Movie Muse

We've moved! Moviemusereviews.com!

2009-12-14T12:06:00.003-06:00

Dear followers, occasional readers and random Google searchers,

Movie Muse is now on a new site, and you can access it here.

Although Blogger has been good to me, it was time to allow myself greater control of the content and logistics of the site. I also wanted to make the site look as professional as possible, including having the actual domain name, in the event that I should use it as a legitimate resume tool.

The new Movie Muse will be just the same as the old, only better-looking and easier to navigate. I will even begin to start improving the content of the site now that I have more controls at my disposal. So go check it out and start leaving me feedback on how to make the site even better!

The other exciting piece to this is that I've officially launched Movie_Muse on Twitter. You can follow me here! In addition to links to all the content as it goes up on the site, I'll post some additional news and links to awesome Movie stuff around the web.

Thanks for reading! Happy Holidays!

Steven C

Review: The Princess and the Frog - 3.5/5 Stars

2009-12-12T18:43:00.005-06:00

In a decade where CGI has dominated all animated forms of entertainment and a year where 3D has exploded into prime time, Walt Disney Studios steps back, reaches into its old bag of tricks and pulls out its first hand-drawn feature in five years. The decision might feel like a ploy to boost Disney merchandising with a new princess, but Disney has made plenty movies that achieve that end only they don't have half heart and soul poured into them that "The Princess and the Frog" does. Dedicated to moral-focused storytelling and creating lovable characters, Disney has rediscovered a touch of its former magic and delivered an age- appropriate children's film -- it's best effort of this kind since 1998's "Mulan" and maybe even "The Lion King."

Complete with musical numbers, this is Disney's old formula executed to a T. Princesses, wishing upon stars, a journey with new friends being made along the way, danger, transformation, talking animal sidekicks -- there's no question Disney wanted desperately to recreate the feeling of its classics. Set in Jazz Age New Orleans, Tiana is a dedicated young woman with a knack for cooking who aspires to open up her own restaurant one day and do the memory of her father proud. She knows all about the value of hard work when it comes to achieving one's dreams. Already, here is Disney making it clear that it wants to teach children a valuable lesson above all else.

The sacrifice made for that is adult-level humor. Whereas Disney threw in numerous jokes back in mid-'90s that flew over kids' heads, there's maybe only a handful of those chuckles in "Frog." Make no mistake, this one is for kids. Disney nostalgists will enjoy it too -- but the focus is kids. Lots of run-of-the-mill physical humor and talking animals acting silly: most of the time you'll laugh because it's cute and sweet.

The plot is okay. The foreign Prince Naveen comes to New Orleans and he has a run in with a hoodoo-voodoo witch doctor, the sinister Dr. Facilier (ala James Bond villain Baron Samedi in "Live and Let Die"), who in a spooky, smoky flash-bang big-band music number promises him wealth (prices can get cut off by their parents you know) and also his mutton-chopped assistant princely fame. Planning to use them as pawns of his own devise, he turns Naveen into a frog and the assistant into Naveen.

The frog Naveen finds Tiana and promises that if she kisses him, he'll make her restaurant dream come true. When she agrees, she ends up a frog too. Together, they journey through the Louisiana Bayou in hopes to find Mama Odie, who will have the power to turn them human again. Along the way they meet a cuddly trumpet-playing crocodile named Louis (after Mr. Armstrong, naturally) and a goofy Cajun firefly named Ray. Its when Louis and the frog Tiana and Naveen sing about what they'll do when they become human ("When We're Human") as they float down the river that suddenly you feel that old fuzzy Disney musical feeling and "Princess and the Frog" becomes a success.

Randy Newman's tunes are catchy and fun, representing a range of Southern music from jazz ("When We're Human) to banjo-plucking folk ("Gonna Take You There") to the film's best song, Mama Odie's moral-delivering number asking us all to "Dig A Little Deeper" in full gospel fashion. The last one aside, they're not all that memorable, however, most likely because they never give in to full theatricality. There just feels like a little reservation in making "Frog" an all-out musical jamboree on Newman's part as well as longtime Disney directors Ron Clements and John Musker. For many adult Disney-lovers, it might be the difference between a "cute" and a "great" Disney film.

Certainly, however, even if just in brief moments, Disney has tapped into the magic of old with this heart-warming story preaching that our personal dreams and desires don't mean nearly as much if they lose sight of love and family. It even manages to be pleasantly less predictable than one would expect in the end and it also avoids some past warranted Disney criticisms with regards to racism and stereotyping gender roles. Kids will love it (one girl in the theater was even dancing in the aisle ... out of plain sight of course) and parents will feel good about taking them to see it. A definite success for Disney.

3.5/5 Stars

"The Princess and the Frog"

Directed by: Ron Clements and John Musker

Written by: Ron Clements and John Musker (story and screenplay), Greg Erb and Jason Oremland (story), Rob Edwards (screenplay)

Starring: (voices) Anika Noni Rose, Bruno Campos, Keith David, Oprah Winfrey, John Goodman

10 Greatest Disney (2D) Animated Features of All Time, Pt. 2

2009-12-11T16:17:00.005-06:00

You've waited maybe 24 hours ... wait no more. This is for those of you that didn't see Part 1 (10-6)

5. Cinderella (1950)

Ahh, another classic tale just brimming with positive social concepts about women. Cinderella, however, is just a better film than Snow White. It’s a lot more magical and captivating in that dreamy fantasy sense although the concept of a beautiful girl forced into a state of solitude and slave labor due to others’ jealousy who enlists the help of talking animals still applies. In general, however, Cinderella executes better. For example, we hate Cinderella’s stepmother and stepsisters with a fiery passion more than we ever hate the Queen who dresses as an old hag in Snow White.

Cinderella is frankly a more redeemable story in addition to the extravagance of the ball and the glass slippers (which in hindsight, ouch anyone?). She’s aware of her cruel treatment and aspires to overcome it. Her daydream of being free and falling in love being realized by the Fairy Godmother and coming to life is vicarious wish fulfillment for all of us in one way or another. The classic storybook opening at the beginning and end is also money.

4. The Little Mermaid (1989)

Here’s where this gets tough. In my own personal list, this is top two. This was another one of those Disney home videos I was addicted to and it was one of the first movies I ever saw in theaters at age 2. Personal feelings aside, however, this was the game-changer for Disney. This launched them into the hits of the ‘90s and proved their sustainability as a company. From this point forward, Disney becomes a true powerhouse by capturing the next generation.

It all started with a simple decision. To write the music for The Little Mermaid, Disney turned to a man named Alan Menken. With his collaborator, lyricist Howard Ashman, the two would write the greatest songs in film history before Ashman’s death from AIDS in 1991. Disney owes Menken almost everything, in my opinion. “Under the Sea” became the first hit of a new generation of Disney.

“Mermaid” borrows on those timeless Disney themes of a princess being confined by her oppressive father who yearns to be something she’s not (human) and is envied by an evil sea witch who tricks the naïve girl into giving up her beautiful voice for a pair of legs. Disney wisely took us somewhere new and unknown to us in a world under the sea, delivering us important themes about being happy about who you are and where you come from. The only thing that keeps this one down at No. 4 is a weak leading man in Prince Eric and animation that wasn’t quite up to 1990’s levels yet.

3. Aladdin (1992)

Disney’s first decision in modern times to push the multi-cultural envelope pays off tremendously. Aladdin takes us to Arabia, completely unfamiliar Disney territory but one that it handles smoothly. Aladdin is maybe the most fun Disney ever had. Its main character is a thief and a troublemaker and the writers surrounded him with wackier pals in Abu the monkey, a magic carpet with a mind of its own and an insane genie voiced by Robin Williams who is easily Disney’s most successful supporting character of all time.

Aladdin is a bit more superficial in ways. Of course Princess Jasmine is still held back by her father and longs to get out and see the world and the man vying for her affections is a “street rat” so you have the timeless forbidden romance motif, but Jafar is a total cross-gender wackjob. Here’s where you get that villain that wants to possess all the power in the world (and also marry our leading lady), which made him just okay. That’s why they gave him a talking parrot voiced by Gilbert Gottfried. I mean, seriously, who needs Gilbert Gottfried as a complement to their character?

The key to this one was possibly the addition of two writers that would be frequent Disney collaborators: Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio. These two would go on to write Shrek (not Disney but Dreamworks’ most successful product) as well as the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Musically, the fantastic Tim Rice stepped in as lyricist for the songs that Howard Ashman had yet to help write. With Menken, they wrote the greatest Disney power ballad of all time in “A Whole New World” as well as the fantastically jazzy “Friend Like Me,” “One Jump Ahead” and “Prince Ali.”

2. Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Perhaps Disney’s most powerful thematic message comes from the ’91 classic Beauty and the Beast. Here comes this gorgeous new Disney princess who a) loves to read books and b) falls in love with a hideous man-beast because she has faith that he’s a good person at heart and that what’s on the inside counts. As a four-year-old, I was like “huh?” Disney managed to apologize for years of preaching superficiality to young girls by giving us Belle, a hot nerd who wards off her obnoxious suitors and goes for a beast who is not all that likable.

If you look at The Princess and the Frog, Disney is recycling this theme. Characters in that movie are humans transformed into swamp animals. In “Beauty” it was a Family Feud-style list of “name an inanimate object found in a mansion.” There’s Lumiere, the candlestick aka second coming of The Little Mermaid’s Sebastian the Crab, Mrs. Potts and Chip the tea cups, Cogsworth the clock and more. The characters were never more inventive and that’s why Beauty and the Beast became a first-rate Broadway production as well. Transformation is a powerful archetype that really works in Disney films. Not only is it magical, but also its impact is more fully realized by children. The concept and consequent themes are easier to grasp because it’s so visually distinctive.

Musically, the Alan Menken/Howard Ashman tradition of at least one huge upbeat number and one gorgeous ballad (“Be Our Guest” and “Beauty and the Beast”) continued. “Gaston” is also one of my personal favorite songs, celebrating Disney’s villain who is not so much evil as he is selfish and stubborn, championing ego and unkindness instead of the traditional Disney villain desires of power. Just another example of the excellent values being embedded into the Disney films of the ‘90s.

1. The Lion King (1994)

I don’t think there’s any doubt that The Lion King is the most beloved Disney 2D animated film of all time. I don’t think I would call it my personal number one, but if you surveyed a wide group, I think you’ll find this twist on the Hamlet story atop a majority of people’s lists and it’s certainly deserving of being there.

The most interesting thing about The Lion King is the absence of human characters. Disney liked using animals as goofy supporting roles or in the case of Robin Hood giving animals anthropomorphic physicality. Everyone in The Lion King is as the animal would be minus talking. And what a cast it is; there isn’t a dull or pointless character in this entire movie. Disney’s most successful comic relief duo in Pumbaa and Timon came here. The ruthless Scar was formidable and he was complemented by three crazy hyenas that made henchmen staples of good vs. evil storytelling. Then of course Simba and Nala were as good as any human Disney prince and princess.

But the coup de grace, if you will, was the most emotional scene in Disney history: the death of Mufasa. Not since Bambi’s mother had Disney killed off a major good character. What an aggressive choice to risk something that could traumatize young children but instead ended up grabbing their attention and opening their eyes to difficult themes like revenge and forgiveness.

In addition, Disney took a break from Alan Menken and hired, -- gee – Tim Rice and Elton John, never missing a beat in terms of music. “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King” and “Can You Feel the Love Tonight?” match up with any other Disney song combo and “The Circle of Life” is simply breathtaking. And that’s leaving out “Hakuna Matata.” The Lion King also became Disney’s biggest Broadway hit and it wasn’t just because of the costumes.

So there you have it. Agree? Disagree? Pissed I left off Pocahontas? Feel free to comment! Just for fun, here are some superlatives.

Top 10 Songs

“A Whole New World” from Aladdin
“Colors of the Wind” from Pocahontas
“Under the Sea” from The Little Mermaid
“Be Our Guest” from Beauty and the Beast
“Friend Like Me” from Aladdin
“Beauty and the Beast” from Beauty and the Beast
“The Circle of Life” from The Lion King
“I Just Can’t Wait to Be King” from The Lion King
“Part of Your World” from The Little Mermaid
“Go The Distance” from Hercules

Top 10 Villains

Scar from The Lion King
Captain Hook from Peter Pan
Cruella De Vil from 101 Dalmatians
Ursula from The Little Mermaid
Jafar from Aladdin
The Hunter from Bambi
Gaston from Beauty and the Beast
Evil Stepmother from Cinderella
Hades from Hercules
Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty

Top 10 Supporting Animals

Timon and Pumbaa from The Lion King
Sebastian and Flounder from The Little Mermaid
Jiminy Cricket from Pinocchio
Abu from Aladdin
Mushu and the Cricket from Mulan
Thumper and Flower from Bambi
Jock and Trusty from Lady and the Tramp
Meeko from Pocahontas
Gus and the Mice from Cinderella
Baloo and Bagheera from The Jungle Book

Weekend Preview (12.11.09)

2009-12-11T10:37:00.002-06:00

Welcome back, Disney.

After five or ten years (depending on if you count anything after Tarzan), Disney delivers a new feature-length 2D animated film. What a statement to be making in 2009, the year of the 3D explosion in movie theaters.

Singing and dancing, talking animals, princesses and more, The Princess and the Frog offers at least the slightest promise of returning us for an hour and a half, to a time where all was right with the world. In an age where everything is speeding up and the economy is down, what a momentary pause from reality this film looks to be. “Frog” should do well and be received well as it begs of us to simplify – to acquiesce to classic stories of morality instead of those with commerciality.

Also entering the picture is Oscar hopeful Invictus, the Clint Eastwood film about Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) trying to use rugby to reunite South Africa in the wake of apartheid. Matt Damon also stars in the season’s one true uplifting biographical drama. The talent here is simply too good to be passed on (or make for a bad movie for that matter).

Add the expansion of Up in the Air this weekend to 72 theaters and there’s reason to get excited about movies this weekend. I feel like I haven’t been this enthusiastic about a weekend in a month.

My Endorsement: You can’t go wrong with almost anything coming out this weekend, but I have to recommend The Princess and the Frog because, quite frankly, when was the last time you got to see a movie like this in theaters? I haven’t even had the chance to get excited about a Disney 2D animated film in years so that prospect alone is enough to get me to theaters this weekend.

Red Flag: Wow, usually I have no idea what to recommend, not what to flag. I suppose don’t retread any of last weekend’s films. I mean, even the really limited releases this weekend look good (The Lovely Bones, A Single Man, Broken Lizard’s The Slammin’ Salmon). Don’t be stupid and go see Everybody’s Fine or Armored.

Box Office Prediction: I’m thrilled and ecstatic to be able to choose The Princess and the Frog for the box office winner this week. After such a downer weekend at the movies last weekend, the BO is primed for a new champion and “Frog” has the release (3400+ theaters), good press, reputation (Disney) and nostalgic buzz to do it. Judging by how Disney 2D films did in the late ‘90s when they were still hyped, I’m going to guess about $45 million.

Next will be Invictus. I’m calling for a modest $12 million, which you wouldn’t think good enough for second place, but this weekend it definitely should be (and provided I underestimated it, I have cushion).

For third and fourth place we go to the early Holiday season champions, The Blind Side and The Twilight Saga: New Moon, respectively. My guess is also $10 and $9 million respectively. I don’t expect such mainstream films to be leapfrogged by any films it beat out last weekend, but if anyone could do it it would be my No. 5 film, Brothers. A Christmas Carol should finally flicker out thanks to Disney’s new film don't expect it to finish all that far behind.

The Princess and the Frog
Invictus
The Blind Side
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Brothers

10 Greatest Disney (2D) Animated Features of All Time, Pt. 1

2009-12-10T10:21:00.008-06:00

Almost everyone who grew up in the ‘80s and/or ‘90s has some kind of nostalgic attachment to a Walt Disney 2D animated feature. (It’s a sad world we live in now that “2D” is a required adjective in that sentence.) Hours of our childhoods were devoted to watching a singular Disney title over and over again and we wouldn’t trade it for anything.

An entire decade, however, missed out. Disney couldn’t churn out quality moneymaking 2D titles in the early 2000s having already opened the floodgates for CGI animation with Toy Story in 1995. Although 2002’s Lilo and Stitch found some love, the magic faded and ended in 2004 with the bust that was Home on the Range.

Kids born in the last few years, however, will have a chance at a more ideal childhood with Disney’s triumphant return in the form of The Princess and the Frog, which opens across the country on Friday. With African-American princess and a new “world” to explore in Jazz-Age New Orleans, Disney looks ready to reestablish itself as the class of meaningful, theme-driven entertainment in the age of A.D.D.

Also back is music. Longtime Disney collaborator Randy Newman has given “Frog” a southern Creole jazz soundtrack that fits the film and Disney perfectly. They might not be the Alan Menken-written showstoppers of the ‘90s, but in listening briefly on iTunes, they hold more promise than anything Disney’s done with music since then (with the exception arguably of the Phil Collins Tarzan soundtrack).

So thank you, The Princess and the Frog, for giving me an excuse to write about Disney classics and – more importantly – to rank them, which is always fun. Who hasn’t debated about which Disney movie is the best? Here’s my take. Feel free to argue.

10. The Jungle Book (1967)

I debated long and hard about which of many deserving films should grab that last coveted spot in my Top 10, and I had to award it to The Jungle Book, really the first of its kind for Disney. The Jungle Book was Disney’s first venture outside of that Caucasian comfort zone. Although certainly not a landmark for diversity in animated film by any means (they’d follow it up with plenty more white-centered features – plus thematically it preaches you should want to be a civilized human), it stands out as a unique achievement for Disney.

With a few great sing-a-long songs, namely “The Bear Necessities” and “I Wanna Be Like You,” The Jungle Book was one of Disney’s first easy-going, fun movies. Baloo the bear is a pretty lovable dude too. This is one of the first movies I’d like to revisit if I were to make a list of Disney films worth rediscovering as an adult.

9. Mulan (1998)

Mulan makes my list as the last Disney animated movie worthy of deeming a classic. Great music, same quirky supporting cast, wholesome family (albeit Asian) values – The Princess and the Frog would’ve been a great next step for them back at the turn of the century considering the diversity instead of heading down a non-princess path. Unfortunately, though the movie faired well, the relatively unknown story of a girl posing as a man conflicted with the cultural messages toward little girls and straight up baffled boys. Mulan the character as a result never achieved “princess” status.

“Reflection” was the ballad that gave rise to Christina Aguilera’s career. Why it didn’t get nominated for an Oscar baffles me, but then again the winner that year was The Prince of Egypt’s “When You Believe,” so that’s fair. Donnie Osmond’s performance of “I’ll Make A Man Out of You” was probably the best upbeat song in a Disney film since The Lion King. And who can forget the credits track “True to Your Heart” featuring Stevie Wonder and 98 Degrees? Yea, I totally rocked to that cassette tape.

8. Lady and the Tramp (1955)

If I were making a totally biased list that didn’t consider any thoughtful evaluation, Lady and the Tramp would make my top five. I was fascinated, I mean, completely entranced by this movie. It’s one of those films that has this quiet aura about it that’s slightly chilling but utterly captivating. The ups and downs of this movie were like a rollercoaster to me and just picturing them in my mind right now gives me goosebumps.

Looking back, I think what makes Lady and the Tramp sort of a cult favorite when it comes to Disney movies (along with The Fox and the Hound which I woefully had to omit from this list), is its perspective. The fact that it cuts all the humans off at the knees (with the exception of the Italian restaurant guy Tony) and really puts you in Lady and the other dog’s perspective makes it so easily identifiable for children. The dogs all vie for love and attention from the parental figures of the story and that is a connection children watching this film instantly make subconsciously that draws them in to feeling invested in the story. The happy ending to it all is the payoff that brings them back each time (though I should say I speak for myself).

7. Peter Pan (1953)

There’s a reason Tinker Bell became the iconic character of Disney. Peter Pan was really Disney’s first foray into action and fantasy. It began with Alice in Wonderland two years earlier, but this was the first successful attempt, namely because the story was also attractive to young boys. In fact, Peter Pan was the first entirely human male protagonist in a Disney animated classic. J.M. Barrie’s story was really perfect for Disney in the way that it had such a broad appeal to all children.

The execution is of course there too. That old-timey adult chorus singing “You Can Fly!” is memorable and one of Disney’s more effective “you can do anything if you put your mind to it” songs. Capt. Hook is one of the more formidable Disney bad guys and the whole fantasy world of Neverland is simply dreamy.

6. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

Here’s where we get into the matriarchs of the Disney movies, the ones responsible for everything we ever got afterward that turned Disney into a powerhouse of children’s entertainment. Snow White of course was Disney’s first full-length animated feature. The first memorable children’s tunes in movie history came from this picture. Everything about it is classic.

Granted, when looked at with a skeptic eye, Snow White can seem horribly anti-feminist and kinda screwed up. I mean, a drop-dead gorgeous woman with the fairest complexion in all the world ends up in a house with seven disgruntled midgets, does all their bitch work while they go mine the caves during the day and, because of her own dumb ignorance, is forced to wait for the elusive Prince Charming to kiss her so she can truly live happily ever after. But nonetheless, these are classic story archetypes and we owe them everything for laying the foundation for future classics.

Part 2 on Friday!

New on DVD and Blu-ray: Public Enemies - 4/5 Stars

2009-12-08T10:40:00.003-06:00

It's been awhile since we've seen a good cat-and-mouse thriller done old school, and that's exactly what "Public Enemies" is. Merely trade in your usual summer crime movie full of thieves in ski masks wielding uzis for ones wearing suits and fedoras armed with tommy guns and suddenly you're getting entertained Great Depression-style. "Public Enemies" is a neat crossover between the action-packed thrillers of today and the mob movies of yesterday, and one that comes to us well-armed with the talents of Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and a master of the thriller genre: director Michael Mann.

"Public Enemies" is about 80 percent action thriller, 20 percent biography of infamous '30s bank robber John Dillinger (Depp). It gives us a colorful character portrait of Dillinger as a care-free crook with a sense of humor, but its main goal is to give us a handful of flashy crackling gun fights. It's not an intimate or dramatic character study that makes us think twice about what it means to be America's most wanted; the intention is to develop Dillinger enough so that Depp can make him an intriguing personality for us to follow on this 140- minute "catch me if you can" adventure. So check your Oscar-caliber expectations at the theater entrance.

Depp is a perfect fit as Dillinger, a man who lived in the moment, doing only as he wanted and hearing only what he wanted to hear, even when it was "you won't get away with this forever." He's a likable criminal type, not unlike a clean-shaven and articulate Jack Sparrow. Basically, he makes life hell for the Bureau of Investigation (it's his example that will later add the "F") and the chief detective on his case -- Melvin Purvis (Bale). He's the silly rabbit that keeps getting away, and Bale -- in a strong but unremarkable performance -- vows to hunt him down.

This isn't unfamiliar territory for director/writer Mann, whose thriller "Heat" was basically a more sophisticated modern version of the cat-and-mouse story with two other stars on opposite ends of the fight (De Niro and Pacino). Like that film, "Public Enemies" has a lot of exciting and dramatic nighttime action scenes. The gunfight at the Wisconsin getaway with the guns lighting up the cold night air is most memorable. Mann more or less film this movie like someone who's been here before. His only weakness is overuse of hand-held camera shots. In a period piece, you'd expect a filming style that would be a little more classic, framing every shot perfectly, but Mann insists on this modern technique that does sort of shatter the bubble of being in the '30s in spots. There is definitely a sense at times that these are just modern people playing gangster dress-up -- it's not a flawless recreation of the era.

I'm unaware of the historical truths surrounding Dillinger and his cronies "Pretty Boy" Floyd and "Baby Face" Nelson, or even if he had a relationship with a Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), but all their roles and the facts that may or may not accompany them are of little consequence to the enjoyment of the film for those who aren't crime history buffs. Billie is the best example of a character rendered ineffective because the movie cares little about her (despite Cotillard's talents). She's just there because every no-good gangster/mob guy has a girlfriend, which isn't great, but it's fine because it gives us another side of Dillinger and he's what is supposed to make the film stand out.

Keep in mind that "Public Enemies" was released in July and not December and you should enjoy it -- it's an action thriller done '30s gangster style, not an Oscar-contending biographic crime drama. It wouldn't be unfair to expect a bit more character conflict or development for all characters and actors not named "John," but it's definitely appropriate summer movie fare.

4/5 Stars

"Public Enemies" (2009)

Directed by: Michael Mann

Written by: Ronan Bennett, Michael Mann, Ann Biderman, Bryan Burrough (book)

Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard

Weekend Recap: Box Office down, "Blind Side" on top

2009-12-07T18:13:00.001-06:00

Predicting who will win the box office hasn’t been as hard as I thought, but this was one of those weeks where I’m pretty pleased with my prediction. The Blind Side, its third week, surpassed New Moon to take No. 1.

Box office winners have been clear-cut with a few surprises since I started this prediction business back in September. I’m 12-of-13 having only missed one weekend when Saw VI failed me.

But what does that really say? Has the box office become that predictable (when it comes to No. 1 at least)? I think that we do live in the age of surefire success. With undying fan devotion to books (Twilight and Harry Potter films) and this inherent “need” to see sequels regardless of the crap we probably know we’re in for, when it comes to scheduling film releases, the studios know what to avoid. Couples Retreat was the only wide release film that weekend in October when it came out. Everyone else knew they didn’t stand a chance. No huge films came out Thanksgiving Day because studios knew New Moon would still be rolling. Next weekend, only Clint Eastwood’s Invictus will compete with the wide release of Disney’s The Princess and the Frog.

The Blind Side finally taking No. 1 three weeks in and the poor performance of the box office this weekend in general (as you’ll see below) is testament to the way movies are nowadays. People are spending a lot of money at the theaters and they want guarantees: overwhelmingly positive reviews, material they’re familiar with, stuff their kids will definitely enjoy and not find “too scary” and want to leave early, etc. “Blind Side” owes a lot to the most positive reviews of any wide release recently. Most well-received films come out in limited release at this time of year so they rarely impact the box office.

The Blind Side - $20 M (weekend) … $128.9 M (gross)
The Twilight Saga: New Moon - $15.4 M … $255.4 M
Brothers - $9.5 M … $9.5 M
A Christmas Carol - $7.8 M … $115.2 M
Old Dogs - $6.9 M … $33.9 M
2012 - $6.8 M … $149 M
Armored - $6.5 M … $6.5 M
Ninja Assassin - $5 M … $29.8 M
Planet 51 - $4.4 M … $34 M
Everybody’s Fine - $3.8 M … $3.8 M

The biggest surprise this weekend was the performance of Brothers at the box office. It made on the high end of what I expected, but it was good enough for third place. This could be one of those films that continues to perform at the same level for the next few weeks, maintaining popularity as more and more Oscar films come out.

The biggest flop was undeniably Everybody’s Fine. Okay to favorable reviews, Robert De Niro and old people weren’t good enough for this film to be a moneymaker. With under $4 million, its times like this where I wonder if America read my blog and subsequent recommendations.

Noteworthy are great performances outside of the Top 10 by limited release films Up in the Air and The Princess and the Frog. That’s a predictor of the kind of success those films will likely have, especially with all the critical acclaim “Air” has been getting in particular.

My guess is this will be the last really poor weekend of the year. Disney will give the box office a boost next week followed by the anticipated release of Avatar.

Deathly Hallows pt. 1 Teaser!

2009-12-07T10:19:00.004-06:00

The trailer for the first part of the final installment in the Harry Potter films/books Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows appeared to be leaked online, but then apparently it was put out officially. Then again, the sites I read had a defunct link, so I found an average quality version of it on YouTube that hopefully you'll get to see before that possibly gets torn down.

View YouTube trailer (hopefully) here

UPDATE: Film School Rejects has the teaser plus an introduction from producer David Heyman and director David Yates.

The teaser is pretty much what director David Yates told us to expect: dark, dark, dark and darker. I know we've been saying that ever since "Order of the Phoenix" came out, but this one looks to be distinctly more realistic as Yates has indicated in interviews. Not a whole lot of magical stuff going on and a lot more real-world backgrounds and a distinctly scary/serious overtone.

"Hallows" part one comes to us in November 2010 and the second half in July 2011

Now on DVD: The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard (2009) - 2.5/5 Stars

2009-12-04T23:43:00.002-06:00

In the tradition of the many other Will Ferrell-Adam McKay produced comedies with a colon in the title that's focused on a quirky character, "The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard" makes a pitch for awkward humor from a wide range of messed up characters. If you're an easy sell on that kind of humor "The Goods" is worth the time, but looking at it more critically, this movie is just trying to dress up used material so it can sell it like it's new.

Jeremy Piven is the latest comedian after Will Ferrel and John C. Reilly to attempt to pilot this ailing brand of comedy. Don Ready is a smooth-talking car salesman brought in to help a struggling dealership, a role that's perhaps a natural evolution (or de-evolution) for Piven's beloved "Entourage" character, Hollywood agent Ari Gold. Unlike those before him, Piven is not an "I can act so dumb it's funny" kind of guy so by no fault of his own, he fails to be the best character in his own film. He's just a hot shot stereotype ramblin' man character and that's why he's given such a large supporting cast.

"The Goods" overloads on whack-job character portraits. Andy Stock and Rick Stempson, writers of the straight-to-DVD colon comedy "Balls Out: Gary the Tennis Coach" starring Sean William-Scott, base their entire film around these character concepts. The plot is dumb, the events that happen are completely pointless: only the characters and the scenes written to utilize the character's comedic potential are given attention.

Naturally, Ready has a crew that mostly have no tangible sales skill. There's Brent Gage (David Koechner aka Champ Kind in "Anchorman"), the quasi normal guy who exists solely so the dealership's owner Mr. Selleck (James Brolin) can make awkward homosexual advances towards him, Jibby (Ving Rhames) who's had meaningless sex all his life and wants to "make love" to a woman and Babs (Kathryn Hahn), the horny sex-appeal saleswoman who battles both her lesbian desires and her sexual crush on the Selleck's 10-year-old son stuck in a man's body (Rob Riggle).

That's not even the half of them, however. The belief here is that the characters sell the comedy, so all the stops are pulled. Korean-American Ken Jeong ("The Hangover") plays a salesman named Teddy, there's a crazy old war vet (Charles Napier), a DJ with internal anger issues (Craig Robinson), the standard "normal girl love interest" in Mr. Selleck's daughter, her jerk fiancée who's actually a dork in a "man band" (Ed Helms) and more. Then of course there are cameos, after all this is a Ferrell/McKay movie.

There are hits and misses among them, the hits being the out-of-nowhere jokes that get a quick laugh thanks to the depths the writers and actors are willing to go with their characters, namely in terms of inappropriateness. It's not the kind of humor that has you laughing a whole scene. That kind of situational humor is minimal. After all the plot is a bunch of crazy sales consultants come in to save a dealership from going bankrupt and having to sell to the owner's future in-laws, specifically Alan Thicke; a plot that most of us could dream up in our sleep, minus the Alan Thicke part, probably. The cleverness comes not from the story, but "how far can we take a sexual metaphor for a baseball glove."

For those that find this type of comedy gets them every time, enjoy "The Goods" because this kind of humor is in the bargain bin and who knows how much longer it will last.

2.5/5 Stars

"The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard" (2009)

Directed by: Neal Brennan

Written by: Andy Stock, Rick Stempson

Starring: Jeremy Piven, Ving Rhames, David Koechner, Kathryn Hahn

Weekend Preview (12.4.09)

2009-12-04T09:10:00.003-06:00

There’s always a one-week burnout period in this second weekend after Thanksgiving. We all sort of hit this wall when we realize Christmas isn’t actually for another three weeks and that we have to work and shop. The novelty wears off briefly but then maybe there’s a little snowfall and you hear some Christmas music and suddenly you get the spirit back.

The box office experiences that same kind of lull. Although last year we had the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still at this time of year, the big budget blockbusters usually hold out until at least the second (I Am Legend) or third (The Lord of the Rings) weekends in December. Naturally, the anticipated Avatar comes to us in another couple of weeks.

Instead, we’ve got uncertain hodgepodge this weekend. The widest release is Robert De Niro feel-good Christmas movie Everybody’s Fine going to 2,133 theaters nationwide, followed by Brothers, the domestic drama/thriller with Queen Amidala, Donnie Darko and Spider-Man. In about 1,900 theaters is Armored, the crime action flick starring Matt Dillon and up-and-comer Columbus Short.

My Endorsement: Is it too early to plug Up in the Air yet (released in 15 theaters)? I guess so. My recommendation is for leftovers. The Blind Side has been getting solid marks from just about everyone and there are still quality indies such as Precious, A Serious Man and An Education out there. I’d like to hype Brothers but early reviews are mixed and I was never all that sold on it to begin with.

Red Flag: Everybody’s Fine and you’ll be too if you go see this movie, but don’t expect a whole lot more than that. I flagged this movie in my preview because I’m still convinced nothing actually happens in this movie other than De Niro playing with little kids and lots of dialogue working out family issues. If you still want to see it, however, don’t go before dinner or you’ll be sure to be trampled by senior citizens hitting up the early bird.

Box Office Prediction: Weekends like this are tough with a trio of lame duck new releases (in that they’re not hyped, they’re in genres that don’t make a lot of money and they’re not being released in that many theaters). Everybody’s Fine has the best chance of any of them to take first place, but if so, it won’t be by much. I just don’t see it making more than $20 million, which isn’t good enough for first based on what New Moon and The Blind Side have been doing.

All that figured out, I’m going to be daring and choose the best-reviewed wide release film of the holiday season to hang around for No. 1, and that’s The Blind Side. Call me crazy for picking a film in its third week, but I don’t see this film falling more than 45 percent, so I’m picking it to win with $25 million.

Second, I’m scared to bet against the tweenies that want extra helpings of Taylor Lautner’s 8-pack on the big screen. I expect a near 50 percent cut for The Twilight Saga: New Moon, but good enough for second place with $21 million or thereabouts.

Third is my reasonable place to slot Everybody’s Fine considering its limited release. I think most people are going to overestimate this film and I don’t want to be the one to do it. I’m projecting $18 million.

This is where it gets tough. New releases with not that many theaters all things considered versus the box office winners from early November on their way down. I’m projecting 10-12 million for a few different films, so I’m going to have to take stabs. 2012 has done fairly well and has no new competition genre-wise, so I’m guessing $12 million.

Last, I’m going to take a chance with Armored at $10 million, which I also think is where A Christmas Carol will end up and Brothers just below that with $7-9 M, which is also where I expect Old Dogs to fall given its bad opening and probably Ninja Assassin as well. It’s going to be really scrunched in the bottom half of the Top 10 for sure.

The Blind Side
New Moon
Everybody’s Fine
2012
Armored

Hit or Miss: Robert De Niro in the last 10 years

2009-12-03T12:10:00.004-06:00

Everybody’s Fine hits theaters this weekend, a remake of a 1990 Italian film about a widower reconnecting with his kids (at Christmas time, of course), and it has most of us thinking: Yea ... so what good movies has Robert De Niro done lately? That’s a head-scratcher.

Past his prime, De Niro has yet to many find roles that both fit what he’s looking for while earning him more critical praise. He’s still considered a legend (and rightfully so) and his name on the marquee attracts a lot of attention (usually), but he hasn’t been nominated for an Academy Award in almost 18 years.

Will any of this change with this sensitive-man role in Everybody’s Fine? With a light release schedule, he could make a statement at the box office this weekend, but as for the critics? It’s split down the middle at this point, according to Rotten Tomatoes.

With these questions in mind, I thought it would be appropriate to not merely rank the best and worst of De Niro (what a debate that would be), but examine his film choices of the last 10 years (1999-present) and sort the bad from the good, in order to really see what Bobby’s career has really become.

I sorted through his credits on imdb and have listed the most notable ones in order from 1999-2009 and simply labeled them hit or miss. Can’t say I’ve seen all of these films (namely the misses), but my research is thorough.

Analyze This (1999) – HIT

How does the most iconic face in Hollywood crime drama transition to comedy? Play a mafia don who sees a psychologist (Billy Crystal) in order to get in touch with his feelings and rid himself of inner-conflict. When everyone takes you seriously as an actor and you want to do comedy, sometimes it works best to slide yourself in and it doesn’t hurt to have Harold Ramis directing. Analyze This took top spot at the box office two weeks in a row in March of 1999 and grossed more than $100 million. Clearly this was a good choice.

Men of Honor (2000) – MISS

This naval training inspiration drama about fighting the odds and racism was not one of De Niro’s most off-target misses of the last ten years, but it’s hard to look back on any film starring Cuba Gooding Jr. nowadays and say “now that’s a hit” unless it rhymes with “Ferry for Hire.” It was certainly a good fit for De Niro and the “fighting the obstacles” story always holds on to some merits, but nothing too memorable.

Meet the Parents (2000) – HIT

With the help of an up-and-comer in Ben Stiller, De Niro found box office success in his next comedy, easily his best. Not totally unlike playing a mafia don that can’t shake the quirks that come with that kind of role, Jack Byrnes is ex-CIA and uses his skills to interrogate his future son-in-law due to his overprotective and slightly paranoid nature. The writing was pretty funny but it was unveiling De Niro’s quirky side that made this comedy work on all levels and become the box office hit it was, grossing $330 million worldwide.

The Score (2001) - HIT

If you’re going to do a straight-up no-tricks heist movie, it can’t hurt to choose the one that would be Marlon Brando’s last film. Directed by Yoda himself, Frank Oz, “Score” teamed De Niro with the late Brando and a younger but esteemed Edward Norton. Adding his name to those two talents of different generations, De Niro was able to make something run-of-the-mill such as a young thief and a retiring one who agree to “one last heist” work. It might not have been special, but it did not tarnish De Niro’s resume.

Showtime (2002) – MISS

If someone asked me if I wanted to star alongside Eddie Murphy in a cop buddy comedy and the nearest calendar told me it wasn’t a year that started with 1,9 and 8, I would run for the hills. De Niro somehow didn’t, thinking that playing a detective was a natural step after quirky mafia don and ex-CIA father-in-law. The film was supposed to spoof buddy comedies, but it sort of fell into the genre it was spoofing. Possibly the biggest miss of the last ten years for De Niro and maybe one of the biggest of his career.

Analyze That (2002) – MISS

It was a bad year for Bobby in 2002. Not a good idea to press your luck with a sequel to a good but not an amazing comedy and certainly not a sequel-warranting one. You don’t see a whole lot of middle-aged-guy comedies let alone sequels these days for a reason. “That” was a massive flop, making half of what its predecessor did at the box office, a mere $55 million worldwide.

Meet the Fockers (2004) – HIT

Not as well-received critically, this sequel to Meet the Parents was solidly entertaining, particularly if you’re older and Jewish. Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand made a great compliment to the Byrnes family and De Niro, while no different, was still good. Everything was good enough, however, to earn this film more than $500 million at the box office (partly thanks to its Christmas release.) This is one of those so-so movies that’s perfect and fun to watch on TV.

Hide and Seek (2005) – MISS

This was the movie that made everyone realize that the creepy child was an overused cliché in horror movies. Talk about stars of different generations, De Niro worked with the young Dakota Fanning in this horror movie about a widower and his daughter who, traumatized, creates an imaginary friend that gets a bit out of hand. I hope De Niro was paid well to be a fish-out-of-water in a genre he’d basically never experimented with before (unless you count when he played the creature in Kenneth Branagh’s Frankenstein). It did reasonably well at the box office, but not well enough to trump the mediocrity of the film.

The Good Shepherd (2006) – HIT

One of those aspiring Oscar films that didn’t measure up, “Shepherd” was an interesting story about the birth of the CIA and a fitting choice to get back into mainstream drama for De Niro, especially as he played a small supporting role and didn’t attempt to carry the film he also helped produce. A bit too long but chock-full of talent, De Niro certainly didn’t err here despite this film not winning heaps of praise.

Stardust (2007) – HIT

Completely underappreciated is Matthew Vaughn’s whimsical fantasy, which is capped off by De Niro’s brilliant turn as the captain, Captain Shakespeare to be specific, of a flying pirate ship. The role is so funny, that I dare not divulge anymore and suggest you find some time to rent this really enjoyable and easily digestible film. Although the box office numbers don’t back it up, Stardust was definitely a great cameo for De Niro even though it will remain a secret for most people.

Righteous Kill (2008) – MISS

This was a film in denial/thought De Niro and Al Pacino would pack the same menacing punch they did years ago. Critics and fans have wised up to the movie choices of those two actors over the last ten years. Unless the writing and direction give probable cause for quality, there’s no guarantee of money being made just because the marquee would have grabbed everyone’s attention in 1992.

The honest analysis (not to reference any of the above movies) is that nothing here except for the “Parents” movies is particularly memorable. Is De Niro just looking to pay the bills? Is he more concerned about producing and wants to act under his terms (and basic ones at that)? Hard to say, but even though my list has one more hit than miss, it could go either way. Certainly box office success has kept going in the positive direction whereas critics’ responses have gone the opposite. Everybody’s Fine could continue with that trend.

Archive Review: Mulholland Dr. (2001) - 3.5/5 Stars

2009-12-03T00:22:00.004-06:00

David Lynch's "Mulholland Dr." is like one of those video games that the programmers make so amazing yet so impossibly difficult that in order to be fully satisfied you're forced to buy one of those walkthrough game guides. The film might be a masterpiece, but it's a Rubix cube of surrealism that prefers to leave you with more questions than answers.

Psychological thriller barely begins describing "Mulholland Dr." Most notably, Lynch has no lack of ability to create suspense. Despite being a total mindfudge (implication of more explicit language necessary), the film is completely gripping and will not lose any viewer for a second. You could argue the beginning is not very deliberate, but to understand the film everything is essential.

On Mulholland Dr. a woman (Laura Elena Harring) survives a fatal car accident but is left with amnesia, wandering her way to an apartment of a woman heading out of town who happens to be the aunt of Betty (Naomi Watts) a starry-eyed aspiring actress who has come to stay in LA while her aunt is gone. Together, the two try and find some answers as to the woman's identity. Meanwhile, a Hollywood director (Justin Theroux) is without his lead actress and being pressured by mobsters to select a particular one.

But plot is a side dish in this movie. As hard as it is to do, the way it's best enjoyed (and I wish I'd known this pre-hindsight) is to take in the visuals and emotions and tame that instinctive plot detective inside all of us. The beauty of Lynch's work is best understood by what the events and images of the film suggest. Don't view them as tangible proof of factual happenings in the film, but as manifestations.

Put on those lenses and Lynch's work is easier to appreciate. The slow movement through the sets, the symbolism, the bizarre but intriguing transitions and the way the film's score works flawlessly to direct your every thought and inclination -- it's all there if you can manage to let go of the plot when necessary.

It's hard to analyze the film any deeper without exposing the cheat sheet -- even if you'll probably need to look at it anyway. Lynch has even listed a number of things to pay attention to to help understand his film -- you can look those up on IMDb or anywhere before watching and it could help.

Does the fixation on surrealism hurt "Mulholland Dr," not necessarily, but the best films don't require hints or cheat sheets to love and in order to love "Mulholland Dr.," you have to know what's going on and that's a lot for the vast majority of movie watchers to handle. Appreciation for Lynch's skill is easy to develop, but it would be best if it were simultaneous with digesting the story.

3.5/5

"Mulholland Dr." (2001)

Written and Directed by: David Lynch

Starring: Naomi Watts, Laura Elena Harring, Justin Theroux

Archive Review: Shine (1996) - 4/5 Stars

2009-11-30T23:35:00.002-06:00

A great piece of music -- and this is especially true of works for piano -- conveys a mood or sometimes many moods; it is incredibly affective. While listening you might feel comfortable and at ease at one point and then suddenly chaotic and unsettled at another. This is certainly true of Rachmaninoff's Concerto No. 3 in D minor, the challenging piece that "Shine" main character David Helfgott aspires to master. The piece plays a pivotal role in Helfgott's story and as such, this film based on him brilliantly reflects its beauty and turbulence.

"Shine" is not a typical biopic in this way: there are no scenes written or dragged out solely to open your tear ducts. If that happens at all, it's purely incidental. The only thing that's truly reminiscent of a standard biopic is the first half of the film telling the story of Helfgott's childhood and rocky relationship with his father.

The beginning is chronological as one would expect, moving logically from scene to scene, showing Helfgott's talents and his father's refusal to let him become his own person. Armin Mueller-Stahl is excellent as the father. He manages to take what we first associate as merely stubborn, stern and demanding and make us really understand that it's not black and white. Though he beats David on two occasions, he doesn't simply become the "abusive father" you get in many biopics: he is clearly struggling with David's success and and blind to the fact that he's become possessive and is living vicariously through him. He might indeed be unfairly manipulative, but we clearly see the world view (Holocaust survivor immigrated to Australia) behind it.

When Helfgott finally escapes to London to learn at the Royal School of Music, attempts Rachmaninoff for a recital and suffers a breakdown at the conclusion of the piece, suddenly the film becomes a series of clips: scenes that appear to be in order but lack clear objective and purpose with exception of David's piano skills returning bit by bit.

This recital/Helfgott's breakdown scene is the best in the movie. It's the first act climax that takes the story out of childhood and into David's struggle to become himself again as seen through the incredible Geoffrey Rush. The Rachmaninoff starts off easy, comforting and grows in intensity. Suddenly there's great suspense to the film and we see David sweating profusely, cut-ins of his father listening to a recording and then silence and blurred camera-work. In the moment, director Scott Hicks' work here might feel over-dramatic, but as the story continues and we never fully get an explanation of what happened (such as why Helfgott needed shock treatments) it becomes emblematic of the struggle Helfgott went through.

The end feels disjointed and its pacing frantic. The expectation is that David will make this miraculous comeback and in truth he does, it's just not with the surge of a full string orchestra playing in the background -- it's with the subtlety of Liszt, Rimsky-Korsakov, Schumann or Chopin. It's a bit devoid of feeling or satisfaction but it's justified by the way Jan Sardi has "composed" the film. The story is happy being focused on the upbringing and less so with Helfgott's rehab despite Rush's Raymond Babbitt-quality performance. The lack of a cookie-cutter emotional climax and crying and hugging scenes will rub some average viewers the wrong way, but "Shine" deserves a good deal of admiration.

4/5 Stars

"Shine" (1996)

Directed by: Scott Hicks

Written by: Jan Sardi, Scott Hicks

Starring: Geoffrey Rush, Armin Mueller-Stahl

Weekend Recap: "Blind Side" pushes "New Moon"

2009-11-30T17:45:00.003-06:00

I would say about 10 percent of my box office projections are based on what I overhear/word-of-mouth, but when people I never expected started talking about how they saw or were going to see The Blind Side and that it was really good, I up that number. That being the case this Thanksgiving, New Moon was almost completely blind-sided this weekend.

Most projection artists such as myself are breathing a sigh of relief at the moment. I nailed my estimate that New Moon would fall to $40 million, but to expect “Blind Side” to climb upward after last week and nearly overtake it was not in my plans. I called for $18 million, a modest drop-off considering its strong opening weekend. What I didn’t account for was that if positive word of mouth builds at the holidays where nothing new is an obvious choice, then word will become a more powerful factor at the box office. “Blind Side” has more than $100 million total now in just two weeks. By comparison, 4-week old A Christmas Carol just eclipsed the $100 M mark.

Leftovers would best describe the taste of moviegoers this weekend. Only Disney’s Old Dogs managed to make the Top 5 of all the Thanksgiving new releases and unimpressively so. In fact, it was enough to earn this week’s biggest flop crown.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon - $42.9 M (weekend) … $230.9 M (gross)
The Blind Side - $40.1 M … $100.2 M
2012 - $17.6 M … $138.4 M
Old Dogs - $16.9 M … $24.2 M
A Christmas Carol - $15.8 M … $104.9 M
Ninja Assassin - $13.1 M … $21.2 M
Planet 51 - $10.2 M … $28.5 M
Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire - $7 M … $32.4 M
The Fantastic Mr. Fox - $6.9 M … $10 M
The Road - $1.5 M … $1.9 M

Now is when I do a little venting. I’d been predicting all month that A Christmas Carol would start to do better the closer we came to the Holiday season and nothing ever happened so I gave up on that idea. Then boom, a near-30 percent surge keeps it at No. 5. I don’t expect any more increases, but it should decline at a slower rate than most films at this time of year.

My other failure was that I slightly underestimated the fan base for Ninja Assassin (even though “Carol” kept it out of the Top 5 for me) and overestimated the wide release of Fantastic Mr. Fox, which did well, but only half of $15 M well and even then I thought I was underestimating.

I’m happy, however, because of my moral victory over Old Dogs. I flagged the shit out of this movie and enough other people did for it to pull just $16.9 M. Suddenly nobody’s slobbering all over creator Walt Becker’s over-the-hill movies anymore. He can forget about his plans for a future Christmas movie likely entitled “Yule Logs.”

The Road also impressed making the top ten in 111 theaters only.

Now on DVD: Observe and Report (2009) - 1.5/5 Stars

2009-11-29T19:23:00.002-06:00

Somewhere between "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" and "Observe and Report," there has to be at least a decent movie about a mall security guard. Or maybe Hollywood should just forget about this cliché-ripe "genre" altogether.

"Observe and Report" is the latest film to shove a tubby comedian (Seth Rogen) into a mock police officer's uniform and endow him with an exaggerated sense of justice and self- importance. Ronnie Barnhardt is a gun-loving ignoramus who turns everything into a joke and believe it or not is surrounded by even less competent and pathetic co-workers. Their livelihood is threatened when a flasher begins visually assaulting people in the parking lot, namely Ronnie's crush, Brandi (Anna Faris) the shallow cosmetics girl, and the police (fronted by Ray Liotta) are brought in to handle the mess.

Ronnie is a pretty poorly executed character to begin with. By far Rogen's worst performance, Ronnie's idiot charms are not funny and he doesn't come off as lovable as creator Jody Hill intended. Hill's previous morally questionable protagonist, a karate instructor in "The Foot Fist Way" -- his debut film -- played by Danny McBride, was far more successful at earning sympathy despite an abundance of character flaws. McBride belongs in the role (he was reduced to a cameo) but Rogen got the part for having a bigger name.

It's actually kind of sad: Ronnie not only has big dreams for himself, but he has a history of psychosis and a temperamental moral compass that says it's okay to have sex with a girl who's drunk and vomiting but that it's not cool to steal from the mall. That's a hint as to how this comedy that purports itself as a run-of-the-mill ends up rearing its explicit, politically incorrect and shockingly dark head to an unsuspecting audience. It's pretty messed up and Hill wanted it that way, leading us in with a stereotypical cast of misfits and deadpan humor only to redirect us in a way that simply doesn't jive.

At one point when Ronnie's at his lowest, he turns to his friend Dennis, a Mexican security guard with a lisp, who says he knows exactly what Ronnie needs, which is hardcore drug usage of every kind. Conceptually, it's funny, but it's just kind of disturbing when you actually see it. Snorting cocaine and injecting heroine can only be so funny -- I know, who'd have thought? This is one of many ineffective soundtrack montages.

"Observe and Report" was supposed to be a politically incorrect comedy about what happens when your ridiculousness and reality are forced to confront each other, but the message I took away was that under no circumstances, ever, should you stop taking your medication if you're bipolar unless a doctor says it's okay. If you do, you'll start doing drugs, violently commit acts of civil disobedience and make the cute girl at the coffee counter who you're too dumb to notice cry her eyes out. If only we could be so wise.

1.5/5 Stars

"Observe and Report" (2009)

Written and Directed by: Jody Hill

Starring: Seth Rogen, Anna Faris, Ray Liotta

Now on DVD: Whatever Works (2009) - 3.5/5 Stars

2009-11-28T21:01:00.002-06:00

For those wondering what happened to the old Woody Allen, here he is. "Whatever Works" is a script from the 1970s. I noticed that without even knowing Allen has been forthright about it. A few script rewrites -- talk about the Taliban and not the Communists -- and old Woody works in a modern context. Then again, "Whatever Works" is not a film that anyone will herald the second coming of great Woody Allen comedy, but it is one that will win over a handful of audience members.

"Whatever Works" is pure vintage Woody. Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David) is a cynical, neurotic and suicidal man that Allen would've played himself in 1977 had he been old enough. He's an elitist intellectual jerk who loves classical music and literature and spews life philosophy. He is a Harvard grad physicist-turned-chess-teacher who considers himself a genius and everyone else a peon. He delivers an opening monologue. He and the characters in this film go to the movies, reference movies and attend art gallery showcases -- and it takes place in New York. This is the comfort food of Woody Allen movies.

If one considers the film's title a mantra, then Allen must've applied it in casting Larry David. David ... works. He's got only a few gears as an actor and we've seen plenty of his main gear on HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm." We get lots more of it hear, only Boris spouts some of Woody's wittiest lines and insults of all time. It's great, but it comes with the price that Boris is a jerk and his thoughts about life -- we only grow closer to death, love is a waste of time, there's all this crap to worry about -- make him overbearing. It's to Allen's point, but it's difficult to listen to Boris at times.

In a twist of Allen's love for cosmic coincidence, Boris meets a 21-year-old runaway Southern girl named Melodie St. Anne Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood) who he takes in and via foot in the door, ends up letting stay. She's a completely naive and uneducated stereotype, the complete opposite of Boris and all Woody prototypes (with great purpose, however). Mistaking his crafty insults and fatalistic world view for great intelligence, Melodie develops a crush on him and Boris, with his "take what you can get/enjoy what you have" mentality, agrees to marry her. All manages to work until Melodie's mother (Patricia Clarkson) finds her in New York and her traditional views act as a major countering force to their relationship.

Allen's crafty little concoction about not being able to plan for life and love and all its overwhelming negatives that can pop up at any moment is nearly charming. Truthfully, it's a bit sophomoric for his capability level in terms of comedy. The Southern stereotyping, random sharp turn of events and his choice to break the fourth wall (in a film no less) might all be leading somewhere, but it's nothing you totally bite on. The situations are funny and interesting but not believable or sophisticated enough to convince you to start popping Allen's philosophy pills.

"Whatever Works" is neo-classical Woody Allen. It's like asking your mother to cook you something she always made when you were a kid only it's 40 years later and not all the same ingredients are present and she uses some different and not as sophisticated ones as a replacement. In other words not quite what it used to be, but it's still pleasantly palatable and it takes you back in a positive way.

3.5/5 Stars

"Whatever Works"

Directed by: Woody Allen

Written by: Woody Allen

Starring: Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood

Review: The Road - 4/5 Stars

2009-11-27T10:27:00.003-06:00

The challenges awaiting Joe Penhall and John Hillcoat in adapting and directing (respectively) Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" had to be numerous. This post-apocalyptic father-and-son story about whether struggling to survive as long as possible is worth the pain is a bleak tale and one that grinds along much of the time. It doesn't have more than a handful of eventful or visually stimulating scenes. They manage, however, to not only be faithful to McCarthy's elegy, but also add great details to make it into a solid film.

For starters, Penhall gives us more context than the novel provides in terms of what's happened to turn the world into a barren place. Fires, earthquakes and other natural disasters have devastated the landscape and although we don't experience what it was exactly that was horrible enough to drive people to kill themselves instead of endure it and drove many to looting and cannibalism, we still understand the gravity of the situation. In this way, "The Road" is more inviting to those who've never read the book and need help suspending disbelief.

The script also stays true to the book's structure. The book is a series of brief paintings with candid dialogue between father (Viggo Mortensen) and son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they try to survive and reach the southern coast where they won't have to try and last through another brutal winter. The scenes are strung together without any traditional "acts" dividing up the story. The film delivers in this way, but it expands and breaks up this grinding structure with flashbacks/dreams which is helpful for the lesser attention spans of movie watchers.

Most additions to the original story are to clarify context and also add emotional impact. The mother (Charlize Theron) is not part of the main story, but she's woven in through dreams and flashbacks. We see her give birth to the son in the midst of this apocalypse and how her regret bringing him into the world clashes with the father's steadfast belief in survival at all costs. We see brief moments of her and the father in love, too, and his character becomes much more emotionally complex. Instead of being just the brave, cunning hero, Mortensen also plays the widower and the emotional mentor to his son. He works all these facets to his character into a truly excellent performance that's believable in every way.

Hillcoat tries to add where he can as well, focusing a lot on hands and finding really touching or moving shots that effectively echo McCarthy's narrative snapshots in the book. He also spares no detail. Great credit to the thorough realism in the make-up, props and costumes department; images of dirt caked in all the characters' fingernails linger as does the greasiness of their hair and beards and the dirt on their faces. When father and son find an empty home where they can shower, watching the dirt come off them has far more of an impact than it does in any other film. Wounds are also focused on for shock value -- there's a concerted effort to shake any viewer that might be too complacent and not realize the gravity of the characters' situation.

Much of what made McCarthy's story award-winning is captured by this film. There isn't much of an effort to go beyond some of those basic concepts or really hammer them in deep, but on the flip-side it aims for emotional impact, something far more universally appreciated at the movie theater than a deep meditation on human nature or how much it's worth fighting to stay alive with grim chances of dying anything but a painful or reluctant death. Instead of leaving the film with deeper philosophical/ethical questions, we get a touching story of father and son doing anything to stay with each other as long as they can, which is a fair trade off. Ideally we get both, but a job well done considering the challenging nature of the source material.

4/5 Stars

"The Road"

Directed by: John Hillcoat

Written by: Joe Pendhall, Cormac McCarthy (novel)

Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee

Archive Review: Slaughterhouse-Five (1972) - 3/5 Stars

2009-11-26T10:47:00.005-06:00

Kurt Vonnegut Jr's book "Slaughterhouse-Five" is a classic and the film version gets by on this fact alone. The rather faithful adaptation is enough to satisfy fans of the novel, but not even the great George Roy Hill can manage to turn Stephen Geller's uninspired script into a more meaningful movie experience.

To its credit, the film does find a handful of moments to illustrate how its main character, Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks), is unstuck in time. Vonnegut Jr's book is all about its fragmented and displaced structure, making the film's transitions key to visually re-creating "Slaughterhouse-Five." A number of these transitions work nicely, but mostly they feel like shifts between Billy during the war, Billy and his family life and Billy on the planet Tralfamador. They're sometimes quick and uncreative and we fail to ever fully enter Billy's shoes.

It's a shame, because Billy Pilgrim is an easy character to sympathize with. His horror stories as a prisoner of war in Germany, living through the bombing of Dresden and the unsatisfactory marriage that he's sort of participating in are emblematic of many average peoples' lives. Compound that with the idea that he experiences his life out of order, unable to put anything in the past or avoid the future and his existence is something we can't help but wonder how we would handle -- and ultimately be glad we don't have to.

Part of the problem is that Vonnegut Jr's beautiful but difficult prose is lost. Say "So it goes" at the end of a sentence and any literature lover will get your reference. The phrase doesn't so much as earn a cameo to my recollection in the entire film. Rarely does a film beg for a film-making technique like "Slaughterhouse-Five," but it's painfully obvious that it needs voice-over narration, or some kind of guiding force to help us through this structurally disjointed journey.

Hill and Geller create some nice moments that weren't notable or even included in the book, but it's all throwaway without something to tie it together, something to complicate Vonnegut Jr's themes and allude to the epiphany about time at the climax. Instead, Pilgrim's explanation of time in the final ten minutes is the crux of the entire film, the only moment that really exposes the goal of the story's chronological experiment.

Geller's adaptation is just not enough. It's satisfying and faithful, but it doesn't leave an imprint like the novel does. The screenplay doesn't match the intensity of the creative energy from Vonnegut Jr's classic, it merely attempts to mimic it in the most basic way.

3/5 Stars

"Slaughterhouse-Five" (1972)

Directed by: George Roy Hill

Written by: Stephen Geller, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (novel)

Starring: Michael Sacks, Ron Liebman, Sharon Gans, Valeri Perrine

Weekend Preview (11.25.09)

2009-11-25T09:33:00.002-06:00

I have a lot of fond memories of seeing movies on Thanksgiving Break as a child. After nearly three months of school, to go to the movie theater and enjoy something during a weeknight knowing you don’t have to go to school the next day is pure bliss.

The movies I remember seeing the most? Toy Story and Toy Story 2. Talk about going to see a great movie with that precious time off of school. This was back before Disney/Pixar’s regular slot was early June, when they owned Thanksgiving week. Now, they still have a piece of it, but Old Dogs is far from Toy Story.

This would’ve been a great time for The Princess and the Frog, but apparently they are tiptoeing and wading slowly in with that one, trying to generate positive reviews with a limited release first and avoiding direct competition with The Fantastic Mr. Fox. Instead, we get middle-aged actor crap.

That doesn’t mean the Thanksgiving movie tradition should end. My preference, however, is not relegated to PG. Today, we get the overdue release of The Road and even then that’s not as wide as initially expected. I’ll still be making it my priority, however, to see it.

Other options are stylish action flick Ninja Assassin and as previously stated, the wide release of Wes Anderson’s stop motion cartoon The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

My Endorsement: Film festival buzz has been so positive for The Road, I was of the book and I think Viggo Mortensen is perfect for the father. With a bit of action to keep things interesting and small roles by Guy Pearce and Robert Duvall thrown in, this is sure to be worthwhile.

Red Flag: Much like its director’s rhyming predecessor starring John Travolta entitled Wild Hogs, Old Dogs might be good for a few laughs, if the old blunt-object-to-the-balls gag gets you every time. This will be exactly the kind of movie you’ll be glad you didn’t pay for and instead saw for free on the airplane on your way to Spring Break. There’s also no William H. Macy, who made Wild Hogs work at all, plain and simple. Seth Green is also not a redeeming factor. Avoid.

Box Office Prediction: When a film conquers the box office as mightily as The Twilight Saga: New Moon did, it’s hard to figure just how closer to Earth it might fall in just one week. Considering it was poorly reviewed and received by most people, I’m using Spider-Man 3 as a comparison. The only difference here is that Spider-Man has a bigger following and nothing strong enough came out that next week to compete. Having said that, it’s reasonable to expect, The Twilight Saga: New Moon to make about $40 million in its second week, which would be good enough beat Old Dogs no matter how many new tricks they may or more likely may not have learned. The film should eek out second place, however, with something near $30 million

Then it’s time to look at returners. The Blind Side is really the only movie working with positive reviews as it rolls into week 2. Modestly predicting how far it will fall, I’m going to say about $18 million.

Next, I’m going to slate The Fantastic Mr. Fox with about $15 million, though I think I’m grossly underestimating it here due to Thanksgiving weekend and all. With positive reviews and at least the appearance of being kid-friendly, it should do very well in wide release.

That’s also the reason I’ve got 2012 at the five spot. It should earn around the $15 million mark as well, but I’ve got more faith in “Mr. Fox” earning more.

I feel pretty good about this prediction; my research was more thorough than usual. We’ll see how it shakes out.

New Moon
Old Dogs
The Blind Side
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
2012

Archive Review: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990) - 3.5/5 Stars

2009-11-25T00:01:00.002-06:00

Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" is a brilliant existential twist on a classic story (Shakespeare's "Hamlet") and classic storytelling. It's sharp, witty, well-acted and thought-provoking in any number of ways, being both memorably absurd and surprisingly truthful.

It's hard to scrutinize, but the truth is that Stoppard's Tony-winning 1968 play doesn't offer an ounce of proof as to why it belongs on the screen. It's a contemplative story, one that's heavy and dependent on dialogue. It's the struggle of all stage-to-screen adaptations, but where others have succeeded in shedding new light through that transition, Stoppard's re- imagining of his own work lacks a visual edge, perhaps explain why he never took up the director's chair again.

The story follows "Hamlet" characters Rosencrantz (Gary Oldman) and Guildenstern (Tim Roth), two remarkably unimportant characters from the play who are part of the tragedy's final body count for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Stoppard's story explores the play from their perspective: Were they even aware of what was unfolding around them? What was the point of them being there -- their purpose? Why did they die? These questions also fuel the film.

Stoppard paints them as goofball characters that despite great wit and sophistication, remain completely oblivious to everything around them until it's too late and their prescribed fate takes over. Roth and Oldman handle these extremely random conversations that bounce between the literal and figurative playfully yet with great strength. They're a heck of a duo. Rosencrantz also has a knack for discovering basic laws of physics but then losing them amidst his and Guildenstern's struggle to figure out what exactly it is they're doing in all of this Hamlet business. Stoppard uses these examples and a fitting opening bit about the probability of a coin flip to suggest the conflict between randomness and order in life and nature.

Also significant is the group of traveling tragedians led by Richard Dreyfuss, who end up being the ones to put on the play that Hamlet uses to catch his Uncle Claudius realizing his sin. They add the element of theater and tragedy into the meditative stew, reminding us that this story ("Hamlet") is indeed a work of fiction that was created to a purpose. He preaches in fate, that in tragedy everyone who dies dies because that is what's expected of them.

It's a real head-churner, but as philosophically impressive as it is, none of that juicy thought is derived from the visual experience of the film. What characters say in this film is ten times more important than what they do, or namely how they do it. Stoppard throws in some smaller visual elements and undoubtedly he must've added something to the screenplay that wasn't on the stage. After all, he had nearly 20 years to think about his work between the play and the film, so naturally he would've wanted to make some changes. But nothing about the way he films this story enhances the existential dialogue between characters as well as between film and audience.

Having never seen the play, "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" was an enjoyable, thought-provoking film experience, but I would imagine having already been exposed to its meta-exploratory ingenuity, those coming to the film with previous exposure might not feel anything more fulfilling than simply seeing it in a three-dimensional world.

3.5/5 Stars

"Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" (1990)

Written and Directed by Tom Stoppard

Starring: Gary Oldman, Tim Roth, Richard Dreyfuss

New on DVD and Blu-ray: Angels & Demons (2009) - 3/5 Stars

2009-11-24T12:14:00.004-06:00

Here's a link to my Funny People review, another DVD released today

If we learned anything from the film adaptation of "The Da Vinci Code," it's that Dan Brown's best-selling religion-centered mystery novels don't translate into great films. Entertaining, sure, but great, no. The dialogue gets bogged down with historical explanation and the characters get little attention because there's simply no time with all the symbol decoding. But box office receipts are another story: "Da Vinci" fell just sort of earning twice its budget, so great film or not, there would be "Angels & Demons." Not surprisingly, this film suffers from the same deficiencies despite being a bit better.

I have read both books and seen both movies and "Angels & Demons" the film is easily a notch better than its film predecessor. Unlike "Da Vinci," focused on the mostly little known ideas of the sacred feminine, "Angels" is about the inner-workings of the Catholic Church, which requires considerably less audience educating than the sacred feminine. Writer Akiva Goldsman, who penned both Brown adaptations, doesn't have to waste all his time explaining the history/mythology as he did in "Da Vinci" ... only most of it.

"Angels" is more of a thriller and a tad better suited for film than "Da Vinci." This film is a sprint from start to finish, taking place in under 24 hours and its premise is very simple: 15 minutes in you learn that a legendary group of scientists from the 17th century who were persecuted by the church have risen again and threatened to kill four cardinals every hour starting at 7 p.m. and follow that up at midnight by exploding the Vatican with anti-matter - - unless Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) and an Italian anti-matter scientist (Ayelet Zurer) can stop them by decoding a set of ancient clues planted throughout Rome. The suspense comes much easier because they have to solve the clues on time or people die. "Da Vinci" was much less straightforward. This moves quick and is consequently more entertaining. It also doesn't hurt that the backdrop for the story is the stunningly beautiful Rome: it's more dazzling to watch.

As for the problems being the same, Tom Hanks is yet again wasted talent. He has the Robert Langdon look and the reputation to bring in profits, but his character just has to sound like he knows what he's talking about and spit out mythology and history quick enough so that we can get on to the next scene. Of course Hanks does this well, but anyone could. These films just have no room to develop character or elicit any emotion from the audience. At least this time, Goldsman and acclaimed director Ron Howard don't even pretend like they can create catharsis and focus on making this film as fast-paced and thrilling as possible. They succeed here better than in "Da Vinci" and smart artists don't make the same mistakes twice.

Viewers that read the books, saw "Da Vinci" and still didn't like "Angels & Demons" have no one to blame but themselves for giving in and buying tickets to see something proved not to translate well into film despite being in the hands of a master like Howard. Anyone who walks in and expects to at least be entertained by a mystery for 2 hours with no expectation of being as good of the book will find they get exactly what they paid for and maybe even find it was better than "Da Vinci."

3/5 Stars

"Angels & Demons" (2009)

Directed by: Ron Howard

Written by: David Koepp, Akiva Goldsman, Dan Brown (novel)

Starring: Tom Hanks, Ayelet Zurer, Ewan McGregor

Weekend Recap: New Moon, New Record

2009-11-24T00:42:00.002-06:00

Whoa. I knew you people liked vampires, but you really like vampires. If you haven’t heard by now, The Twilight Saga: New Moon now ranks third in all-time opening weekends with a whopping $140 million take. It also ranks No. 1 in single day ticket sales with the $72.7 million it made on Friday alone.

It’s a new milestone for bad movies trying to kill at the box office. “New Moon” is now the most successful movie based on a book ever. Depending on how the total gross shakes out, “New Moon” could eclipse (unfortunate pun) every Harry Potter film, all of which were better than this movie, probably. Thanks to your unfailing support of this book series and craving to see those stories come to life on the big screen no matter the cost or quality, producers everywhere are going to try and give us more stuff like the “Twilight” series.

So you had your itch scratched to see Bella, Edward and Jacob’s next adventure in abstinent romance, but is that worth the message of “who cares about quality, give us familiarity” being broadcast in dollar signs to the doorstep of every producer in Hollywood?

I can’t say I don’t love it when books that I’m a fan of make it to the big screen. There’s an undeniable allure there, but I can’t say I’d go opening weekend no matter what if the movie got a scathing review.

There’s already massive oppression of adapted material over original material in the movies. There was a report recently published across most film sites pointing out how few films that won Best Picture were original works. The success of “New Moon” (while not part of the Oscar conversation, obviously) is more ammunition for producers to say no to aspiring writers with original ideas. In other words, for every District 13 there’s a “New Moon” reminding producers that it’s a far better investment to make a movie from something that already has a fan base/following.

So yes, if you saw “New Moon,” particularly if you’re not a big fan but you went anyway, you should feel a bit guilty after reading this post. As exciting as new records are, they shake the industry. I’m sure this week alone studios will secure the rights to 50 different vampire or romance or tweenage-centeric books and more than ever those projects will be put into production whereas previously there was skepticism.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon - $140.7 M (weekend) … $140.7 M (gross)
The Blind Side - $34.1 M … $34.1 M
2012 - $26.4 M … $108.1 M
Planet 51 - $12.28 M … $12.28 M
A Christmas Carol - $12.27 M … $79.8 M
Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire - $10.9 M … $21.3 M
The Men Who Stare at Goats - $2.8 M … $27.7 M
Couples Retreat - $1.9 M … $105 M
The Fourth Kind - $1.7 M … $23.3 M
This Is It - $1.6 M … $70.2 M

Appropriately, inspirational true sports story The Blind Side blindsided most prognosticators to be the biggest surprise. I had pegged it as a possible dark horse but nevertheless predicted it to finish only fourth, so I can’t give myself too much credit.

For a sports film, that’s an impressive pull and you can give all the credit to Miss Sandra Bullock. Make no mistake, the difference between $20 and 35 million is definitely Bullock and her undeniable appeal to women filmgoers.

There’s no obvious flop this week, but 2012 dropping off as much as it did in its second week says something about the film’s long-term staying power. It might not make the Top 5 next weekend.

A Christmas Carol also went down more than expected. I figured the closer it got to Christmas, the better off this film would be, but it’s not close enough to Christmas yet. Perhaps the lesser drop off will occur next weekend, but almost a month into its run, that might be tough.

Out of the spotlight, Precious continued to climb upward taking in nearly twice as much as last weekend in an additional 455 theaters, but not enough to hang with the big releases. Also continuing to improve is An Education, the English indie ‘60s period romantic drama partly written by Nick Hornby (About a Boy, High Fidelity)

Check back for my weekend preview on Wednesday thanks to the holiday. I’ll still be predicting the 3-day weekend totals, but I’d have an unfair advantage by looking at the Wednesday and Thursday numbers to tell what would happen over the weekend.

Archive Review: Amores Perros (2000) - 4.5/5 Stars

2009-11-22T08:41:00.003-06:00

"Amores Perros" is a three-vignette film that's not so much concerned about creating a harmonic epiphany among its three plot lines, but rather it aims for compelling stories with a brutally honest portrayal of life, love, sin and redemption. Getting a unified message out of the film is about as difficult as translating its title.

Literally translated the title doesn't make much sense, but "amores" translates to loved ones or while "perros" literally means dogs but is also an obvious pejorative for lowly people such as criminals. The title can also be broken into "Amor es Perros" which means "Love's a Bitch." All of these are fitting for the film and their multitude is appropriate considering the open- ended nature of the truths the film preaches.

Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and writer Guillermo Arriaga give us three stories from Mexico City that are biblical in nature, each named for the two focal characters of the given story. All the stories deal with violence in some way, crime, love and lastly, each has a vital connection to dogs. Each story is as complicated as human beings ought to be portrayed in film. The characters are people of great love and passion, but with great capacity for error and sin. The dogs in their lives serve as instigators of conflict, distractions, sources of comfort and more, taking the emotion of these difficult stories to the next level.

"Octavio y Susana" is about Susana, a young married woman with a baby who lives with her abusive criminal husband, Ramiro, and her brother-in-law Octavio (Gael Garcia Bernal), who keeps asking her to run away with him. Octavio trains the family dog, Cofi, to fight and wins money that he uses to support her and convince her to leave Ramiro.

"Valeria y Daniel" is about a supermodel, Valeria, who is having an affair with Daniel, a businessman married with children. Daniel buys them an apartment announcing he's leaving his wife when a horrible car accident caused by the characters of the first story puts Valeria in a wheelchair. Both the incident and the disappearance of their dog, Ritchie, under the floorboards of the apartment tears at their relationship.

"El Chivo y Maru" is given to us in bits and pieces throughout the first two but eventually gets its own focus at the end. El Chivo (Emilio Echevarria) is the film's most complicated character. Seen in the beginning as a homeless man with a half dozen dogs who also doubles as an assassin, we learn that he left his wife and daughter to be a guerrilla fighter and landed in prison for 20 years, at which point he wanted his daughter to believe he was dead. After he was let out, the man who captured him gave him a place to stay and employed him as an assassin. During the story he tries to carry out a job while gathering the courage to see his daughter again.

The summaries might be long, but grasping the compelling circumstances, complication and depth of each story is essential to understanding what "Amores Perros" is trying to do. The stories are meant to show us the many facets of life and human nature. The film is not trying to find that one common denominator, but the several. We're supposed to experience internally somehow that connection that makes all of the film's difficult stories clear, not be lectured on it by the filmmakers.

"Amores Perros" is not a film for people looking for cathartic satisfaction from movies. There is no moment of feeling "at one" with the film or that pleasant feeling when you feel all the loose ends are tied up. It's also one that animal-lovers should be careful with. There's a lot of suggested animal violence -- dogs that appear to be bloody and or dying. It's a tragic and beautiful (in the literary sense) comparison to the brutality of human nature in the film, but it's not one that's easy to handle.

Most people, however, will appreciate the great storytelling and intensely interesting characters and events in this 2.5-hour film.

4.5/5 Stars

"Amores Perros" (2000)

Directed by: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Written by: Guillermo Arriaga

Starring: Gael Garcia Bernal, Emilio Echevarria, Goya Toledo

Archive Review: Food, Inc. (2008) - 4/5 Stars

2009-11-21T01:26:00.002-06:00

Robert Kenner's documentary "Food, Inc." sounds like something you've heard of before. When Eric Schlosser's book "Fast Food Nation" first woke America up to the horrific way that fast food meat is processed and Morgan Spurlock's documentary "Super Size Me" exposed the deadly health concerns of too much fast food, most Americans began to associate fast food with unhealthy food. The organic food movement began to take off and most well- educated Americans began to take what's in their food more seriously. But it hasn't been enough -- "Food, Inc." breaks down why in this highly educational investigative film.

The documentary highlights the problem on a corporate scale. Although we appear to have a wealth of options at the supermarket, just because we're not buying from the big companies or going to the fast food restaurants as much doesn't mean we're not buying from the same process. The food industry has changed so much over the last 50 years because of the big companies that the way cattle, chicken and pigs are raised have completely changed. The battle for healthier and safer food goes beyond choosing fast food.

Kenner visits chicken farmers who are basically controlled by the big industry names. Not moving toward more engineering and efficiency is cause for loss of contract. These farmers are constantly in debt to meet these standards imposed by the major brands and thus have to meet them in order to work out of debt. He talks to a soybean cleaner being run out of business by Monsanto, the company that engineered a pesticide-resistant soybean and won the right to enforce that patent so that no farmer could save an unused engineered bean.

The strength of the food lobby and the business people making the policy decisions in government is incredible. Kenner shows us how protected they are, reminding us of when Oprah was sued for saying she wouldn't eat another burger on her show and had to fight forever before winning the case. The disconnect between the decision-makers and the farmers is vast.

"Food, Inc." also tries to inform us as much as possible for ways to instigate change, rather than let us be completely overwhelmed by the apparent lack of control both the public and farmers have over food production. There are people out there fighting (such as the mother- turned-advocate of a boy who died of e.coli infection) and there's proof that consumer choice can drive even the giants like Wal-Mart to do things like only provide milk from cows without growth hormone.

It also doesn't lean on the many possible gross-out factors. If you've been eating processed meat all your life, you won't come out of this film saying "I'm going to be a vegetarian," but you'll be wiser when it comes to your food purchases and who you support (namely organic and local brands) when you are at the grocery store.

Food production has changed so much that it feels like "Food, Inc." is opening up a huge can of worms in terms of just how much is wrong with the process, but the awareness that it will create in each of its viewers is enough to justify the documentary's broad scope.

4/5 Stars

"Food, Inc." (2008)

Directed by: Robert Kenner

Weekend Preview (11.20.09)

2009-11-20T09:47:00.003-06:00

This is one of those weekends where you avoid movie times after 5 and before 9 pm. Unless you are an adolescent girl or you like being around crowds of them (if the latter applies to you, I hope to God you’re an adolescent boy), pick your showtimes wisely.

The first blockbuster of the season, The Twilight Saga: New Moon, hit theaters at midnight. The film adaptation of the second book in Stephenie Meyer’s series of vampire romance novels had record-breaking pre-sales and is surely poised to outdo its predecessor, a film that made about $70 million in its opening weekend.

So I reiterate: vampire romance. That’s all you need to hear to know what the crowds will be like in theaters all over the country.

For those of you non-fans wondering if it will be worth swimming through seas of Twi-hards to learn if New Moon will be better than the last film that you took a chance on, don’t count on it. Early reviews have said this is fan-fare only and that the believability doesn’t get any better from Twilight. With Chris Weitz at the helm I thought this would at least be more entertaining, but it looks to be another cash-earning clunker for the series.

There’s not much else to get excited about this weekend. Sony tries to take the family audience from A Christmas Carol with its alien invasion role-reversal comedy Planet 51, the studio’s first major attempt at computer animation feature films which will likely fall short.

The other contender is inspirational football drama The Blind Side based on the true story of Baltimore Ravens rookie tackle Michael Oher. It’s the only film drawing positive early reviews (60% on Rotten Tomatoes), yet one I flagged in my preview because of my dislike for Sandra Bullock and tired sports movies. As a sports fan, however, I’m impressed that they used the real college coaches that recruited Oher in the movie. Other than that, not interested.

My Endorsement: By now, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire has probably reached a theater near you. With no must-sees coming out (unless you’re a Twilight fan), it might finally be time to see that first difficult but award-worthy drama of the season.

Red Flag: Because of the poor early reviews, The Twilight Saga: New Moon becomes my film to be wary of (once again, not including the books’ fans). This is one of those movies that fans are going to try and drag their non-fan friends to because they have to see it, and you might be that non-fan friend, so I’m arming you with things to say when you’re being roped.

Box Office Prediction: There’s an old saying in the world of box-office predictions and by old I mean circa 2008: don’t bet against Edward and Bella. The Twilight Saga: New Moon will be the second poorly reviewed movie in a row to dominate the box office and it will do so with ease. With last year’s film making $70 M, I predict at least that much if not more. This film will not take a step back, that’s for sure. For all the people that won’t be fooled twice, the Twi-hard army has gained twice as many new followers.

None of the other movies have enough to compete with last week’s champion, 2012, so expect another good weekend for the disaster flick at about $25-30 million. No. 3 will belong to A Christmas Carol. At this point, the closer it gets to Christmas, the stronger the legs will get for the animated film. It only dropped 25 percent in its second weekend, which is very little. Look for $15-20 million there.

Next should be new release The Blind Side. With decent reviews, real-world sports ties and Sandra Bullock, $15 M should be possible at the least. If I had to pick a dark horse to come up and surprise, this could be it, but it seems doubtful that it could upset “Carol.”

Finally, as mediocre as Planet 51 might be, the positioning is ideal with the weekend before Thanksgiving and kids have school off as early as Monday in some cases. Even if Precious expands fairly wide, it doesn’t seem likely to outdo it. I’m going to downplay this one, however, and predict it for $8-10 M. With “Carol” as competition and the fact that space-based animation films don’t do all that well unless they’re named WALL*E (take last month's Astro Boy for instance and previous flops Fly Me to the Moon and Space Chimps.)

Twilight Saga: New Moon
2012
A Christmas Carol
The Blind Side
Planet 51

Archive Review: Twilight (2008) - 2/5 Stars

2009-11-19T21:53:00.005-06:00

I come from the group that has never read the Stephenie Meyer books and knew little about them other than the general idea of love and vampires and such. I had put off watching "Twilight" based on reviews, what I heard and my gender, but finally -- nearly a year later -- gave in to my curiosity over what the craze is all about.

Now, I understand it. I don't like it, but I understand it. "Twilight" and the book it's based on is romance -- melodramatic dialogue-filled romance about dangerous/forbidden love, something that's been a major literary force for centuries. Combine that with human infatuation with vampires and there's perfect reason for "Twilight" to be a success.

That said, the storytelling of "Twilight" is not all that good, speaking about the film at least (still haven't read the book). Bella (Kristen Stewart), moves from Arizona to the Pacific Northwest to live with her dad. At her new school, she develops a quick crush on the mysterious Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a pasty-faced TD&H beaux from a family that is equally strange and equally as covered in distracting pale make-up. Bella, however, is a little odd herself. For reasons we never totally understand, she's drawn to him and willing to trust him a bit quickly as she discovers he's not exactly human. Edward, however, is much the same. The on-screen chemistry of Stewart and Pattinson gets an A, but the chemistry of their characters in the story gets an F for fake.

Once things get rolling and we get over the fact that we don't fully understand why they're suddenly in love with each other, "Twilight" becomes more interesting. Until then, however, it's all sorts of awful. Never mind the low-budget visual effects and shoddy stunt work that look like something I've seen on the WB -- that's a whole other issue.

The problem is there's no source of antagonism in the story for the first hour and change. Edward keeps telling Bella she should stay away from him and be scared of him and Bella wants to know why. Then she figures it out and he tries to scare her off some more. The conflict is inner tension entirely. People's thoughts only make for good conflict in books -- it doesn't translate onto the screen the same way. Melissa Rosenberg, who wrote a few episodes of hit teen show "The O.C." and the dance flick "Step Up," doesn't seem to have generated any creative ideas to make this story work more visually. I can't speak for her adaption of the source material, but I can rightfully say the movie is not inspiring or captivating until an external force (a few bad vampires) enter the picture.

So "Twilight" has to sell hard on romance, which is what it's all about anyway. This is the specialty of director Catherine Hardwicke, who directed the intriguing teen drama "Thirteen." The intimate scenes between Edward and Bella, which are supposed to have a tentative, awkward feeling to them given the nature of their relationship, is really felt in her work. She's definitely keen on the whole connection between vampires and sensuality. Stewart and Pattinson are both great selections for the film. Both weren't just lucky casting choices -- they have definite careers ahead of them.

What the movie needed to actually be entertaining to a bigger audience is a director with a better sense of action and suspense. Edward climbs a fair amount of trees with Bella on his back and it's more reminiscent of Brendan Frasier in "George of the Jungle" than anything released in today's visual effects era.

"Twilight" ultimately takes too much time establishing itself and the rules of its world, not showing them to us quickly in creative visual ways that give us a sense of the fantasy we think we ought to be enjoying. It's like the "Mad Max" films with Mel Gibson: the first film ends just as it gets interesting and the second film is the one most fondly remembered. You only get a sense by the end of the film what the "Twilight" world is all about. I imagine "New Moon," the second installment, will be somewhat better by this same concept (and also with a fantasy-grounded director in Chris Weitz). Problem is, "Twilight" didn't convince me any future films will be better enough.

2/5 Stars

"Twilight" (2008)

Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke

Written by: Melissa Rosenberg, Stephenie Meyer (book)

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson

The 10 Reasons We Love Vampires

2009-11-19T12:14:00.004-06:00

A little more than a month ago I posted a musing on how zombies have managed to become their own genre in film. Now it’s time to focus on the monster genre that has reigned supreme for centuries: vampires.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon comes out tomorrow or in most people’s case, at midnight tonight. But Stephenie Meyer’s books and their cinematic counterparts are merely the crowning achievement of the vampire in today’s day and age.

The fact that vampires have been around since before recorded history is impressive. In fact, it’s probably proof that vampires really exist, but that’s a topic for another day. Vampire lore and mythos, however, have undeniably remained immortal in that time, reaching a new zenith in our time with Twilight and HBO drama True Blood.

The appeal of the vampire to the human race and our culture is perhaps stronger than any other single thing of myth-based origin. Nothing has withstood the test of time in like the vampire – its appeal both cross-cultural and cross-generational.

There is a reason for this. In fact, I’ve come up with ten good reasons why we love vampires (and why we’ve loved them for so long.) No particular order, but they do tend to be more important later down the list

1. Fear Factor

The first and most obvious reason why vampires are popular is because they can be scary. They can transform from being human-like to bats or ridiculous-looking creatures (think 2004’s Van Helsing). We like being freaked out a bit and fangs, blood and bats will often satisfy that desire.

2. A Long History

I encourage you to look up vampire on Wikipedia for a wealth of vampire history, but because stories of vampires and in the more basic form of vampirism have existed as far back as what we have recorded of history itself, this only strengthens the appeal. The genre is so rich with depth and has its own historical context as deep as anything else in history. Vampires are all the more intriguing because of this extensive history and because they’ve maintained popularity all the way to the present day.

3. Early Branding

How early were you introduced to vampires? The Count on Sesame Street? Count Chocula Cereal? Plastic fang teeth? If you were on Family Feud and asked “name on creature associated with Halloween,” “vampire” would be the number one answer. We know what they are from a very young age, which later in life manifests itself as nostalgia, which is a very powerful agent when it comes to enjoying a story and also getting you to pay money for it.

4. Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Nosferatu

We can thank Stoker’s classic novel for the modern incarnation of the vampire as well as the German silent film Nosferatu for the first inclusion of “Dracula” in film. Naturally, vampires and their characteristics have evolved over some time and we have these to thank for the earliest modern depictions.

5. Immortality

We as humans are obsessed with the notion of our own mortality. It is the only thing we can never explain which has made the allure of immortality in fiction one of the most enduring themes. The Fountain of Youth has been a myth as long as vampires have and it continues to pop up in all art forms. Vampires possess immortality, so immediately that makes them interesting. We wonder what it’s like, what its downsides might be and ultimately if it’s worth it.

6. Association with Wealth

Think about this one. Have there been any stories about poor or working-class vampires? Even Edward Cullen of Twilight comes from a wealthy family. Part of this idea traces back to social critique in literature, but vampires have held power in more ways than just agelessness. The allure of power merely becomes another reason we’re intrigued by vampires. They have so much that we do not despite being demonic creatures in a sense.

7. Human Appearance

Vampires are more powerful than humans. They’re dangerous but also susceptible to things humans are not. Most importantly, however, they’re human in appearance and they can be either gender. Vampires are often times converted humans as well. It would be one thing if they were all bat-like creatures with wings and a distorted face, but they can live amongst us. Not only does that make them complex, but it also makes them more appealing to us and believable. The fact that they can be either sex too makes them appealing to a wider audience. We automatically ascribe certain characteristics and make certain assumptions when we see a human form and face. Vampire genre writers get to use that to their advantage and for vampire romance writers, it’s the very foundation of their success.

8. Sex Appeal

Ever wonder why the vampire genre has so easily blended with romance? Vampires are damn sexy. Just the notion of vampires sinking fangs into the necks of humans is sexual in itself. The neck is a major erogenous zone and whether we care to admit it or not, the sensations of pleasure and pain are interminably linked at the subconscious level at the least. There’s something so horrifying and satisfying at watching or reading about that one act. Make a vampire movie and put sexy-looking actors in it and it’s hard to ignore the appeal.

9. Forbidden Romance

Then there’s also the timeless theme of forbidden romance, which Twilight drains (pun intended) all it can from the genre. Vampires drink human blood, so they’re a threat to us, but at the same time, they look and act like us, making it feasible for the two to become romantically involved. Throw on top of that the idea that vampires live forever while humans die and vampire/human romance is ripe with great romantic drama. Will the human insist to be bitten and live forever or will the vampire refuse because immortality is far from desirable? Great thematic questions.

10. A Clear Set of Rules

The storytelling power of the vampire can be attributed to this chief reason: a clear set of rules that apply to the vampire. The rules we apply to our make-believe are what make it so believable. When we know exactly what an imaginary creature or character is or isn’t capable of, we can make plot predictions, formulate our own solutions on how to “defeat the creature” and we become invested in the fictional story.

Vampires are the single greatest example of a fictional creature adhering to rules. They have super-human ability: great strength, the ability to live forever and sometimes more, which makes them more interesting than humans. They also have a weakness that makes them fallible: fear of (or sometimes death because of) sunlight, hate of garlic, fear of the cross, can be killed with a silver stake to the heart, etc. There also are other characteristics like turning into bats, feeding only off blood, sleeping in coffins and more. There’s a clear definition for vampire and we all know what it is and these attributes make them interesting to us.

As you’ve noticed in your many vampire books and movies, different writers play off these rules in different ways, making so many unique possibilities for the vampire world. The opportunity for novelty with a sense of familiarity is abundant and that’s why the genre continues to evolve.

Miley Cyrus doesn't believe in "Twilight"

2009-11-18T16:03:00.006-06:00

I wouldn't normally ever blog about Miley Cyrus, but this caught my attention. Miss Tween Idol, the Ambassador of Kiddie Cool, Hannah frickin' Montana herself, does not like "Twilight." In case you don't get what that means, basically the princess of pop culture just turned around and flicked off the king and queen.

According to Cinematical, Cyrus, currently on her tweenage domination tour, was asked in a backstage interview the simple question: "Team Edward or Team Jacob?" Her response was as follows:

"I've never seen [Twilight], nor will I. I don't believe in it. I don't like vampires, I don't like the wolf that pops out of the screen when I'm watching TV at night, I don't want anything to do with it."

Shit. So not only can Miley Cyrus not make up her mind between Rob Pattinson and Taylor Lautner, she is actually denying the series' existence, like it's Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. And to top it all off, she hates vampires. Hate.

So when Miley's singing about her "Party in the USA," she's inviting everybody in the country except the citizens of Forks, Oregon; When she says she has "the best of both worlds," it's no longer possible that one of the worlds she's referring to is the supernatural plane; As for all the children who wore vampire costumes while trick-or-treating at the Cyrus estate hoping to score a huge candy bar, I feel terrible for you.

This is a PR nightmare. You just can't have Miley Cyrus saying "Twlight" is dumb or pointless let alone that it doesn't even exist. This is like if Oprah were to go on air and say, "you know what, I hate TV hospital dramas. In fact, I don't believe that TV hospital dramas even exist." Suddenly, middle-aged women would be devastated. They'd have to cancel their scheduled DVR recordings of Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice. ABC would go down in flames. Similarly, all of Miley's fans are going to wonder if they should go see The Twilight Saga: New Moon at 7:30 on Friday night with their eight other friends like they'd been talking about in Home Ec since last weekend. Summit Entertainment is probably flipping out right now. Imagine if they were owned by Disney? You can't afford to not have the endorsement of your target audience's other favorite pop culture obsession.

I mean, what are 9 to 15-year-old girls supposed to believe now? That age group needs one cohesive message for everything, like "wait until you're married and in love to have sex," "marijuana leads to harder drugs" and "vampires are cool." Mixed messages incite angst and rebellious attitudes. This is why things like "don't have sex, but if you do use protection" and "vampires are cool but I don't believe in Twilight" are ineffective.

Then of course there's one other possibility: Miley Cyrus is a werewolf. That would explain her hate of vampires, her obvious downplay and poor use of language when mentioning the (ordinary) wolf popping out of the TV screen as well as why she stays inside and watches television at night instead of, say, taking walks through the forest.

What are the implications of this, you ask? When this generation dominates the workforce, we are clearly headed for an all-out war between werewolves and vampires. That, or a more immediate pop-culture message board/Twitter/Facebook cyber war where teenagers flame each other over the web with disturbing abbreviations and nicknames and incorrect grammar. Either way, bad news.

Archive Review: The Philadelphia Story (1940) - 4/5 Stars

2009-11-18T12:11:00.004-06:00

Three of the brightest stars in the golden years of cinema converge in "The Philadelphia Story," a romantic comedy of great wit and sophistication. Although it would be unfair to say that the talent makes this film, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn and James Stewart are far and away its best feature.

"Philadelphia Story"" was adapted from the stage production of the same name by Philip Barry. The play was written with the intention of reviving Hepburn's stage career. It was brought to the screen with the help of Hepburn's boyfriend Howard Hughes who purchased the rights for her as a gift.

Full of fast-talking highbrow humor, the material is unquestionably aimed at an upper-class audience, but not only in terms of taste, but also thematically. Created during the latter half of the Great Depression, "Philadelphia Story" makes the statement that class is insignificant, that it's a non-existent social framework that purports itself as an indication of character. We obsess over class, something that couldn't have been more true during the depression, and it's a theme all the more impressive considering the film's popularity and story of celebrity gossip and intrigue.

Hepburn stars as rich socialite Tracy Lord, who is about to marry working-class hero George Kittredge (John Howard), only her wealthy ex-husband, the wealthy and fantastically-named C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant) plans on spoiling the big day by sneaking in a tabloid writer (Stewart) and photographer (Ruth Hussey). The jig is up pretty quickly, but not without making things dreadfully difficult on Tracy.

Stewart might have won the Oscar, but this is Hepburn's film. I'd agree with what Stewart once said: that the statuette was "deferred payment" for losing out in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," an undeniably superior role. Hepburn should have seen the glory for this film for her magnetizing and moving performance. Whether its her distinct and powerful voice or her variety of facial expressions, she's got us tied on a string and she just plays with us throughout the ups and downs of her character. Tracy is not unlike Hepburn herself as a major public figure that feels worshipped more than truly loved or appreciated.

Stewart and Grant, however, deserve their due. Stewart pilots the best scene of the film when he pays a drunken visit to C.K.'s place late at night. Grant works his charms in a more subdued way as C.K. is more the subtle mastermind than the flashy performer of his schemes. Also worthy of mention is the dry and snide humor of Hussey's character. She adds a really nice touch to the cast and keeps it balanced.

Although a bit sharper, more sophisticated and dialogue-heavy than most romantic comedies, "Philadelphia Story" is still a classic and it makes its class argument through those weaknesses in ways, making it a terrific film.

4/5 Stars

"The Philadelphia Story" (1940)

Directed by: George Kucor

Written by: Donald Ogden Stewart (screenplay), Philip Barry (play), Waldo Salt (uncredited)

Starring: Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant, James Stewart

New on DVD and Blu-ray: Bruno (2009) - 3.5/5 Stars

2009-11-17T21:05:00.003-06:00

There is nothing one can do to prepare for the homo-erotic ridiculousness of "Bruno." The boundaries of R-rated comedy have been pushed and pushed over the last ten years and "Bruno" is the point on the scale in which we realize just how far we've gone. The shock value of deeply committed character actor Sacha Baren Cohen's newest project makes his last film, "Borat," seem PG-13. Good for some of the most outrageous laughs, "Bruno" will literally force you to pry your fingers from your face in order to watch the film. As for Cohen's biting satire -- "Borat" remains the sharper and more dynamic.

One of Cohen's three characters along with Borat from his old HBO series "Da Ali G Show," Bruno is a gay Austrian fashion reporter who loves the limelight and, well, being a homosexual. Much like "Borat," Bruno journeys to America, this time with the dream of becoming famous after his show is cancelled. That takes him to Los Angeles, where, accompanied by his assistant Lutz, (Gustaff Hammarsten) who secretly lusts after Bruno, he attempts to do whatever he can to become the most famous gay movie star in the world.

To achieve his goal, Bruno cooks up a series of absurd ideas, including interviewing celebrities, creating his own TV pilot, trying to make a sex tape, trying to solve peace in the middle east (the philanthropic route) and even adopting an African baby who he fittingly names O.J. "Bruno" essentially becomes one attempt to dupe the public or celebrities or what have you after another. It is when Bruno arrives at the conclusion that he must be straight to be famous that the film makes it attempt to broadcast the homophobia in America.

As someone with tremendous respect for the way "Borat" really made a satirical statement with every scene (in addition to having a more focused plot), "Bruno" didn't live up to the intelligence factor I expected. The film is a bit too helter-skelter: it doesn't commit to any message or series of messages like "Borat" did. There's a dash of exploiting our celebrity- obsessed culture, a hint of trying to make Americans ashamed of what they'll do -- specifically to their bodies -- for fame and only in the second half when Bruno starts asking interviewees how he can become straight does the homophobia factor play in. "Bruno" just gets too caught up in making our jaws drop instead of picking and choosing those spots and giving us something to think about.

There's a slight sense that Cohen's act has tired out, but the character seems like it has a lot new to offer, and that we should be getting something more thought-provoking and less provocative. Bruno is just not as lovable -- he lacks a flaw like Borat's ignorance/naivety -- and the film tries to make up for it by piling on crude and unabashed humor. If a bit more time was taken to establish his character and why becoming famous is so important to him, "Bruno" would easily measure up to Borat (and not imply genital size).

"Bruno" is another hysterical romp from Cohen, especially for those who particularly love his candid camera/Punk'd type scenes getting real reactions from real people. The humor is very in-your-face and pretty much nails down all the ridiculous things that garner people fame in this sometimes very sad country of ours. At the same time, if Cohen and his writers could have channeled the discomfort they knew their film would create into an insightful experience for the audience, "Bruno" would be another instant classic. Instead, it's a raunchy, gut-busting and "uber-gay" comedy stunt.

3.5/5 Stars

"Bruno" (2009)

Directed by: Larry Charles

Written by: Sacha Baren Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Mazer, Jeff Schaffer, Peter Baynam

Starring: Sacha Baren Cohen

New on DVD and Blu-ray: Star Trek (2009) - 4.5/5 Stars

2009-11-17T10:41:00.004-06:00

I'm scoring this DVD today, that's how good this was.

In a decade of reboots comes perhaps the most daring and challenging: the Star Trek franchise. With 40 years of history including a total of around 15 movies and/or TV spin- offs, a database of hardcore fans and a recent history of trailing off into oblivion, Star Trek has been on life support for about the last quarter of that time. Then came J.J. Abrams, a producer/director whose respect and credibility in the business had been entirely created in that 10-year span -- and suddenly Star Trek is getting the makeover that Trekkies might have feared, but that it definitely deserved. The new "Star Trek" is a true 21st-Century Star Trek (how fitting): explosive, exciting, character-driven and a miraculous spectacle to behold. It is surely 2009s first critical and box office success.

"Star Trek" follows the great action reboots before it in returning Star Trek to its origins: how the U.S.S Enterprise, the golden ship of Starfleet, protectors of the universe , came into being and how its characters forged their relationship on board its deck. Although there is a time travel element to the plot that declares this is an alternate reality and not the true story (to cleanse the creators of any mythos sins they elected to commit), it's a darn fine story that really establishes its characters and shows a maturing process.

The catch is that in the future -- a long time after the U.S.S. Enterprise formed -- a Romulan aboard a mining ship named Nero (Eric Bana) watches as his home planet is destroyed by a supernova, an event that arguably could have been stopped ahead of time. The person he blames is Spock -- yes, the one we've come to know played by Leonard Nimoy. When Nero's ship is sent back in time by a black hole technology to the time when Star Trek heroes Spock and James T. Kirk are born, he decides to take his revenge by plotting the destruction of planet Vulcan and making Spock watch his home get destroyed.

In the meantime, we witness the growth of Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) and learn how they join Starfleet, as well as the rest of the crew. The evil plot against Vulcan is what brings them aboard the Enterprise for the first time and under these altered reality circumstances, their friendship becomes quite rocky as they try and stop Nero.

"Star Trek" is an epic story of character development. Vulcans are notorious for being emotionless, but Spock is tested as a half-human whose planet is under attack. Kirk is a farm boy with all the leadership skills but too much of an ego who must learn what it takes to really become a leader.

Abrams and writers Orci ("Transformers") and Kurtzman (who writes with Orci on Abrams' newest TV show "Fringe") decide to focus their attention on this and ways to cook up exciting visual sequences, spending less time on what made Star Trek a cultural force back in the '60s: the diversity, the belief in peaceful coexistence and the incurable optimism. "Star Trek" isn't a dark or pessimistic re-imagining at all, but it's distinctly more modern and with that comes intensity and more introspection. It's a different optimism, one that's much more ... informed.

The mostly unknown cast is excellent. Abrams always seems to get great small-budget actors in his projects, "LOST" being a fine example, or more significantly that he made Jennifer Garner's career by casting her in "Alias." Quinto (from NBC's "Heroes") is fantastic as a Spock wrestling between emotion and reason and Pine is a really terrific find. Rarely do you find someone with leading man looks and presence who fits himself perfectly into a role as esteemed as Cpt. Kirk. He earns your respect very quickly, even though he's a wise guy. Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Simon Pegg ("Shaun of the Dead," "Hott Fuzz") as Scotty are excellent choices as well. Even John Cho breaks the stoner mold that "Harold and Kumar" created as Sulu.

This is a visually striking film. If nothing else, the action will blow away anyone from the biggest Trekkie to the person who thinks Klingons actually cling onto things. There is no lack of imagination on Abrams' part, from the space jump suits to the 2009-style phasers and shuttles. In terms of staying true to the source, Abrams gets a passing grade. The best way to go into the film, however, is to be knowledgeable and mildly aware of the Trek lore. People with no idea will be thoroughly entertained, but the more educated yet open-minded you are, the more "Star Trek" will blow your mind. This will be an exciting new series of films for this incredible franchise.

4.5/5 Stars

"Star Trek" (2009)

Directed by: J.J Abrams

Written by: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Eric Bana

Weekend Recap: The world kinda digs its own armageddon

2009-11-16T17:58:00.002-06:00

Isn’t it kind of masochistic for the citizens of the world to spend $225 million on a movie about their own destruction? The amount of money that 2012 made at the domestic and global box office this weekend leads me to believe that we’d all squeal with joy if the world were to actually fall apart.

In fact, I’m convinced that should humanity experience an apocalypse, we’d be so giddy with laughter because despite the moral peril, we’d be entertained. Some would say it was the most excitement they’d had in years.

So note to filmmakers: if you want to make a realistic end-of-the-world disaster movie, you should write that your characters are getting a fun adrenaline rush from all their dodging of debris and narrow escapes from the clutches of doom. That way you can make millions while also being fairly realistic. People will say “now that film, that’s the way it’s really gonna happen.” You can laugh all the way to the bank and be a sadist.

The surprise of the weekend is along the same lines. In 174 theaters, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire made nearly $6 million, averaging $33,000 or so per theater. Considering the difficult subject matters of incestuous rape and domestic abuse among other things, that’s an incredible feat. So not only were people okay with that, but they also wanted it.

Some of you might be thinking “well it got such good reviews,” but early season Oscar contenders don’t do this well at the box office historically (as far as I’m aware).

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. This has been an ongoing trend in film and it’s part of why we love movies: they allow us to experiment with situations or people’s lives that we would never wish to deal with ourselves in a 100 percent risk-free setting. It’s a whole other dimension to the notion of movies as escapism.

2012 - $65.2 M (weekend) … $65.2 M (gross)
A Christmas Carol - $22.3M … $63.2 M
Precious: Based on the Novel Pusy by Sapphire - $5.9 M … $8.7 M
The Men Who Stare at Goats - $5.9 M … $23 M
This Is It - $5.1 M … $67.2 M
The Fourth Kind - $4.6 M … $20.4 M
Couples Retreat - $4.2 M … $102 M
Paranormal Activity - $4 M … $103.7 M
Law Abiding Citizen - $3.8 M … $67.2 M
The Box - $3.2 M … $13.2 M

The Box continued to be the biggest flop falling further and harder down the box office ranks all the way to No. 10. Messing with my “slide ‘em down” theory, This Is It also lost ground to last week’s releases including “Precious” and The Men Who Stare at Goats. I haven’t heard any news about extending the Michael Jackson film another week, but with the holiday films coming out Friday, it could be tough for the movie to get anything but the bottom of the barrel.

Meanwhile, those October films keep going strong. Couples Retreat just won’t die, jumping up in the order to No. 7 in its sixth week.

What deserves the most attention is the steep drop off between “Christmas” and “Precious.” Moviegoers are ready for the Holiday season and they showed it by bandwagon-hopping the first big-budget blockbuster of the month. All the films that managed to stay up in the Top 10 are going to take massive cuts next weekend with the big release schedule including The Road, the next “Twilight” movie and family film Planet 51.

Archive Review: Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) - 2.5/5 Stars

2009-11-16T10:10:00.003-06:00

Like most '90s sequels, "Lethal Weapon 3" proves the third time's a flop. The movie isn't horrible. It's watchable and provides the antics fans of the first two films have come to expect, but it offers no stimulation. It's flat, uninspired and typical. Riggs and Murtaugh aren't pushed in new ways or given any opportunity to grow as characters. Riggs (Gibson) is up to the same wisecrackery and Murtaugh (Glover) is still "too old for this ****."

The plot is pretty standard. Murtaugh is days from retirement (isn't he always days from retirement?) when Riggs sets off a bomb he was trying to diffuse when he should've waited for bomb squad. Gosh, he's so darn reckless that Riggs! You'd think writer Jeffrey Boam ("Lethal Weapon 2," "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade") would stop leaning so hard on blanket personality descriptors of the characters. Anyway, the two get demoted to street duty where as luck would have it, they witness criminals taking something in an armored truck. They end up getting wrapped up in a major LAPD case involving an ex-cop stealing tons of automatic guns and selling them to gangs and such.

The story never captures the full scope of what's going on. There's little sense of urgency and the alternative technique of mystery isn't used either. Murtaugh and Riggs just continue to be in the right place at the right time to catch bad guys in the act leading to pivotal turning points. I failed to feel any sort of emotion while watching the action in this film, I merely assumed something good would happen but not even Richard Donner could deliver on the action front.

Another point to harp on is supporting cast. Boam brought back Joe Pesci's character in a small role where he's selling Murtaugh's house and also trying to get in on the action. Pesci is one of those actors that you either want to focus on or forget about because he's either very good or too much. Obviously in "Lethal Weapon 3" he's the latter. Rene Russo also joins as the martial arts-savvy Internal Affairs sergeant whom Riggs gets the hots for, naturally. Just the mere technique of throwing in a love interest cop for Riggs to get serious about (which he does to not believable effect) is offensive to those who have a sense of what effort a sequel needs to make to be any good.

Apathy would be the best way to describe the way one receives "Lethal Weapon 3." Whereas its predecessor was infinitely more imaginative and impressive as a sequel, the horse needed to complete this trifecta was too similar and just dressed up to look different. Much of it is being stale, much of it is just not being a good script.

2.5/5 Stars

"Lethal Weapon 3" (1992)

Directed by: Richard Donner

Written by: Jeffrey Boam, Robert Mark Kamen, Shane Black (characters)

Starring: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Rene Russo, Joe Pesci

Holiday Movie Preview: 5 films to keep an eye on

2009-11-14T11:35:00.005-06:00

There are plenty of Holiday movies that look good. The trouble is there are too many of them. We’re forced to sort through them; we wait to hear what critics have to say before we announce, “I have to see that!” The action blockbuster types we need little convincing on, but as for all the dramas, it’s a tough business, even for me, to predict the ones that are going to get the Oscar buzz come January.

There were more than a handful, but I’ve picked five films that will get wide releases and compete for your attention and money (and some of them have started already). As tempted as I was to include more artsy films, I’ve stuck mostly to the mainstream “?” movies.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wide on Nov. 25)

The Word: Dry/bizarre humor director Wes Anderson (The Royal Tenenbaums, The Darjeeling Limited) takes his same crew of actors (Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman) and adds George Clooney and Meryl Streep to voice the cast of his first stop-motion animation project, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, based on the Roald Dahl book. We’ve seen better stop-motion before in Tim Burton-produced movies, but Anderson has given “Fox” a distinct look and it’s guaranteed that the humor you’ll get in this family movie will be unlike any you’ve seen before. Moving a dark comedy director into family movie territory seems risky, but this film could pay off, especially being released wide Thanksgiving week. (View trailer)

My View: Early reviews (many critics got a chance to see this film prior to its limited release on Nov. 13) have been positive for Wes Anderson, some calling it his best since Rushmore, so I’m game for seeing this movie amid all the Thanksgiving week clutter – once I see The Road of course. In a strange way I see how Anderson’s sense of humor can work at the family level and the trailer convinced me with the whispery weirdo voice of Schwartzman. Not being close to the source material or nostalgic about the film in general, it was hard to sneak this on to my list over The Princess and the Frog, but when all is said and done it could be just as deserving.

Twilight Saga: New Moon (Nov. 20)

The Word: The vampire craze that swept the nation post-Twilight last year at this time gets another boost. Kristen Stewart and Rob Pattinson might have become the most searched people on the Internet only, that move wasn’t good. Now, the series gets Chris Weitz (The Golden Compass), a guy who has experience doing fantasy and made “Compass” look beautiful to say the least. Could Twilight finally garner critical success to go with all the fan hype? It would be a tremendous step forward for the young Summit Entertainment to get a positive buzz around this film. Those who tried the film and not the books are probably in the “pass” column for this one, but some positive word of mouth would do wonders. (View trailer)

My View: Catherine Hardwicke’s Twilight was cheesy and half-assed, like a bad CW TV show. By virtue of the effort to get Chris Weitz, I respect New Moon that much more. I am still refusing to see this in theaters and probably will even if everyone says it’s so much better because I have no connection to the series, but for those of you who would consider it upon hearing it’s miles better, here’s your notice to pay attention come next Friday for those reviews.

Ninja Assassin (Nov. 25)

The Word: James McTeigue best known for V for Vendetta which based on how many people referenced this movie on Guy Fawkes Day this year over Facebook and stuff leads me to believe it could have cult status, directs the less verbose video game-based action movie Ninja Assassin, a typical revenge story only these guys have knives attached to chains. McTeigue served as assistant director on the last two “Matrix” movies, so that should explain where his action inspiration comes from. In other words, this could end up being the best-looking action movie of the season in terms of style. There are no serious actors here except for Naomie Harris (the crazy woman that gets tall in the “Pirates” sequels) unless you follow the Korean dance scene and have heard of main actor Rain before. (View trailer)

My View: The only real question here is the story. Matthew Sand is a rookie writer, but revenge stories can be some of the easiest. The success of this film rests solely on McTeigue’s shoulders and with that being the case, it could very well deliver. If you don’t love action thrills, then obviously this movie will be of little interest to you, but genre fans might get their best movie in some time with “Assassin.”

Brothers (Dec. 4)

The Word: Tough to argue with a popular cast including Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey McGuire. Brothers is a story oddly similar to Pearl Harbor only this one I’m sure will be better. McGuire is married with kids to Portman and has been missing in Afghanistan. McGuire’s brother (Gyllenhaal) sort of helps out as man of the house and romance flares after Portman comes to terms with probably being a widow. Then guess who comes home? Jim Sheridan (My Left Food and In America) directs the script by David Benioff (The Kite Runner) based on a previous film by Danish director Susanne Bier called Brodre. (View trailer)

My View: The aforementioned “Pearl Harboresque” drama has me skeptical toward this film despite all the talent that went into it. Then again, I love Natalie Portman in way that make me not very objective, which actually means its impressive for me to say I’m on the fence about this one. Part of that hesitance is also because Brothers was not previously screened at any film festivals, which is the best way to build Oscar hype, so naturally this film has none. I’m sure it will be decent, but will it be great? I’ll wait for the critics’ word.

It’s Complicated (Dec. 25)

The Word: Find a more money actress than Meryl Streep right now. She can work drama or romantic comedies like It’s Complicated and generate you millions plus an Oscar. She’s beloved by anyone 40 and older and looked at as a consummate actress by anyone younger. So as much as It’s Complicated looks like 50-something actors awkwardly getting in touch with their younger, wilder side (omigod sex!) you can’t dismiss it. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin co-star, one an old favorite and the other having just revitalized his career with hit show 30 Rock. Everyone’s parents will want to see it, and many might go with them. (View trailer)

My View: Nancy Meyers isn’t exactly A-list but she has written and/or directed some of the most likable mediocre movies in the last twenty years from Father of the Bride to The Holiday. She knows exactly what the older crowd wants and nobody has the cred to argue with her. She doesn’t always spin out a hit, but the kind of movies people say were OK and then they end up re-watching the second they see them on TV a year or so later. It’s easy to imagine It’s Complicated will end up the same way if not fare better because of Streep and Baldwin.

Well, I hope you’re well armed as you sort through the movie section vigorously like most of us who love the Holiday movie season do this time of year. All I can say is go to the movies three or four times these next several weeks and you’ll be satisfied. I’ll try and get you as many reviews as I can. I’ll for sure see many and I’m pretty good about getting to all the Oscar favorites.

Archive Review: Patton (1979) - 4/5 Stars

2009-11-14T00:11:00.004-06:00

"Patton" might not be the greatest war movie ever made, but it's without question cinema's finest character study. It's a portrait of a man painted so vividly that I bet -- at least since 1970 -- that there are far more historians whose research emphasis is on Gen. George S. Patton than any other war hero/major military figure. Hollywood has given us any number of unique and enigmatic characters, but none so compelling and quickly gathering of our sympathies as Patton.

Patton was an American general in World War II, but more specifically he was fighter, a soldier a man who believed in war as part of human nature. He was also a poet and a war history romantic. He was prideful, he was vulgar, he was both loved and despised. The list goes on, because that's how incredibly complex Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North's character is as well as the layers of depth George C. Scott gives him.

Scott refused his much-deserved and won Oscar, but he insisted he didn't belong in an elite category. What he didn't really consider was that sometimes an actor, usually a character actor, comes across a role so perfectly suited to their talents, a part that wouldn't be the same done by any other actor, that greatness happens. Scott found that role. Few actors ever do. He plays Patton with such command yet the more Patton realizes his fallibility, Scott withdraws ever so slightly, bringing the character a tad closer to earth each time, but never losing that essence of pride and self confidence.

"Patton" is a long movie and you spend much of it just craving for Patton to do or say something. From his eternally quotable opening monologue before a backdrop of the American flag onward, we can't see or hear enough of the man. He's utterly fascinating. He speaks American war ideals like they're fundamental truths about the universe. Hippies would be ready to die for their country after listening to that, no matter how many swears he uses. And he never appears crazy. In fact, throughout the film as Patton's commanding officers reprimand him for his behavior including hitting a soldier, we find ourselves wondering "why doesn't anyone else see this man's brilliance?" He's not nice, but he's right. The idea of Patton as a war man and not a politician plays out then throughout the rest of the film.

Honestly, whenever Patton's not on screen and specifically saying something, the film is uninteresting. There's one terrific action moment where Scott, angry at the incompetent British in Morocco, goes outside with his pistol and tries to shoot two German planes down. After that, the war scenes are nothing but random explosions and images without any narrative relevance to the story. In a nearly three hour film, it's fair to consider all the scenes where the best part of the film plays little or no role a bit tedious and pointless.

It's impossible to describe in a review the many depths and levels of Patton's character. There are many elements in the story that evolve from and revolve around the man he was that little can be summarized. The most basic piece of this character to understand is that despite how convincing and successful he was as a military figure, his wily and off-kilter ways were always at odds with that success. Essentially, it reveals the many dimension of Patton and the many dimensions of war that require more than just a "blood 'n guts" attitude.

4/5 Stars

"Patton" (1970)

Directed by: Franklin J. Schaffner

Written by: Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North (screenplay), Ladislas Farago (book), Omar N. Bradley (book)

Starring: George C. Scott

Weekend Preview (11.13.09)

2009-11-13T10:58:00.003-06:00

On Dec. 12 in about three years from now, say – 2012 – Roland Emmerich should release a movie called 2009 about all the crazy shit people did when they thought the world was going to end in 2012 because of this movie … and end it with the world being destroyed.

One of those crazy things would be going to see this movie. Rated No. 1 on my list of movies not to see this fall, I could not be more against 2012. My first beef, for those who did not ready those comments, is with the “From the Director of Independence Day” tag for the film. That tells you just how often Roland Emmerich makes a good disaster movie. The thing is over ten years old! (For extra credit, check out this pic below and see if you can guess what movie the poster tags were taken from.)

Next, is that a movie trailer that shows nothing but CGI-blowing up of the entire world is cool, but just for a trailer. If the trailer is any indication, the movie is bound to be preposterous and devoid of a soul. In other words, I don’t want to see an entire movie of John Cusack and friends dodging certain death as they do in the trailer at least five times.

That brings me to another thing. John Cusack? I love the guy, but if I’m looking for the best odds in surviving an apocalypse, I’m not turning to Lloyd f*cking Dobbler. Give me Keanu Reeves before I trust Cusack to save my ass. If the object of the film was to score the cute chick back, then I’ll pick ‘em the other way around.

Anyway, the more legitimate counterpoint for this movie is that it was created for the purpose of blowing shit up. What’s hidden in that last sentence is that it wasn’t a story first. Characters had to have been secondary. The idea was “wouldn’t it be cool if the Mayan apocalypse were true and the world just fell apart and we could destroy every landmark?” and it was followed by “and we’d just follow a group of survivors.” I can’t say for certain, but I’d put money down on it. Movies more concerned with cool CGI effects than good storytelling don’t deserve my attention for the few thrills they offer.

If you’re up for a mind-numbing two and a half hours of buildings going boom, be my guest, but I got enough of that crap from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen this year. Most of America, however, will vote with their pockets otherwise, especially without any legitimate competition. Pirate Radio is the other wide-ish release and despite being written and directed by Love, Actually creator Richard Curtis, it’s had measly publicity, middle-of-the-road reviews and in general has no draw as a film other than good old rock ‘n roll music.

My Endorsement: If one of the theaters near you happens to be one of the four nationwide that The Fantastic Mr. Fox is opening in this weekend, that’s the only new film worth seeing this weekend. When it comes out in more theaters I’ll give it some more attention, but the Wes Anderson-directed stop-motion film is bound to be the quirkiest and unique family-friendly comedy in ages.

Red Flag: Duh?

Box Office Prediction: It’s easy on weeks like these. Nobody wanted to mess with 2012 and so only Focus Features’ renamed and shoved around Pirate Radio is coming out alongside it. 2012 will easily take the crown and I’m thinking $40 million. Hurts just typing it …

Slide ‘em on down after that. A Christmas Carol should have no problem sticking up there in second place and without taking much of a hit. I expect $20 million or at the least just a few million less.

At No. 3 there’s no reason to believe This Is It would lose any ground to a film below it. For the last two spots, even though they were neck and neck last week, I think word of mouth will keep The Men Who Stare at Goats ahead of The Fourth Kind.

I apologize half-heartedly for not making it out to any new films lately and providing reviews for you all. I’ll try next week to maybe take on “Goats” or something that looks worth the effort. Then again I think that’s part of what makes my blog cool. I’ve got to make decision about movies just like most of you.

In the meantime, if I were you, I’d scroll down and read my Holiday Preview and just get jacked up for the big movies of the season.

Holiday Movie Preview: 10 films worth seeing Pt.2

2009-11-12T10:15:00.004-06:00

Here are the top five movies I recommend this coming Holiday season. If you missed numbers 6 – 10, CLICK HERE.

Keep in mind that Oscar-buzz movies got a bit of an advantage over the action blockbusters in this list.

5. Avatar (Dec. 18)

The Word: James Cameron, the father of technologically progressive filmmaking, returns with his first notable directorial effort since Titanic – and it’s in 3D. That’s right, live action 3D. Apparently production costs have reached the level of an unheard of $500 million dollars, so Fox is playing this one close to the chest. The film is also banking on star Sam Worthington, the Australian actor who Hollywood has unceremoniously anointed a star (he plays the lead, Perseus, in March’s Clash of the Titans) The film is a sci-fi adventure that takes place on the planet Pandora where Earth’s military is at odds with the native population, the Navi. Wheelchair-bound Lt. Sulley gets a chance to enter an Avatar of himself as a Navi to work his way in with the tall blue aliens. (View trailer)

My View: The anticipation of live-action 3D has always and might just be enough for Avatar to become the hit it absolutely needs to be. It’s a tough time to ask moviegoers to pony up the extra cash for 3D, especially when the premise isn’t based on any kind of source material or familiar concept, but Cameron has earned audiences trust when it comes to groundbreaking action movies. The hope is that even with a geeky sort of premise that Avatar will be remembered as a cinematic milestone. I can say, however, that it doesn’t easily land on my list if it’s not in 3D based on the trailer alone.

4. A Single Man (Ltd. on Dec. 11, Wide on Dec. 25)

The Word: If you have yet to hear about A Single Man, you’ll be as shocked as most people were to hear that Tom Ford, the fashion designer famous for making Gucci what it is today, directed and adapted this film about a gay English professor who suddenly loses his partner and struggles to go about business as usual. Star Colin Firth won best actor at the Venice Film Festival which jumpstarted Oscar talk and the buzz is also strong for co-star Julianne Moore. I probably don’t even need to mention that this ‘60s period drama is a surefire Best Costumes contender if not winner already, especially with the help it received from the Mad Men wardrobe department. (View trailer)

My View: The wordless trailer for this film, a late pick-up for The Weinstein Company, is breathtaking. If the ‘60s haven’t been deemed the pop culture retro fashion of the next decade yet thanks to Mad Men and the coincidentally similarly titled A Serious Man from the Coen brothers, they will be after this film makes some noise. If that’s not enough, A Single Man looks to finally bring homosexuality to the mainstream in a way that’s not too awkwardly forced (Brokeback Mountain) or issue-focused (Milk).

3. The Road (Nov. 25)

The Word: After being pushed around for a year and then scheduled to release in October 2009, The Weinstein Company moved The Road one more time to Thanksgiving week and relocating movie musical Nine to December. It looks like it’s finally staying put. Based on the Cormac McCarthy novel (author of No Country for Old Men), The Road stars Viggo Mortensen as a father and his son trying to survive after a fiery apocalypse chars the country. Director John Hillcoat’s film has won praise at film festivals, so The Road should be worth the wait.(View trailer)

My View: Finally. Having read the book a few months back followed by the praise at Toronto and other festivals, I’m really curious to see how this adaption of a very bleak novel pans out. This most recent trailer paints it as a feel-good film, which it really isn't, so don't go expecting that, please. If it constructs itself in powerful little moments between father and son like the book does, it could gain enough attention to land in the expanded ten-film Best Picture category at the Academy Awards. And we sure know the Weinsteins will try.

2. Invictus (Dec. 11)

The Word: For most super-early Oscar scouts, seeing the description “a Clint Eastwood directed biopic about Nelson Mandela starring Morgan Freeman” on the Holiday docket a year ago prompted us all to say “well, good luck to any films trying to compete with that.” If Invictus is anywhere near what critics expect, it could be a runaway Best Picture. The film is about how Mandela worked with a South African rugby team led by Matt Damon in attempt to unite post-Apartheid South Africa. (View trailer)

My View: You can’t challenge a single aspect of this film: Eastwood’s directing, Freeman as Mandela – it’s just not fair. Then again, Warner Bros. and Eastwood are setting their own bar extremely high for Invictus to be amazing (plus they changed the title to a Latin word – that’s badass). With a script from a relatively unknown Anthony Peckham, it will be interesting to see if a film with an unprecedented amount of Oscar hype can live up to the billing. Truthfully, however, we have no reason not to believe it will.

1. Up in the Air (Ltd. on Dec. 4, Wide on Dec. 25)

The Word: Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking, Juno) returns with his third buzz-generating film, which might be his most-rewarded when all is said and done. Up in the Air performed incredibly at Toronto and George Clooney is as hot (popularity-wise) as he’s ever been. Based on a Walter Kim novel, the every middle-aged woman’s fantasy stars as a corporate downsizing expert who travels all over the country and is about to hit 10 million or so frequent flyer miles when a young hot-shot (Anna Kendrick of Twilight) and the perfect frequent-flyer woman (Vera Fermiga from The Departed) enter the picture. (View trailer)

My View: Reitman’s films have been some of the best I’ve seen in the last five years. Juno is still the reigning indie comedy queen and “Smoking” revived the career of Aaron Eckhart. Toss Reitman a pro like Clooney and this seems like the perfect marriage of talents. Up in the Air promises comedy, romance and some new perspectives on life, a blend that we all dream for come the Holiday season. There are few guarantees in film, but this is one of them.

My honorable mentions will go up probably this weekend. I’m thinking Saturday would be a good time to check back.