Source Code
It's actually been a couple of weeks since I saw Source Code. I think it was something like April 18th or so... I suppose this write up will be interesting...
So what do I remember thinking about the movie? Generally, I guess, that it was pretty good. Decent. It was engaging and engrossing and all that jazz- definitely entertaining and even a bit of a thinker. But I guess its on that last part where I felt that the film kind of fell a part a bit- the more I thought about it, the less impressed I was and the more confusing and/or unbelievable I found it. I know, I know, its a sci-fi movie, and almost by definition it needs to push at the restraint of reality... a lot. And I know I always harp on about the willful suspension of disbelief most viewers need to engage in in order for movies to be enjoyable, but damn it, Duncan Jones crafts a movie that at first glance seems- with a little help from scientific evolution... and not terribly far-reaching scientific evolution at that- as though it could happen.
I don't want to reveal too many details here though. Some of the twists and turns and slow-building realizations are what made this movie fun to dive into. And, then again, those same twists and turns are what also hold it back in my mind. I will say this much though: the movie revolves around the quest of Jake Gyllenhaal's (Army officer? Marine officer, I can't remember) Colter Stevens being injected into the last 8 minutes of some working schlub's life so that he can discover the identity of the person who planted the bomb on the Chicago commuter train that killed said schlub, said schlub's woman friend, and a bundle of other schlubs. Can't find the bomber in the first effort? No worries, Colter, you're going back in... again and again and again until you get the job done.
Yes, I know, I said it could happen. And nothing about the paragraph above indicates any sense of reality or possibility as we know it now or in any sense of the immediate future. It's not that Colter manages to invade the last 8 minutes of someone's life that seemed somewhat realistic, it's how he does it that, for awhile at least, seemed plausible. Again, don't want to it into it here... but trust me, at least in the state of mind I was in at the time- under the influence of hefty allergy medication- it seemed plausible.. until you looked at the next level. Wish I could say more but you'll have to just keep your eyes peeled for it, if you decide to check the movie out. And really you have nothing to lose in doing so- it wasn't boring by any stretch. Quite entertaining actually. Just wish I hadn't bought into it so much when drugged then questioned it so much after coming back to my senses. It probably was best viewed strictly in the realm of science fiction- but then again- the world of Star Wars or the Jetsons never makes an appearance; you're meant to think that everything that happens in the film can happen right now. So maybe it does set it self up for disappointment...
I guess disappoint, though, is just too strong a word. Or rather too strong a word to describe the entire movie. It definitely had a lot going for it: taut thrills, a genuine sense of urgency that drove the movie, good action, good performances (Gyllenhaal, and Vera Farmiga- particularly. Much, much less so with Jeffrey Wright's turn as some sort of socially awkward scientist. Seemed he took acting lessons from a cartoon...), and even some exploration of such thought provoking topics as: death and reality vs. alternate reality. All good stuff. But darn it. The plot seems to fall apart when considering the basic premise of how Colter goes after the bomber. Would love to know if anyone else saw it that way. Wish I could delve into it more now, but to even try to describe it would give away too much of the film... well, I think anyway. And I don't want David Bowie (Duncan Jones' father) swooping in and snagging my nieces or nephews the next time I babysit (which would be... the first time I babysat...solo anyway).
So, I suppose the movie would best be described as a lot of hit, but one nagging miss. Not that I think it's too much Duncan Jones' fault. If anything the film's timeliness and believability- both in the better part of the plot and most of the performances- make the one essential, but unbelievable part of the movie seem like an even bigger problem. The rest of the movie is almost too good for the too complex part. And that's not all bad. I'm not ready to give up on Jones at all. I've heard great, great things about his first feature, Moon, and I'm really looking forward to seeing it as well as whatever else he comes up with in the near future. Every director has some "almost" films in their repertoire. Perhaps this Jones' ... and if this is the worst he does, he'll go down as one HELL of a director when it's all said and done.
Grade: B
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Movie List 2011: 16.) Paul
Paul
I guess if I had to describe what I thought of Paul in a quick phrase it would be either pretty good or pretty satisfying. Neither of those do anyone any good, but actually they're probably the best way to describe it. And in either case, feeling as I do about the work of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, I'd have to say it was a bit of a disappointment. I was expected another home run here and it just didn't deliver on that level. But it was a good enough time, I suppose. There's a ringing endorsement for you...
So what went wrong...ish? I would suppose it's biggest drawback was a complete lack of bite or edge. See, the thing I love most about Pegg-Frost movies like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz was how edgy they were. It's true, both of their previous efforts had a whole heaping dose of heart as well, but it was balanced by some pretty edgy humor. Or maybe not edgy but biting. Or at the very least untamed. This, well, this was pretty damn tame. And the ratio of heart to edge was skewed way towards heart. On the whole, it made for some pretty nice viewing but there was just something missing. There really weren't any laugh out loud moments in this but there were a lot of chuckles. So if you like chuckling and some clever writing, you very well may like Paul. I did, but I guess my problem was that I was expecting to love it. And it just came up short. You know, the whole lack of edge is doubly surprising considering that the director is Greg Mottola. Yes, this would be the same Greg Mottola who brought you Superbad (one of my all time favorites)... oh and Adventureland (another one I liked but not really a comedy, comedy). Superbad- despite it's heart (yep there it is again)- has some pretty untamed (if you will) comedy and it seemed to come so effortlessly and hilariously. Paul.. well...not so much.
Don't get me wrong, I did really like the movie. I guess I'm running the risk of penalizing a perfectly fine movie because it didn't meet my bloated expectations, but when the previous history includes such awesomely funny flicks as Superbad, Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead, you can see where one would look towards the next offering with high hopes (unless, well, you hated those movies, I suppose). So yeah, there WAS a lot to like about the movie. Really, there was. Like the typical easy, and often pretty funny chemistry between Frost and Pegg. They were- as is typical of them- fun to just sit back and take in. Then there was the story itself, which was indeed pretty clever (an alien- who crash landed on Earth back in 1947 and became a "guest" of the government- fears that said government wants to harvest his stem cells so he escapes and hatches a plan to be rescued by his people, but in order to make the plan work he needs the help of two British sci-fi junkies on holiday to Comic-Con and all the US southwestern UFO hotspots. The Brits agree to help and some relatively staid chaos ensues). One of the best aspects of the story was all the knowing winks towards some of the best and most iconic sci-fi flicks Hollywood has produced. This, too, is a staple of Frost-Pegg joints and it's always fun to spot those typically clever moments (Wilhelm Scream, anyone?). And besides all that, there was the performances of Jason Bateman and Kristen Wiig. Both did much to steal their scenes. Wiig was particularly awesome as the liberated daughter of a bible-thumping, shotgun toting evangelist. Good stuff.
So yeah, it all amounted to a pretty nice movie. Unfortunately, I was really going to see a "nice" movie. I was hoping to see a frickin' hilarious sci-fi spoof comedy (and when I say spoof, I mean lovingly spoofed. Or even needled. That's another trademark of Pegg-Frost flicks, they aren't particularly base or mean-spirited about their send-ups, but rather are more clever and adoring. The producers of such spoofing crap as Scary Movie should take note... when you aren't out to openly mock the genre you're sending up, it actually works better...). Oh well, you can't win them all. I'm sure over time, I'll come to appreciate Paul for the pretty good or nice movie that it was. Right now, I guess I can't hide some degree of disappointment. I was ready to laugh, not chuckle. I guess there's always the next Pegg-Frost project. I have no idea what it is, but I'm already looking forward to it.
Grade: B+
I guess if I had to describe what I thought of Paul in a quick phrase it would be either pretty good or pretty satisfying. Neither of those do anyone any good, but actually they're probably the best way to describe it. And in either case, feeling as I do about the work of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, I'd have to say it was a bit of a disappointment. I was expected another home run here and it just didn't deliver on that level. But it was a good enough time, I suppose. There's a ringing endorsement for you...
So what went wrong...ish? I would suppose it's biggest drawback was a complete lack of bite or edge. See, the thing I love most about Pegg-Frost movies like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz was how edgy they were. It's true, both of their previous efforts had a whole heaping dose of heart as well, but it was balanced by some pretty edgy humor. Or maybe not edgy but biting. Or at the very least untamed. This, well, this was pretty damn tame. And the ratio of heart to edge was skewed way towards heart. On the whole, it made for some pretty nice viewing but there was just something missing. There really weren't any laugh out loud moments in this but there were a lot of chuckles. So if you like chuckling and some clever writing, you very well may like Paul. I did, but I guess my problem was that I was expecting to love it. And it just came up short. You know, the whole lack of edge is doubly surprising considering that the director is Greg Mottola. Yes, this would be the same Greg Mottola who brought you Superbad (one of my all time favorites)... oh and Adventureland (another one I liked but not really a comedy, comedy). Superbad- despite it's heart (yep there it is again)- has some pretty untamed (if you will) comedy and it seemed to come so effortlessly and hilariously. Paul.. well...not so much.
Don't get me wrong, I did really like the movie. I guess I'm running the risk of penalizing a perfectly fine movie because it didn't meet my bloated expectations, but when the previous history includes such awesomely funny flicks as Superbad, Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead, you can see where one would look towards the next offering with high hopes (unless, well, you hated those movies, I suppose). So yeah, there WAS a lot to like about the movie. Really, there was. Like the typical easy, and often pretty funny chemistry between Frost and Pegg. They were- as is typical of them- fun to just sit back and take in. Then there was the story itself, which was indeed pretty clever (an alien- who crash landed on Earth back in 1947 and became a "guest" of the government- fears that said government wants to harvest his stem cells so he escapes and hatches a plan to be rescued by his people, but in order to make the plan work he needs the help of two British sci-fi junkies on holiday to Comic-Con and all the US southwestern UFO hotspots. The Brits agree to help and some relatively staid chaos ensues). One of the best aspects of the story was all the knowing winks towards some of the best and most iconic sci-fi flicks Hollywood has produced. This, too, is a staple of Frost-Pegg joints and it's always fun to spot those typically clever moments (Wilhelm Scream, anyone?). And besides all that, there was the performances of Jason Bateman and Kristen Wiig. Both did much to steal their scenes. Wiig was particularly awesome as the liberated daughter of a bible-thumping, shotgun toting evangelist. Good stuff.
So yeah, it all amounted to a pretty nice movie. Unfortunately, I was really going to see a "nice" movie. I was hoping to see a frickin' hilarious sci-fi spoof comedy (and when I say spoof, I mean lovingly spoofed. Or even needled. That's another trademark of Pegg-Frost flicks, they aren't particularly base or mean-spirited about their send-ups, but rather are more clever and adoring. The producers of such spoofing crap as Scary Movie should take note... when you aren't out to openly mock the genre you're sending up, it actually works better...). Oh well, you can't win them all. I'm sure over time, I'll come to appreciate Paul for the pretty good or nice movie that it was. Right now, I guess I can't hide some degree of disappointment. I was ready to laugh, not chuckle. I guess there's always the next Pegg-Frost project. I have no idea what it is, but I'm already looking forward to it.
Grade: B+
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Movie List 2011: 15.) Sucker Punch
Sucker Punch
For the record, I actually saw this on March 30th...for whatever that's worth. So this should be a bit different. I'm already thinking it's going to be downgraded from where I would have had it had I written this right away. I imagine when a lot of folks think about Sucker Punch, what they think starts and stops at five rather scantily clad young ladies kicking all sorts of ass. And yeah, it IS true to a point that that pretty well sums up the movie. But if you can look past that- hard as it might be- you'll find a pretty darn fun and funky graphic novel-type (if that is a type) movie from Zack Snyder- the creative mind behind 300and Watchmen. And just to be crystal clear here, there is nothing about this movie that makes it a candidate for Skinemax (in fact looking only at the fact that the chicks are scantily-clad..ish... you would miss out on the larger question of WHY they are scantily clad. Snyder is trying to make a point here- or so I've read- flimsy as it might be. And while I've read what his point is... it has to do- and I'm paraphrasing here- with women overcoming the notion of being sexual objects... it's all part of the prison they're in... and when you see them dressed in the pseudo-sexual fashion they're there to kick-ass...thus conquering the world they're trapped in, perception and all... or... something like that? I know I've read somewhere where Snyder was defending his wardrobe choices for reasons other than to get 15 year old boys in the seats). ANYWAY, leaving all that aside, I think Snyder has come up with a movie that IS entertaining to say the least.
That said, it's also undeniably stranger...or quirky.. and complicated- probably too complicated for it's own good. Some of it just plain doesn't makes sense. But the action is good. So it has that going for it. I will say that I also liked the style of the film. That- for lack of a better way of putting it- graphic novel-esque style Snyder featured in both 300 and Watchmen. I just dig it. Never seems to get old for me. And I also liked some of the quirks. But what I liked the best was the idea of the world within a world within the mind that he tries to lay out. It's like Inception...super, super lite. Allow me to try to explain:
Because of a family tragedy, the character known only as Baby Doll (it's obviously not her real name) is sent to an insane asylum. I should mention that the movie is set in some indistinct but clearly defined "yesterday" time period...maybe the 1930s or 1940s? Not entirely sure, I just know it wasn't literally yesterday. But it does hearken back to the day when lobotomies were fairly common place and insane asylums were horrific places. See, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is being sent to the asylum by her evil stepfather who is after Baby Doll's share of her mother's inheritance... I think... and through a crooked deal with the chief orderly, evil Step Dad has arranged for Baby Doll to receive a lobotomy, thus taking her out of the picture. Baby Doll gets wise to this and obviously isn't going to take it lightly. It becomes clear that she wants to escape- presumably to teach dear old step daddy a lesson. And this is where things get weird. All of the sudden, we're led into a night club/burlesque/brothel scene where all the asylum inmates are now dancers/prostitutes. Baby Doll is the new addition on scene and she quickly makes acquaintance with a few of the other colorfully named dancers: Amber (Jamie Chung), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Rocket (Jena Malone), and resident tough girl, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish). None of these girls is particularly happy being stuck here in the club/asylum so Baby Doll quickly convinces them to join her in her planned escape. Freedom- it would seem- can be won if the girls can assemble a number of different items and figure out how to use them. We know this because Baby Doll meets a mysterious dude in another realm of her imagination... I think it's her imagination... which she visits when she is forced to do her special dance in the first imaginary realm of the burlesque club/brothel. (All the girls are supposed to dance to win the affections of their potential clients for the other part of the equation). In addition to getting sage-ish advice in this other imaginary realm, this is also where Baby Doll and her accomplices kick the asses of some seriously weird villains ranging from machine gun-toting Samurai warriors to re-animated, dead Germans, to orc-like creatures, to futuristic cyborgs each with the end goal of the battle being to capture one of the items they'll need to escpae. Each of these villains or groups are course figments of Baby Doll's imagination and are really fronts for her dancing episodes- which are themselves distractions (we're back in the first imaginary realm) that allow Baby Doll's cohorts to grab the items they need to escape. One assumes all of this has implications in Baby Doll's real world in the asylum. The question becomes, can Baby Doll escape before the lobotomist comes in five days (he's known as the High Roller in the burlesque realm)?
Yeah, you should be sufficiently confused. Granted my description isn't doing you any favors either, but the movie won't provide you with much aid itself either. How much you enjoy the movie probably depends on how willing you are to forget about trying to make too much sense of it and just roll with the pretty awesome action and quirky style. For my part, I was completely ready to turn my brain most of the way off. And I enjoyed it. It's not all bad in the end, Snyder does a decent job tying everything together, but that does kind of lead to more questions... or perhaps plot holes is a better way of putting it. Again it all depends on how deeply you want to delve into it. I'll again emphasize that I liked the style and the quirk. Beyond that... well, there was also a lot to quibble with besides the confusing and complex... or ridiculous depending on your point of view... story. The ending bothered me. In that I mean the very end of the film. Snyder chooses to smack you over the head with his intended message. I HATE when film makers do that. Look, I know you've made a- probably- needlessly confusing flick, Zack, but I still think I could have figured out the message without you coming out and telling me.
Besides that, the acting was hit or miss, especially in Emily Browning's case. She alternates between genuinely decent acting and cold, emotionless, Barbie-doll-come-to-life expression. She's at her best when she's kicking ass which is often enough to push the rest of her sterile performance to the rear view. I found Vanessa Hudgens to be fairly annoying more than anything else. And Scott Glen as the Wise Man (yeah I just looked it up, the sage-y dude's character was really called the Wise Man) delivered his lines with appropriate sincerity, but some of those lines were absolute, flat-fallen duds. I DID, however, enjoy Jena Malone's and Abbie Cornish's performance. They both displayed a range of emotions and some considerable depth... and I suppose I wouldn't be going out on a limb to say that depth of character- particularly these characters- was a high priority. Well, maybe it was, but it sure didn't come out that way. Oh, and Oscar Isaac played his role of the sleazy chief orderly/night club owner with a great deal of what I can only describe as effortless sleaze. Nicely done, sir.
I'm going to go ahead and stop it here. It seems like the more I think about it, the more I want to seriously downgrade the movie. But it WAS fun. Really it was. Wasn't it? Yeah? I think so. No, it was. At least I thought so at the time I saw it. And that really does count for something. I think when I walked out of the theater I was ready to give the thing an A-. Not so much anymore... but really... to me... it was enjoyable. And that's what a movie should be right?
Grade: B
For the record, I actually saw this on March 30th...for whatever that's worth. So this should be a bit different. I'm already thinking it's going to be downgraded from where I would have had it had I written this right away. I imagine when a lot of folks think about Sucker Punch, what they think starts and stops at five rather scantily clad young ladies kicking all sorts of ass. And yeah, it IS true to a point that that pretty well sums up the movie. But if you can look past that- hard as it might be- you'll find a pretty darn fun and funky graphic novel-type (if that is a type) movie from Zack Snyder- the creative mind behind 300and Watchmen. And just to be crystal clear here, there is nothing about this movie that makes it a candidate for Skinemax (in fact looking only at the fact that the chicks are scantily-clad..ish... you would miss out on the larger question of WHY they are scantily clad. Snyder is trying to make a point here- or so I've read- flimsy as it might be. And while I've read what his point is... it has to do- and I'm paraphrasing here- with women overcoming the notion of being sexual objects... it's all part of the prison they're in... and when you see them dressed in the pseudo-sexual fashion they're there to kick-ass...thus conquering the world they're trapped in, perception and all... or... something like that? I know I've read somewhere where Snyder was defending his wardrobe choices for reasons other than to get 15 year old boys in the seats). ANYWAY, leaving all that aside, I think Snyder has come up with a movie that IS entertaining to say the least.
That said, it's also undeniably stranger...or quirky.. and complicated- probably too complicated for it's own good. Some of it just plain doesn't makes sense. But the action is good. So it has that going for it. I will say that I also liked the style of the film. That- for lack of a better way of putting it- graphic novel-esque style Snyder featured in both 300 and Watchmen. I just dig it. Never seems to get old for me. And I also liked some of the quirks. But what I liked the best was the idea of the world within a world within the mind that he tries to lay out. It's like Inception...super, super lite. Allow me to try to explain:
Because of a family tragedy, the character known only as Baby Doll (it's obviously not her real name) is sent to an insane asylum. I should mention that the movie is set in some indistinct but clearly defined "yesterday" time period...maybe the 1930s or 1940s? Not entirely sure, I just know it wasn't literally yesterday. But it does hearken back to the day when lobotomies were fairly common place and insane asylums were horrific places. See, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is being sent to the asylum by her evil stepfather who is after Baby Doll's share of her mother's inheritance... I think... and through a crooked deal with the chief orderly, evil Step Dad has arranged for Baby Doll to receive a lobotomy, thus taking her out of the picture. Baby Doll gets wise to this and obviously isn't going to take it lightly. It becomes clear that she wants to escape- presumably to teach dear old step daddy a lesson. And this is where things get weird. All of the sudden, we're led into a night club/burlesque/brothel scene where all the asylum inmates are now dancers/prostitutes. Baby Doll is the new addition on scene and she quickly makes acquaintance with a few of the other colorfully named dancers: Amber (Jamie Chung), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Rocket (Jena Malone), and resident tough girl, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish). None of these girls is particularly happy being stuck here in the club/asylum so Baby Doll quickly convinces them to join her in her planned escape. Freedom- it would seem- can be won if the girls can assemble a number of different items and figure out how to use them. We know this because Baby Doll meets a mysterious dude in another realm of her imagination... I think it's her imagination... which she visits when she is forced to do her special dance in the first imaginary realm of the burlesque club/brothel. (All the girls are supposed to dance to win the affections of their potential clients for the other part of the equation). In addition to getting sage-ish advice in this other imaginary realm, this is also where Baby Doll and her accomplices kick the asses of some seriously weird villains ranging from machine gun-toting Samurai warriors to re-animated, dead Germans, to orc-like creatures, to futuristic cyborgs each with the end goal of the battle being to capture one of the items they'll need to escpae. Each of these villains or groups are course figments of Baby Doll's imagination and are really fronts for her dancing episodes- which are themselves distractions (we're back in the first imaginary realm) that allow Baby Doll's cohorts to grab the items they need to escape. One assumes all of this has implications in Baby Doll's real world in the asylum. The question becomes, can Baby Doll escape before the lobotomist comes in five days (he's known as the High Roller in the burlesque realm)?
Yeah, you should be sufficiently confused. Granted my description isn't doing you any favors either, but the movie won't provide you with much aid itself either. How much you enjoy the movie probably depends on how willing you are to forget about trying to make too much sense of it and just roll with the pretty awesome action and quirky style. For my part, I was completely ready to turn my brain most of the way off. And I enjoyed it. It's not all bad in the end, Snyder does a decent job tying everything together, but that does kind of lead to more questions... or perhaps plot holes is a better way of putting it. Again it all depends on how deeply you want to delve into it. I'll again emphasize that I liked the style and the quirk. Beyond that... well, there was also a lot to quibble with besides the confusing and complex... or ridiculous depending on your point of view... story. The ending bothered me. In that I mean the very end of the film. Snyder chooses to smack you over the head with his intended message. I HATE when film makers do that. Look, I know you've made a- probably- needlessly confusing flick, Zack, but I still think I could have figured out the message without you coming out and telling me.
Besides that, the acting was hit or miss, especially in Emily Browning's case. She alternates between genuinely decent acting and cold, emotionless, Barbie-doll-come-to-life expression. She's at her best when she's kicking ass which is often enough to push the rest of her sterile performance to the rear view. I found Vanessa Hudgens to be fairly annoying more than anything else. And Scott Glen as the Wise Man (yeah I just looked it up, the sage-y dude's character was really called the Wise Man) delivered his lines with appropriate sincerity, but some of those lines were absolute, flat-fallen duds. I DID, however, enjoy Jena Malone's and Abbie Cornish's performance. They both displayed a range of emotions and some considerable depth... and I suppose I wouldn't be going out on a limb to say that depth of character- particularly these characters- was a high priority. Well, maybe it was, but it sure didn't come out that way. Oh, and Oscar Isaac played his role of the sleazy chief orderly/night club owner with a great deal of what I can only describe as effortless sleaze. Nicely done, sir.
I'm going to go ahead and stop it here. It seems like the more I think about it, the more I want to seriously downgrade the movie. But it WAS fun. Really it was. Wasn't it? Yeah? I think so. No, it was. At least I thought so at the time I saw it. And that really does count for something. I think when I walked out of the theater I was ready to give the thing an A-. Not so much anymore... but really... to me... it was enjoyable. And that's what a movie should be right?
Grade: B
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Movie List 2011: 14.) Limitless
Limitless
So, today's selection was Limitless, a drug-thriller starring Bradley Cooper. No, not the type of drug thriller like... ummm... Traffic? Ok, maybe "drug thriller" isn't the best way of putting it. Thriller. Yeah. Thriller might due. Actionish thriller at that. With some twistyness to it too. On the whole, it was good enough fun. But, since it does rely on some reasonable twists, turns, and complications as part of it's fun, I'm not going to say much about the plot. The basic story is that a kind of lazy, creatively-challenged, bathing-optional writer manages to turn himself into a dynamo with the help of a chance (kind of flimsy in turns of premise) encounter and a little drug that allows you to use your entirety- including the other 80%- of your brain (the idea being that the old adage that we only use 20% of our brains is actually true...). Of course, Cooper's Eddie quickly becomes addicted... perhaps necessarily... and also quickly becomes a hell of a financial guru... and author... and so on and so forth. In short, the little drug turns him into the mental equivalent of Superman, but see, it is a drug... and an illegal one at that and this, of course brings complications. And so a kind of cool, sci-fi-y thriller ensues.
And I do mean only KIND of cool. The premise seems original enough. And there is plenty of action and some genuine thrills. But the problem is, the as the action revs up and the plot line becomes more complicated, holes starting bursting through the story line. By the end, I had a pretty good time, but also lots of questions. Some were on the level of: wait, what happened to so and so by the end? Others were of the "wait, how does that make any sense?" level. And still others were "that doesn't really make much sense at all, does it?" sorts of questions. None of these are great to have rolling around your head at the end of an action/thriller movie. And some take away from the movie more than others. Ok, perhaps an example... let's see, how not to give away too much.... oh, so yeah, there's a kind of throw-away line in the scene where Eddie gets the goods. The skivvy dealer who gets him that first sweet taste lets him know that it works better for smart people. I guess in a sense it's just really unlocking your ultimate potential. Well here's the deal: Eddie is a writer. A struggling writer. Yeah the film leads you to believe he's pretty smart, he talks a good game, but no where does it hint that he has an aptitude for numbers. Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't. But that's where he makes his mark, as a financial guru. Does this mean that Eddie is really just a pretty damn smart guy in general? Does it mean that we all have innate ability to comprehend numbers? Is there any real difference between Eddie and the other folks who take it? It's hard to say. Are they trying to make any broad generalizations about people and the way the mind works? Again hard to say, but not really a big deal in the least. Just a little unclear. In the end, there were enough of the truly bothersome types of questions to drop the movie down a few notches in my mind. Yeah, I was entertained for the most part, but I was also confused. Not cool.
In a sense, the questions, confusion, and plot holes are a bit of a shame. Like I said, the movie was genuinely entertaining, and a lot of that comes from the really great performances Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro (as corporate power player Carl Van Loon) deliver. Cooper seems a natural to play the role, particularly post-drug discovery. Eddie, after all, is not a mean spirited figure, just arrogant and smug enough to have an edge, but really a decent guy. He maybe a touch slimy, but not so much that you bathe after you cross paths with him. Eddie does have charm (both before and after the drug experience) and Cooper plays this off with ease. And I'm not so sure it's a compliment, but Cooper seems really well equipped to play such a simplistic character... heavy on charm (genuine charm) and good looks... a little light on depth. De Niro, too, seems to have stumbled on an ideal role. The character of a corporate powerhouse tough guy just seems to suit him. He chews his scenes up well- if in a typical De Niro way. The best scenes in the movie are when the gritty, tough, seen-it-all, done-more Van Loon goes toe to toe with the kind-of arrogant, kind-of sincere, kind-of out of his league except for his little pill friend Eddie. Eddie's in some manner of control.. and he knows it as does Van Loon, but they both know- for the most part- that things don't quite make sense in that arrangement. It's pretty cool to watch.
But beyond the enjoyable acting and action there are indeed plot holes, superfluous characters (or near-superfluous characters), and some general confusion. I also had the sense that the film ducks what would have been a weighty and entertaining question: what are the deeper implications of possessing god-like intelligence? What are some of the moral issues with becoming freakishly smart solely because of a pill? Is it right? Not just illegal, but truly right? We don't know. I suppose if they really started trying to answer those questions, the movie would take on a heaviness that would ultimately weigh it down and work against it. So perhaps it's better that they didn't really even try. But then again, if it were done right, exploring these questions might bring about a movie that leaves audiences thinking for all the right reasons... not out of a sense of genuine confusion. But as it is? Well, it could have been worse... yeah, could have been better, but it definitely could have been worse.
Grade: B
So, today's selection was Limitless, a drug-thriller starring Bradley Cooper. No, not the type of drug thriller like... ummm... Traffic? Ok, maybe "drug thriller" isn't the best way of putting it. Thriller. Yeah. Thriller might due. Actionish thriller at that. With some twistyness to it too. On the whole, it was good enough fun. But, since it does rely on some reasonable twists, turns, and complications as part of it's fun, I'm not going to say much about the plot. The basic story is that a kind of lazy, creatively-challenged, bathing-optional writer manages to turn himself into a dynamo with the help of a chance (kind of flimsy in turns of premise) encounter and a little drug that allows you to use your entirety- including the other 80%- of your brain (the idea being that the old adage that we only use 20% of our brains is actually true...). Of course, Cooper's Eddie quickly becomes addicted... perhaps necessarily... and also quickly becomes a hell of a financial guru... and author... and so on and so forth. In short, the little drug turns him into the mental equivalent of Superman, but see, it is a drug... and an illegal one at that and this, of course brings complications. And so a kind of cool, sci-fi-y thriller ensues.
And I do mean only KIND of cool. The premise seems original enough. And there is plenty of action and some genuine thrills. But the problem is, the as the action revs up and the plot line becomes more complicated, holes starting bursting through the story line. By the end, I had a pretty good time, but also lots of questions. Some were on the level of: wait, what happened to so and so by the end? Others were of the "wait, how does that make any sense?" level. And still others were "that doesn't really make much sense at all, does it?" sorts of questions. None of these are great to have rolling around your head at the end of an action/thriller movie. And some take away from the movie more than others. Ok, perhaps an example... let's see, how not to give away too much.... oh, so yeah, there's a kind of throw-away line in the scene where Eddie gets the goods. The skivvy dealer who gets him that first sweet taste lets him know that it works better for smart people. I guess in a sense it's just really unlocking your ultimate potential. Well here's the deal: Eddie is a writer. A struggling writer. Yeah the film leads you to believe he's pretty smart, he talks a good game, but no where does it hint that he has an aptitude for numbers. Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't. But that's where he makes his mark, as a financial guru. Does this mean that Eddie is really just a pretty damn smart guy in general? Does it mean that we all have innate ability to comprehend numbers? Is there any real difference between Eddie and the other folks who take it? It's hard to say. Are they trying to make any broad generalizations about people and the way the mind works? Again hard to say, but not really a big deal in the least. Just a little unclear. In the end, there were enough of the truly bothersome types of questions to drop the movie down a few notches in my mind. Yeah, I was entertained for the most part, but I was also confused. Not cool.
In a sense, the questions, confusion, and plot holes are a bit of a shame. Like I said, the movie was genuinely entertaining, and a lot of that comes from the really great performances Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro (as corporate power player Carl Van Loon) deliver. Cooper seems a natural to play the role, particularly post-drug discovery. Eddie, after all, is not a mean spirited figure, just arrogant and smug enough to have an edge, but really a decent guy. He maybe a touch slimy, but not so much that you bathe after you cross paths with him. Eddie does have charm (both before and after the drug experience) and Cooper plays this off with ease. And I'm not so sure it's a compliment, but Cooper seems really well equipped to play such a simplistic character... heavy on charm (genuine charm) and good looks... a little light on depth. De Niro, too, seems to have stumbled on an ideal role. The character of a corporate powerhouse tough guy just seems to suit him. He chews his scenes up well- if in a typical De Niro way. The best scenes in the movie are when the gritty, tough, seen-it-all, done-more Van Loon goes toe to toe with the kind-of arrogant, kind-of sincere, kind-of out of his league except for his little pill friend Eddie. Eddie's in some manner of control.. and he knows it as does Van Loon, but they both know- for the most part- that things don't quite make sense in that arrangement. It's pretty cool to watch.
But beyond the enjoyable acting and action there are indeed plot holes, superfluous characters (or near-superfluous characters), and some general confusion. I also had the sense that the film ducks what would have been a weighty and entertaining question: what are the deeper implications of possessing god-like intelligence? What are some of the moral issues with becoming freakishly smart solely because of a pill? Is it right? Not just illegal, but truly right? We don't know. I suppose if they really started trying to answer those questions, the movie would take on a heaviness that would ultimately weigh it down and work against it. So perhaps it's better that they didn't really even try. But then again, if it were done right, exploring these questions might bring about a movie that leaves audiences thinking for all the right reasons... not out of a sense of genuine confusion. But as it is? Well, it could have been worse... yeah, could have been better, but it definitely could have been worse.
Grade: B
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Movie List 2011: 13.) Just Go With It
Just Go With It
Yeah, I saw it. Yeah, it was a typical Adam Sandler movie. Well, typical Adam Sandler of late movie that is. No, it wasn't very good. Wasn't his worst effort in recent years either, it just wasn't particularly good. It had what you would expect it to have: toilet humor, dick jokes, Adam Sandler's character being completely obsessed with a much hotter than he could hope to snag chick, Adam Sandler doing stupid voices, and of course a ludicrous, over-the-top, please-have-him-killed-off-mid-movie sidekick. Among other convential Sandler gags (I was surprised at the minimal amount of singing and Jewish jokes... or Jew-related jokes, rather). Here's the thing, though. It was also heavy on...ummm...heartfelt moments... which is also a Sandler staple of late. He's dialed down the potty humor and dialed up the date-friendly humor. A little something for everyone...or anyone...with half a working brain. But here's the other thing... even given his attempt (and yes, I do mean his. No, he didn't write the movie...or the play it's apparently based on...but his production company, Happy Madison did produce this gem... and he is credited as a producer) to- I don't know- grow up a bit, Sandler, here offers one of his dumbest movies to date. The whole thing is ridiculously unbelievable and so totally predictable. And yet, Sandler and company managed to squeeze out nearly two hours of story here. How? They just kept out-doing themselves in ridiculousness. In fact, one of the things that kept engaged was my curiosity at how absurd they were willing to go... and the answer? Pretty damn absurd. Which, of course, makes me absurd for seeing it, right? Maybe.
But by absurd, what do I mean? Well the whole thing is built on such a shaky premise... that ladies are attracted to damaged married, men. Wait, what? They are. And by ladies I mean women 30 and under. And by attracted I mean they want badly to shag. And by men, I mean men looking and acting like Adam Sandler. See what I mean? Sure, all the single chicas I know are just itching to be "the other woman". But it's ok, see, because Sandler's Danny- who is of course lying about marriage- is in a string of dumpster-fire relationships. His "wives" are abusive, strung-out on drugs or alcohol, cheating, or some engaging in some other horrid/satanic act. And Danny, well, he's noble for sticking by them... except he's also willing to shag you, and you, yes, you 30 (generous) and under female, that's your ticket! Huh. Isn't that something....stupid. Why, yes, it is. So to sum up: Hi, I'm a 20-something woman. Oh, you're married. And in such a horrid marriage that you need professional help or at the very least, you need to leave. And yet you're so nobly sticking by the bitch. Hmm, you know what? USE ME!!! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are women out there who do like one-night stands, and who do get excited by the thought of being the other woman... and there are women out there who find Sandler attractive... but a parade of twenty-somethings that fit all three criteria? Not so sure.
Ok,ok, yes, I'm being a bit hypocritical. And yeah, I usually don't like to get so preachy. It's a movie after all, just fun and games. And you HAVE to be willing to suspend your disbelieve in virtually any movie in order for it to be fun. I've always said that the movie just needs to be consistent and play by the rules it establishes as it's baseline in order for it to be believable. So, this is the baseline, and as Sandler is the emperor he can establish such a laughable baseline. (Never mind the fact that it was his being used by a callous, gold digger that set Danny's 20-charade off- the lesson he learned apparently was what's good for the goose is good for the gander... bitch). That doesn't mean that I have to think that the baseline isn't dumb. It's stupid. Again, maybe I'm getting too wound up here. It's just a movie.... I don't know. But, ok, we'll play by YOUR rules Sandler. What happens next?
Danny bumps into 23ish year old Palmer (Brooklyn Decker). And after what apparently is an evening of small talk, big sex, and umm, deep connections (we know this because Danny tells it to us...as he tells it to Palmer- yeah the chemistry between Sandler and Decker wasn't really there. Maybe it's because Sandler is trying to have relationship-quality chemistry with a woman young enough to be his daughter... or maybe it's because Decker is a model who can't act- she can't...yet anyway, maybe there's hope for her. Malin Ackerman was a model and I actually think she's done pretty well in the movies. But Decker? Right now? Not so much acting as reciting her lines.. I don't know, they form a connection. Over night. But here's the deal. Because of that connection- formed, incidentally, without Danny having to play the beat-up husband role- Danny has finally found a girl worthy of being something other than a receptacle for his lust. And...she's interested in BEING something other than a receptacle for his lust! Win-win. A match made in Hollywood. What a magical one-night stand. Only, Danny blows it by having his trusty wedding ring in his pants and Palmer finds it. Show over. She never really wanted to be a receptacle for his lust... I mean... if he was married anyway. She's not THAT kind of girl. Fair enough. So the ever resourceful Danny hits the fall back plan... he lies. Well... 24ish hours later he shows up at Palmer's place of employment and tries to explain away the ring. You see, he's getting a divorce because his wife is the devil. Ah, but Palmer wants proof. She needs to meet the devil. So Danny begs/bribes his assistant (Jennifer Aniston) into playing the role of she-devil, soon-to-be ex-wife. By the way, Danny is a plastic surgeon. A rich one. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Palmer would fall for Danny, not because he's rich... or because she would get a discount on plastic surgery (because, honestly, she doesn't need the work... unless, that is, Danny specializes in adding a dimension to folks' personality. She may be a candidate for that.). No, Palmer connected with Danny. He told us so. Anyway, shenanigans ensue when Katherine/"Devlin"- that'd be her phony married name- drops the bomb that she has kids- which the two lie about and claim they're hers with Danny. And the whole crew ends up going to Hawaii where... I suppose I should issue a warning here... spoiler alert.... Palmer ends up parading around in a bikini. A lot. And Danny and Katherine fall for each other. Something you could see coming from the first extended scene with the two in Danny's office.
Just a couple of problems here. First, the "connection" between Danny and Palmer. Danny seems only interested in Palmer for two reasons. To watch her strut her stuff in her barely there bikini (speaking of which kudos to said bikini for its game effort in narrowly holding on to keep this a pg-13 gig) and to have sex with her. That's the connection. We know this because every time she does anything that isn't one of those two things, Danny rolls his eyes, acts exasperated, and seems genuinely annoyed by her. So I guess she's different than every other girl, because he wants to shag her til death do them part. So yeah, about that connection. It's ridiculous.
The other major problem. Well, see, he likes Palmer enough that he doesn't want to reveal what a real shallow, skivvy asshole he is to her by telling the truth about his wedding ring. So instead he starts to build up and ever more complicated lie which would be harder to maintain expecting her never to find out...forever. He doesn't want to reveal what a pathological lier he is...so he lies. Ok, sure, that does actually make sense. What else would a lier do. The fact that he's able to pull it off for so long is ridiculous. And you know what else is ridiculous? Katherine knows all about all the lying. She knows all about the parade of really young women Danny has bagged. And yet, she still falls for him. One reason? He tells her that she's the only one he's never lied to... said the lier. How do you believe him? So, Danny has no problem being the complete ass he is (even if he is fun and charming) to the woman he falls for, but the one he was interested in for the sake of banging...she can't find out what a scoundrel he is. And even though she knows he's completely disgusting. Danny ends up being KATHERINE'S completely disgusting jerk. So its ok. She can fall in love with him. Sandler's not playing by rules here, he's playing Calvinball and making the rules, the baseline, up as he goes along. And in doing so he creates a ridiculously unbelievable and ultimately dumb movie.
Ok, yeah, no, I don't usually like to take things so seriously. It WAS just a movie. A dumb one. And it wasn't even THAT terrible. It had some redeeming factors. Not many. But Aniston is charming in it. Even if it is the role she seems destined to play for the rest of her career. The really sincere, giving, consolation prize of a woman... who's really the main prize. Never mind that she's stunning and -in this role- fun in her own right and completely worth winning. Whatever. HER chemistry with Sandler- particularly the flirting back and forth in the office was entertaining. And, I suppose, there were a few gags I chuckled at.... annnnnd... hmmm. well that's it. So redeeming factors or not, this movie kind of sucked. But if we're grading on a Sandler curve... this would be towards the tip of the list. Harmless, ultimately, I suppose, but really unbelievable...and dumb.
Oh, I should also apologize if I did, in fact, ruin the movie for anyone. I'm sorry. But let me put it this way... I might have ruined the movie, but I'm pretty sure I saved your night.
Grade: D+
Yeah, I saw it. Yeah, it was a typical Adam Sandler movie. Well, typical Adam Sandler of late movie that is. No, it wasn't very good. Wasn't his worst effort in recent years either, it just wasn't particularly good. It had what you would expect it to have: toilet humor, dick jokes, Adam Sandler's character being completely obsessed with a much hotter than he could hope to snag chick, Adam Sandler doing stupid voices, and of course a ludicrous, over-the-top, please-have-him-killed-off-mid-movie sidekick. Among other convential Sandler gags (I was surprised at the minimal amount of singing and Jewish jokes... or Jew-related jokes, rather). Here's the thing, though. It was also heavy on...ummm...heartfelt moments... which is also a Sandler staple of late. He's dialed down the potty humor and dialed up the date-friendly humor. A little something for everyone...or anyone...with half a working brain. But here's the other thing... even given his attempt (and yes, I do mean his. No, he didn't write the movie...or the play it's apparently based on...but his production company, Happy Madison did produce this gem... and he is credited as a producer) to- I don't know- grow up a bit, Sandler, here offers one of his dumbest movies to date. The whole thing is ridiculously unbelievable and so totally predictable. And yet, Sandler and company managed to squeeze out nearly two hours of story here. How? They just kept out-doing themselves in ridiculousness. In fact, one of the things that kept engaged was my curiosity at how absurd they were willing to go... and the answer? Pretty damn absurd. Which, of course, makes me absurd for seeing it, right? Maybe.
But by absurd, what do I mean? Well the whole thing is built on such a shaky premise... that ladies are attracted to damaged married, men. Wait, what? They are. And by ladies I mean women 30 and under. And by attracted I mean they want badly to shag. And by men, I mean men looking and acting like Adam Sandler. See what I mean? Sure, all the single chicas I know are just itching to be "the other woman". But it's ok, see, because Sandler's Danny- who is of course lying about marriage- is in a string of dumpster-fire relationships. His "wives" are abusive, strung-out on drugs or alcohol, cheating, or some engaging in some other horrid/satanic act. And Danny, well, he's noble for sticking by them... except he's also willing to shag you, and you, yes, you 30 (generous) and under female, that's your ticket! Huh. Isn't that something....stupid. Why, yes, it is. So to sum up: Hi, I'm a 20-something woman. Oh, you're married. And in such a horrid marriage that you need professional help or at the very least, you need to leave. And yet you're so nobly sticking by the bitch. Hmm, you know what? USE ME!!! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are women out there who do like one-night stands, and who do get excited by the thought of being the other woman... and there are women out there who find Sandler attractive... but a parade of twenty-somethings that fit all three criteria? Not so sure.
Ok,ok, yes, I'm being a bit hypocritical. And yeah, I usually don't like to get so preachy. It's a movie after all, just fun and games. And you HAVE to be willing to suspend your disbelieve in virtually any movie in order for it to be fun. I've always said that the movie just needs to be consistent and play by the rules it establishes as it's baseline in order for it to be believable. So, this is the baseline, and as Sandler is the emperor he can establish such a laughable baseline. (Never mind the fact that it was his being used by a callous, gold digger that set Danny's 20-charade off- the lesson he learned apparently was what's good for the goose is good for the gander... bitch). That doesn't mean that I have to think that the baseline isn't dumb. It's stupid. Again, maybe I'm getting too wound up here. It's just a movie.... I don't know. But, ok, we'll play by YOUR rules Sandler. What happens next?
Danny bumps into 23ish year old Palmer (Brooklyn Decker). And after what apparently is an evening of small talk, big sex, and umm, deep connections (we know this because Danny tells it to us...as he tells it to Palmer- yeah the chemistry between Sandler and Decker wasn't really there. Maybe it's because Sandler is trying to have relationship-quality chemistry with a woman young enough to be his daughter... or maybe it's because Decker is a model who can't act- she can't...yet anyway, maybe there's hope for her. Malin Ackerman was a model and I actually think she's done pretty well in the movies. But Decker? Right now? Not so much acting as reciting her lines.. I don't know, they form a connection. Over night. But here's the deal. Because of that connection- formed, incidentally, without Danny having to play the beat-up husband role- Danny has finally found a girl worthy of being something other than a receptacle for his lust. And...she's interested in BEING something other than a receptacle for his lust! Win-win. A match made in Hollywood. What a magical one-night stand. Only, Danny blows it by having his trusty wedding ring in his pants and Palmer finds it. Show over. She never really wanted to be a receptacle for his lust... I mean... if he was married anyway. She's not THAT kind of girl. Fair enough. So the ever resourceful Danny hits the fall back plan... he lies. Well... 24ish hours later he shows up at Palmer's place of employment and tries to explain away the ring. You see, he's getting a divorce because his wife is the devil. Ah, but Palmer wants proof. She needs to meet the devil. So Danny begs/bribes his assistant (Jennifer Aniston) into playing the role of she-devil, soon-to-be ex-wife. By the way, Danny is a plastic surgeon. A rich one. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Palmer would fall for Danny, not because he's rich... or because she would get a discount on plastic surgery (because, honestly, she doesn't need the work... unless, that is, Danny specializes in adding a dimension to folks' personality. She may be a candidate for that.). No, Palmer connected with Danny. He told us so. Anyway, shenanigans ensue when Katherine/"Devlin"- that'd be her phony married name- drops the bomb that she has kids- which the two lie about and claim they're hers with Danny. And the whole crew ends up going to Hawaii where... I suppose I should issue a warning here... spoiler alert.... Palmer ends up parading around in a bikini. A lot. And Danny and Katherine fall for each other. Something you could see coming from the first extended scene with the two in Danny's office.
Just a couple of problems here. First, the "connection" between Danny and Palmer. Danny seems only interested in Palmer for two reasons. To watch her strut her stuff in her barely there bikini (speaking of which kudos to said bikini for its game effort in narrowly holding on to keep this a pg-13 gig) and to have sex with her. That's the connection. We know this because every time she does anything that isn't one of those two things, Danny rolls his eyes, acts exasperated, and seems genuinely annoyed by her. So I guess she's different than every other girl, because he wants to shag her til death do them part. So yeah, about that connection. It's ridiculous.
The other major problem. Well, see, he likes Palmer enough that he doesn't want to reveal what a real shallow, skivvy asshole he is to her by telling the truth about his wedding ring. So instead he starts to build up and ever more complicated lie which would be harder to maintain expecting her never to find out...forever. He doesn't want to reveal what a pathological lier he is...so he lies. Ok, sure, that does actually make sense. What else would a lier do. The fact that he's able to pull it off for so long is ridiculous. And you know what else is ridiculous? Katherine knows all about all the lying. She knows all about the parade of really young women Danny has bagged. And yet, she still falls for him. One reason? He tells her that she's the only one he's never lied to... said the lier. How do you believe him? So, Danny has no problem being the complete ass he is (even if he is fun and charming) to the woman he falls for, but the one he was interested in for the sake of banging...she can't find out what a scoundrel he is. And even though she knows he's completely disgusting. Danny ends up being KATHERINE'S completely disgusting jerk. So its ok. She can fall in love with him. Sandler's not playing by rules here, he's playing Calvinball and making the rules, the baseline, up as he goes along. And in doing so he creates a ridiculously unbelievable and ultimately dumb movie.
Ok, yeah, no, I don't usually like to take things so seriously. It WAS just a movie. A dumb one. And it wasn't even THAT terrible. It had some redeeming factors. Not many. But Aniston is charming in it. Even if it is the role she seems destined to play for the rest of her career. The really sincere, giving, consolation prize of a woman... who's really the main prize. Never mind that she's stunning and -in this role- fun in her own right and completely worth winning. Whatever. HER chemistry with Sandler- particularly the flirting back and forth in the office was entertaining. And, I suppose, there were a few gags I chuckled at.... annnnnd... hmmm. well that's it. So redeeming factors or not, this movie kind of sucked. But if we're grading on a Sandler curve... this would be towards the tip of the list. Harmless, ultimately, I suppose, but really unbelievable...and dumb.
Oh, I should also apologize if I did, in fact, ruin the movie for anyone. I'm sorry. But let me put it this way... I might have ruined the movie, but I'm pretty sure I saved your night.
Grade: D+
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Movie List 2011: 12.) Cedar Rapids
Cedar Rapids
Kind of tired right now, so I'll cut right to the chase. Really enjoyed this one. Which is nice because I had been looking forward to seeing it... though I suppose I was afraid that all the funny parts would have popped up in the previews. And a lot of them did, but still, a quality comedy nonetheless. I think the thing that I liked about it most was the tone. And the feel. It was just a fun movie- didn't take itself too seriously. It seemed like the filmmakers were aiming for a solid, good time and that's where it hit. For the most part anyway. There were times, particularly at the beginning where the characters- especially Ed Helms' Tim Lippe- started to veer way too close to outlandish caricature. Could anyone be as childishly ignorant of the world as Lippe? So idiotic... so clueless? At times, his character came off as grating. But then, just as quickly as the film started to lose me, it managed to draw me back in. How? Other than being fun, I think the secret to the movie's quality was that it mixed in just enough earnestness and believability in the main characters to keep it grounded. There was something... I dunno...sincere about Lippe as well. His goody-goody persona was never over-the-top but balanced just well enough with the annoying parts to make him a likable enough character. And as the movie went on, I found myself less and less bothered by him. And, as such, I was able to enjoy the movie more and more.
Another thing to like about Cedar Rapids was the strong supporting cast- and by that I mean both the characters and the actors portraying them. John C. Reilly was awesome. He nailed the "that guy"role- the guy who constantly and purposefully steps over the line, but really has a heart of gold. He's an idiot, but he's our idiot. I'm not sure Reilly has ever been better in a comedy. His timing was fantastic. The way he dove into the role... it was great. And he was matched step-for-step by Anne Heche as the firecracker insurance insurance agent attending the conference in Cedar Rapids primarily because she wants an escape from her life back home. Heche plays the role with an easy coolness and charm. You can't help but want to hang out with her character. Her character is effortlessly fun and Heche proves to be a real asset to the film. In addition to Heche and Reilly, Isiah Whitlock as not-quite-as-up-tight-but-damn-close fellow insurance agent Ronald and Alia Shawkat as small-town prostitute Bree both add an element of fun to the film. So as far as the casting and performances go...well done, folks.
In fact, there's not really a lot to complain about with the movie. I was thoroughly entertained and that, of course, is my main criteria for a decent movie. I actually did laugh out loud several times. Which was nice. That said, yeah, it wasn't a perfect movie. The story was- at times- ridiculous. But if you can hang with it through those times, and can get through some of Lippe's more annoying traits, a good time will be waiting. I definitely enjoyed it. But then again, I'm kind of a sucker for quirky, earnest-yet-outrageous comedies. So as far as that goes, this one was a winner.
Grade: A
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Movie List 2011: 11.) The Adjustment Bureau
The Adjustment Bureau
I had been looking forward to seeing this one for a long, long, long time. Don't know if any of you remember but it had been slated to come out last summer... then fall... then maybe winter, before finally finding a spot in March. Usually that means bad things for a movie. After all, summer, fall, winter? These are Academy Awards qualifying seasons. No one remembers movies from February or March. Of course, I'd like to think that the rules changed when Shutter Island was pushed to February. That movie kicked ass! But usually... I guess.. the rule is that movies released in February and March kind of suck.
So...Did The Adjustment Bureau suck? Well, no, actually it didn't. It was pretty darn good. Not quite on par with Shutter Island, but good nonetheless. Certainly COULD have played well in the Oscars seasons, but knowing the Academy (ok, I don't KNOW the Academy per se, but from what I understand about the Academy...) it wouldn't have stood a chance for any awards. But that's not really the movie's fault.
So...here's the deal: I'm not going to be able to write as much about the plot as I'd like and some explanations are going to be lacking... and not because I suck as a writer either. I think it'll be better for the folks who see it to know as little about the finer plot points as possible. It's not really a twist-filled adventure but I still think it'd be better not to give away too much. This much you could reasonably snag from the trailer- which if you've seen many movies over the last year or so, you'll have seen about 50 times. The movie is essentially explores the question of free will... specifically, what would happen if we really didn't have it...or, rather, what would happen if you found out that your decisions weren't your own. What would happen if everything truly DID happen for a reason... and that reason was that your life had a plan...and every time you were inclined to stray from the plan, something nudged you back on. It's a pretty interesting idea to explore, and the way it is explored is compelling as well. Viewing the question through the lens of a love story was a pretty good...if predictable...way to relate the issues and consequences involved with it. After all, why else would New York Senate candidate David Norris (Matt Damon) stray from a pretty awesome plan? Love, of course. It's the ultimate curve ball. And so David tries to stray from his plan when he meets the unquestionably awesome Elise (a fantastic Emily Blunt). And well, things get interesting for him from there. Lots of compelling questions tied into it. Couldn't help but wonder what I would do in the situation. And so the movie unwinds into a pseudo-action/love/chase movie. It's definitely engaging and really pretty entertaining, but the meat of the movie is in the questions being asked and the situations you're left to grapple with and the implications involved with these situations and questions. All good, heady stuff. It makes you think.... or...really it asks you to think. And those of you willing to be engaged by it, I imagine will have a good time with it. I did.
But that isn't to say that the movie as a whole or the way it unfolds are altogether perfect or perfectly satisfying. There are some disappointments here. There are, for instance, some pretty gaping plot holes that may raise some questions that have nothing to do with the core questions the movie is designed to have you ask yourself. More like well why wouldn't they just...? types of questions. These weren't major, major issues in my mind because I was willing to go with it. I suppose these types of holes develop when a movie becomes strained by it's own complexity. Or at least when the filmmakers struggle with the decisions of what to explain and what they feel they don't need to explain. I don't know. It just didn't bother me. At least not significantly. The ending was also a bit problematic. I don't know if it's just that they tried to explain too much or they spun it all the wrong way...or maybe it was done right, but just delivered wrong. I don't know what exactly it was, but the way they brought everything to a close was a little unsatisfying to me. But, in terms of drawbacks... that was it.
I think what really helped me get beyond the drawbacks were the awesome casting and the fantastic performances. Especially in the case of the leads. Matt Damon as an earnest politician? I can't imagine a more perfect role. And Emily Blunt was as charming and engaging on screen as any actress I have seen in a long time. I loved the role for her. She absolutely nailed it...at least for the most part. She fast becoming one of my favorite actresses. The rest of the cast was fantastic as well. The dialog was at times encouraged some wooden performances but for the most part I couldn't complain.
Yeah, actually that's a pretty good way to sum up the entire flick. It wasn't perfect on the whole. But it was really good. As far as a way to spend a couple hours of my life? I'm certainly not going to complain.
Grade: A-
I had been looking forward to seeing this one for a long, long, long time. Don't know if any of you remember but it had been slated to come out last summer... then fall... then maybe winter, before finally finding a spot in March. Usually that means bad things for a movie. After all, summer, fall, winter? These are Academy Awards qualifying seasons. No one remembers movies from February or March. Of course, I'd like to think that the rules changed when Shutter Island was pushed to February. That movie kicked ass! But usually... I guess.. the rule is that movies released in February and March kind of suck.
So...Did The Adjustment Bureau suck? Well, no, actually it didn't. It was pretty darn good. Not quite on par with Shutter Island, but good nonetheless. Certainly COULD have played well in the Oscars seasons, but knowing the Academy (ok, I don't KNOW the Academy per se, but from what I understand about the Academy...) it wouldn't have stood a chance for any awards. But that's not really the movie's fault.
So...here's the deal: I'm not going to be able to write as much about the plot as I'd like and some explanations are going to be lacking... and not because I suck as a writer either. I think it'll be better for the folks who see it to know as little about the finer plot points as possible. It's not really a twist-filled adventure but I still think it'd be better not to give away too much. This much you could reasonably snag from the trailer- which if you've seen many movies over the last year or so, you'll have seen about 50 times. The movie is essentially explores the question of free will... specifically, what would happen if we really didn't have it...or, rather, what would happen if you found out that your decisions weren't your own. What would happen if everything truly DID happen for a reason... and that reason was that your life had a plan...and every time you were inclined to stray from the plan, something nudged you back on. It's a pretty interesting idea to explore, and the way it is explored is compelling as well. Viewing the question through the lens of a love story was a pretty good...if predictable...way to relate the issues and consequences involved with it. After all, why else would New York Senate candidate David Norris (Matt Damon) stray from a pretty awesome plan? Love, of course. It's the ultimate curve ball. And so David tries to stray from his plan when he meets the unquestionably awesome Elise (a fantastic Emily Blunt). And well, things get interesting for him from there. Lots of compelling questions tied into it. Couldn't help but wonder what I would do in the situation. And so the movie unwinds into a pseudo-action/love/chase movie. It's definitely engaging and really pretty entertaining, but the meat of the movie is in the questions being asked and the situations you're left to grapple with and the implications involved with these situations and questions. All good, heady stuff. It makes you think.... or...really it asks you to think. And those of you willing to be engaged by it, I imagine will have a good time with it. I did.
But that isn't to say that the movie as a whole or the way it unfolds are altogether perfect or perfectly satisfying. There are some disappointments here. There are, for instance, some pretty gaping plot holes that may raise some questions that have nothing to do with the core questions the movie is designed to have you ask yourself. More like well why wouldn't they just...? types of questions. These weren't major, major issues in my mind because I was willing to go with it. I suppose these types of holes develop when a movie becomes strained by it's own complexity. Or at least when the filmmakers struggle with the decisions of what to explain and what they feel they don't need to explain. I don't know. It just didn't bother me. At least not significantly. The ending was also a bit problematic. I don't know if it's just that they tried to explain too much or they spun it all the wrong way...or maybe it was done right, but just delivered wrong. I don't know what exactly it was, but the way they brought everything to a close was a little unsatisfying to me. But, in terms of drawbacks... that was it.
I think what really helped me get beyond the drawbacks were the awesome casting and the fantastic performances. Especially in the case of the leads. Matt Damon as an earnest politician? I can't imagine a more perfect role. And Emily Blunt was as charming and engaging on screen as any actress I have seen in a long time. I loved the role for her. She absolutely nailed it...at least for the most part. She fast becoming one of my favorite actresses. The rest of the cast was fantastic as well. The dialog was at times encouraged some wooden performances but for the most part I couldn't complain.
Yeah, actually that's a pretty good way to sum up the entire flick. It wasn't perfect on the whole. But it was really good. As far as a way to spend a couple hours of my life? I'm certainly not going to complain.
Grade: A-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)