the bizarre aftermath of their all-night antics.

The previews reveal that the guys somehow acquire a chicken, a police car, a tiger and a baby — all mysteries because none of them remembers what happened. The true fun of “The Hangover” is learning how all this weirdness transpired, as the trio pieces the evening back together throughout the movie, while searching for the groom.

The director, Todd Phillips, is known for other party movies like “Road Trip” (2000) and “Old School” (2003). Justin Bartha plays the groom, but it’s the other three actors who carry this caper: Bradley Cooper is a restless school teacher and good-times instigator; Zach Galifianakis plays the hilarious yet alarming future brother-in-law; and Ed Helms basically reprises his Andy Bernard persona from “The Office.”

Despite its successes, “The Hangover” has one black eye, so to speak, that’s truly tasteless and borderline illegal filmmaking: In this appalling scene, a baby — yes, a baby — is compelled to make sex-related gestures. Multiple children were used to film the baby’s role, so one must wonder how many parents agreed to allow their child to be exploited this way, and how exactly were those babies persuaded to cry hysterically on cue?

Aside from this lapse in judgment, “The Hangover” is entertaining and reminiscent of Peter Berg’s “Very Bad Things” (1998). More than any other movie I can recall, this vulgar film has a surefire method for persuading its viewers stay for the credits. It’s impossible to leave — no matter how much you’ve had to drink.

Directed by Todd Phillips

Bradley Cooper / Zach Galifianakis / Ed Helms

Comedy / Mystery 100 min.

MPAA: R (for pervasive language, sexual content including nudity, and some drug material)

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

2009-06-01T20:44:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 1, 2009

Movies like “Drag Me to Hell” are irrefutable justification for movie critics, as is the misrepresented marketing of such films. This is the kind of movie where spectators leave before it ends (which happened during my screening) and demand refunds. Unless you’re a special kind of movie-lover, I recommend avoiding “Drag Me to Hell,” but probably not for the reasons you suspect.

Sam Raimi directed this movie, and he also co-wrote it with his brother, Ivan. Now, I should note that both Raimis are fairly competent filmmakers. “Spider-Man 3” (2007), which wasn’t as good as its predecessors, was directed by Sam and both brothers were screenwriters. Noting their abilities lends support to what follows.

The problem with “Drag Me to Hell” is its marketing. It has been portrayed as a serious attempt at horror, but actually, it’s a hybrid of horror and comedy-horror, a la “The Evil Dead” (1981) and “Army of Darkness” (1992) — both Raimi products. Are you starting to get the picture?

Yes, “Drag Me to Hell” is obviously meant to achieve two purposes: to get cheap, jumpy scares and to slip a new, laughably bad cult favorite in on unsuspecting moviegoers. Indeed, if this film’s previews had represented it accurately, its box office numbers would be drastically lower. This is not a pay-good-money to see kind of movie. Remember “Blood Diner” (1987)? It’s not quite that bad, but it comes close at times.

Ironically, Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) — the young woman at risk of being dragged to hell — is a good person. As the movie begins, everything in her life is coming into alignment. She’s dating a great guy, and she’s in the running for a position as the assistant bank manager at a California bank.

But while trying to prove that she can make the tough calls, she denies a grotesque gypsy woman an extension on her loan, which means the old lady will be left homeless. The elderly woman begs, causing a scene, and is removed from the premises. To make a long story short, the creepy woman places a curse on Christine that will result in her being terrorized by a demon for three days, after which she’ll literally be dragged to hell to suffer for eternity ... unless she can find a way to escape the curse.

It wouldn’t be right for me to describe the comical ridiculousness that unfolds (in case anyone still plans to see this movie), but let me just say this: “Drag Me to Hell” could have easily been titled “Scary Movie 5.” And if there ever is a “Scary Movie 5,” even though “Drag Me” seems like a good candidate for parodying, it probably wouldn’t work because the source material is already so farcical.

The point is, this film is made just fine for what its devious creators were trying to accomplish — which is horror-movie kitsch. Judging it in those terms (which are lenient), “Drag Me to Hell” isn’t that bad. But judging it against serious horror movies that really try to be scary, such as “The Haunting in Connecticut,” it’s barely mediocrity.

Ultimately, I’ve panned “Drag Me to Hell” because it betrays what the previews have led people to expect. Don’t forget to hug your local movie critic today.

Directed by Sam Raimi

Alison Lohman / Lorna Raver / Justin Long

Horror 99 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of horror violence, terror, disturbing images and language)