Fever Pitch

"Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago. 
With the baseball season getting ready to move into full swing, it’s no surprise that we would see a movie release tied to the sport. The usual style of the underdog baseball story is nearly tired out by this point, after years of movies like “Major League: Back to the Minors”. “Fever Pitch” offers a slightly different perspective on the genre, incorporating more of a romantic comedy feel with less-than-spectacular results, especially against this month’s James Bond/Indiana Jones hybrid, “Sahara”. Romantic comedies typically perform poorly when up against big budget action movies, but not being very good doesn’t help its case at all.

“Fever Pitch” follows the story of Ben (Jimmy Fallon), a high school geometry teacher who meets Lindsey (Drew Barrymore) while she is giving a tour of her accounting firm to several of his students. The two immediately hit it off, until March rolls around and Lindsey discovers Ben’s ultimate flaw: he’s a Boston Red Sox fan. Ben’s entire apartment has in every square inch decorated with Red Sox memorabilia, and he even has season tickets next to the dugout that he inherited from his uncle. Though Lindsey likes Ben, his obsession with the Sox brings friction to their relationship that puts her job in jeopardy, injures her, and ultimately leaves Lindsey wondering if loving a man this obsessed is even possible.

Based on the autobiography by Nick Hornby of the same title, the love story also coincides with the 2004 season that nabbed the Sox their first pennant in nearly a century. The plot is pieced together such that the state of the Ben/Lindsey relationship is reflective of how well the Sox are doing, and of course realizations about the nature of the sports team and its players give the characters stuff to relate to their own life with. 

This also marks the most recent work by the Farrelly brothers, since last year’s easily forgettable comedy, “Stuck on You”. Usually this would mean that the movie should be very funny, but their recent work is far less entertaining than their earlier work. “Fever Pitch’s” entire comic fuel is centered on Jimmy Fallon, and even then the movie can achieve little more than a few chuckles. They haven’t really tried their hand at the typical romantic comedy yet, and it shows, as their best work is in conveying the wonder of America’s favorite pastime.

Drew Barrymore’s presence is becoming routine for April romantic comedies, after movies like “50 First Dates” and “The Wedding Singer”, but her veteran knowledge of how to make romantic comedies entertaining is lost here. Her earlier work had her teaming up with Adam Sandler, but fellow Saturday Night Live alumnus Jimmy Fallon does not have the chemistry with Barrymore that was required to land this film safely into “good” territory. On a positive note, this is Fallon’s best on-screen work yet, especially after “Taxi”, as he steals all the funny moments and is usually the only thing keeping the movie from faltering and collapsing mid-plot.

“Fever Pitch” may come off as a baseball movie, but its real message is about how men and women are on different emotional wavelengths. The problem is, “Hitch” did roughly the same thing two months ago, and “Fever Pitch” doesn’t have the humor, chemistry, or sufficient pacing to keep the movie enjoyable. But “Fever Pitch” does have a more down-to-earth feel that, though probably not a conscious decision by the directors, complements the spirit of baseball rather well.

Assault on Precinct 13

 Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.
There’s something pleasant about a nice and tidy action movie: no emotional strings, little character involvement, and an ample body count combined with mounting destruction. Best of all is the sense of watching somebody accomplish something under a sort of trial by fire, be it the protagonists or the antagonists. “Assault on Precinct 13” is exactly what it’s made out to be: simple entertainment in the form of violence, and the end result is a typically Hollywood movie with few disappointments.

“Assault” opens with an undercover drug bust gone awry and the only survivor is Sgt. Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke). Fast forward eight months and Roenick is now a burnt out cop working the graveyard desk shift at Precinct 13. On this particular night though, Precinct 13 is scheduled to close down permanently, and to cap the whole deal off, a busload of prisoners have to be kept at the precinct overnight until the roads clear. Among the prisoners is Marion Bishop (Laurence Fishburne), an organized crime boss, who had a number of dealings with dirty cops, led by Marcus Duvall (Gabriel Byrne). The one thing this group of dirty cops won’t let happen is for Bishop to reach trial and end all of their illegal activities. The result is a full out assault on the precinct and all of its inhabitants in the hopes of killing the key witness.

Granted, this movie is a remake of a 1976 movie by John Carpenter and almost the same overall movie, but what’s even more important is that this is basically just a remake of any old western “hold down the fort” kind of movie. Be it cops or Indians outside the safety of the fort, it’s still the same movie. Director Jean-François Richet’s remake modernizes the original story, giving it new action sequences and even (gasp) adding some new plot twists. Whether these plot twists are there for independent intentions or are merely there to differentiate from the original is a topic that I will ignore for the purpose of being polite. The movie does boast a nice supply of good, wholesome violence and provided you can ignore the convenient plot devices (dark and stormy night, forgotten tunnels, forest in the middle of Detroit, etc.) “Assault” ends up being a pretty solid piece of work. You don’t want to fool around with dirty Detroit cops, since they have more firepower than the army and better high-tech resources than the C.I.A.

Laurence Fishburne is playing the same ubercriminal that Alan Rickman made great in “Die Hard”, only this time the proportions of ruthless criminal to intelligent villain are verging on cartoonish. Gabriel Byrne is there, playing the overanalyzing leader, only this time, he seemed to be a little confused as to exactly what type of character he was supposed to playing; merciless killer one minute followed by a river of deep moral conflict and personal reflection the next. Maybe there were two different scripts; heck, that might explain the minor inconsistencies in the plot.

“Assault” is a pretty entertaining movie all around, especially if you enjoy some good gunfights, big explosions, and a solid film about good guys shooting up a bunch of bad guys.

National Treasure

 Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.
At some point, the “green-lighters” in Hollywood will have to figure out that having Jerry Bruckheimer as a producer is not a sure-fire way to make a good movie. For example, “Coyote Ugly” – mediocre, “Pearl Harbor” – mediocre, “Pirates of the Caribbean” – excellent, and “National Treasure” – mediocre. “National Treasure” is like a distilled “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, such that the entertainment is watered down and the history concentrated for effect. Obviously built on the well tried formula for a family movie, “National Treasure” succeeds only as far as this formula will go, which means a few laughs, some mindless chase scenes, and a long, drawn out history lesson.

The movie is about Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicholas Cage), the current descendent of the family Gates, which for the last 180 years has been searching for a treasure that was buried by our forefathers during the American Revolution. The treasure was started during the time of the Egyptian Empire, and as time progressed, the treasure was captured by different groups and expanded upon until the Knights Templar discovered it. This order slowly smuggled it over to the New World, where the Free Masons hid it from the British until such a time that it could be given to the entire world. But Gate’s former partner, Ian Howe (Sean Bean), intends to take the treasure for himself. Gate’s only option is to try and beat Howe to the treasure with the help of his nerdy sidekick Riley Poole (Justin Bartha) and a National Archives curator, Dr. Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger).

Now, I will even go on record to say when I first saw the trailers for this movie, I was groaning at the thought of a pitiful quasi-“Indiana Jones” movie. Even though that’s pretty much all that was accomplished, I was surprised to find that “National Treasure” was not as god awful as I previously took it for. Granted, the movie should have been wrapped up in ninety minutes instead of 120+ and nearly every plot twist is either to match the formula for an action movie or to prevent making the movie a history channel special on early American History. Regardless, Sean Bean and Harvey Keitel (as an FBI agent) are excellent, even in this cut and dry script and the rapport between Gates and Riley is often the only entertaining dialogue on camera. And in what was probably a last minute script change, the final treasure changes from “believing in your dreams” to some actual gold. If they hadn’t changed this part of the script, the corny factor would have shot through the roof and made the movie unbearable.

Provided you don’t mind the formula of the action movie, chances are you’ll really enjoy “National Treasure”. Sure the entertainment is mindless and the plot just a yard short of ludicrous, but when did that ever stop a movie from being worth a watch? “National Treasure” is entertaining enough, and if you just sit back and relax, you just might learn something.

The Grudge

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago. 
Horror long ago became the bastard child of cinema: the desire to make truly frightening movies like the original “Night of the Living Dead” or “Psycho” is consistently traded off to put together movies that are designed to just jump out at you to scare you. Indeed, it seems that moviegoers are almost masochistic; these types of horror movies do surprisingly well in the box office and Hollywood does not hesitate to keep coming up with new ways of saying ‘Boo!’ “The Grudge”, the newest such entry into the fraternity of scary movies is certainly no exception. Without a doubt “The Grudge” will succeed in making most people jump, but it really just falls short of being truly frightening.

“The Grudge” follows the story of Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar), an American social worker living with her boyfriend in Tokyo. When one of her coworkers fails to show up for work, Karen is asked to cover her patient for a day. Karen arrives at the house only to find her patient all alone and the house in a complete state of disarray. She is hardly in the house for more than an hour before she hears strange noises coming from a taped up closet in the house. She opens the closet only to find a little boy, a book and a black cat. She’s manages just another few minutes before she runs into something far scarier than a spooky little boy: a ghost composed of enough hair to clog a manhole cover. Her brush with the ghost prompts Karen to unravel the mystery behind the strange occurrences in the house.

The story is told in a nonlinear style, not so much to give us new or necessary information or help advance the plot, but instead just to provide more opportunities for ghosts to kill people in different ways. Among the many victims in the movie are the couple who purchased the house, the patient’s daughter, and a police officer trying to find out how three of his partners died while investigating a murder in the house. The only story necessary to the plot is the one involving Peter (Bill Pullman), who is directly tied to the formation of the curse, and is the only one who doesn’t die from the “grudge”. The movie is a bit of an oddity: being based on a Japanese movie is pretty standard, but this is the first one to be directed by the same director from the original, Takashi Shimizu.

“The Grudge” has all the familiar horror conventions and enough of them to make the movie pretty scary: plenty of dark rooms, corners for ghosts to hide behind, and enough ghost fodder who are more than eager to go investigating strange noises. Japanese ghosts are nothing if convenient though: they call you on the phone to let you know they’re coming, they visit you at your workplace, and they even stash bodies in the attic for the police to find. Though the plot tends to drag in a few places, the scary and spooky events are paced well enough to at least keep you entertained.

“The Grudge” succeeds rather well as your typical October scare fest, but more than likely no one will remember it when they’re making their movie list next Halloween. Once you figure out how it’s pulling your strings, it loses its potency dramatically. If you’re in the mood for a good scare this October, “The Grudge” should meet your needs sufficiently, just don’t plan on being honestly frightened.

The Summer

 

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago. 

Though Hollywood is not known for consistently releasing good movies, most visitors of the Cineplex can at least look forward to the summer movie crop for some big budget, special effects-ridden movies to break the summer heat. Usually, even with a big budget, the movies can actually surpass the “eye candy” mark: the summer is where we got movies like Back to the Future, Star Wars, American Pie, Men in Black, Spider-Man and Raiders of the Lost Ark. But this summer, we were instead treated to not just a few, but an entire slew of empty Hollywood spectacles. While copious special effects can still leave an amazing movie (a la The Matrix), there comes a point when you need some meat with your popcorn.

For example, the summer opener, Van Helsing was little more than 2 hours of loosely strung together special effects and a hefty price tag ($175 million). The acting was mediocre to bad, and the plot was so bad that it seemed to have been written over a few hours. Two weeks later was the even larger budgeted Troy, starring Brad Pitt and Eric Bana, which was without a doubt modern cinema at its worst. First, you have really neat characters, with long, well explained back stories, then set them in a really neat story, and two and a half hours later, all you’ve done is a few short action sequences. With everything the movie had going for it, they ended up saying absolutely nothing, and doing next to nothing.

Of all the special effects extravaganzas, The Day After Tomorrow was without a doubt the most enjoyable, yet still ended up being very disappointing. Directed by Roland Emmerich (of Independence Day), the movie details the events of a storm spanning the entire globe, therefore requiring special effects for nearly half the movie (and not always good FX either). The characters were fun to watch and the plot was interesting, but the movie was so similar to Independence Day that it seemed as though we weren’t seeing anything new.

Perhaps the worst movie all this summer was Catwoman, which was basically a ninety minute movie whose sole merit was a scantily clad woman (in fact a male body double). The film showed complete ignorance of the source material (that is the DC comic character Catwoman). The director had the absolute brilliance to use the exact same song anytime Catwoman was about to do anything and make sure that Halle Berry wore the most form-fitting outfit for no particular reason. The real down side is that Berry was actually played a man (not kidding) during all the action and fight scenes.

The big word to sum up this summer at the movies would be disappointment. Though Hollywood did deliver with a few good movies we were all looking forward to (like Shrek 2 and Spiderman 2), nearly everything else from start to finish fit in the apparent summer movie theme of lackluster entertainment. This summer’s movies were almost all big budget special effects let downs, unoriginal adaptations and astonishingly unfunny, lame “comedies”. Though we can’t expect Hollywood to deliver funny, entertaining, special effects blockbusters all the time, summers like the past one remind audiences just how bad Hollywood can be.

The Rule Breakers

When I was in high school, I tried out for the part of drum major for the band, which was an altogether fun experience – I didn’t get it, but it was fun nonetheless. One of the things I learned for the tryouts was how to spin a mace. A mace, for the uninitiated, is the long pole, about five feet in length, with a large silver orb on the top of it. The mace is largely ceremonial, probably its only original purpose was to be a shiny object sticking above a marching formation so that the members can keep rhythm. Somewhere along the way though, some drum major got tired of just holding this thing, and after probably attempting to use it as a sword, decided to start spinning the thing around. Modern drum majors will almost always be seen spinning this ungainly monster of a baton (or sometimes two) causing it to dance, spin, and fly through the air to the delight of the crowd.

The band director who was showing how to do mace-work (his term) explained that there are two approaches to mace spinning: an east coast and a west coast. The east coast, he explained, was all about performing the mace-work with ultimate precision; every single move should be text-book perfection according to the east coasters. The west coast he summed up with a simple mantra: “Hey, check out what I can do.” The west coast wasn’t concerned with doing things according to any “official” pattern; instead they did their mace-work for fanfare and showmanship (and a heavy dose of one-upmanship). In other words, do things so unbelievable that no one else can copy you. The east coast was like a game of Horse, and the west coast was an “And 1” tape. It wasn’t until I was in college that I realized that this didn’t just apply to mace-work, but to everything – music, food, scholarly pursuits. Maybe it’s the weather.

In improv there is still those two different rules of thought, what I like to think of as the rule-followers and the rule breakers. A rule follower is always trying to improve upon an idea: that form worked mostly, except for this, so let’s fix that for next time, or that didn't work at all, let's scrap the whole thing and go in a new direction. Followers are about form and technique, so they focus on drilling basics and fundamentals and attempting to follow the rules. These would be the same rules that were published in “Truth in Comedy” many, many years ago and have since become more of a burden on the improv world than they’ve helped. Mick Napier denounced them in “Improvise”, and there are even rumblings all throughout the iO that the rules are not all they’re cracked up to be. The problem? The rules are largely negative in their wording (e.g. “Never ask questions!”) and they make improvisers think too much. “Oh, am I doing this right?” “Is this following the rules enough?” Give a man a rule, and he will do his best to follow it.

Except of course, for the breakers. Rule breakers cast aside simple notions like classes, workshops, and improv books in favor of a more customized approach: “Watch what I can do.” Even the greatest improv teacher in the world can only take you so far and at some point you have to be ready to come to a Zen level of connectedness with form, technique, and structure. At risk of sounding any more western (or Californian, heaven forbid) a “one-ness”. All improvisers are, for lack of a better term, artists, as the outcomes on stage are the result of our unified point-of-view and interpretation of the world around us.

The rules do have their place; they are the foundation for a basic appreciation and understanding of the art – but don’t be afraid to spin improv in your own way and maybe show it off, all the while screaming: “I dare you to follow me!”

The Interpreter

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.

Sometimes the distances that actors and actresses travel in terms of characters is monumental. Take “The Interpreter’s” primary stars: Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn. It was less than a decade ago that Kidman was following George Clooney around trying to disarm nuclear weapons in “The Peacemaker”, and not that long ago that Penn’s Spicoli was ordering pizzas to Mr. Hand’s class in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”. “The Interpreter” shares this kind of idea: it’s a classic feeling film, very personal, small cast with a Hitchcock-like plot of a geopolitical who dunnit. But in modern times, this classic kind of movie is much more of a supercharged tale of revenge and political suspense.

“The Interpreter” opens up with Silvia Broome (Nicole Kidman), a United Nations interpreter, going to the U.N. general assembly sound room late at night to retrieve some personal items when she hears a conversation regarding an assassination on President Zuwanie, the genocidal leader of the small African nation of Matobo. The Secret Service dispatches Tobin Keller and Dot Woods (Sean Penn and Catherine Keener) two agents with Foreign Dignitary Protection. As they investigate the possibility of assassination, they turn up an enormous amount of dirt on Broome, who used to be a revolutionary in Matobo following the death of her parents. Keller may not believe her at first and has more mounting suspicions, but there are definitely dark hands at work leading to mysterious masked men and ruthless assassinations of President Zuwanie’s only remaining opponents.

The melting pot of New York City and the global unity of the United Nations building act only as a stage for dual plot of both personal and global struggles for forgiveness and revenge. Both Broome and Keller have semi-dark histories of loved ones lost to tragedy, which focus both of their current efforts to try and save people. These interpersonal struggles act to mirror the bigger plot as to whether or not Zuwanie should be assassinated to better the people of the nation he has oppressed.

A movie with a plot about political turmoil would have been traditionally treated as a sufficient film, but apparently someone felt that additional, deeper subplots were necessary to drive the concept. Though the presence of these subplots never brings the film to a “halt”, they do serve to drag the plot down to a “yield”. This isn’t helped at all by a possible romantic interest between Keller and Broome. What really drives this movie is the international turmoil, as it is far more interesting than morbid lists Broome’s brother kept of dead Matobans or Penn’s constant look of pensive severity. This film is greatly benefited by strong supporting cast, including Keener and Jesper Christensen as a Dutch ex-mercenary and security officer to Zuwanie.

“The Interpreter” sums up to being a pretty good movie – not necessarily “fun”, but definitely interesting and exciting. The theme of pacifism is an interesting complement to a film that highlights some of America’s biggest contemporary fears as well as some neat action sequences. You can always count on a movie like “The Interpreter” to make you feel good: the good guys win, the bad guys lose, and hopefully the world is made a better place. At least until next week.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse is one of those movies you wish somebody would just shoot in the head so it would quit staggering around trying to eat your brains. Resident Evil: Apocalypse is like taking everything that is bad about a Paul W.S. Anderson movie and distilling all the good stuff away, oh wait…it isn’t like that, it is that.

Resident Evil opens just days after the first film finished, with our heroine, Alice (Milla Jovovich) waking up after her first encounter with the evil T-virus and its creator, the Umbrella Corporation. The Umbrella Corporation has been secretly developing this virus, which brings dead people back to life in a secret underground facility called the Hive. After zombies in the first film overran the Hive, the Umbrella Corporation has decided to reopen the facility, allowing all the undead creatures inside to spill out into the streets of Raccoon City, where an entire population of people are waiting to become zombie food. The Umbrella Corporation decide it would just be easier to vaporize the entire city, so they seal off the entire city (which thankfully has only one entrance) and the only people left alive are a small band of police officers and civilians led by Alice. They are contacted by an Umbrella scientist who offers them a way out but only if they rescue his daughter who is also trapped in the city.

Director Alexander Witt is working off a script by the director of the first movie, Paul W.S. Anderson. In fact, he’s practically stolen Anderson’s entire playbook, yet seems to have only a minimal grasp of the source material and script. He uses Anderson’s trademark computerized maps to cut between scenes and works the entire movie like its just one big computer game, with characters bumbling about from location to location with no rhyme or reason and the bosses getting progressively harder as the story progresses. Additionally, the lickers, who were only briefly featured in the first film get only about an extra minute of screen time in this movie, which allows them to introduce: the Nemesis. Another product of the T-virus research, the Nemesis moves like Darth Vader, looks like something Todd McFarlane doodled in his spare time, and wears a black leather slicker out fit that looks like it was stolen from the set of I Know What You Did Last Summer. Oh, and he’s bulletproof too, which is a brilliant design innovation.

While most zombie movies usually revolve around themes of commercialism or societies that are losing individuality, Resident Evil: Apocalypse decides instead to focus on giant, evil corporations who own everything (Who released the original “Resident Evil” game? Oh, wait that’s right: Sony.) The only thing that saves this movie is Mike Epps, who has all the great lines and Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory) wearing an outfit that that is definitely not standard police issue.

To put it simply: if you must go see only one zombie movie this year, wait for Shaun of the Dead. As for Resident Evil: Apocalypse, the movie barely manages to pull enough entertainment to keep the masses from breaking into the theatre to eat the projectionist alive for making them sit through it.

A Reunion

Frequent readers of my blog know that I am an unabashed American Pie enthusiast, so let's not waste any time with a build up, or a fancy intro and get right down the most important question of the new film in the canon, American Reunion: how does the film hold up in terms of my ongoing exploration of its themes of authenticity versus artifice?

But first, a review of the film – Reunion is based around the 13-year high school reunion for the East Great Falls class (don't worry about why it's the 13^th, it's callously explained away with one line of dialogue, so let's not dwell too much on that one particular). Jim and Michelle have settled into a comfortable (read: sexless) marriage with kid, Kevin has a beard and a wife, but appears to be kind of restless with both, Oz has gone on to be a hammy sports show host and a former runner up on a “Dancing with the Stars” type show who is apparently discontent with his raunchy blond girlfriend, Finch has just returned from some sort of globe-trotting adventure, Stifler is a door stop intern at some sort of finance or law firm (maybe even both), Vicky has been living in New York since high school working at something (possible art related), Heather is now a doctor (I guess), Jessica is a lesbian, Milf Guy #2 (seriously how he is listed on IMDb) is organizing the reunion, Jim's Dad is now a widower, Stiffler's Mom is still a milf, I guess, and the Sherminator is divorced.

If that sounds like a lot, that's because it is, and while the formula of having multiple protagonists engaged in their own particular conquests worked in the first film quite well, here it feels a little too much. The difference is that while in Pie there were four protagonists all engaged in their own escapades, the goal was the same for all of them: lose your virginity. Here, everyone has a problem, but everyone's problem is different. (Though surprising, and also maybe refreshing, is a real dearth of sentimentality for “days past” - it's there mind you, but it's cooly minimal. And even more surprising, it's not Kevin dealing with it.) And the whole desire to get the entire band back together for the big finale (choke on this – the theatrical Pie releases now form a Quadrilogy), there's a few too many things going on here at once for the audience to feel concerned or even particularly interested in any of them, and as a result the things that should have some emotional resonance don't.

Now what I find unique about this series is how it exists in a fairly small category of films that explore what it's like for a group of friends to have grown up with from each other, to actually watch a friendship evolve. Other singular films have explored a moment, but this is a unique franchise where we can actually watch that evolution occur. This is particularly difficult for comedies, because a lot of that genre's function predicates on the maintenance of peculiar points-of-view or situations. Could you imagine a 40-Year-Old-Virgin 2? You'd have to get a new virgin. Just look at the backlash to Hangover 2; it is very hard to create a same character sequel without just retreading the same ground.

Now, on to my continuing argument regarding authenticity versus artifice: it's here. Oz is discontent obviously because he abandoned the “real” thing he had with Heather. His new life feels like a farce, because it so obviously hangs on him like a poorly tailored suit, particularly in the way he glumly reacts to people recognizing him for his “Dancing” appearance. Finch has been actually lying about his world traveling (which makes me wonder about the similar claims in Pie 2), a lie that actually lands him in jail. What is probably the most glaring evidence of technology being a crutch is when Stiffler tries the old our-car-broke-down-can-we-come-in-and-use-your-phone, and the wary homeowner inquires why the boys don't have cell phones. Stiffler's response is as succinct as could be desired: “The last time I did this cell phones didn't exist.”

Jim and Michelle are sexually frustrated because of their child, which isn't being honest to each other (in addition to the pre-title sequence built around watching porn on the internet and a bathtub water wand that I already discussed in my article about the trailer, they also try a little bondage as before the end of act II to spice things up). What should be the most important factor though, is the guys needing to be honest about where they are in life; they can't stay up drinking all night, they can't party and tussle with high school age kids, and they are grown up now (maybe the fact that this isn't really a big issue demonstrates how well matured everyone is?) so they can't really have shenanigans because responsibility, that's why. Hell I'm starting to think the screenwriters read my blog (Hey Jon and Hayden!), because the antagonistic high school kids show up on jet skis to antagonize people . But in a positive approval of a non-technology, Luddite stance, the fun, carefree, high-school Bacchanalia takes place at “the Falls”, an unstructured series of bonfires, beer coolers, and camp chairs gathered around a beach and waterfall. It's honestly gotten to the point where I can't think of a scene that doesn't bristle with a condemnation of technology. (I may have issues.)

Still this movie met all expectations, it just seems unfortunate that they were so eager to include a catch-up with everyone that the narrative suffered from an over-burdening. They had managed to bring everyone back for the second film, but it should be pointed out that Oz's story was practically non-existent, Finch and Kevin had very “B” stories, and Stifler didn't have an issue – he was just an instigator, a role that Seann William Scott excels at. The second and third films are really Jim's movies. We do get some nicely pleasant moments with the gang all back together, and this is a group of friends that I, for one, do enjoy spending time with.

Guess Who?

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.

Sure, Ashton Kutcher may not be known for high quality or “deep” films (e.g. “Just Married”), but he has surprised moviegoers with some reasonable acting chops (e.g. “The Butterfly Effect”) or at least with entertaining films (e.g. “Dude, Where’s My Car?”). His latest film, “Guess Who” is officially the bottom of the barrel for this star. Unfunny, and rife with the exact kind of stuff that makes most people uncomfortable, “Guess Who” is only slightly worse from last week’s other premier, “Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous”.

“Guess Who” details the story of Simon Green (Kutcher), an investment banker who is traveling with his girlfriend, Theresa (Zoe Saldana) to meet her parents and announce their engagement. Unfortunately, Theresa’s father, Percy Jones (Bernie Mac) is reasonably upset that his oldest daughter has selected a “white boy” to be her mate. While Simon fights to please Theresa’s family, Percy is aimed at destroying Simon’s reputation and saving his daughter from making a mistake. By the end of the movie, we can be sure that Simon and Percy will get along, and Simon’s relationship to Theresa and her family will be cemented so that everyone can live happily every after.

“Guess Who” is a pseudo-remake of the 1967 classic “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner”, starring Sidney Poitier and Katharine Houghton. In the original, the only difference is that it’s a white girl bringing her black boyfriend home to meet her parents. I’ve never seen the original, but something tells me that a movie with that kind of premise debuting in the heart of civil rights movement had to have been well done, not to mention the presence of Sidney Poitier and Spencer Tracy in leading roles. “Guess Who” makes no effort to bring itself to any level of anything worthwhile, and instead of showing some fusion of the two very different cultures, all it does is get lost in a sea of stereotypes and non-progressive attitudes.

Especially given that “Guess Who” is classified as a ‘comedy’ one would at least suspect the film to be funny, but it achieves little more than sporadic and isolated humor. Combine that with the stale racial commentary, and the movie achieves little more than a predictable melodrama. Most of the character relationships are poorly portrayed, and despite Simon being in a household of a different race, he acts like an idiot, being cornered into moments of racial tension and then doing the exact wrong thing. Even Bernie Mac, usually the comic relief in movies needing a little humor can’t carry this picture, especially when they give his character racial blinders for the first three quarters of the picture.

I had hoped that by now that filmmakers would make some effort to actually doing something with their art form, be it pursuing new relationships between radically different strata of people or entertaining the audience. But when a movie achieves neither of these and merely seeks to enforce the differences between people, it’s time to go a new direction. “Guess Who” could have been something interesting if somebody had sat down and picked a premise to focus on, instead of just spinning gears with a boring, predictable plot based around two racially terse people.

Alone in the Dark

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.

Let’s face it: if you watch enough movies, every once in a while you run across one that is really bad. Most of them, you can switch your brain off, sit back, and enjoy the flickering lights. Others are even worse, and they required the creation of shows like “Mystery Science Theatre 3000” to actually make these films palatable. And yet there is still a tier just below those films: movies so bad, you can’t help but watch them, if only to please the same part of your brain that loves rubbernecking to see horrific accidents. “Alone in the Dark” is a movie so horrible, so god awful, that it should be avoided by everyone; even after two days, I still can’t wipe out the impression it left on my skull.

“Alone in the Dark” opens with a narrated story about the Abkani, a Native American tribe who were wiped off the face of the planet by a race of dark creatures called Zenos. When gold miners uncovered some artifacts from this culture, the government started Bureau 713, an organization dedicated to investigating the paranormal and supernatural phenomena surrounding these artifacts. Leading the investigation into the Abkani is Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), a former Bureau 713 agent and orphan who is missing several years of life as a result of a failed Zeno symbiote implantation. Assisting Carnby is Commander Burke (Stephen Dorff), leader of Bureau 713, and Aline Cedrac (Tara Reid) a “genius archeologist”. Carnby’s investigations lead him to “Shadow Island” and the machinations of former Bureau 713 leader Lionel Hudgins and his attempts to do something with the Zenos that is never fully described.

If the title sounds familiar, that’s because “Alone in the Dark” is based on a video game series of the same title, and if it doesn’t sound familiar, that’s okay, because only a small handful of people ever actually played the game. All I remember of it was that it was like a cheap “Myst” and it refused to uninstall off my computer. Director Uwe Boll’s last venture “House of the Dead” (also based on a video game) made only slightly more sense than this catastrophe. Watching this movie is like hanging out with your best friend’s younger brother: all he wants to do is make you think he’s “cool”. As a result, the movie is a horrible amalgamation of gunfights, bad synthesizer background music, horrible, over-clichéd dialogue, and bad “Matrix”-ized fight scenes. “Alone in the Dark’s” “scariest” moment amounts to little more than a production assistant flipping some light switches on and off. Most of the movie doesn’t even make sense, with a huge collection of short little occurences that have no bearing on the story, which are never explained and welded together with slipshod editing.

The Bureau is perhaps the most entertaining part of the movie: they wear reject “Power Rangers” outfits and act with less prowess than the ensigns on “Star Trek”. The Zenos aren’t much better: they are the creation of really bad CGI and look like a combination of the xenomorphs from “Alien” and the insects from “Starship Troopers”. Fortunately Slater and Dorff are at the very least tolerable, but unfortunately Reid is at an all career low for her ability, and her “genius” character isn’t done much justice by every other line being “hey guys, check this out”.

Of course, this movie might have been pretty awesome if Boll hadn’t directed this movie, permanently infusing his ultimate lack of talent with the film forever. With the absolute abundance of plot holes in this movie, I’m surprised one of the characters didn’t actually see them and walk right through it into a good movie.

Sideways

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.

Finally, we have an achievement of the year for filmmaking – a clever turn on the familiar buddy road film. But this general plot line is where “Sideways” pulls away from its more popular cousins, like “Taxi” or “Tommy Boy” and sides more with “Lost in Translation”. “Sideways” is warm and fuzzy one minute, then depressing and provocative the next. Of course, a movie this good isn’t playing in Hattiesburg, but should you go home for the holidays and find it playing nearby – definitely check it out.

“Sideways” is a about Miles (Paul Giamatti), a very depressed author and wine connoisseur. Miles used to be happy of course, but his earlier divorce destroyed him realizing that he has long past his peak and is gradually sliding towards death. At the complete other end of the spectrum, is Miles’ old college friend, Jack (Thomas Haden Church) a washed-up actor and womanizer, just a week away from his marriage. For his last week of bachelordom, Miles is taking his friend Jack on a trip through California wine country. Miles wants a good glass of wine and golf, and Jack wants a lot of wine and a couple of flings before he’s tied down. Their travels bring them across Stephanie (Sandra Oh) and Maya (Virginia Madsen), a wine-pourer and waitress, respectively. While Jack and Stephanie become sexually entangled, Miles attempts to woo Maya. Of course, Stephanie and Maya eventually find out about Jack’s wedding, and Jack and Miles have to return home to their lives.

“Sideways” is in a lot of ways similar to director Alexander Payne’s other work like “Election”: the plot may not be breakneck, but its obvious that there’s a whole lot going on, and by the time the movie is over, you can’t help but being entertained. Miles is very similar to Mathew Broderick’s character in “Election”, a teacher, yearning for something much more but only being shadowed by other people’s success. But don’t think that the movie is only wilted flowers; in fact it is very humorous which only helps to make the film feel more real. Giamatti and Church’s acting is spectacular, and the dialogue and secondary characters only add to the body of the film. And to top it off, the cinematography is fantastic, as it appears that the color scheme was taken from a random pick box of wines: lots of warm and friendly hues, which combined with the Jack character, only makes you pity Miles just that much more.

I would like to say that’s there is nobody out there who wouldn’t like this movie, but then I think about those poor fools locked in that “unfeasible fortress of unknown disability” and I realize that there is more than a few people who wouldn’t like this movie; probably not enough explosions and gunfights to keep you preoccupied. But this movie really is fantastic, and the disillusioned philosophy majors out there would probably really enjoy it. I think the greatest strength of the movie though, is the ending: instead of spending ten minutes wrapping it up, the credits roll pre-denouement, leaving you thirsty for more.

Team America: World Police

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.

The Hollywood action film is about to get a major overhaul, done with: wood. “Team America: World Police” is an insanely funny movie by the creators of “South Park” and done entirely with wood constructed marionettes. The movie takes the action genre, which over the years has degenerated into shallow productions, and sets it against a politically minded plot to create movie that is everything it promises to be and more.

“Team America: World Police” follows the exploits of Team America, a group of globetrotting adventurers who travel the world fighting terrorism, capturing weapons of mass destruction, and destroying practically everything in sight. The story begins with the recruitment of Gary Johnston (voiced by Trey Parker), a Broadway actor who is recruited by Team America to help them infiltrate a terrorist organization in the Middle East. Even though their mission is a success, the terrorists pull of an attack on Panama Canal and it becomes obvious that there is a larger terrorist plot at work. To make matters worse, Team America’s actions are protested by the Film Actor’s Guild, their secret headquarters in Mount Rushmore come under protest, and most of the team is taken hostage by the true terrorist mastermind: Kim Jong Il.

Undoubtedly, anyone who is a fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s previous work like “Baseketball”, “South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut”, or “Orgazmo” will find this movie to be nothing less than hysterical. The movie was not only written by the duo, but also directed, produced, performed, and every song but two was written and performed by Trey Parker. The use of marionettes allows the movie to take full comic advantage and do something very original. The movie makes it completely obvious that strings control these characters: one of the first fight scenes features hand to hand combat where the two puppets just jiggle around next to each other. Additionally, since every character is made of wood, the opportunity to have people detonate or melt away is relished in every scene.

What this movie really has to offer is what it says about Hollywood and action movies in general. Originally Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s idea was to create a marionette version of “The Day After Tomorrow” and release it on the same day as its live action counterpart. Although legal matters prevented this, they decided the idea was good enough to warrant a movie that shows just how shallow and interchangeable action movies are. The entire movie is actually meant to satire the use (or over-use as the case often is) of CGI and lame special effects as a crutch for good acting and a decent plot in movies. By using wooden marionettes, they have an enormous amount of flexibility in creating an nearly typical action movie, yet making it different enough to be downright amazing. The movie also takes the opportunity to make some interesting statements about the political atmosphere in America. Instead of seeing a ‘politician’ in the movie, the only political statements are made by characters meant to be Hollywood stars. Additionally, the entire movie is presented as being ethnically unconscious, for example, every location is presented as being a certain distance from America.

“Team America: World Police”, is an incredibly hilarious film, quite possibly the funniest movie to come out all year. Despite the limitations of wooden puppets as the only actors, the movie is an extremely successful satire of not only action movies, but also the political atmosphere. “Team America: World Police” may be crude at some times, but there really is no substitution for good comedy.

Polar Express

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.

Truly, the unappreciated art in the world of filmmaking is the process of adapting a book to make the big screen. Some books are easy: “Lord of the Rings” had an enormous amount of source material, and with each installment running 3 hours plus, they still had to leave some stuff out. Our most recent arrival “The Polar Express” was much more difficult: try expanding a 32 page children’s book into a whole 96 minutes of holiday entertainment. “Polar Express” does an admirable job, but if you don’t have a tinge of the Christmas spirit, you’ll undoubtedly hate it, from the engine to the caboose.
“Polar Express” is all about renewing the holiday spirit in children who can see through the fake beard the department store Santa is sporting. It follows the story of Hero Boy, a young boy who is losing his faith in Old Saint Nick. On Christmas Eve, a train pulls up outside his house offering him a trip to the North Pole to meet the big man and get a taste of the Christmas spirit.
Tom Hanks definitely earns his paycheck in this movie: he not only does the voice of the main character and the conductor, but also Santa Claus, Hero Boy’s father, the Scrooge, and a friendly train Hobo. He and director Robert Zemeckis obviously put the most energy into the movie, and really try to harvest as much Christmas spirit as is humanly possible a week and a half before Thanksgiving. Surprisingly, they manage to generate a pretty entertaining movie, though its obvious that a lot of sequences were included to just make the minimum length.
Zemeckis’ vision in the movie has strangely dark undertones though, almost like there is some sliver of something sinister hiding behind the warm glow of the Christmas. His vision of Santa Clause is vaguely reminiscent of Big Brother, and worst of all, the only music in the North Pole is the same Christmas songs being played over the loudspeakers down at the mall.
Nonetheless, “Polar Express” is a fun film, just dripping with the joys of Christmas spirit.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Cellular

Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.

Despite falling into most of the typical snares for an action thriller, like absurd plot twists, lack of message, and plot holes Cellular manages to be entertaining enough so that you don’t notice these problems. Cellular is well acted, uses its gimmick basis well, and provides a successful skewering of the cell phone subculture.

Cellular opens with Jessica Martin (Kim Basinger) being kidnapped by a gang of thugs shortly after sending her son off to school. The thugs led by Greer (Jason Statham) whisk her away to an old house where they lock Jessica in an attic, leaving her only after smashing the wall phone in the attic into little bits. However, Jessica is a high school Biology teacher, and apparently studied at the same college where the professor from Gilligan’s Island went, because in a matter of minutes she does a MacGyver with the phone, and makes a call. But the only phone she gets belongs to Ryan (Chris Evans) who is needless to say a little skeptical about a kidnapping plot on the other end of his phone. Ryan is your typical college student, irresponsible, lazy but after hearing one of the other kidnappers threatening Jessica, decides to try and help her out. His only assistance comes from Sergeant Mooney (William H. Macy) who is on his last day of duty before he opens his own beauty parlor (“It’s a day spa!”).

Director David R. Ellis wastes no time in getting this movie on a roll, as Jessica is kidnapped within the first two scenes of the film. Thankfully, he also manages to keep the pace of the movie all the way to the closing credits (which are done on cell phone screens) which is probably the film’s greatest strength: it may be unbelievable in some places, but it keeps your attention well enough to where you don’t notice it. The acting is plausible (we’ll overlook that our Biology teacher heroine was about to leave for work wearing fishnet stockings), the movie is well executed and the dialogue goes just far enough to keep from being hokey. What is equally amazing is all the different ways that the cell phone is used not only as a prop, but also as a plot device. The hardest part about writing the whole movie was probably in just coming up with a few dozen ways to use a cell phone. Cellular never takes itself to seriously, and ends up just being a fun movie to just sit back and watch.

Should you manage to overlook Cellular’s gimmicky nature and plot holes, you may just find the movie to be surprisingly entertaining.