Public Enemies

OPENING: 07/01/2009

STUDIO: Universal

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
“We’re here for the bank’s money, not yours. Put it away.”

Opening Statement
An unapologetically stiff technical masterpiece of composition and historical accuracy, Public Enemies is a surprise right out of the gate. When one considers the subject matter of Prohibition era bank robbers, Tommy guns and notorious American outlaw John Dillinger, one expects a cinematic humdinger of an action film, full of testosterone and action machismo, dramatic conflict and proper romanticizing of Dillinger as a cultural icon. Surprisingly—or perhaps not at all—we get nothing of the sort. Public Enemies is a film scrubbed so thoroughly of emotion and resonance as to be downright alien. It has no interest in observing any of the action clichés of summer blockbuster films, despite being released in the prime of summer blockbuster season.

Still, what exactly should we have expected from director Michael Mann? Consider Heat, a film that (depending on whom you ask) is either the best action film ever made, or the most colossal of bores. I lean towards the former, and I certainly appreciate Public Enemies for its numerous merits, but I have a feeling this film will be somewhat polarizing with audiences this weekend—especially those looking for a high-octane summer blockbuster.

Facts Of The case
Notorious bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) has just sprung his gang members from an Indiana state prison. It is 1933, and the world is at his fingertips. Dillinger is a cocky-yet-reserved thief who takes what he wants without hesitation, robbing bank after bank in a crime spree across Chicago and the Midwest with his longtime partner John ‘Red’ Hamilton (Jason Clarke). Dillinger le lives for the moment, having no interest in thinking about retirement or the future, aside from his interest in Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), a coat check girl whom he liberates and takes as his girl.

But things are changing in America. Young FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) is training a new generation of investigators in modern techniques to catch criminals and put forth legislation making certain crime fall under federal jurisdiction. Dillinger and his gang have always found safe haven with the National Crime Syndicate in Chicago, but the Syndicate begin to realize that harboring criminals-turned-celebrities like Dillinger might be more trouble than worth—especially as they find new ways to make money without robbery and violence. A hotshot agent named Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) is called in to hunt down Dillinger at all costs.

As the glory days of criminal sprees wind down, Dillinger is forced to make desperate alliances with unfamiliar and notorious gangsters to make money, including the violently unpredictable Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff). Branded Public Enemy #1 and with his friends in jail or dead, Dillinger seems almost oblivious to the noose tightening around his neck…

The Evidence
Public Enemies feels less like a dramatic recreation of the last few years of John Dillinger’s life, and more like a psudo-documentary, as if crews with digital cameras were sent back in time to simply record what they saw of Dillinger’s life. The attention to detail and minutia is nothing short of obsessive. Rarely does a Hollywood blockbuster adhere to historical fact as authentically as Public Enemies does, opting too often to throw caution and reality to the wind in favor of dramatic filmmaking, or to a particularly daring action sequence, or a shuffling of events to suit narrative. Here, the exact opposite is true; the film shoots in documentary-style on location whenever possible in the actual venues and locations that John Dillinger was. The infamous shootout at the Little Bohemia Lodge in Manitowish Waters, Wisconsin was re-created exactly at the same location. Actual banks Dillinger robbed are used to re-create identical robberies, and he escapes out of actual jails he escaped from. Some liberties (as always) are taken in the script, especially in killing various and notorious gangsters in view of the camera, but these are minor historical adjustments at best. The costume designs, the vintage automobiles—every detail is immaculate and perfectly realized.

Flip the coin over, and one quickly realizes that such unflinching historical accuracy and realism elements create a film so absent of Hollywood narrative, clichés and expected plot development as to be uncomfortable, like a spacious room devoid of all furniture. John Dillinger robs some banks, and then he dies. There is no greater purpose, no meaning in the action, no driving motivation behind the events—he did these things, and so Public Enemies shows him doing them. There is no rationalization or judgment behind them, no understanding of the man or his pathos. Action sequences are confused, chaotic affairs full of disorganization, screams and confusion; realistic to be sure, but far from the carefully choreographed sequences audiences expect with heroes leaping over cars firing guns akimbo.

It is possible that we may never see a movie more unsuited to be released at the height of the summer blockbuster season than Public Enemies. This is not to suggest that it is a bad film; far from it. When taken at its own merits, Mann has created a fascinating and detailed cinematic experience, a period retelling of a tumultuous era in American history with fantastic performances from cast and crew alike. But as a summer blockbuster, Public Enemies is as disinterested and cold as Dillinger (the man) reveals himself to be. At the screening I attended, there were quite a number of scattered boos echoing through the theater as the credits rolled. I overheard one person lament that they didn’t “get it”. They ask, “so he robs banks, and then he dies, and that’s it?” Yes, that’s it. Think of Public Enemies not as an action film, but a biopic; an academic retelling of key historical events in the life of a bank robber. Why does he rob banks? Even Dillinger himself seems uninterested in exploring his own motivations. No back story is offered, no childhood memory to justify his action. He is a matter-of-fact fellow, and he robs banks in a matter-of-fact sort of way. Dillinger says of himself that he likes baseball, movies, good clothes and fast cars. What else you need to know?

As an actor, Depp cuts a remarkable Dillinger, his physical resemblance to the man notwithstanding. This is a controlled and reserved performance, as simple and unpretentious a role for Depp as we have seen from him in years. Likewise for Christian Bale, who leaves his gruff bravado at the door—a refreshing break from his recent emphysemic action films. Bale cuts a dapper and suave profile as Melvin Purvis, the man out to catch Dillinger. With little character development portrayed in the film, the two embody living caricatures of actual people, and do it professionally and efficiently. Purvis does what he does because it’s his job, nothing more. We are used to seeing our characters in this role suffering obsession and anger and frustration, but none of that here; another subversion of expectation. We expect Dillinger to be something of a narcissist, but not so; he is interested in his stature as a growing celebrity, but only as a curiosity, observing with pride, but without flare or fuss. He is cool and calm and in complete control, and only begins to lose his cool when his girlfriend gets pinched. Marion Cotillard plays Dillinger’s girl, Billie Frechette, and her contribution to the film is mostly auxiliary, possessing few memorable lines and little to do in the script beyond run around and look anxious, playing her established role in the history lesson.

Beyond the primary cast, Public Enemies is crammed with dozens of secondary characters, all of various levels of interest, relevance and influence in Dillinger’s life. His gang of fellow robbers includes brief but solid performances from Stephen Dorff and Jason Clarke, and we are introduced to Purvis’ character by way of his apprehension (murder, really) of Pretty Boy Floyd (a cameo appearance by Channing Tatum). Of particular note is the casting of Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson; a devilishly wicked bit of casting. Graham is unhinged and raucous as Nelson, but gets little screen time.

Michael Mann has proven himself to be a filmmaker of astonishing technical prowess and craft, meticulous in design, accuracy and execution time and again, and no one will fault Public Enemies for its stylish direction, gritty cinematography and ultra-realistic action sequences. The high-definition digital film (a look familiar to fans of Collateral) seems oddly out-of-pace in a period film so meticulous in its historic accuracy and detail, but actually lends itself surprisingly well once audiences adjust to the washed-out color palate and peculiar lighting. Night sequences are particularly effective, casting trench coat thugs in shadow and swirling grain. Fans of Mann’s action work in the past will know exactly what to expect here, especially during the gunfight sequences, where proper caliber rules are observed. Handguns make small popping sounds in comparison to the Tommy gun, which unlike its “rat-a-tat-tat” characterization in films of yesteryear, is actually a loud, frightening and percussive thing that goes “KABOOM KABOOM KABOOM” and makes big holes in people. For a film with a running time of over two hours, action sequences are relatively few, but they feel well-placed and astonishingly visceral. Bullets pound into trees, and on-screen characters wince visibly with the impact and vibration. It’s all about the little details.

Dillinger in American folk culture is something of an anti-establishment folk hero, a rebel at the height of the Great Depression and takes the American Dream into dangerous and dramatic new directions, taking what he wants from the wealthy and the corrupt. He represented reckless and romantic abandon, freedom from constraints and rules. In Public Enemies, Dillinger is just a guy with a day job robbing banks. He enjoys what he does, and dresses sharp, and makes no apologies for his action, but reality lacks the same flair and charisma that American audiences have come to expect from this particular subject after years of popular culture, serialization, gangster films and word-of-mouth exaggeration.

Public Enemies is a constant subversion of expectations, replacing machismo and bravado and action sensibilities with cold authenticity and historical detail. There is little in the way of wit or humor in the film, because Dillinger was not a particularly witty or humorous person. With so few liberties taken by the screenplay, Public Enemies is boxed in by its own desire for total historical accuracy. It is not Mann’s strongest film, but it offers up a unique and unexpectedly faithful take on the American gangster mythology. Depending on your sensibilities, you will either find it refreshing, or extremely boring.

Closing Statement
Public Enemies eschews being boxed into popcorn blockbuster categorizations, yet bizarrely released at the absolute apex of audience expectations for such a film. This may be the most surprising film released this entire summer, a devious joke played by Universal upon the movie going public at large in the first week of July at a time when “subtlety” is the name of a jive-talking robot in a Michael Bay film. Oh my.

An undeniably fascinating technical and meticulous composition of historical accuracy and period drama, Public Enemies is too low-key and subtle to be categorized with Mann’s best work to-date, but if one goes in with the right expectations, the film will deliver as only his films can. Still, I fear the majority of the moviegoing public might not get the memo in time, and mistake Public Enemies for a film it is not.

The Verdict
7/10

The Proposal

OPENING: 06/19/2009

STUDIO: Touchstone

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Here comes the bribe…

Opening Statement
“Honey, if you hold on to my ass one more time, I’ll cut your balls off in your sleep!”

Facts Of The Case
Bitchy N.Y. book editor Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock, Miss Congeniality) is thoroughly disliked by all the cubicle workers under her. Her young assistant Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds, Definitely, Maybe) has put up with her witch-like attitude for nearly three years and is getting sick of it. And their bitter working relationship is about to be put through a most unlikely challenge.

Tate is Canadian, and is notified by her superior that she’s now in danger of deportation. As luck would have it, Andrew interrupts the meeting and she gets an idea. Announcing her “engagement” to Andrew seems to be a way out of her predicament…that is, until she must meet Andrew’s family in Alaska for an eventful weekend. Andrew is going along with Margaret’s scheme simply because he’s promised a promotion, but the plan goes awry when they begin to fall for each other.

The Evidence
Sandra Bullock must be pleased with The Proposal. This is the first time in years in which she’s had a #1 hit at the box office. Even with the impending Transformers sequel crushing it, she should be satisfied that her box office clout hasn’t waned. And why should it? The actress who made a name for herself with ‘90s hits Speed and While Were You Sleeping still has plenty of easy-going charm and grace to coast on. Plus, now in her in-40s, she remains a knockout, as evident in a scene from The Proposal were she’s required to be nude for a good 15 minutes. Unlike her Transformers competition Megan Fox, Bullock has the looks and experience to carry her own movie.

Yet, as hard as Bullock tries, she can’t seem to raise The Proposal above sheer slightness. Virtually everything from set-up to conclusion in first-timer Pete Chiarelli’s script is contrived and recycled. Two charismatic stars at the helm certainly compensate for the lack of originality. And their efforts are valiant without a doubt. Thankfully, director Anne Fletcher (27 Dresses) works well with her menagerie of a cast, and takes advantage of the many New England locations (with a lovely Massachusetts substituting for Alaska). With Fletcher’s assistance, Bullock & Reynolds generate an infectious chemistry which is sorely needed. My major problem with the film is how it wants us to believe these two will fall head over heels in love over the course of 48 hours when they’ve hated each other for years.

Perhaps the problem was the jarring shift in location. The opening scenes in New York establish the characters and their needs well. Andrew is earnest and loyal even in the face of borderline harassment. Like most up-and-coming assistants, he kisses as much ass as he can, even if the ass belongs to a female tyrant hell-bent on militarily maintaining her staff. There’s a reason for Margaret’s icy nature, and naturally it’s revealed later at a pivotal point in the plot. After the narrative hook snags predictably, there is the suggestion of a Shakespearean role reversal which is initially interesting. But Chiarelli throws all that out the window when Andrew’s Alaskan family take over the proceedings. Any romcom devotee will see Margaret’s difficulty in adjusting to the culture shift. Once you include Andrew’s sarcasm, the family’s eccentricities, the numerous silly shenanigans (a general store owner doubles as a male stripper), et al, and you have another rehash begging for more sting.

To be fair, some of the scenes deliver. For instance, Margaret’s and Andrew’s nude meeting is cutely executed. A hair-raising moment involving a hawk and the family’s pet dog is offbeat and clever. And any scene with the legendary Betty White produces laughs no matter how ridiculous the dialogue. All of these sprinkles soon evaporate, however, once The Proposal surrenders itself for the obvious in the third act.

What rescues the film from total banality is the devoted cast. Bullock’s star power is, as usual, electric. She confidently grabs Margaret’s red pitchfork and successfully draws us in with her thousand-watt appeal. As for Reynolds, he also scores highly as Bullock’s disgruntled assistant, even if his actions are questionable throughout. Oscar Nunez is having a blast as the jolly stripper. Unfortunately, veterans Steenburgen and Nelson are given the short end of the development stick as Reynolds’s parents. No matter, as the 87-year-old White is given plenty of scenes to steal due to her relentless good nature and cheery disposition. Some may be tempted to brush off White as simply using her Rose Nyland shtick, but she’s so delightful it’s hard to complain.

The Closing Statement
The cast is engaging enough to make this film worth a rental five months down the road. Just don’t expect some delicious juice not from concentrate, that’s all. The Proposal is standard and uninspired, but not without its revelry. Bullock and Co. are free to go, but the film is found guilty.

The Verdict
6/10

I’m fascinated by the art of the trailer myself–it’s a powerful tool for piquing interest in films, manipulating and shaping public perception before audiences even get to see a film. A well-cut trailer can be honest and forthcoming, but it can also lie through its teeth and completely misrepresent its subject. You may not agree with the list as a whole, but it’s a brave offering.

Special points go for their choice for their #5, which I still contend is the most perfect example of a brilliant trailer for a lousy film.

(via IFC)

Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen

OPENING: 06/22/2009

STUDIO: DreamWorks

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
Revenge is coming.

Opening Statement
I experienced an unexpected soft spot for 2007’s Transformers, a delightfully fun and, at times, brutally entertaining blockbuster which — coupled with The Island — made me rethink my entire opinion concerning director Michael Bay. Prior to viewing his vision of robots in disguise, I found Bay to be a patchy and intrusive filmmaker. However, leaving that movie I began to believe he might have finally cracked the blockbuster code. All those hours wasted watching Pearl Harbor suddenly felt worthwhile, knowing Bay was a changed artist with the promise that future projects might offer the same skill conjuring fantastical escapism. Unfortunately, such hopes where premature. Bay has detonated any hope of his evolution as a dumb fun connoisseur, by delivering a truly tedious and uninspired sequel. A heartbreakingly monotonous and unoriginal gambit to expand the Transformers universe, Revenge of The Fallen is destined to climax as this summer’s most disappointing diversion.

Facts of the Case
Taking place shortly after the events of the first movie, Revenge of the Fallen picks up with Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) heading off to college, looking forward to an independent, robot-free future. Making it clear to the Autobots he no longer wants to be involved in their war against the evil Decepticons, Sam wants to focus instead on his long distance relationship with beautiful Mikeala (Megan Fox) and forging out a bright and lively life for himself. However, we quickly learn this won’t be the case.

Megatron, the Decepticon’s leader, has risen once again and now serves an even greater evil. This ancient and restless force, known only as The Fallen, wants revenge on those who millennia ago managed to stop him from gaining complete control of the universe. In order to do so, it requires something found only inside Sam. At the end of the previous installment, The Allspark — a relic containing infinite power and intelligence — was destroyed, but not before its knowledge was transferred into the mind of our freshman hero, leaving him as the key to The Fallen’s vengeance and domination.

The Evidence
I really wanted to love Revenge of the Fallen, so the fact I didn’t should only further highlight how unsatisfying a motion picture it is. Many critics will be going in with low expectations, with the hope of being able to verbally gut Michael Bay afterward. Sadly, they’ll get their wish, whilst my hopes of receiving another wonderfully entertaining adrenaline rush have been dashed. It’s a film so grounded in mediocrity and wildly unoriginal that fans will surely be reduced to tears of bitter resentment. Meanwhile, Bay-haters will smile and tick off one more cinematic offense to hold against the man.

The story is a mess, starting with some semblance of narrative cohesion, but quickly dropping into an over-plotted mire of machines and concepts only diehards will happily follow. I have very little knowledge of Transformers mythology and maybe people who do won’t find the stretched story and multiple plot strands distractingly disjointed. For me, they left an unpleasant taste in the mouth. Ideas and plot points are picked up and dropped in an instant, while throughout the film continuity is something the creative team clearly felt unnecessary to address. In a big blockbuster, I can forgive a few plot holes, but several of these narrative shortcomings are better described as plot chasms, huge inconsistencies that truly detract from the experience.

Knowing that two of the writers — Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman — are the same men behind this summer’s awesome reincarnation of Star Trek and the first film in this once promising series, one has to assume all their efforts went into rebooting Kirk and company, at the expense of this project. The screenplay is a hatchet job of ideas from Transformers and several other sci-fi extravaganzas, leaving the viewer with familiar elements stuffed into one monstrously ineffective plotline. Elements of The Matrix, Species, and even Peter Jackson’s King Kong (a fight between Prime and some bad guys is very reminiscent of the Kong vs. T-Rex epic) are riddled within this production’s unappealing DNA, which is further corrupted by its seemingly insatiable desire to tepidly remake its predecessor.

The performances are stale and uninvolving. I appreciate they aren’t the film’s biggest selling point, but the last outing at least offered a host of lively and enjoyable turns. Revenge of The Fallen can’t make any such boast. Shia LaBeouf is in danger of having his shtick become passé, after only two years in the spotlight. Last time, he reminded me of a young Michael J. Fox. This time, he’s a hipster who has bought to far into his own hype. The comedic and emotional effort offered in Transformers is gone, substituted with some unfunny improv and wooden acting. Megan Fox remains the most beautiful woman on the planet, with a fairly magnetic screen presence, but she suffers from the same stilted performing as LaBeouf. Even comic relief Ramon Rodriguez is hopeless as Sam’s roommate.

In truth, the only actor who really nets any genuine success is the ever reliable John Turturro, firing up several moments of true comic ingenuity, amongst the groans and implausible plot developments. As was the case in the last film, the proceedings do maintain a comedic bent, but it’s far more hit and miss. Sam’s parents are milked dry for more groans than giggles, and a set of gurning robotic comrades are more likely to remind audience members of Jar-Jar Binks than anything else. At times, the one-liners do elicit a positive reaction, but overall this is fairly weak stuff.

The action scenes remain a wonder to behold, but much of their energy and charm has dissipated in Revenge of The Fallen; a more expensive and notably less exciting picture. Bay remains a wizard with CGI and a few of his well-timed explosions hit the spot, but overall the set-pieces feel flat and half baked. With Transformers, spectacle won the day, even despite some shaky camera work. While the shooting is steadier this time, the levels of awe never rise above a mild murmur. Bay seems unwilling to take the carnage in a new direction and the raging conclusion is rendered useless by the fact that the audience has long since stopped caring. Obviously, emotional engagement and cerebral plotting are secondary to big thrills, while glossy action and blockbusting that fails to raise the adrenaline above a disappointing norm are unsurprisingly lacking. This film can’t even deliver on the necessity of being enjoyable.

At two and a half hours it was destined to be too long, especially with such an unconvincing story left to fill out the baggy excess. It’s a bitter pill to swallow and a harsh smack to the face for those who drew joy from the original. I didn’t require oodles of intelligent drama, but I really needed some dynamic action and effective spectacle… and even there it sells the audience pathetically short. A few moments of CGI wizardry, John Turturro, and Megan Fox in hot pants makes Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen occasionally bearable, but overall this is a sorry sequel to a vastly superior original.

Closing Statement
Easily the most disappointing film of the year thus far. It’s back to the drawing board, in terms of appreciating Michael Bay. Audiences — even Transformers fans — should wait for the DVD. Me, I’d rather pretend this mirthless follow-up never existed.

The Verdict
4/10

Land of the Lost

OPENING: 06/05/2009

STUDIO: Universal

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
Right place. Wrong time.

Opening Statement
Amid a field of lackluster summer movies of 2009, here’s another television property adapted for the big screen no one asked for. Based on the children’s sci-fi serial of the 1970s, Land of the Lost has undergone some cosmetic changes in the reinterpretation for today’s movie audience. The participation of the show’s creators, Sid and Marty Krofft, as co-producers more or less puts the stamp of approval on this pumped up version. Broad jokes and an eclectic mix of cultural references makes it hard to pin down who the intended target audience is.

Facts of the Case
Dr. Rick Marshall (Will Ferrell) proposes a most unique solution to the energy crisis: time traveling to harvest the resources from other dimensional planes. Unfortunately, his idea makes him the laughing stock of the scientific community. Fast forward three years and he’s giving presentations to kids at the La Brea Tar Pits.

With some encouragement from research assistant Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel), Dr. Marshall does build his tachyon accelerator. During a field test of the gizmo, the scientists trigger the greatest localized earthquake ever known and are sucked into another dimension along with survivalist/rafting-ride-guide Will Stanton (Danny McBride). This "Land of the Lost" resembles a dumping ground for all sorts of relics and inhabitants from different time periods, sort of like a cosmic lost and found. If the trio can outwit a T-Rex with a grudge and an army of lizard-men, maybe they can make it back home to become heroes.

The Evidence
A personal frustration of my childhood was never having a resolution to the TV series Land of the Lost. It was difficult enough to get home from school in time to catch the show. Gradually dawning on me the Marshall family wasn’t getting any closer to making it home with each passing episode, I was unaware (watching reruns in the 1980s) the show had stopped production years ago without wrapping up the story. If nothing else, at least this movie provides an ending to the story of our three accidental time travelers.

The Land of the Lost doesn’t quite bring back adolescent memories, as the fast-paced adventure-comedy breezily touches on key elements from the series. Managing to stay within the limits of the PG-13 rating, the jokes and innuendo are geared for a slightly older audience than the original. Viewers who remember the source will be a little surprised by how much these characters have grown up.

A significant change is that the three human characters are no longer a father and his two children. Once the young daughter with pig tails, Holly is now an adult woman who, predictably, supplies the romantic interest to Ferrell’s Dr. Marshall. Older brother Will is now a trailer trash slob. Even Chaka (Jorma Taccone), one member of a primate species, has been given a makeover. No longer a childlike playmate, Chaka has attitude and can be quite mischievous — he’s all hands when he first meets Holly. As for the Sleestaks, who gave me the creeps when I was young, remain the slowly shuffling non-threat they always were.

The performances are serviceable. While Friel’s Holly is sexy and smart, and McBride’s Will is blunt and practical, this is a showcase for Ferrell, who steps away from the man-child roles he’s been milking to play an arrogant mad scientist. Despite evidence his brand of science is sure to get them all killed, Marshall remains adamantly sure of his expertise. Perhaps we should cut him some slack, since he’s actually built a time machine. Ferrell does the lovable idiot thing very well and I enjoyed his portrayal of the underappreciated genius.

Into this dimensional anomaly where time’s junk has been tossed, there’s also a wide range of pop culture references. A moment that brings to mind the Flintstones might be expected where dinosaurs are present, but an impromptu rendition of Cher’s “Believe” also finds a nice fit among the gags. At the screening I attended, no one else laughed at this particular joke, but evading your enemy by running serpentine is timeless comedic advice. Add in some funny special effects and there are worse excuses for getting out of the sun. Curiously, the two biggest potential gross-out laughs happen off-screen.

Closing Statement
The flimsy story comes off the rails in the third act, but then again the science in Land of the Lost is more suspect than the black holes in Star Trek. This isn’t an adventure-comedy for the ages, but an enjoyable summer distraction which got more than a few chuckles out of me.

The Verdict
6/10

Year One

OPENING: 06/19/2009

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK: N/A

The Charge
Meet your ancestors.

Opening Statement
My reaction when first hearing about Year One: "Hey, a new Harold Ramis comedy? Cool beans! I’ll keep an eye out for it."



My reaction to Year One now that I’ve seen it: "$*#@. #*@!, #*!@, $%!@."


Facts of the Case
Year One begins in the Year of Our Lord Who the Heck Knows, a time period I am not familiar with. There we meet two cavemen: an incompetent hunter named Zed (Jack Black, School of Rock) who nobody likes because he is both an idiot and incompetent; and Oh (Michael Cera, Superbad), a wimpy gatherer who can’t seem to garner the respect of anyone. For some inexplicable reason, Zed and Oh are friends. One day, while wandering through the woods, they come across The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Zed impulsively eats from the tree, gaining no additional knowledge or intelligence, but does get kicked out the camp as a consequence for his sacrilege. Oh decides to follow Zed, and they embark on a series of misadventures involving Cain (David Cross, The Grand) and Abel (Paul Rudd, I Love You, Man), the prophet Abraham (Hank Azaria, The Simpsons), the city of Sodom, a princess (Olivia Wilde, Turistas), and a couple of attractive slave girls (June Diane Rapheal and Juno Temple).

The Evidence
The trailers for Year One didn’t look particularly good, but I had hopes it might be an entertaining movie. Sure, director Harold Ramis hasn’t always struck gold (Analyze That, anyone?), but even his least successful films have been reasonably engaging. Alas, Year One represents a low point in Mr. Ramis’ career. Do you want to know how bad this movie is? The funniest moments are in the trailer. In truth, the best this film can hope to achieve is painless mediocrity and it doesn’t even come close, barely managing to distinguish itself from the abysmal comedies coming from the Epic Movie/Date Movie/Disaster Movie crowd.

The film plays like a low-rent version of Mel Brooks’ A History of the World, Part 1, which itself was a low-rent version of a Monty Python film. The plot is a loosely connected series of illogical threads designed to tie together a group of poorly-conceived sketches. As such, we’re treated to material that wouldn’t even make it into the final half-hour of Saturday Night Live. I suppose there is some potential enjoyment to be had in poking fun at the lifestyles of cavemen and Old Testament figures, but Year One jumps on every obvious joke and clubs it into the ground.

For example, Zed and Oh are attempting to follow the trail of some slave-traders. In order to get an idea of how far away the traders are, Zed decides to examine the warmth of their fecal matter. As if this stuff wasn’t tired and boring enough, do we really need five minutes to watch Zed smell, taste, and chew on it, analyzing what foods the traders have been recently eating? Likewise, anytime an opportunity for a sex joke appears, the film not only takes it but repeats it endlessly. You can bet if you come across a eunuch in this film, you will not only find out what body part he’s missing, but where he keeps it and what he’s planning to do with it.

Whose terrible idea was it to cast Jack Black in the lead role? Black is hit-and-miss with me to begin with, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a less inspired performance. Pulling out the same sort of over-the-top chaos that defines his Tenacious D personality, he seems to be on autopilot with a performance full of tired shtick that won’t entertain anyone over the age of seven (not that anyone so young should be permitted to see this film, as it considerably pushes the boundaries of the PG-13 rating). The writing isn’t all that funny to begin with, but Black does absolutely nothing to make it any more amusing. Almost every line he delivers sounds like a rocker greeting an audience. Instead of, "All right, Detroit! Are you reeeeady to ROCK?", it’s "All RIIIIGHT! Let’s go over THAT-a-way, OW!"

Consider for a moment this film features the likes of Michael Cera, Hank Azaria, Harold Ramis, Oliver Platt, David Cross, Paul Rudd, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Bill Hader. With a cast like this, you could make something side-splitting. The only problem is none of them are funny in Year One. I only laughed twice: once at Ramis, and once at Azaria. To be perfectly honest, both of those laughs were more like mild chuckles, partially generated by my goodwill towards these two men. It didn’t last long.


With characters from many different eras of ancient history, the only conceivable reason I can find for calling the movie Year One is this: if the film makes money, they can call the next one Year Two. Please, for the love of all that is sacred, don’t let that happen.

Closing Statement
This one should have no trouble carving out a place for itself on many "Worst of 2009" lists, including mine. So let it be over, so let it be done.

The Verdict
1/10

Paper Man

OPENING: 06/18/2009

STUDIO: Artfire Films

ACCOMPLICES: N/A

SOUNDTRACK: N/A

The Charge
What happens when life stalls but the world keeps moving forward?

Opening Statement
Opening night of the 2009 Los Angeles Film Festival showed much less glam and glitz than years past, focusing more on the art than the Hollywood. The heart of Westwood was almost serene tonight. Broxton Street, once host to lavish after parties, remained open and quiet; Lindbrook Avenue wasn’t lined with fans hoping to catch a glimpse of celebrity royalty, as there were none to be found; and the Mann Village Theatre was full, but not bursting, requiring no overflow theatre to accommodate the crowds. While some might point to the economic downturn as the main reason for the change, looking up and down this year’s 200+ film schedule, you’ll quickly see a conscious choice by festival director Rebecca Yeldham (Anvil! The Story of Anvil) and her team to present a more introspective palate. Kieran and Michele Mulroney’s Paper Man was a most appropriate choice to establish the tone.

Facts of the Case
Richard (Jeff Daniels) is suffering from a most debilitating affliction: writer’s block. His wife Claire (Lisa Kudrow), a successful surgeon, gets him out of NYC and rents a house on the Long Island seashore, hoping to reawaken the creative process. Despite his first novel being somewhat of a commercial flop, Richard’s publisher has him under the gun to complete a second, which isn’t doing anything to dispell his disillusionment. Even his childhood imaginary friend, Captain Excellent (Ryan Reynolds), can’t seem to break Richard out of this downward spiral. Yet, just when things seem most bleak, along comes Abby (Emma Stone), a local high schooler and kindred spirit. Immediately drawn to her own obvious angst, the two form a unique bond, setting their individual worlds on a collision course whose ripple effects will impact everyone around them.

The Evidence
I love films that are unapologetic for what they have to offer. Despite fronting an all-star cast and opening a major film festival, Paper Man is not destined to become a mainstream success… and that’s okay. This is a film for people who love film, one which can’t be spoon-fed to the masses as anything other than what it is: a slow but beautifully unfolding character study, deliberate in chewing on every element of its own existence. Its two-hour runtime may make the art house uninitiated squirm — as evidenced by tonight’s increasing amount of aisle traffic in the second and third acts — but those willing to take the journey will have their investment pay off in spades.

Much like Sophia Coppola’s Lost in Translation, Paper Man centers on an unconventional relationship between two lost souls. Richard and Abby are doing penance for injustices in their lives, but somewhere along the way that solitude defined them. They no longer know themselves outside of their pain and it takes seeing that in each other to truly recognize and deal with it. While some people’s brains will immediately turn to Woody Allen or Mary Kay Letourneau, this is not that type of relationship, and yet everyone in these characters lives make that same leap in judgment. This then begs the question: Can two people, vastly different in every way, make a deep connection that transcends conventional labels?

The Mulroneys show us they can and do so in style. Known more for their writing and producing efforts, this directorial turn is quite impressive. After a Juno-esque opening title sequence, the overly indie earmarks take a backseat to more conventional filmmaking. While there are some interesting setups, transitions, and focus pulls, Kieran and Michele let their characters drive the aesthetic. The stark winter setting echoes the bleakness in the characters lives, hinting at potential new life gestating beneath the surface. Anyone who has spent time living in a home not their own will sympathize with the uncomfortableness of one’s foreign surroundings. And those who are writers will immediately identify with Richard’s myriad distractions that keep him from facing the cruelty of a blank page. Paper Man is an excellent companion piece to Sam Mendes’ Away We Go (which also features Jeff Daniels). The two films share a similar tone, in that life can very easily be lived outside of the margins defined by modern society. We only have to choose to believe it can and give ourselves the power to do so.

While words on a page are one thing, once put into the hands of gifted actors they give life to characters who will echo in your subconscious. This may well be Jeff Daniels finest role. It’s easy to play crazy for laughs, but to pull off a 50 year old man with an imaginary friend and make you believe it, that’s Jimmy Stewart caliber work. The authenticity he brings to Richard demands the attention of audiences, critics, and peers… and he’s not alone. I’ve been a fan of Emma Stone since her work on the short-lived Tim Minear series Drive and she keeps getting better with each outing. Holding her own opposite Jeff and co-star Kieran Culkin (who looks like 10 miles of bad road) is accomplishment enough, but when the time comes for Abby to dig deep and confront her own demons, Emma generates a light all her own. Together they make this story sing.

Lisa Kudrow continues to do well for herself and this is another solid performance. The same goes for Ryan Reynolds, well on his way to becoming the next Bruce Willis, milking that wry comic charm and making it look effortless. Speaking of looks, the boy spends the entire film in wholly unforgiving spandex without a hint of imperfection (aside from that obnoxious peroxide job), and that ain’t easy.

Closing Statement
Life has no easy answers or clear cut happy endings, something that Hollywood works hard to make us forget, and yet we often grow the most from seeing ourselves in that truth. Paper Man helps us see, even in deepest despair, there is wonder to behold and adventure to pursue. More importantly, it reminds us all that even the smallest films can pack one heck of a punch.

The Verdict
9/10

The film is untiled, and the teaser shows no actual scenes. However, the focus is clearly on government bailouts in the past eight months. This trailer was played in N.Y. and L.A. with actual ushers doing what Moore is saying. It’s both hilarious and hideous. Just remember: it may make you feel…GOOD!

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

OPENING: 06/12/2009

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
"Life is simple. They just have to do what I say."

Opening Statement
Joseph Sargent’s 1974 thriller The Taking of Pelham One Two Three still holds up well as a satisfying motion picture. Featuring crisp direction and strong lead performances from Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, the film is an immensely entertaining if somewhat dated viewing experience. New York City has changed a great deal over the course of 35 years; a fact that Tony Scott’s new take on the story certainly reflects. Though not as memorable its predecessor, this version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (yes, this title uses actual numbers) serves as yet another engaging slice of stylish entertainment from a very reliable director.

Facts of the Case
Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is a low-key train dispatcher just trying to get through another day, finding ways to economize time, making up for losses in train schedules, and attempting to keep everything safe and well-organized from his control room. Suddenly, one of the trains is hijacked by a team of terrorists/criminals/evildoers/bad guys. The team is led by Ryder (John Travolta), a charismatic yet dangerous man demanding to be given 10 million dollars within one hour. If his demands are not met, he will kill one passenger every minute until he gets his money. Despite the attempts of a highly-trained hostage negotiator (John Turturro) and the New York City Mayor (James Gandolfini) to get involved, Ryder refuses to communicate with anyone but Walter, leaving the lives of dozens of people in the hands of a single dispatcher.

The Evidence
I’m generally not a fan of MTV-style action movie editing, but I make an exception for director Tony Scott. His hyperactive energy is tempered by a focused sense of order and a knack for good pacing. Compare one of his 90-cuts-a-minute scenes with a similarly frantic film directed by Michael Bay, and you will see the difference between a man who knows how to stage a coherent action scene and one who doesn’t. His films rarely approach greatness, with the possible exception of the thoughtful thriller Crimson Tide, but I almost always enjoy his efforts. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is no exception.

The screenplay by Brian Helgeland — who also penned Scott’s Man on Fire — manages to fuse high-stakes action with quite a few religious elements, particularly themes of guilt and redemption. Helgeland grants his characters a surprising complexity, by imbuing all the major players with past sins. I won’t reveal the details, but suffice it to say there’s a lot of cross-carrying, condemnation, and salvation weaving through this thing. Scott and Helgeland are a little more savvy about it than they were with Man on Fire, a good film which succumbed to severe overdoses of heavy-handed symbolism. In Pelham 1 2 3, such elements generally seem to enrich the characters rather than burden them. Don’t get me wrong, we’re not dealing with a Bergman film here, but it’s nice to see an action movie that actually has something to say other than, "Bang Bang! You’re dead!"

Not to worry, though. We still get plenty of action and the film maintains an impressive intensity for the vast duration of its run time. During the hour in which Walter and Ryder negotiate their way through a turbulent situation, Pelham 1 2 3 is in top form. Scott eases up just a bit on his distinct visual style, occasionally slowing down for lingering close-ups, whenever the situation calls for it. There are also some unusually effective editing choices, as the camera chooses unexpected focus points. Scott gets a lot of mileage out of something as simple as routine reaction shots, and impressively manages to highlight some of the cast’s subtle (and not-so-subtle) character suggestions. It has been said an actor is only as good as the director allows him to be in the editing room, and Scott knows how to make a performance.

This is the fourth collaboration between Scott and actor Denzel Washington, who have created quite a successful partnership. Washington dispenses with his recent high-volume intensity, in favor of creating a more understated character. Returning to the modest, everyman quality he played so effectively early in his career, his performance contrasts nicely with Travolta’s enjoyably hammy villain. While Robert Shaw played a rather cold and calculated character in the original, Travolta once again plays up the monologuing attention-seeker we saw in Face/Off and Broken Arrow. It’s a savvy intelligence mixed with a somewhat needy childishness, a combination which makes perfect sense when you discover the character’s career background. I also quite liked James Gandolfini as a scandal-plagued mayor who could care less about his reputation or getting re-elected. When an aide suggests the mayor should take advantage of the hostage situation as a way to build up the goodwill of the people, Gandolfini sniffs, "I left my Rudy Giuliani suit at home." John Turturro is refreshingly low-key, while the wonderful Luis Guzman is completely wasted as Travolta’s primary sidekick.

Closing Statement
Hijacking a train in 2009 is a considerably different process than hijacking a train in 1974, as is the filmmaking process. I found it intriguing to consider Pelham 1 2 3’s prediction of how such a scenario would play out, in contrast to the postulations of the original. Perhaps 35 years from now it will be remade again, to provide us with yet another look at how a changing world and changing tastes affect the crafting of a nuts-and-bolts action thriller. This version isn’t perfect (the final dose of action is a bit too familiar for my tastes, and I’m not entirely sold on Travolta’s ultimate plan), but it gets the job done. In a summer full of giant killer robots, superheroes, and apocalyptic battles, it’s nice to get an action flick that actually seems to take place in the real world.

The Verdict
8/10

The Hangover

OPENING: 05/05/2009

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
Some guys just can’t handle Vegas.

Opening Statement
When we recorded our Summer Movie Guide podcast, we overlooked The Hangover. That’s not to say it wasn’t on our minds. It just wasn’t significant enough to mention. After all, it’s a comedy lacking A-list stars from a guy who’s last name isn’t Apatow. Who would have guessed the buzz generated by early screenings yielding shrieks of laughter from audiences. I attended one of those screenings, and pretty much all the critics sitting with me were unanimous in saying The Hangover was a raucously funny movie.

Facts of the Case
Doug Billings (Justin Bartha, National Treasure) is tying the knot with his lovely fiancee. Before the big day, however, his buddies Stu (Ed Helms, The Office) and Phil (Bradley Cooper, Yes Man) want to throw him an unforgettable bachelor party. With Doug’s soon-to-be brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis, Live at the Purple Onion) tagging along, the quartet lands in Sin City and a suite at Caesar’s Palace. Toasting the night’s festivities to come, overlooking the lights of the strip, little do they realize how their wild night will play out.

Morning breaks. The suite is trashed. A chair is scorched. Ed (a dentist) has lost a tooth. A wristband indicates Phil had been in the hospital. Alan awakes half-naked with a headache. There’s a chicken walking around, a tiger sitting soundly in the bathroom, a baby crying in the closet, and Doug is nowhere to be found. Battling massive hangovers, the three must somehow locate the groom and deliver him to the wedding.

The Evidence
This isn’t exactly a return to form for director Todd Phillips, but for those who’ve been patiently waiting for another joyfully raunchy comedy in the vein of Phillips’ Road Trip and Old School, that wait is finally over. Once again, Phillips taps into his inner imbecile, reminiscing about the days of alcohol, drugs, and morning vomit, exploring the bonds of male friendship, in the wake of hardcore partying and its consequences. Working from a screenplay by Jon Lucas & Scott Moore (Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past), he somehow manages to create another winning combination of scatalogical behavior and bromantic chemistry.

While The Hangover is unapologetically irresponsible and politically incorrect in the extreme, it also gives us three likable guys (each with radically different quirks) on a journey which is not only entertaining, but armed with a keg full of twists. The setup is farcical and exaggerated, but pays off with some huge laughs and a surprising heart underneath all the chaos. The clever narrative focuses on the aftermath of the night before, while putting the puzzle pieces together, enabling us forget the painful and pitiful Dude, Where’s My Car? To give away anything else would be a huge cheat. Let’s just say these guys go through more complicated misadventures than anyone could possibly deal with. Just don’t watch the trailer before seeing the film. It gives away too much.

Phillips’ film succeeds because he knows the rules of comedy. The Hangover may be episodic and guilty of uneveness, but doesn’t rely on a string of goofy gags or crude wordplay to sell its humor. The writers don’t make the mistake of creating passive characters who embarass themselves, becoming victims to everything thrown at them. Phil, Stu, and Alan are all well-developed, each contributing much to the crazy proceedings. Some of their mannerisms and behavior are not unfamiliar, but they exhibit them with striking naturalness. Phil is the "What-me-worry?" type, constantly trying not to let either of his companions succumb to insanity. Stu is dorky but intelligent. He wants to have fun, but fibs to his bitchy wife about what he’s doing. Alan is the quiet, loutish, observant type who attempts to ingratiate himself with his new friends, not giving a damn if they scoff at his odd wardrobe choices. Thankfully, Phillips presents them as real guys in their mid-30s and not merely as vulnerable party animals or comic puppets to exploit.

Phillips made a wise choice by not casting overrated comedians like Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn. Save for Heather Graham — who is surprisingly charming as a hooker/stripper — all of the leads are known for their television or standup work. Helms is perfect as the straight-arrow submissive who intends to marry his girlfriend even if she has cheated on him. Cooper excels as the ostensibly cocky, supercool ringleader who supervises the investigation. Then there’s Galifianikis, the real newcomer who almost steals the film with his clownish/childish antics, dum-dum demeanor, and anything-goes attitude. And don’t overlook bad boy boxer Mike Tyson in a small but memorable walk-on role.

Phillips could have tightened things up more, but this is more a minor annoyance than a big deal. Like most near-great comedies, The Hangover slows down in its final reel. For the first two-thirds, it’s largely non-stop laughter, but succumbs to autopilot before being re-energized at the end credits. Believe me, the final montage will leave you choking for breath.

One word of warning: Like many of its R-rated cousins, The Hangover is truly fearless in its comedy. No ethnic, racial, or sexual stone is left unturned. The film doesn’t shy away from graphic images, harsh language, or gratuitious nudity by both sexes. While the film does revel in bad taste, it doesn’t rely on it.

What does disappoint me is the early version I saw was a little different from the theatrical release. Some of the raunchier bits were toned down (possibly to avoid an NC-17 rating) and I’m willing to bet the cut I saw will be the inevitable “unrated” version on DVD. With that in mind, some of you might want to wait and skip seeing it in the theater.

Closing Statement
Hangovers suck, and this movie knows it. For anyone who’s ever blacked out during a juvenile escapade only to wake up and deal with the aftermath in a WTF-manner, The Hangover might bring back some hazy memories. Regardless, the remaining comedies of 2009 (including Sacha Baron Cohen’s new no-holds-barred Bruno), will have an uphill battle to match this potential classic.

The Verdict
9/10