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

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

Review: The Road - 4/5 Stars

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

Review: A Serious Man - 5/5 Stars

The Coen brothers have developed critical acclaim for making black comedies/awkward tragedies that depict small-time people getting in way over their heads, who for one reason or another are motivated to do things out of the ordinary because the natural order of the world and society has wronged them in some way.

"A Serious Man," however, is about a man who doesn't do anything, to whom bad/annoying things happen. This story of a confused suburban Jewish man in the '60s wrestling with life's meaning is therefore an important step in the evolution of the Coens' theme-driven film-making. Borrowing on an autobiographical context (Minnesota, Judaism, etc.) for the brothers, it moves on to greater cosmic questions but with the same quirky and ironic spirit that have garnered the Coens all their deserved attention over the last 20 years.

Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is that one Coen brothers character in every movie -- you know, the innocent one who manages to suffer a seemingly unfair fate (think Steve Buscemi in "The Big Lebowski" or most recently Richard Jenkins' character in "Burn After Reading") -- only he gets to pilot this film. In that spirit, an unknown Stuhlbarg is cast in the lead (although he was clearly up for the challenge). Larry is a mild-mannered math professor with a family in an ideal suburban home only his wife wants a divorce and his kids are nightmarish. Little by little the annoyances of his life pile up from the foreign student trying to bribe him for a passing grade while simultaneously suing him for defamation to his socially immature brother (Richard Kind) who won't leave his house.

Larry seeks answers from the rabbis in his community to understand the mess his life has suddenly become. One rabbi tells him he needs a change of perspective, another tells him the story of "The Goy's Teeth," a hilarious bit about a dentist who tries desperately to make meaning of a Hebrew message engraved in a patient's teeth only to find he was better off not worrying about it. None of their advice seems to help at the time -- but it's dead on. The Goy's Teeth scene in particular is one of the brilliant moments where the Coen brothers let you know pretty clearly what their intentions are with the film while giving you something to laugh about. That's their strength and it's all over "Serious Man."

Much like "Burn After Reading," this film is one that makes a thematic point out of the audience's attempt to squeeze meaning out of everything. By turning Larry into a Job-like figure to whom inexplicable misfortune happens, we're forced to put everything into perspective. When Kind's character, Arthur, has a tantrum in the middle of the night wondering why God has given him nothing and he points out that Larry has kids and a job, suddenly our perspective changes. Suddenly everything we thought mattered in this film and was of critical importance is really not such a big deal. Our desperate search for answers in both our lives and in this film, our tendency to over-analyze and derive reason from everything comes to a halt; the Coen bros. have worked their magic again.

"Serious Man" is one of their best in recent memory because it not only feels rooted and personal for them, but it moves toward a greater discussion of previously treaded upon themes and plots from their previous work. It is a challenging film and those who have struggled with the Coen brothers before will struggle again, but for the cerebral and intellectual moviegoer it's outstanding.

The truth is, we don't have all the answers to make sense of life's events (or a story's plot points) and neither do the Coen brothers. One insignificant character in the film who appears to have an answer to just one of Larry's myriad of minor problems dies instantly with hysterical irony. Don't go into "A Serious Man" looking for answers, go into it looking for a change of perspective.

5/5 Stars

"A Serious Man" (2009)

Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen

Written by: Joel and Ethan Coen

Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed

Review: Where the Wild Things Are - 4.5/5 Stars

Spike Jonze's imagining of "Where the Wild Things Are" is nothing like you'd expect from a film adapted from a beloved children's book. It's dense with top-notch visuals from the cinematography to the incredible fusion of costumes, puppetry and CGI used to bring the Wild Things to life, but its plot is very frank in its approach to anger, sadness and loneliness.

It should be noted that this is not so much a children's film as it is a film that children are capable of enjoying. I refuse to insist that this is not for children, but it would be untruthful to say that this is a film *intended* for them. "Wild Things" is likely going to be appreciated most by those who already have experienced what the main character Max is going through emotionally with regards to his family and his peers (the wild things). To put a number on it, I think that -- depending on the child -- kids ages nine or older will not only be able to enjoy it, but take something away from it. As for adults, it should be a touching and somewhat nostalgic filmgoing experience.

Jonze pretty much perfectly captures the essence of childhood within the first 20 minutes of this film. Whether it's the way Max (Max Records, who is excellent) looks up at his mom (Catherine Keener) from underneath her desk or his imagination taking over as he sails a toy boat over the curves of his covers, Jonze creates moments that reconnect us to childhood in simply poetic fashion. Immediately we're ready for Max's adventure to begin because he helps us so easily recall that childlike state of mind.

After a bad dispute that ends with Max biting his mom, he runs away and discovers the island where the wild things are. If you've seen the trailer, nothing more needs to be said about Jonze's incredible choice to go with puppets and blend in CGI elements to give it a breath of realism. As for the characters themselves, Jonze and longtime co-writer Dave Eggers take an interesting approach.

The wild things are voiced by adult actors and give them a sense humor appealing to adults, but give them the social functionality of eight-year-olds. It ends up creating this schism between what we expect will happen (they're going to behave either like children or adults, it can't be both) and what does (they carry themselves like adults, but they interact like children). The results of this concept fall somewhere between hysterically genius and bizarre/random. On one hand their child-like behavior makes for some elegant teaching points for Max and on the other you have one wild thing knocking two gulls out of the sky and then telling Max their names are Bob and Terry. It's simultaneously goofy/immature and completely fantastic.

One of the challenges of the film had to be expanding the story to adapt instead of condensing like most adaptations require. Jonze and Eggers use this as a chance to establish the real world issues Max is dealing with (how to handle his need for parental attention and his anger) and manifest them in this imaginary way in the world of the wild things. The scenes with the wild things are very physical, which will help to keep children's attention. They have a dirt clod fight and go running through the forest before falling into a pile (we all know what that was like as children).

Some parents who are very sensitive to what their kids see might have trouble being okay with some of the anger and other extreme emotions. If there's one good way to put it, it's that the emotional transitions can be abrupt. One minute is playful and fun, the next can instantly become lonely or sad and then immediately one of anger mild violence follows. Some might wonder why this wasn't catered more directly to kids, but if you stop and think, don't instant emotional mood swings sounds like a pretty spot-on portrayal of childhood?

Jonze telling of "Wild Things" is a mature albeit truthful one. This is not pure syrupy children's entertainment. A child should come out of this movie knowing disputes between family members happen, but that it doesn't change how much we love each other -- that it's okay to get angry sometimes, but we should try and understand everyone's feelings so that next time nobody will do anything they regret. That's daring storytelling considering the expectation was for something lighter. Absolute kudos to Jonze and Warner Brothers for letting this unique film happen. You don't see movies about childhood as beautiful as this one more than once a blue moon, which is plenty cause for a wild rumpus.

4.5/5 Stars

"Where the Wild Things Are" (2009)

Directed by: Spike Jonze

Written by: Spike Jonze, Dave Eggers (story, screenplay), Maurice Sendak (book)

Starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener, James Gandolfini (voice)

Review: Zombieland - 4/5 Stars

What's most admirable about this most recent zombie-crushing comedy is that it knows exactly what zombies are meant for: killing. Funny, creative and most of all low-budget killing. Rookie director Ruben Fleischer and Columbia Pictures capture that essence in the quick but fun "Zombieland," a post-Zombie infection apocalypse action comedy with a small cast and a whole lot of make-up-covered stunt people.

To be frank, there's nothing that will blow you away completely in "Zombieland," it's just all executed very well and the story satisfies despite cutting short its character arch and development. Action-wise, Fleischer I'd dare say one-ups Zak Snyder on the slow-motion technique. He holds little back when delivering some of the more gruesome zombie kills. He'll definitely get some potentially lucrative directorial offers with the success of this film, no doubt.

The characters are strong but if anything is lost in the film's barely even an hour and a half run time, it's them. Jesse Eisenberg's neurotic virgin unlikely hero only really learns to grow a pair and Woody Harrelson's Tallahassee has both the conscious and subconscious desire to find a Twinkie. Although writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick allude to some good ideas about how a character would feel being one of few survivors in a barren and zombie- polluted United States, namely a person who was anti-social to begin with, no relationships in the film come out of the oven beyond medium-rare.

Truthfully, however, the cast is great. Eisenberg is better than Michael Cera at the dorky hero who manages to get the hot chick and Emma Stone is one of the actually talented young "hot chicks" working today. Add Harrelson and Breslin and kudos goes to whoever made the casting decisions. With barely any other characters, a lot falls on them to be real and interesting and as actors, they're all the types who avoid being shallow.

What makes "Zombieland" likable in the end, however, is creativity. An ending sequence of Harrelson taking out zombies in an amusement park is just good imaginative thinking by Reese and Wernick. Say what you want about zombie-killing scenes, but you don't feel like you're watching something you've already seen. They understand location is everything in these kinds of films (shopping mall in "Dawn of the Dead" anyone?). A trip to Hollywood to stay in a famous actor's mansion is another example of outside the box.

"Zombieland" treads the respectable middle ground of delivering quality examples of what it promises and not going too much for glitz and mindless action or the other extreme: shooting way high for excellent character development and drama. The cast and the writers appear capable of that next level, but instead we get more entertainment factor, which is fine considering the entertainment is creative.

Zombie genre fans, comedy fans and quirky/creative film fans will all find something to really enjoy out of "Zombieland," one of the better entertainment-driven thrills of the year.

4/5 Stars

"Zombieland" (2009)

Directed by: Ruben Fleischer

Written by: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick

Starring: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Review: The Informant! - 4/5 Stars

Audiences don't like to be lied to, but that's all part of the fun of "The Informant!," Steven Soderbergh's best recent directorial effort that hasn't been titled with a number between 11 and 13. The film sweeps us into a world of corporate crime and "espionage" and flavors it all with a thorough peppering of amusing anecdotal narration from an excellent Matt Damon as the mustache and four-eyed Mark Whitacre, VP of an agribusiness corporation specializing in corn cultures.

"The Informant!" is white-collar '90s period comedy with a quirky '60s spin on it through the use of flower-power title cards and a fantastic score by old-time esteemed songwriter Marvin Hamlisch. It helps lighten the mood of a film that's a lot of talk, that really ends up being more about its main character than the corporate scandal he creates for himself as he tries to turn informant without considering the consequences.

Whitacre is a nut, but he's smart and gets the job done and Damon recognizes that. In his own strange ways, he makes sense of things and forms beliefs that "Bourne Ultimatum" screenwriter Scott Z. Burns (based on the Kurt Eichenwald book) expounds upon us with the constant narration that breaks into and interrupts scenes. In the film, he gets the FBI investigating into the corporation he works for because he says he's tired of the illegal price fixing they're engaging in with their foreign competitors. Then slowly, one turn of the spool at a time, Whitacre reveals part of the truth that he hadn't mentioned before, further frustrating the FBI agents working with him, his superiors at the company and making things more interesting for the audience.

Damon as Whitacre is really the heart, the nucleus of "The Informant!" It's a dialogue-heavy film and without any big names in the supporting cast, the impetus is on Damon to add the dimension and the unconventionality -- an intrigue factor. The script at its core is a character story of a man who can never embrace the whole truth, so that should be its best part, making "The Informant!" set up to be well-received at the least. 

This isn't the kind of movie you rave about, but you have to applaud at how it uses what it has to be the best film it can be. Casting Damon and showing off his comedic side is something anyone who has seen a good deal of his films can appreciate. Playing Whitacre stretches him talent-wise and proves he's a good fit for just about any kind of role. And you have to hand it to a man who can play a ripped Jason Bourne but then pack on the belly pounds to play a twisted business exec.

"The Informant!" is not a corporate thriller or a true gut-splitting comedy, but it's really a well-made, interesting, unique and entertaining film from a director who has really needed a whole lot of that lately.

4/5 Stars

"The Informant!" (2009)

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh

Written by: Scott Z. Burns, Kurt Eichenwald (book)

Starring: Matt Damon

Review: Extract - 3.5/5 Stars

"Extract" is not one of those tour-de-force comedies that knocks you on the floor with laughter, then again, that wasn't exactly the case in Mike Judge's previous cult hit "Office Space," a film so in its own category that "Extract" will inevitably be -- pardon the pun -- judged by comparison. In the mold of that iconic working-class comedy now ten years its senior, "Extract" goes for that everyday life annoyance humor, putting a lot of stock in awkward situations. 

The film, however, doesn't capitalize nearly enough on the comic disaster it stirs up, making it not all that memorable. But what it does deliver comes with a good-natured everyman/everywoman charm, staying human enough to earn our admiration.

Jason Bateman stars as the mild-mannered Joel Reynolds, owner and operator of a flavor extract manufacturing plant whose daily struggles include dealing with feisty and mostly incompetent employees and trying to get laid by his wife (Kristen Wiig). When a freak accident spurred by his misfit workers takes out an employee's testicle, an insurance settlement and potential lawsuit threaten to bankrupt Reynolds and his partner Brian (J.K. Simmons) as well as compound the problems in his personal life.

Added to the mix are a female con artist (Mila Kunis) looking for a share of the law suit money and Reynolds' shaggy drug-endorsing friend (Ben Affleck) who convinces Joel to pay a gigolo to seduce his wife. It seems like that's plenty in terms of comic potential and the rich quirky characters that made "Office Space" excellent, but its the plight of your well- intentioned average Joel that makes "Extract" work.

Not to take anything away from Affleck, Kunis or even David Koechner as the obnoxious neighbor, all of who give good performances, but it's more about how Bateman works off these characters, whether he's shunning Affleck's offers of Xanax or struggling with the temptations of the flirty Kunis.

"Extract" is just one of those smile the whole way through and laugh just a couple handfuls of times comedies. It's not a triumph, the characters are not nearly as rich as "Office Space," and it skimps on its potential, but the cast is talented, the writing is natural and it still carries on the working-class spirit that made "Office Space" connect with so many people. The bottom line is that whether funny or not, Judge prefers to show off our good side, focusing mostly on the troubles we endure in life as we try to reconcile being good people with having personal needs and desires.

3.5/5 Stars

"Extract" (2009)

Directed by: Mike Judge

Written by: Mike Judge

Starring: Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig, Mila Kunis, Ben Affleck

View Trailer (YouTube)

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 4.5/5 Stars

Like every movie thus far in the Harry Potter series based on J.K Rowling's novels, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (book no. 6) cuts a lot of corners. Those who regard Rowling's tome as a bible are sure to have complaints at scenes added (the attack on the Weasley's burrow) and scenes taken away (the battle in Hogwarts), but as a film -- not a book -- second-time director David Yates and longtime Potter adapter Steve Kloves have made the most visually purposeful, emotional and character-driven Potter movie so far.

The previous film "Order of the Phonenix" (Yates' first) introduced the inevitable dark direction of the series and therefore movies, as Harry (Radcliffe) embraces that he alone can defeat the evil Lord Voldemort (Fiennes, who's absent from this movie), who has come back to power and is now an immediate and dangerous threat. In order for Harry to succeed, he must learn a crucial piece of information, one that belongs in the memory of retired professor Horace Slughorn, played brilliantly by Jim Broadbent, who Harry and his mentor Albus Dumbledore (Gambon) have convinced to come back to Hogwarts.

Meanwhile, Harry has a suspicion that his long-time schoolyard nemesis Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is up to something evil, possibly in service of Voldemort, and we frequently see him spending time alone in the castle. In addition to that, Harry also has to juggle his own new feelings for his best friend Ron's (Grint) sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright) and the rocky relationship between Ron and their other friend Hermione (Watson) who clearly has some feelings of her own.

If you think Harry has a lot to juggle, imagine the responsibility of screenwriter Kloves. Like a surgeon with only a scalpel, Kloves takes carefully to Rowling's novel, omitting scenes but sneaking them into brilliant visual details, adding new parts where necessary and sewing up the most important plot lines into a narrative thread that remains coherent. He also weaves in graceful transitions that Yates can execute beautifully with his dark and mysterious vision for the film. And to top that, he adds an endearing sense of humor that the series has never seen before, and it brings a deeper love for the characters. Broadbent and Gambon, quirky as they are, add nicely here too.

And despite what you might think, Kloves' greatest sins to the Potter fundamentalists out there aren't solely his fault. The greatest blemish on this otherwise beautiful adaptation can be blamed on one thing: a PG rating. Intending to be PG, whereas the last two films were PG-13, strips the film of delivering all the weight of the best climax Rowling wrote in the Harry Potter series. The inability to show some sort of violence rips the battle at Hogwarts out of the film and deprives it of some much needed adrenaline; all for a measly PG rating. It's a mistake that deprives this movie of a tenth star out of ten. To compensate, Kloves adds the attack on the Burrow halfway through, but it stands out as the most frivolous in the film.

As these films come to an end, they are clearly in the right hands with Yates. "Half-Blood Prince" is wildly imaginative, edgy and suspenseful, with terrific foreshadow technique and chilling transitions. With these last few books being on such a grand scale in the Harry Potter universe, it's key that someone be in charge who has a specific vision. Yates (with Kloves) has that vision and that's what makes this a great film and not a flat one that's too complex and overloaded with details from the book. If you want the latter, read the book again. Choices were made, and despite a less climactic ending, they were brilliant ones.

4.5/5 Stars

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" 

Directed by: David Yates

Written by: Steve Kloves, J.K. Rowling (novel)

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent

Review: Inglourious Basterds - 3/5 Stars

"Inglourious Basterds" is many things, but one thing it is not is a World War II drama. The setting is an alternate version of history, where Nazi-occupied France becomes the wild west for another of filmmaker Quentin Tarantino's Sergio Leone-inspired pulp action movies where various Jews can carry out their revenge fantasies on assorted members of the Third Reich.

A true QT film through and through, "Basterds" is smothered in the director's many trademarks, and calling cards are left at each of its lengthy and dynamically suspenseful scenes. From '60s-style title cards to narrative digressions to scenes set entirely around a table, fans of the filmmaker who revolutionized the writing and directing of film in the '90s will find his seventh feature film to completely satisfy their itch.

But does Tarantino's recklessly violent style have a place in telling a story that circumvents one of history's darkest chapters? That's a matter of personal taste. There's no doubting the filmmaker is in top form -- humorous and attention-grabbing, crafting some great characters and even better scenes -- but it's a style that's seen better applications than WWII.

Broken into chapters, "Basterds" introduces us to a couple main story lines that lead to an ultimate objective of revenge. If not for its pulp groundings, the film could be called "Everbody Wants to Kill Hitler," for all intents and purposes. First there's Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent), a young Jewish girl hiding in France who manages to escape when the farmer hiding her family confesses to the S.S. The scene is one of Tarantino's best, especially thanks to Christoph Waltz as the charming and delightfully intimidating Nazi Col. Hans Landa (aka "the Jew hunter"), whose beguiling manner clashing with the serious undertones of the plot makes his performance worthy of nothing less than an Oscar nomination.

Then there are the Basterds, Jewish American soldiers under the command of Lt. Aldo Raine, a one-dimensional albeit hysterical character played just so by Brad Pitt. Raine is up for nothing but killing Nazis and making good sport of it, as is Eli Roth's character Sgt. Donowitz aka "The Bear Jew," whose weapon of choice is a baseball bat. But no matter how outrageous it all sounds, there's nothing secretly fulfilling about Jews killing Nazis and that's part of the film's problem.

These stories come together in 1944, when Shoshanna is now running a movie theater (another predictable QT move) where the Nazi party hopes to show off its latest propaganda film, "Nation's Pride," inviting the biggest names in the Nazi regime including the Fuhrer himself. This happening attracts the Basterds and even sparks vengeful thoughts for Shoshanna.

Of course preparing for such a plot brings need for deception, perfect fodder for these long intense scenes with inevitably violent conclusions along with of course the prowess of Waltz as Landa. Though for every brilliant set up, Tarantino brings it to climax with meaningless pulp. These violent battles and merciless killings send off vibrations that simply deaden upon hitting the air, not resonating through the rest of or after the film ends. That kind of bloody and clever outcome works great in films like "Kill Bill" or "Pulp Fiction," where there's no realism to the circumstances of the violence, but it comes off as immature in the context of WWII and the Holocaust.

Perhaps I should have expected no less from the master of climactic deaths, but there's an unignorable side to "Basterds" and that's the emotional depth of the Holocaust and the terrible war surrounding it. When this sense of humor is effective, many people may feel guilty being entertained comically by "Basterds," and at other times they might find it feels stupid and pointless. Then again, many might push the historical context aside and delight in all of the style and excellent craftsmanship.

So despite Tarantino's brilliance, all of which manifests itself through different scenes and character in "Basterds," nothing accounts for the rift between how many viewers think about WWII as they watch a film about it (fictional or not) and how viewers watch a Tarantino film, a genre in itself that carries its own set of expectations. It can almost be best described in this way: Either wild west Ennio Morricone music set to Jews killing Germans in WWII works for you or the clash is a bit too unnatural. Either way, you respect the talents of the filmmaker.

3/5 Stars

"Inglourious Basterds"

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino

Written by: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent

View Trailer

Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - 2.5/5 Stars

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horror movie for epileptics, a 2.5-hour exhibition of a hurricane in a hardware store, a relentlessly loud first movement in a symphony of destruction. It is a summer blockbuster on steroids: you'd like to laud the accomplishment, but it feels like cheating. In other words, "Fallen" appears to be the greatest spectacle of visual effects and stunts ever made, but simultaneously the most overproduced screaming pile of junk Hollywood has served us in this computer-generated era.

You have to give Michael Bay credit, the man sticks to his directorial convictions: explosions, chases and more explosions. Despite getting reamed for years for his overkill style, he seems to feel like it's not worth making a sequel unless you're committed to visually dwarfing the first one. What his approach, and the approach of this entire film should have been, was not to overload this thing and instead hit the audience hardest where it counts most. "Fallen" is more than overly ambitious: the script is a barreling mack truck and the audience like roadkill stuck in its grill.

"Fallen" enlightens us that humans and transformers actually have a history on Earth, the only plausible way to harvest a story after a straight-forward, sensible and enjoyable first film. Two years later, the U.S. Military and the Autobots have joined forces to eliminate the surviving Decepticons that threaten Earth. After the opening scene ravishing China, however, it's not that simple. Our human hero, Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf), has discovered that a shard from the first film's All Spark, an energy source giving life to Transformers, has been with him all this time, and now it's suddenly transferred crucial information to him that contains the whereabouts of another energy source somewhere on Earth that could give the Decepticons their revenge. As with the first film, that's not all. Dozens of characters and subplots (Sam going to college, the Obama administration trying to shut down the operation between the Army and the Autobots and of course the sexiest woman alive, Megan Fox, trying to get her boyfriend to say three small words.

As for new Transformers, it seems as if Hasbro, creators of the hit action figures for decades now, put a mandatory quota on needing x number of new products appearing on screen for toy-mongering children to beg their parents for. "Fallen" is loaded with new bots, including the famous Devastator, a five-transformers-joined-into-one monstrosity that resembles a living junkyard and is even equipped with "testicles." 

Yes, that's part of "Fallen"'s obnoxious and horrific sense of humor. It was pretty even hit- or-miss in the first movie, but this film is even more insulting to its audiences comedic intelligence. Take "the twins" for example: idiotic gold-toothed stereotypes in the form of those compact Chevys (GM, how fitting) throwing insults at each other. They are second to only Jar Jar Binks. The writers also seem to think adding Sam's new college roommate is a good idea -- when John Turturro (also pointlessly back) stuns him to sleep to shut him up, it's almost as if they knew what an annoyance he was. It's hard to believe that at least Orci and Kurtzman, who delivered an awesome "Star Trek" script last month, were behind such frivolous dialogue. I can't fault them for the absurdity of the plot and lack of themes -- they were paid a lot and their hands were tied -- but the forced humor? Terrible.

Still, as easy as "Fallen" is to rip on, it gets a few stars out of respect for the man hours it must've taken to turn this film over in less than two years and make it as much of a visual masterpiece as it is. Though Bay could have made it less frenetic with not as many camera circle-arounds, you can tell every sequence had to have been planned so far ahead and done perfectly on every take. Let's hope the next one, Bay or no Bay, condenses quantity into quality and gives this franchise back its storytelling dignity. At the least, let Hollywood learn, in the peak of the CG era, that less is more.

2.5/5 Stars

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

Directed by: Michael Bay

Written by: Ehren Kruger, Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman

Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, John Turturro

Review: Ponyo - 3.5/5 Stars

Hayao Miyazaki has captured the imagination of audiences young and old across the globe, and his most recent cinematic work of art is "Ponyo," a children's fairytale borrowing on story elements from The Little Mermaid. Of course like other Miyazaki classics such as "Spirited Away" and his last film, "Howl's Moving Castle," "Ponyo" is full of a creativity that can only be truly appreciated by adults, but this it is distinctly more a children's story than those recent efforts. It's a magical story best described as beautiful and lovable, aiming for charm instead of conflict.

"Ponyo" is the story of a bug-eyed childish-looking fish of the same name, the daughter of an undersea sorcerer, who longs to escape the sea and become a little girl. When she does, she quickly befriends a young boy named Sosuke. In the process she gains a strong magic and unknowingly throws the world out of balance between land and sea, and a giant storm drowns most of the cliff-top town where Sosuke lives with his mother, and it threatens to end the world.

Like "Howl's Moving Castle," Walt Disney picked up "Ponyo" for an American release and dubbed it over with an impressive selection of Western voices, even choosing homegrown products in the youngest siblings of Disney band the Jonas Brothers (Frankie Jonas) and Miley Cyrus (younger sister Noah) to voice Sosuke and Ponyo, respectively. Also voicing characters are Liam Neeson (Fujimoto, Ponyo's father), Tina Fey (Lisa, Sosuke's mother), Matt Damon (Sosuke's father), Cate Blanchett (Ponyo's sea goddess mother) and a trio of hilarious elderly women are played by Betty White, Cloris Leachman and Lily Tomlin. The effort is definitely there to make this film appeal to American audiences and Disney is getting close.

But voices are of little significance in a Miyazaki film, which is all about visual creativity. A fan of transformations and animating liquid and fluid motion, creating a fairytale taking place partly underwater must've been a joy for Miyazaki to work with and maybe even his entire motivation for choosing this story. Among the highlights are droplets of water that Fujimoto sends after Ponyo that move like living waves, as well as a variety of other magnificent sea creatures and breathtaking storm scenes make "Ponyo" as awing as any other Miyazaki film.

As a children's story, however, "Ponyo" concentrates its efforts on being adorable. The discovery of true friendship and love between Sosuke and Ponyo is heart-warming, even if Noah Cyrus shouting childishly when Ponyo excitedly embraces human life can get a bit annoying. But as delightful as many of the imaginative elements and loving relationships are, there's very little antagonism or danger. Past Miyazaki films have clear villains, but the conflict in "Ponyo" actually shrinks as the story goes along. Sosuke believes he's lost his mother at one point and in the background is the idea of the world going out of whack and that humans should be ashamed of polluting the sea, but "Ponyo" is mostly tension free. Most glaringly, its climax is uneventful despite how overall likable all the characters are.

"Ponyo" will surely satisfy Miyazaki's fans in every way with its imagination, and newcomers will still be smitten by his simple yet visually ambitious storytelling, but this is distinctly more of a children's movie, best for families and others who love fantasy regardless of its form or target audience. It's not quite what you'd expect from Miyazaki considering his recent work, but it's sure to be remembered as another of his beloved stories.

3.5/5 Stars

"Ponyo" 

Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki

Written by: Hayao Miyazaki

Starring: (voices) Frankie Jonas, Noah Cyrus, Liam Neeson, Tina Fey

View Trailer

Review: The Hurt Locker - 4.5/5 Stars

Though there have been a few attempts to quickly turn over a good film about the Iraq War or a similar conflict ("The Lucky Ones," "In the Valley of Elah," "Jarhead," "The Kingdom"), none achieve on so many levels and try to capture the true experience of today's soldiers like "The Hurt Locker."

Former embedded journalist Mark Boal (who wrote the story for "Elah") captures the spirit of this particular war with his story about a team of bomb diffusers who work with IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). The story mainly focuses on one bomb specialist, Sgt. Will James (Jeremy Renner), who enters the picture after the team's beloved Sgt. Thompson (Guy Pearce) dies on the job. James is highly skilled, but also totes an action junkie attitude that creates tension between him and his fellow squad members.

What will unfortunately surprise a lot of people watching this film is its director, Kathryn Bigelow. If you have any doubts of a woman's ability to make a Grade A action film than throw them out the window. Bigelow, who also directed action cult favorite "Point Break" and the okay film "K-19: The Widowmaker" paves the way for women action directors with this excellent film. She sets a precedent for what today's war film should look like with the raw, camcorder style that gives "Hurt Locker" its realistic, documentary feel. Screw the awing cinematography of "Saving Private Ryan," the Iraq War is not to be glorified by the camera in any way, especially considering it's still going on.

Other war films dabble in the glory of war, the traumatic effects it has on its soldiers and its many other evils, but "Hurt Locker" dares to consider the temptations, the allure of war despite its disastrous affects. Its main character, James, is certainly troubled, but not because of seeing death or risking it every time he tries to diffuse a homemade C4 bomb -- it's because he needs the adrenaline rush of feeling like he's doing something dangerous and important.

To Bigelow, that is the defining characteristic of this war and James embodies it. He alone at times is the sole cause of action and tension in the film. We think to ourselves that he's in a dangerous situation with a bomb threat -- then he takes his protective suit off and the intensity is magnified. In that way, Bigelow plays off our own desire to see action and suspense. It would be a whole lot nicer if the guys stayed out of trouble considering they're set to be sent home in less than a month's time, but it wouldn't be exciting. James mirrors our own action fetishism in that way, and herein lies the film's true excellence.

"The Hurt Locker" is an interesting film and the first originally poignant piece of cinema to be attached to the Iraq War in a way that makes a statement that films embodying Vietnam or World War II haven't already made. It's unknown cast is talented and helps keep the film much more realistic. There's something about seeing actors that are too well known in war films that instantly glamorizes it and detracts from its impact. 

To boot, there's a lot of great suspense and action. Scenes where nothing ultimately happens put us on the edge of our seats because they're well set-up. The soldiers' paranoia among other things translates well to an audience unaware of the true dangers of the Iraq War and highlights what makes this time significant in our history compared to any other. This is the kind of movie that could be used as a means of understanding the Iraq War years and years from now, especially in terms of grasping the perspective we had before it was even over.

4.5/5 Stars

"The Hurt Locker"

Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow

Written by: Mark Boal

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes

View Trailer

Review: District 9 - 4.5/5 Stars

Alien invasion stories can often seem a bit far-fetched, but making a great action movie with a compelling story for just $30 million shouldn't. If "District 9" scores at the box office, maybe it will drive home to Hollywood that eternal but oft forgotten message that great films come from great stories. "District 9" is a sci-fi movie that takes a great concept and runs with it behind committed visionaries who believe completely in what they're doing. If carefree producers with fat checkbooks had been involved, this story of aliens stranded in Johannesburg, South Africa, forced by the government to live in slums would feel about as hokey as "Starship Troopers." Instead, it's a gripping action blockbuster accompanied by a running social commentary.

The only big name attached to "District 9" is producer Peter Jackson ("Lord of the Rings"). South-African born Director Neill Blomkamp makes his debut based on a script he wrote with friend Terri Tatchell. The star is Sharlto Copley, who you've also never heard of before. So aside from Jackson, what's the draw? Blomkamp's premise will simply capture your imagination and glue your interest. Most people can't sell a film with just that, but Blomkamp is so firmly in control of this fictional scenario that anyone can easily believe it for just a couple hours. If you think you can tell that from the trailers, just wait, there's more.

Starting out as a fictional documentary, "District 9" explains how the aliens, termed "prawns" for their shrimp-like appearance, showed up hovering over Johannesburg in their mothership and were eventually forced to relocate to Earth. The South African government gave policing permission to Multi-National United, a corp that claimed it wanted to study the species scientifically, when it was chiefly interested in decoding its incredible weapons technology.

Eventually the film shifts gears into full-out action mode as Wikus van de Merwe (Copley), who was put in charge of a new operation to relocate the prawns 200 kilometers outside of the city in new refugee-type camps for MNU, becomes infected by an alien substance, making him a walking piece of scientific research.

Carrying the historical weight of Apartheid in South Africa, "District 9" essentially plays out a social drama in many aspects, wondering exactly how things might turn out if aliens came to Earth without the goal of taking over our planet. How would we treat them? Segregate them? Kill them without just cause? There are several bumps on the road to fully realizing this concept, but the idea of it and the details Blomkamp gives the aliens -- such as an affinity for rubber and an almost drug-like addiction to cat food -- cover up the mistakes with ease, keeping you interested in what's going to happen next or what else you might learn about the aliens and their circumstances.

As an action film, "District 9" picks up halfway through, giving plenty of blood-soaring body- dismembering gore (sometimes to a comical degree) to those viewers that bought tickets just to get what they expected from the genre. It does not cheat those looking for just entertainment. But "District 9" clearly strives to earn more respect with its audience. The movie doesn't flaunt its weapons inventions, for example, but incorporates them naturally into the plot in order to generate intrigue, then pulling the trigger and giving us the long- awaited spectacle. 

It's the kind of respect that a serious storyteller has for his or her audience, and Blomkamp has it. Many plot points and dialogue exchanges are predictable, but the presentation is highly original and the concept is fresh, modern and head-smart compared to the '90s garbage of "Independence Day" and "Men in Black," as wildly popular as those films were. The documentary feel and the hand-held camera action might be the trappings of low budget, but they really tell this story in unique riveting fashion.

It amazes me that Michael Bay can take $200 million and make the dizzying piece of scrap metal that was "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," yet an unknown pal of Peter Jackson can take less than a quarter of that money and make thought-provoking and exciting science-fiction with some of 2009's most original storytelling.

Released: 14 August 2009

Directed by: Neill Blomkamp

Written by: Terri Tatchell, Neill Blomkamp

Starring: Sharlto Copley

Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3453485593/

Review: Funny People - 3/5 Stars

Minus the gratuitous male genitalia jokes, "Funny People" is about as far from anything Judd Apatow has directed or produced since he hit it big with "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." Finally collaborating with longtime friend Adam Sandler, Apatow takes the creative license that his reputation as comedic master of the decade has afforded him and makes a more serious film about funny people. But with more seriousness, the funniness must be more effective and that's hard in an unprecedented 146-minute-long comedy just sort of about a comedian's life.

Sandler plays himself in the form of a fictional character named George Simmons, a comedian who hit it big, made some ridiculous movies and now is re-evaluating himself in the face of news that he has a rare form of leukemia. Returning to his stand-up roots, he discovers a promising but penniless comedian named Ira (Seth Rogen) living in his friend's (Jason Schwartzman) apartment with his buddy, fellow comedian Leo (Jonah Hill). George pays Ira to write him some jokes and be his assistant, but he's really paying him to keep him company as he tries to right some of the mistakes he made in life.

Anyone expecting the laugh fest with a surprising sentimental touch that Apatow delivered in "Virgin" and "Knocked Up" will find that it's more of a full-on sentimental groping. The comedy that we are so accustomed to from the likes of Sandler, Rogen and Hill is either peppered in or concentrated into segments as opposed to the dominating force throughout the film.

There's no question this was a personal endeavor for Apatow and Sandler. Considering Apatow's roots in comedy clubs and his best friend and wife (Leslie Mann, who plays "the girl that got away" love interest) playing opposite each other -- not to mention casting his kids, this was sort of a way for Apatow to reflect on what he does for a living. In that sense, "Funny People" holds some promise. No one has really made a film looking at comedy instead of just being one. This film does it and in a very realistic context too, appearing as if it could very well be taking place today in Hollywood.

But as its own comedy, "Funny People" just isn't as funny as we'd like. There are a lot of great funny moments, but the humor loses effectiveness because the movie is just strung- together subplots too numerous to name. Simmons finding out he's dying doesn't focus the film, it just sort of plays a role in everything he does and all his relationships and the other sub-relationships of the people around him such as Ira. There's no tension -- even if the early trailers hadn't indeed revealed that he doesn't die. There's no real sense that he's going on any sort of emotional journey with this shocking news or that he's really going to learn something from it.

"Funny People" has plenty of funny people and they say funny things, but it's a film that's too unfocused to keep anyone's attention for nearly two and a half hours. It almost feels like two films: one about stand-up and the other about a comedian trying to make things right with an old flame. Describing it as one film is much harder. It's a reflection on what it's like to be a comedian fading away and coming to terms with life decisions that doesn't really arrive at any clear answers. Apatow's writing here is just too loose, though his directing is excellent. I definitely believe "Funny People" could have been something special, but we'll never know.

Released: 31 July 2009

Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3020161817/

Review: (500) Days of Summer - 4/5 Stars

"(500) Days of Summer" informs us right away that it's a boy meets girl story, not a love story. Interesting, considering our preconditioning for the romantic comedies of happily ever after, or in this case, the indie romantic comedy with "a way of working out" that has been done so many times already that "indie" is more a style than a way to distinguish the production value of a film. 

But avoid labeling itself all it wants (as its main characters Tom and Summer try and do), "Summer" is a love story. There might be more to it than that, but it's a story about love and how we romanticize it versus how it really is, regardless of its disclaimer. 

It's a bold script from first-time scribes Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber that pits RomCom convention against the harsh realities of dating. As such, it's bound to appeal to both the chick flick crowd and indie-lovers -- it will get audiences thinking more perceptively about love, while still appealing to the pleasures of escapist movie-theater romance.

Like eight of the last ten indie love stores you've seen, "Summer" starts with a break-up, only it backtracks to the beginning of the relationship and tells the story from the beginning (while of course jumping back to the time of the break-up). Confused? Conveniently a counter helps us keep track of time in the film, showing us how many days into the 500 we are at all times. 

Anyway, Tom is a hopeless romantic greeting-card writer played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("3rd Rock from the Sun" child star and Heath Ledger look-alike) who meets a girl, Summer (big-blue-eyed rising star Zooey Deschanel). He believes he's found destiny -- she doesn't want anything serious.

The two hit it off with their playful personalities and while Tom falls hopelessly in love with her, she doesn't seem to budge. We start to hate on Summer a little bit for not prescribing to this fated romance we've built up in our heads because we're all sucker's for that kind of a love story, but that's where "Summer" gets smart on us.

Directed by Marc Webb, who's done music videos with Green Day, 3 Doors Down and Jesse McCartney, "Summer" does take on this whimsical quality that very much appeals to a younger generation. At the same time, he brings us realism when the movie is supposed to relate to us the most (in the bars, at the office) and that artsy quality when the writing calls for something a bit more non-traditional. He handles the contrast well, as does Gordon- Levitt, who is either playing a depressed pessimist or a head-over-heels optimist. Deschanel is also terrific, looking the part of this elusive girl with classic good looks and emphasizing her quirks as well her brutal honesty. If she can break her indie typecast, Deschanel will become one of the finer actresses of her generation.

As told by the film's slightly obnoxious and inconsistently used narrator, "this is not a love story" ends up serving to prep us for the film's divergence from formula. For those that want happily ever after, it tempers this expectation, pleading with us by basically saying "please don't get get mad if the ending isn't the magical song and dance number you were hoping for." 

But it ends up being pretty clear what "Summer" is trying to do. It serves as the writers' own discovery of what exactly love is, how they worked out and reconciled the pain and heartbreak -- love's truths -- with this romanticized idealizing of love. Summer becomes not this cold person who is having her way with Tom because he's the one in love, but someone with simply a different understanding of love, who comes from a different place mentally/emotionally when it comes to relationships.

"Summer" is a great film because it combines all the cheesy energy that we love about romantic comedies with this strong sense of reality. Although the reality too can become a bit much at times, "Summer" is a film that has finally found a way to appease the masses while breaking the formula that has kept the boy meets girl story on a ball and chain for decades. It's not perfect, but what a feat that is.

Released: 17 July 2009 (limited)

Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1728185113/