My Sister's Keeper

Bottom Line: A thinking man and woman's weepy.

If you're going to make a weepy, there's no reason you can't make it with intelligence and insight as the makers of "My Sister's Keeper" have done. The audience manipulation -- if one wants to call it that -- comes from your understanding of these people and how this particular family operates in an atmosphere of love and mutual concern. The tragedy that forces its way into their midst is fought with tenacity, and the conflicts within the family are portrayed in such a manner that no one is a bad guy.

A film about a child with leukemia understandably has a small theatrical audience. Indeed, Jodi Picoult's novel, on which Jeremy Leven and director Nick Cassavetes' screenplay is based, might seem more at home on television, where illness, doctors and hospitals somehow feel less alarming. But "My Sister's Keeper" does benefit from a sagacious big-screen treatment: It allows for nuances and takes time to focus this story of an illness on all the people it affects.

The movie begins with a bit of misdirection when 11-year-old Anna (Abigail Breslin) sues her parents. It looks like you're headed into a fascinating legal drama dealing with a thorny ethical issue.

Anna has always known she is a "donor child." When her parents, Sara (Cameron Diaz) and Brian (Jason Patric), discover their first daughter, Kate (Sofia Vassilieva), has leukemia, they choose to conceive another child through genetic engineering who would be a perfect genetic match with Kate. Thus, Anna can donate blood or whatever else is necessary to keep her elder sister alive.

The two girls love each other dearly, so Anna never complains. Then, 11 years into this routine, Kate's kidneys are failing and she'll need one of Anna's. Anna finally says no. She hires a big-shot lawyer (Alec Baldwin), whose face adorns billboards and buses all over Los Angeles, and goes to court seeking her "medical emancipation." But her mom, who gave up a law practice to care for her ailing daughter, will make a ferocious opponent.

The movie isn't about a court battle. The film moves back and forth in time to show how decisions were made and how this illness impacts everyone, including older brother Jesse (Evan Ellingson), who at times feels overlooked because of his sisters' relay team in body parts. The movie reflects back on the joys and sorrows of a family and how love can be just as strong whether the answer is yes ... or no.

The film takes time giving you the background on everyone, and that includes the judge (Joan Cusack) who will decide the issue and a fellow cancer patient (Thomas Dekker) who becomes Kate's love interest.

OK, maybe everything is a little too neat, too perfect. If you're going to be in a hospital, you would want David Thornton's Dr. Chance for your doctor. He's compassionate, honest, smart and -- this element veering into science fiction -- always available for consultation.

You would want your mom to be running over everyone else's feelings in fighting for your life. You'd want a dad who continues to do his job -- as a fireman, no less! -- even though the illness marginalizes him within his own family. You'd want a brother and sister this loving, but would that ever happen?

The ugliness of the illness also is not depicted in detail. Even the vomiting is mostly offscreen. And the ending is dragged out unnecessarily. It is the one occasion where you might legitimately complain about manipulation.

Nevertheless, the actors work with a beguiling earnestness. Diaz goes without any discernible makeup and even shaves her head at one point (so her daughter won't feel "ugly" following chemotherapy.) All the work pays off: This family feels like a family and not an ensemble thrown together in the casting process. When they gather around Kate's hospital bed, the whole things seems very real. Thus, the tears.

Opens: Friday, June 26 (Warner Bros.)

Review: Year One

by Jeffrey M. Anderson Jun 19th 2009 // 9:02AM

Harold Ramis has worked in comedy a long time, and his career has taken many directions. With his work on the Ghostbusters (1984) script and his straight-man performance in the film, he managed to allow Bill Murray room to move and riff within the confines of a visual effects-heavy summer blockbuster. As for the meticulously crafted classic Groundhog Day (1993), I hesitate to call any movie "perfect," but it comes close. But then there were phoned-in hits like Analyze This (1999) and Analyze That (2002) that seemed too tightly wound and too slavishly dependent on plot to be very funny.

Ramis' new film Year One, on the other hand, comes closer to the spirit of his directorial debut Caddyshack (1980). I'm not saying it's quite as funny or as brilliant, but it's in the same spirit. It cares thankfully little about its plot or its character arcs, or historical accuracy; it's a bit flabby and careless, but it's also gleefully stupid, and it has the ability to knock you off guard and make you giggle helplessly.

Jack Black stars as Zed, an inept hunter in a primitive tribe of hunter-gatherers. His best friend is Oh (Michael Cera), a gatherer who forever endures jokes about his girlishness. Zed is in love with Maya (June Diane Raphael) and Oh with Eema (Juno Temple), but neither loser has enough going for him to promise them much. So when Zed eats from the tree of forbidden fruit, he is forced to leave and Oh tags along. (Subsequently, Zed believes he has been "chosen.") On their first stop, they meet arguing brothers Cain (David Cross) and Abel (Paul Rudd), and watch slack-jawed as Cain bludgeons his brother to death. Now more or less fugitives, they continue on, becoming slaves, escaping, meeting Abraham and stopping him from sacrificing his son, and finally venturing into the sin-ridden city of Sodom to rescue their girls.

Year One starts out with a couple minutes of ultra-serious Apocalypto-type footage, with tribal hunters stalking some prey in the jungle, before Zed bungles out and establishes the tone for the entire film. Basically, everyone speaks English, and modern-day vernacular and slang are allowed, even if references to modern-day inventions and developments are not. The eventual goal is for the two boys to become men and earn the hands of their beloved women, but the movie doesn't mind occasionally stopping for laughs in the pursuit of this goal. Unfortunately, if the gags don't work in these stopping places, the stop just feels like a lag, like a bit of fat that didn't get trimmed out. And indeed, we get the usual share of penis jokes, pee jokes and poo jokes that rarely work. (There are few sex jokes; they were reportedly cut out during an appeal to change the rating from 'R' to 'PG-13.') I laughed at one pee joke, but not because of the joke itself; rather, I laughed at Black's follow-up line: "I'm peeing on my own face, too... on the inside."

Black is a good reason why most of this works. (Back in 2000, I was convinced that Black deserved an Oscar nomination for High Fidelity.) Like Murray in Ghostbusters or Will Ferrell in his best films, Black has discovered a way to make it seem as if he's improvising all his lines in his own style. And his style is awfully hard to define; he's cocky and confident, yet not arrogant or overbearing. He's incompetent, but not useless. He's verbose but not obnoxious. His funniest lines can sometimes seem like the creation of an enthusiastic ten year-old or like the creation of a clever and witty playwright. It seems as if many up-and-coming comedians are trying in various ways to copy Black's brand of tubby energy, and failing (Dan Fogler comes to mind).

However, Black is surrounded in Year One by many other able comedians; Cera has a similar, rambly type of comic delivery, but sweeter and quieter, and he's a perfect match for Black. Ramis appears as Cain and Abel's father Adam, and Hank Azaria -- apparently capable of any voice or accent -- is Abraham, who is obsessed with circumcising every male within earshot. Oliver Platt is very funny as the lusty, effeminate high priest, and Cross makes an appealing maniacal Cain. And the great Vinnie Jones (The Midnight Meat Train), with his psychotic, soccer hooligan stare, plays a violent guard. To round out the comedy pedigree, we have screenwriters Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg, from the American version of TV's "The Office" (on which Ramis also worked), and of course, producer Judd Apatow, who seems to collect a stable of comedians like a nobleman might collect prize steeds.

In the end, we get a reel of hilarious bloopers, which indicates how much fun the shoot must have been. It reminded me of a few other comedies, specifically things like Three Amigos, The Golden Child and Spaceballs, that critics aren't supposed to like, but somehow provide some guilty laughs anyway, mainly because of the comic energy that radiates from the screen. With all these different types of funny people butting heads all day long every day, something good was bound to come out of it.

Review: The Proposal

I love watching Sandra Bullock, who is enjoyable even in the lamest of films. And sadly, there are so many lame movies starring Bullock, and so few that I would enjoy watching more than once -- Infamous is a rare exception. After I saw Speed, I said that I thought Bullock could be this generation's Carole Lombard, but unfortunately the actress has not yet found her Howard Hawks or Ernst Lubitsch. The Proposal is yet another Bullock-starring formulaic romantic comedy with little to offer except sparkling performances, and not just from Bullock.

Margaret Tate (Bullock) is the terror of the Manhattan publishing office where she's editor-in-chief, and even her charming assistant Andrew (Ryan Reynolds) is scared of her. Her Achilles heel turns out to be that she's ... Canadian, and she's about to be deported for a year due to some visa problems. So Margaret hurriedly declares that she's engaged to Andrew, who's American. You don't have to have seen Green Card to guess the rest of the story.

The "happy couple" meets with skepticism from INS, so to prove their love, they travel to Andrew's family home in small-town Alaska to celebrate his Granny Annie's (Betty White) 90th birthday. Since Bullock is starring and it's a romantic comedy, we know her character will be humbled and tumbled about, away from her native habitat of New York. If only we could vanquish all our power-crazed bosses this way ...

Admittedly, I am so pleased to see Bullock -- or any actress, for that matter -- playing a romantic comedy heroine who isn't "adorably" klutzy or awkward that I'm almost willing to love The Proposal on that strength alone. However, I don't care for the stereotype of the Evil Female Witch-Boss either, especially when you know a comeuppance is forthcoming. At least this character doesn't need an adorable child to become acceptably feminine.

In addition, I don't like humiliation comedy, which is in abundance during the first half of The Proposal. I don't laugh when a character is taken down a peg by being blackmailed onto her knees in public (as in the above photo), or when a male character is embarrassed about being portrayed as a "sensitive guy" around his manly friends. I feel sorry for them, even if they're fictional. I never could watch even "America's Funniest Home Videos" because I always pitied the stumbling bride or clumsy child. I realize I'm in the minority -- a lot of audience members nearly laughed themselves sick over one character being mean to another, or being harassed by Mother Nature -- so use your judgment here about your own sense of humor.

The Proposal does have some inspired comic moments -- I love the waves of instant messaging that flow through the publishing office, signaling that Margaret is stalking the floor or spreading gossip. And being a geek, one bit involving a sound in an Internet cafe made me giggle. Many of the gags, however, were old and tired when Granny Annie was a mere slip of a girl.

Despite the tired and sometimes mean-spirited jokes, Bullock is still delightful to watch. She knows how to portray this type of character and her transformation, and hits every note perfectly. Reynolds doesn't have a strongly written character to work with, but he's charming enough to pull it off anyway. For the most part, the supporting cast has little to do: Mary Steenburgen and Craig T. Nelson are typically parental, Malin Akerman smiles a lot as the cute hometown ex-flame, Michael Nouri sits behind a desk. Oscar Nunez (The Office) and Betty White provide the film's broadest comedy, but I feel like we got a little too much of their forcefully, fitfully wacky humor, which dilutes their genuinely funny moments.

Nights in Rodanthe

Movies like Nights in Rodanthe are beyond reviewing, because intellectually analyzing them cancels out their intended effect. This is a weepie, pure and simple. If you're the type that likes crying at the movies, you'll love it. If you loved Richard Gere and Diane Lane together in a thriller like Unfaithful (2002) but you don't like to cry, you probably won't like it. Me, I found a few things to like and much to loathe.

Diane Lane stars in Nights in Rodanthe as Adrienne Willis, a frazzled single mother with a young son and a teenage daughter; the latter has just begun talking back and expressing her universal disdain for everything her mother does. Adrienne's no-good husband (Christopher Meloni), who, we learn, has had an affair, arrives to pick up the kids so that Adrienne can go help her happy-go-lucky pal Jean (Viola Davis, playing a typical movie "best friend") look after a sexy, beach-side North Carolina hotel during its off-season. Unfortunately, the husband now wants to get back together.

Confused Adrienne arrives at the hotel, which is decorated head-to-foot in all kinds of colored, tinkly bric-a-brac and prepares for its one and only guest. Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere) is a doctor struggling with a dark secret, and who has arrived for an equally mysterious errand. The attractive duo eventually warm up to one another and talk, but their dark secrets get in the way. Meanwhile, a huge storm threatens to blow away everything that isn't nailed down. I guess it's not too hard to guess what happens next. (Trivia hounds: this is Gere and Lane's third movie together. Besides Unfaithful, they were in Francis Ford Coppola's The Cotton Club together way back in 1984.)

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the new movie is how rare this genre is these days. Lately, weepies come attached to some important message so that the picture can rise up to earn accolades and Oscar nominations; they're set during a war, or have something to do with disease (think Atonement or Love in the Time of Cholera). Nights in Rodanthe doesn't require any such pretense. It's about a man and a woman who fall in love, and because we're talking Nicholas Sparks, we're talking tragic results rather than happy ones. And that's it.

Because Nights in Rodanthe is such a pure weepie, it made me recall an influential study done by film scholar Linda Williams, who helped define the "body genres." She named porno, horror films and weepies as the three main genres that elicit physical reactions from audiences. I never agreed with her on the weepie categorization until now. This is exactly the type of movie she was talking about. Like a porno film or a horror film, it has one goal and only one goal. If it affects you intellectually, then it has failed. If it doesn't jerk your tears, then it has failed.

Diane Lane goes a long way toward making the film work. She's perfectly at home inside this material (as she usually is in any material, bless her), and her emotional openness and ease carry us through some of the clunkier passages. However, rookie director George C. Wolfe, who comes from television, fails to direct Gere with the same touch; Gere seems to overshoot his lines, always aiming too high, as if unsure of his character's responses. This split continues across the film; the music selection is good (Dinah Washington!) and the set design seems right, but the tone, the editing and the pacing fall far short of their potential. One scene at a town fish-fry earned unintentional laughs from the audience at my screening.

Then there's the story by Nicholas Sparks, which is what it is. It's pure hokum, totally ridiculous, but the trick is to treat it as if it weren't. And because Wolfe fails half the time, the story begins to show through, more and more frequently calling attention to itself. The greatest weepies ever made are the ones by Douglas Sirk in the 1950s (Written on the Wind, All That Heaven Allows, etc.). Sirk was an artist, and he could shape and design an absolutely brilliant scene around the most hysterical plot; his films almost play more like films noir than weepies. I don't feel ashamed watching them. But perhaps that's the key. As with horror films and porno films, much of the joy of weepies comes from the stupid, guilty pleasure we feel at having been so crassly manipulated.

Which leads me to the major problem of Nights in Rodanthe: the fact that Gere is in his fifties and Lane is in her forties. It's much harder to fool audiences in that age group; they've seen more movies and know more tricks. Younger audiences have greedily indulged in the previous two Sparks films The Notebook (2004) and A Walk to Remember (2002), mainly because they were based on characters in their teens and twenties and the stories probably seemed new. The first Sparks film, Message in a Bottle (1999), was also based on the older generation, and it failed. Nights in Rodanthe exists in a similar void. Younger viewers are not going to want to see an icky romance about (eww!) people their parents' age, while older viewers are going to want to stay home and rent Atonement.

Righteous Kill

Oh, if only Robert Aldrich were alive! The pulpmeister of the horror lollapalooza “What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?” certainly knew how to build a grand showcase for his corrugated divas (Bette Davis and Joan Crawford), while the hapless Jon Avnet hasn’t a clue what to do with his (Al Pacino and Robert De Niro). In “Righteous Kill” these two godheads of 1970s cinema go macho-a-macho with each other — furrowing brows, bellowing lines, looking alternately grimly serious and somewhat bemused — in a B-movie (more like C-minus) duet that probably sounded like a grand idea when their handlers whispered it in their ears.

Mr. De Niro and Mr. Pacino have squared off only once before on the big screen, in Michael Mann’s 1995 thriller, “Heat,” in which they spent most of the film in separate story lines, joined only by the parallel editing and a late-act, disappointingly anticlimactic meeting at a diner. They share far more face time in “Righteous Kill,” playing well-seasoned New York City Police Department detectives and long-term partners who take turns clucking at each other like hens while swaggering around town like gamecocks. True to strut, pouf and wattles, Mr. Pacino’s cop goes by Rooster, while Mr. De Niro is just Turk, which doesn’t appear to be short for Turkey, though it sure does help to pass the time if you think about it.

Time, alas, doesn’t so much pass in “Righteous Kill” as crawl, despite the usual overcutting, which tries to pump energy into the inert proceedings. Mr. Avnet, whose last movie was the clunker “88 Minutes” (one of Mr. Pacino’s worst), is not a natural director, to put it kindly. His handiwork is most evident in the unsteady tone, though to be fair it’s always hard to know who deserves most of the blame for this kind of star-struck, suit-crammed (eight producers, three executive producers, one co-producer) mush. Suffice it to say that everything from the camera placement to the cheap use of the consistently good, lamentably underemployed Carla Gugino is shoddy. (Note to Mr. Avnet: Yes, Ms. Gugino has breasts, but, really, her acting is more interesting.)

Like most actors, Mr. Pacino and Mr. De Niro need a strong hand, some kind of visionary authority to put them in their best light and prevent them from leaning on the tics and tricks — Mr. Pacino tends to turn up the volume, while Mr. De Niro glowers until he looks ready to pop — that now too often mar their performances. “Righteous Kill,” a clutter of recycled cop-movie and serial-killer film clichés (it’s hard to believe that the screenwriter, Russell Gewirtz, also wrote “Inside Man”), is far from their worst effort. And the two have some nice moments with each other and some of the other actors. Mr. Pacino seems to be genuinely moved during his final showdown with Mr. De Niro, or maybe he’s just a sweet sentimental fool.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Los Angeles (E! Online) – Review in a Hurry: Anyone expecting a typical big-budget Tony Scott action movie should be forewarned—about 80 percent of this subway heist flick consists of close-ups on John Travolta and Denzel Washington talking over an intercom. Fortunately, it's every bit as compelling as if they were shooting guns the whole time. Plus, the other 20 percent? Car crashes.

The Bigger Picture: The third adaptation of John Godey's 1973 novel—Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw costarred in a 1974 movie, while a 1998 TV version pitted Edward James Olmos against Vincent D'Onofrio—gives the material a modern twist. No longer just a mercenary, the subway hijacker known only as "Ryder" (Travolta) is now an evil Wall Street trader, hoping to recoup his losses after going to prison for massive fraud. He's probably the only Wall Street trader with a neck tattoo and perfectly groomed Morgan Spurlock mustache.

Subway dispatcher Walter Garber (Washington) has the bad luck of being on duty right when Ryder commandeers a train full of hostages, demanding $10 million within the hour before he starts shooting. The two develop a peculiar rapport, with Ryder seizing on weaknesses he perceives in his mild-mannered counterpart, while Garber tries to use the gift of gab to talk him down, even as his own flawed past becomes exposed.

Meanwhile, the mayor (James Gandolfini) decides to pay the money, but it has to be swiftly driven across town by what is apparently the Keystone Kops division of the NYPD, who proceed to crash into anything and everything just so ADD-afflicted audience members won't get bored by all the talking.

Scott, to his credit, mostly lets the actors do their thing and stays out of their way. Sure, he tries to juice things up with silly slo-mo/drop-frame cityscapes, but these are mostly kept to a minimum. And Washington does a great job of persuading us he's kind of a put-upon regular joe, despite being one of the most handsome and famous people on the planet in real life.

Consider, too, that, given the setup, most of his interactions with Travolta must surely have been against a blank screen on set, though he absolutely will persuade you otherwise.

The 180—a Second Opinion: The character of Ryder, however, seems to have been written in a more interesting way than Travolta plays him; the actor simply does that tic-filled, twitchy, over-the-top thing he always does in action movies. Fair enough, but could have been even better.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

20th Century Fox has releaed the the first clip from the third film in the ICE AGE series; "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" starring the voices of Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, Denis Leary, Simon Pegg, and Queen Latifah.

The film is due out July 1st 2009, just in time for the forth of July weekend.

Check out the clip below.

The sub-zero heroes from the worldwide blockbusters "Ice Age" and "Ice Age: The Meldown" are back, on an incredible adventure...for the ages. Scrat is still trying to nab the ever-elusive nut (while, maybe, finding true love); Manny and Ellie await the birth of their mini-mammoth, Sid the sloth gets into trouble when he creates his own makeshift family by hijacking some dinosaur eggs; and Diego the saber-toothed tiger wonders if he's growing too "soft" hanging with his pals. On a mission to rescue the hapless Sid, the gang ventures into a mysterious underground world, where they have some close encounters with dinosaurs, battle flora and fauna run amuck - and meet a relentless, one-eyed, dino-hunting weasel named Buck.

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmgbbGJW6ZE

This time, the story finds Sam and Mikaela under attack by the evil Decepticons because of something Sam has learned about the origins of the Transformers and their ancient history on Earth.

To acquire this knowledge, the invading Decepticons need to capture Sam instead of kill him. Meanwhile, the U.S. military and an international coalition has united with the good-guy Autobots to fight back the villains' attack.

Some of the most important newcomers are in the robot cast: Decepticons Soundwave, a fearsome communications expert, and Devastator, whose arms and legs are built out of other Transformers. And on the Autobots' side is Jetfire, a villain whose age and broken-down physicality leads him to help the Autobots.

Review: Land of the Lost

by Todd Gilchrist Jun 5th 2009 // 9:03AM

Filed under: Action, Comedy, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Universal, Theatrical Reviews

If Hunter S. Thompson were to write a story about his trip to a parallel, prehistoric dimension, then Land of the Lost might be the most accurate representation possible of its subsequent film adaptation. Directed by Brad Silberling and starring Will Ferrell, this update on the Sid and Marty Krofft television series from the 1970s is the strangest, filthiest summer movie I think I've ever seen – and it opens against one that features Mike Tyson, a tiger and Zach Galifianakis. But just as strangely, it's also damn entertaining, although it's hard to know whether you should or definitely shouldn't be indoctrinated beforehand to its weirdness. Regardless, Land of the Lost offers a sobering alternative to the pre-packaged and otherwise conventional blockbuster fare offered by studios this summer, even if its charms would ultimately benefit from (if not require) chemical enhancement of some kind to be properly enjoyed.

Ferrell plays Dr. Rick Marshall, a disgraced scientist who unexpectedly gets a second chance to test his radical theories on time travel after getting sucked into a space-time vortex with a research assistant named Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel) and a huckster tour guide named Will (Danny McBride). Landing in a parallel, prehistoric dimension, Rick forges a tenuous friendship with a primate named Chaka (Jorma Taccone) even as he insults or otherwise offends virtually every other living creature, including a foul-tempered Tyrannosaurus Rex. But when Rick, Holly and Will stumble across Enik (John Boylan), an outcast member of a mysterious race of creatures called Sleestaks, they inadvertently become embroiled in a plot to conquer Earth, and must try to prevent an interdimensional invasion - even if it means they can never return home again.

Most importantly, and in the interest of protecting young, corruptible minds, Land of the Lost is absolutely not for children. There's at least one f-bomb, Rick and Will talk about Sleestaks "tapping that ass," and there are multiple sequences in which our heroes are violently threatened by a Tyrannosaurus – although he is nicknamed Grumpy. Like many, I was prepared for, well, a movie based upon a kids' television show, and expected something more like Ferrell's Elf, albeit in a prehistoric setting; instead, I essentially got a Jurassic version of Anchorman, which suggests... if not maturity, necessarily, then at least humor that's decidedly for grown-ups.

Not unlike Anchorman, much of the film has an improvisational quality, which is certainly uncharacteristic for effects-laden blockbusters, but it distinguishes Land of the Lost from much if not all of its summer movie competition. Specifically, its set pieces are jumbled together, its CGI wildly inconsistent and its story structure virtually incomprehensible, at least once you realize that minutes of screen time have passed without anything in particular happening. But at the same time, you do have to actively realize that, and what the film possesses in spades is a certain kind of fearless, seat-of-the-pants ambition that doesn't always succeed but generally distracts you from the fact that it's failing.

A centerpiece sequence in which Rick, Will and Chaka share a hallucinatory bond after ingesting psychedelic produce counts as one of the riskiest scenes ever shoved into a film of this kind, but its length and its pointlessness almost dares you to acknowledge that it existed only to provide enough off-screen time for Holly to get herself in trouble. Meanwhile, the fact that director Silberling punctuates the moment with Seals and Crofts' "Summer Breeze" – a druggy, AM-radio classic that's a personal favorite of mine – only further suggests that a sure and steady captain is at the helm, even if he's more interested in reimagining our memories of '70s kids TV than faithfully recreating the shows themselves.

Ultimately, while Land of the Lost feels like Silberling's most idiosyncratic, and daresay personal film to date (even after the introspective, semi-autobiographical Moonlight Mile), the film as a whole seems more a natural extension of the kind of comedy that is Will Ferrell's specialty – namely, the kind of meta-humor in which characters can both experience a moment, and step outside themselves to acknowledge the conventions they're either indulging or inverting. Needless to say there will be folks for whom the film's sense of self-awareness simply proves distasteful, if not offensive. But inspiring fear and loathing may actually be what this film is trying to do - which is why with or without Hunter S. Thompson, Seals and Crofts and the Sleestaks, it qualifies as the trippiest, weirdest, and all-around most unpredictable movie of the summer thus far. Whether that's a good or bad thing may come down to how you prefer your epic adventures - carefully constructed or cobbled together on the fly - but as the birthplace of the gonzo blockbuster, Land of the Lost is if nothing else an interesting place to visit

Review: The Hangover

by Eric D. Snider Jun 4th 2009 // 9:02PM

Filed under: Comedy, New Releases, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters

Todd Phillips scored a hit in 2003 with the raucous R-rated comedy Old School, then for some reason moved to tamer waters for Starsky & Hutch and School for Scoundrels, neither of which amounted to anything. Duly chastened, he now returns home with The Hangover, a movie that's as gleefully dirty as Old School, and maybe funnier.

It's a story of friendship, camaraderie, and alcohol. As such, it can only be set in Las Vegas. That is where Doug (Justin Bartha), who is getting married Sunday, is taken by his friends for an epic bachelor party: Phil (Bradley Cooper), a schoolteacher who hates his students almost as much as he hates being married, is the ringleader; Stu (Ed Helms), a wimpy dentist with a controlling shrew for a girlfriend, is the nervous nellie; Alan (Zach Galifianakis), Doug's soon-to-be brother-in-law, is the spacey, grubby, possibly mentally handicapped one who recalls Will Ferrell in Old School (which means he also recalls John Belushi in Animal House).

The four embark on a night of revelry. The next morning, Phil, Stu, and Alan wake up in their hotel suite with a tiger and a baby. There's no sign of Doug, the groom-to-be. And no one can remember anything that happened the night before.

As comedy premises go, this one is brilliantly simple. Three hungover guys stumble around Las Vegas in search of clues as to their missing friend's whereabouts, not to mention the origin of the baby and the tiger, and not to mention the other various things that have gone awry that, well, I won't mention. (Spoiler: Ed Helms is missing that tooth in real life.)

One perfectly constructed scene at an outdoor breakfast table hints at the sublime genius of the situation, with three well-defined comic characters bickering while examining their clothes, bodies, and memories for hints. It's good writing (from the Ghosts of Girlfriends Past duo of Jon Lucas and Scott Moore), and the trio of actors work together like seasoned pros.

Bartha is missing in action for most of the picture, so it's primarily the Helms-Cooper-Galifianakis show. Helms isn't much different from the way he appears on The Office (which is fine), Cooper has been developing his comedy chops in smaller roles the last few years, and Galifianakis -- wow. Fans of his standup won't be surprised by how funny he is, but I don't think anyone was expecting him to create a character as instantly classic as Alan. Whether misunderstanding basic human interactions, being suckered by an untrustworthy drug dealer, or thinking he can count cards like Rain Man, Alan is a treasure trove of WTF? moments. He's this summer's Brick Tamland or McLovin: the secondary character who steals the show.

This is the first film Phillips has directed that he wasn't credited with co-writing, too. I don't know how much to read into that; written by him or not, The Hangover clearly reflects his frat-boy sensibilities, and bless him for that. The movie, sunny and fast-paced from beginning to end, is intently focused not on life lessons or character development but on bawdy shenanigans and boisterous hijinks. It barely even bothers to let its characters learn anything. In fact, I was disappointed when the marriage-hating Phil came around to appreciating his wife and kid by the end. It was funnier when he considered them a burden.

About halfway in, the story starts veering into craziness (Mike Tyson? Angry Chinese gangsters?) without being any funnier than when it was in the realm of the vaguely plausible. You take a risk when comedy leaves the familiar and heads into crazyland, and it doesn't always pay off here, the cast's willingness to try anything notwithstanding. I also wonder about Heather Graham's character, a stripper who takes a liking to Stu. She seems like she ought to have more screen time, especially since she's played by a fairly well-known actress. I'm guessing some of her scenes got cut in favor of more no-girls-allowed male-bonding episodes.

A series of actors such as Jeffrey Tambor, Rob Riggle, Mike Epps, Matt Walsh, and the indispensable Ken Jeong parade through the film, giving it the feel of a movie that was at least as much fun to make as it is to watch. It's hard to be shocked by a comedy anymore, especially so soon after Observe & Report, but there are moments in The Hangover that ... well, just watch. Some of those images will be scarred on your retinas for years to come.

Review Fast and Furious 4

The films in the Fast and the Furious series have gotten progressively dumber since the harmlessly energetic 2001 original, and the latest, reductively called Fast & Furious, takes it a step lower. Not only is the story silly, but there's not even much car-racing in it -- and why would anyone want to watch this movie if it doesn't have a lot of car-racing in it?

Like the rest of us, Fast & Furious has nothing to say about the last film, Tokyo Drift. instead, it picks up a few years after 2 Fast 2 Furious left off. Thick-necked carjacker Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and surfer-voiced FBI agent Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) are reunited when both have cause to infiltrate a Mexico-based drug cartel operating in Los Angeles. Dominic's reasons are personal and revenge-based, while Brian has the law on his side.

As luck would have it, the mysterious drug kingpin Arturo Braga is looking for expert drivers, which Dom and Brian both happen to be. If they can prove themselves worthy in a street race (who would have guessed?) they're hired, giving them access to the inner workings of the cartel. I guess this is more effective for Braga than conducting traditional job interviews.

It all amounts to far more espionage and intrigue than a movie that's ostensibly about fast cars ought to have. I would like to have witnessed the pitch meeting where the screenwriter, Chris Morgan (Tokyo Drift), convinced the producers that an emphasis on Dom and Brian's personal lives would be of much greater interest than car racing. They must be kicking themselves now for believing him, because here's the finished product -- with lots of dumb storytelling and only a couple auto-racing sequences -- and it's worse. It turns out minimizing the one entertaining element of a franchise was a BAD idea!



Morgan's screenplay has the occasional witty line, but not enough to make up for idiotic plot devices like a miles-long secret tunnel between Mexico and the U.S. and a car's cigarette lighter that apparently emits an open flame, the better to cause explosions with. It's simple-minded, too, clearly written with teenage boys in mind -- hence the arbitrary and immature anti-authority streak in Brian's personality. (His boss tells him to slow down; he speeds up, just to be contrary.) I don't buy this guy finishing high school with his attitude, let alone becoming an FBI agent.


A lot of beautiful cars of various makes and vintages comprise the supporting cast. In the background, there are also some human women. Michelle Rodriguez is back again as Dom's girlfriend, Letty, and Jordana Brewster returns as Dom's sister (and Brian's love interest), Mia. A new addition is the Israeli model Gal Gadot (great name) as one of the Mexican women in Arturo Braga's crew. It is she who asks Dom, "Are you one of those boys who prefer cars to women?" The fact that he has to think about for a few seconds made me wonder if he was going to be honest and say yes.

Justin Lin, back for a second time as director, demonstrates again how unfortunate it is that he's stuck making these films when he clearly has the talent to do something better. (Many of us still fondly remember his breakout hit, Better Luck Tomorrow, from Sundance 2002.) Fast & Furious has some well-made sequences and artful shot compositions; Lin probably made it as good as a movie so light on action and heavy on dull plot machinations could be.

Review: Star Trek

by Scott Weinberg May 7th 2009 // 10:03PM

When it comes to a franchise as beloved as Star Trek, I suppose it's important to let people know where you stand, right at the beginning: I never was able to get into the original Star Trek series (probably because I'd already been indoctrinated into the Star Wars religion), but I knew enough to become a big fan of the first three cinematic adaptations. I think The Motion Picture is a fine (if slightly overlong) re-awakening of the franchise, and I'm a big fan of both The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock. The rest of the features are slight and forgettable (at best) or drearily familiar, which is slightly annoying because I absolutely adore The Next Generation on the small screen. On the big one? Not so much.

But beyond the impact and popularity of a lone franchise, I'm just a huge science fiction fan. Anything that can delve deep into the future and dazzle me with something flashy or fascinating is a good thing indeed. But what makes Star Trek such a long-lasting and rabidly adored franchise is that it goes beyond simple "alien adventures" and touches upon ideas, questions, and issues that we always contend with in the "real" world. If you have to travel 100,000 miles and deal with purple aliens to make a clever point about, say, racism, then let's hear it for basic-yet-admirable subtext. So yes, Star Trek has always been a smart, insightful, and topical space adventure, but this time out ... it's mostly just fun.

Yes, it's an all-new reboot of one of the most beloved series of all time. Which means director J.J. Abrams and his filmmaking crew are walking on very thin ice. True, it's not like the Star Trek series has never seen a bad film, but when you're retro-fitting a mega-franchise in very loud and expensive fashion ... the fans take notice. And they're not afraid to call bullshit at the drop of a hat or a crack in the canon, which is part of what makes the new Star Trek such a pleasant surprise. Not only did they "pull it off," but they've done so in rather grand fashion: This is the best Trek since Khan got all wrathful and such.

It's an origin story, which is normally snooze central, but in this case ... well, do you actually KNOW how Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, etc., all met up at the start? I'd assume that only the hardest of hardcore fans know that stuff, and the "flashback" approach allows us to accept an all-new cast as a simple part of the equation. The story of young Kirk, who lost his father only one second after being born, turning away from a rebellious streak and enlisting in Starfleet, only to slowly acquire a rather eclectic crew of friends while battling a mercilessly evil villain ... yeah, this stuff is just plain old fun.

And what a entertaining film this will be for the movie geeks to dig through: Shot like a dream, cut real tight, scored with majesty and power, packed with dazzling sights and sounds and sly little pieces of banter. We've also got the requisite chase and escape stuff, a few nifty creatures, a sweet dash of romance, and even some time-travel twistiness that all but demands repeat viewings. Hell, you could know nothing about the words Star Trek and still find a lot to enjoy here.

Any of the old-school Star Trek fans can tell you: It's the cast that makes or breaks a series. And while it's way too early to tell if this new gang will make a fan-friendly impact, going only by one fine film, this ensemble is aces across the board. So while we don't have that friendly sort of familiarity that we normally have with Star Trek, it's replaced with the sensation of meeting interesting "new" characters who might be a little bit younger (and, yes, a lot prettier) but are still just as likable. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto excel as Kirk and Spock (respectively), but big chunks of the film are stolen by the likes of Uhura (Zoe Saldana), McCoy (Karl Urban), and good ol' Scotty (Simon Pegg). Compliments also to Eric Bana's brooding villainy, Bruce Greenwood's classy authority, and Ben Cross' overt Vulcanosity. (And was that ... Winona Ryder? Nah, couldn't be.) No, this is not the Enterprise crew we know and love, but I know enough to crave a few more adventures with the new guys.

As Star Trek is character(s) first and plot second, it's understood that we spend a lot of time getting reacquainted with everyone, but of course there's just enough of an adventure story to keep the flick cooking. Eric Bana stars as a horrific Romulan with a massive grudge, one who's not afraid to leap back in time to satisfy his lust for revenge. But the real arc of the flick is Jim Kirk, and his journey from Enterprise stowaway to captain. The screenwriters run through a whole lot of road-blocks and temporal contortions to give the Star Trek faithful a reboot to remember, and I'd say they've done one heck of a job.

Drag Me To Hell Review

An early Drag Me To Hell review, courtesy of trusted source ‘Tobey Maguire’.

Got into a secret pre-screening of Sam Raimi’s “Drag Me to Hell” movie and damn. SO good.

First, when they said “a work in progress” they weren’t kidding. The footage was weirdly digitized and mostly blurry. Don’t know what caused that, it looked like YouTube quality.

But it didn’t matter. Even the unfinished VFX didn’t matter. This movie was so good it had the entire audience in the palm of its gnarled, witchy hand.

If you like Evil Dead you’ll like this. Sure, it’s PG-13 (or so they claim), so it’s not gory and there’s no bad language. But still in the first ten minutes a little boy gets dragged to hell in gruesome fashion and the whole thing is very messed up.

The story is simple: a bank teller refuses a loan to an old lady who turns out to be a witch. Chaos ensues.

And I mean chaos. We’re talking gypsy curses, ghosts, and goat demons. From the first attack to the end of the movie, it seems like every ten seconds something’s getting broken or something is getting killed. It’s REALLY tense from start to finish. I went in expecting a straight comedy like the final Evil Dead flick and was REALLY surprised how scary and intense the movie was.

But the movie does have its funny moments, like the kitty murder scene and the talking goat scene and the countless times the witch vomits some weird substance all over the hot chick.

Overall, I was surprised how clever the script was and how good the acting was. In particular, Justin Long is great. I mean, he’s relaxed and funny most of the time and then comes this INTENSE part at the end that I won’t spoil, but his performance is heart wrenching.

This movie twists and turns all the time. The plot is very simple, but it does a lot of things you don’t expect or normally see in movies. It’s so refreshing to see something so original.

This is a return to form for Raimi, who really blew it with Spider-Man 3. I hope he makes more movies like this in the future.

Director: Sam Raimi
Cast: Alison Lohman, Justin Long, Lorna Raver, David Paymer
Release Date: 29 May 2009

Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins (2009)

Starring: Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Anton Yelchin, Moon Bloodgood, Common
Director: McG
U.S. Opening Date: May 22nd, 2009

THEY SAY

Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins will reinvent the cyborg saga with a storyline to be told over a three-movie span. The film is set in the future, in a full-scale war between Skynet and humankind.

On January 6th 2008, producer John Middleton had the following to say about the movie: "It's post-apocalyptic. It's set after the events of [Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines], where we see the nuclear exchange at the end of the movie, and we show what the world is like after this event, and we show how people try to deal in a post-apocalyptic world. And we introduce a new character, who becomes very important to the resistance and to John Connor, a new hero. It's really about the birth of a new hero."

About John Conner, he said: "I would look at him as a character that is introduced and that will grow in the second and third movies of the trilogy."

On Arnold Schwarzenegger's involvement in the film: "He has been approached, and in the early days of our development of T4, one of our producers, Andy Vajna, who's a good friend of his, spoke to him about doing a cameo. This was even before he was governor. But we know now that he is governor, he's got priorities that are above doing movies."

PLOT

In this new installment of The Terminator film franchise, set in post-apocalyptic 2018, Christian Bale stars as John Connor, the man fated to lead the human resistance against Skynet and its army of Terminators.

But the future Connor was raised to believe in is altered in part by the appearance of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a stranger whose last memory is of being on death row. Connor must decide whether Marcus has been sent from the future, or rescued from the past.

As Skynet prepares its final onslaught, Connor and Marcus both embark on an odyssey that takes them into the heart of Skynet's operations, where they uncover the terrible secret behind the possible annihilation of mankind.

WE SAY

To be honest we weren’t all that excited when a fourth Terminator movie was announced. And when it emerged that Arnie will only have a small cameo in it (if at all!) and that it will be directed by the pretentiously named McG whose credentials include the brainless Charlie’s Angels movies we just rolled our eyes and gave up on the whole affair.

After all, when one is honest about it, the three Terminator movies made thus far are basically the same movie made over and over again: an artificial intelligence from a future in which mankind is battling for its survival against said machines sends an unstoppable killing machine back in time to kill the man who will lead the human resistance before he is born or just a boy.

But it seems the future has finally arrived . . .

When it became apparent that Terminator 4 won’t be rehashing that whole plot again (after all, how can they after the ending of Terminator 3 – Rise of the Machines?) and that it will be largely set in the post-apocalyptic landscape in which humanity is pitted in a desperate battle for survival only glimpsed in the various movies we perked up. When they cast new action god Christian Bale (Batman in The Dark Knight) we really started paying attention. Hey, this new Terminator flick just might be worth checking out after all . . .

And then came that teaser trailer . . .

So: consider us excited. Terminator Salvation as the fourth movie is now officially titled just might be a worthy entry in the franchise, one that might even equal any of Jim Cameron’s entries (come on! did you see that trailer?). Or will at least be better than the tired rehash that was Rise of the Machines . . .

Film Review: “Up”

by Lance Berry

The new Disney/Pixar collaboration, Up, has just opened to some of the best reviews the studio’s ever received. While it’s a very enjoyable film, I have to say it certainly isn’t among their best, in spite of the talent behind it.

As a child, Carl Fredricksen (at this point voiced by Jeremy Leary) is a huge fan of famed adventurer/explorer Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer). Young Carl is a true devotee, keeping up with all of Muntz’ doings and is shocked to the core when one of his archaeological finds is disputed as a fraud. While Muntz sets off to clear his name, Carl happens to cross paths with Ellie (voiced by Elie Docter), who is just as much a fan of Muntz as Carl. The two become close, eventually falling in love, marrying and growing old together…all while keeping a coin jar in which they save whatever money they can to one day take a trip to Paradise Falls, the “land lost in time” for which Muntz set out. Carl makes the ultimate kids’ promise–crossing his heart–that he will one day take Ellie there, but before he can, she passes away.

As more time passes, the world changes around Carl (now voiced by Ed Asner), until the day comes when a heartless construction company building a new plaza around his old house takes advantage of a momentary lapse in Carl’s judgment to find a way to evict him. Rather than leave his house, however, Carl–a balloon salesman of many years–ties hundreds of balloons to his house, creates makeshift sails out of bedsheets, and lifts off, porch and all, in an attempt to finally make it to Paradise Falls and thereby keep his promise (in spirit) to Ellie. It’s only after Carl’s lifted off that he comes to find an unintentional stowaway; Russell(voiced by Jordan Nagai), a Wilderness Scout intent on receiving his merit badge for assisting the elderly. Russell was on Carl’s porch when the old man set sail, and of course Carl now has no choice but to take the impetuous lad along with him.

Up was directed by Pete Docter (Monsters, Inc.) and Bob Peterson (who also wrote the screenplay). This is Docter’s second helming effort and Peterson’s first. While the duo capably steer the ship together, the script unfortunately hits several expected plot points, both before and after Carl and Russell reach Paradise Falls. There is also a little coda to the story which, while fitting in with the standard happy ending one comes to expect from a Disney film, feels just a bit too pat in this day and age, especially since the story bravely takes its time in the beginning to lay out the course of Carl and Ellie’s life together for better and worse, including the implied fact that at one point Ellie has a miscarriage while she and her husband are expecting a baby.

The ending and somewhat standard character arcs notwithstanding, Up is still quite fun to watch and easily enjoyable. Once Carl and Russell do indeed reach the valley where Paradise Falls is located, they quickly make friends with a bizarre ostrich-type bird which the boy names “Kevin,” and Dug the talking dog (voiced by Peterson), who it turns out serves a now elderly Muntz, who has been trying to capture Kevin for all these years. There’s a great gag with a voice translator not working right for Muntz’ primary doberman hunter (voiced by Delroy Lindo), and a dogfight in the sky which initially makes a clever nod to the original Star Wars, which the hardcore fans will spot immediately.

Up is the first Disney/Pixar collaboration to be presented in patented Disney Digital 3-D, but honestly, the story doesn’t warrant it. While there is quite a bit of action, very little seems to be designed with true use of three dimensions in mind. Plus, a fair portion of the film has Carl and other characters just sitting around and talking — hardly thrill-packed moments worthy of a 3-D presentation. Something along the lines of The Incredibles or even Wall-E are the types of films which deserve the 3-D treatment. Also, while the standard Pixar preceding short Partly Cloudy is amusing and definitely somewhat touching, it also doesn’t fit in with the best in the company’s pantheon.