Rampart Review

I can't really explain it.  I really like Woody Harrelson.  Ever since Cheers, I've thought he was a good actor with terrific comic timing.  And maybe that's it.  He needs to be doing comedy.  A good example is Zombieland.  When he does that, he's much better.  In Rampart, Harrelson plays David "Date Rape" Brown;  a corrupt slimeball LA cop who is at the forefront of a police brutality scandal.  What little family life he has is falling apart and his whole existence is spiralling out of control.  The problem is that, when Harrelson plays this type of character, he tends to underperform.  And in Rampart, he forces his lines in a manner that almost seems like he's trying to remind the audience that the film is about him and a possible Oscar bid.  It comes off as very unbelievable.  Because Rampart focuses so much on him, this gets magnified.  The other characters are one-dimensional and exist solely to hasten Brown's downfall.  And that's a shame really because the film features some great actors in Sigourney Weaver, Ned Beatty, Cynthia Nixon, Ben Foster and Robin Wright.  But these actors never get the opportunity to be what they can really be.  The most intriguing was Foster's performance as the handicapped addict, General.  But he only got a couple of scenes.

The acting isn't the only problem with this film.  The story really has no discernable plot.  There's this loosely put together story of the scandal but it jumps around between that, Brown's past transgressions, his family life, his relationship with Wright, etc.  Without a cohesive plot line, it just becomes a series of almost random acts of debauchery and corruption that make no real sense.  Case in point: at one point, Brown goes to some underground sex club for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON!  If there was a reason, I missed it because it was later in the film and I had completely lost interest.  It was a scene that tried to be expository in an artsy way and just derailed an already fragile film.

The production value was pretty decent though.  They made very good use of lighting and locations throughout to make it realistic.  The best one I can think of was the encounter on the beach between Brown and Hartshorn (Beatty).  We normally think of beaches as being almost fantasy and a getaway from life.  But having the industrial factory-like building in the background really kept the viewer grounded in the theme of the movie.  Rampart is really full of these types of shots.  It's a shame though because it isn't enough to outweigh the poor performance from Harrelson, the lack of plot and the unbelievably slow pace to the movie.

Don't see it.  There's so many better gritty cop dramas out there.  Start with Heat and work your way through.

The Switch Review

I knew what I was going to get going in.  The Switch is a very predictable romantic comedy that follows the classic formula of the genre to a T.  It has everything.  The shleppy hero who wants the woman: check in Jason Bateman.  The girl who's heart is misguided: check in Jennifer Aniston.  The girl's friend who doesn't really care for the shleppy hero: check in Juliette Lewis.  The Jiminy Cricket character for the shleppy guy: check in Jeff Goldblum.  The guy who the shleppy hero must compete with for the girl's affections: check with who I can only assume is a DNA cross of Matthew McConaughey and Owen Wilson.  The plot of shleppy guy wanting girl, girl wants other guy, shleppy guy does something stupid and almost ruins everything and tries to fix it through a grand gesture: check.

But it's a formula that has worked time and time again.  Yes, it's predictable and there are absolutely no surprises.  But while I was watching, I found myself really enjoying it in spite of always knowing what was going to happen next.  It can't be due to the story or writing.  There is really nothing of that in this movie that sets it apart from any other romantic comedy.  Yes, the idea of switching a sperm sample and then figuring out seven years later that the kid is yours is a bit new.  But the whole "guy learns how to live life from a quirky kid" was done much better in About A Boy.

What makes this movie good boils down to the cast.  Every character in this movie is cast almost perfectly.  Jason Bateman has always been able to play the understated quiet and thoughtful guy dating back to Necessary Roughness.  Jeff Goldblum is always a treat as a guy who is a little left of normal but still very smart and wise (ie. Jurassic Park).  Juliette Lewis plays a bitch pretty well as we've seen in countless other movies.  I'm not overly familiar with a lot of Patrick Wilson's work (outside of the A-Team) but he looked the part to play Bateman's competition and did it very well.  The worst performance though would have to be Jennifer Aniston's.  Let's face it.  She's pretty much a one trick pony that can only play "basic pretty girl with no real depth of character" and when she tries to get out of that, she falls flat (Along Came Polly).  Here, she played the basic girl part competently but there was really nothing special about it.  On the flip side, however, Thomas Robinson as Sebastian was brilliant.  He played the weird, dopey hypochondriac kid perfectly.  At times, I thought he might actually be Jason Bateman's kid.

I realize that's a bit of a mixed bag of a review.  I criticize it for being predictable but I praise it for being entertaining and its acting.  (I can be pretty manic with these reviews, eh?)  So I'll leave it to my criteria for a romantic comedy.  Did it make me laugh and did it make me feel good for having watched it?  Yes on both.  So see it.

Attack the Block Review

It's a Studio Canal production about an alien invasion in London and features Nick Frost.  When I heard about that, I figured I had to see it.  I normally love Studio Canal movies and Frost is one of my favourite actors.  I knew he didn't have a huge role and I'm pretty sure he was only brought on board to bring credibility to the film and that his friend, Edgar Wright was a producer.  Once you get past that, there's really no great depth to the film.  It's another run of the mill alien invasion movie.  Aliens invade and regular people fight them off.

But they do it in an entertaining way.  Like Shaun of the Dead (and most other alien/monster/apocalypse movies), it takes what should be a global phenomenon and focuses it to a localized environment and its inhabitants.  In this case, it is an impoverished apartment block in South London.  One thing I do like is that, instead of just having the film focus on the people as a nuisance to the aliens' bigger goal of domination (like, for example, Independence Day), the aliens are actually focusing on the block's residents as well.  I won't say why because it would spoil it.  But the humans aren't just getting in the way of the aliens like in most movies.  This one is an actual duel and that was a refreshing twist.

It wouldn't be a proper commentary on an alien invasion movie without talking about the effects.  It had a budget of only $13,000,000.  And the effects didn't suffer one bit.  They couldn't focus on gore and alien effects too much but what they did do in the gore department, they did well and realistically.  The alien effects were terrific in their simplicity.  With the exception of the first one, the aliens are nothing more than ape-like mammals with teeth that glow (while they're alive).  The fur did look a bit polyester but I really liked this for two reasons.  First, very rarely, if ever, do you see aliens in the movies that are mammals.  Why can't other primal and aggressive worldy races develop hair too?  Second, in their simplicity, they are terrifying.    They are basically pitch black running carpets with teeth.  There's no over the top tentacles or huge bug eyes.  The whole movie takes place at night and seeing them approach the humans in the background and almost all you can see is the teeth was actually quite chilling.  They took the small budget and really used it to their advantage.

Finally, the acting.  There is nothing special here.  But it's an alien invasion movie so I would have been surprised if there was.  John Boyega is actually annoying in some places.  He just couldn't be convincing as the gang leader.  But the rest of the cast provided a good balance of bravery, fear and comedic dialogue and antics that it's a net positive even if sometimes it seemed that I was laughing at cultural differences in vocabulary more than actual intended jokes.  Michael Ajao and Sammy Williams also deserve a mention as the two younger kids who want to be thugs.  They brought a decent element of comedy to the whole film.  And, if you follow this web log, you will know that I really don't like kids in heroic roles.  But they did it well.

See it.  It doesn't have enough Nick Frost.  But it does have enough entertainment value to make it fun.

Crazy Stupid Love Review

It seems that, lately, Hollywood is trying to break the mold when it comes to romantic comedies.  With Crazy Stupid Love they appear to be following that.  As this movie starts I thought it was going to be a lot like Hitch: Steve Carell gets Ryan Gosling to help him with the ladies and Gosling learns the valuable lessons in the process.  And, in a way, it is a lot like Hitch.  But while that was really the only level of Hitch, Crazy Stupid Love takes that premise and builds on it quite a bit.

Basically, everyone is in love with everyone else.  At least that's what it felt like for a lot of the film.  There are times, especially at the beginning, where you think that it feels like a huge ripoff of Love, Actually.  In the beginning, there seems to be no real reason for some of the characters to be there.  But this isn't really a story where multiple stories are followed and then some of them are loosely brought together (something Love, Actually did to near perfection).  They tried to make it an ensemble romantic comedy and overall, they succeeded.  But I think it would have been more effective if they had focused on Carell's character development or developed the others more.  They leaned towards Carell too much to not go all the way to it.  In Crazy Stupid Love, everything eventually comes around and it is actually all tied up quite nicely.  In fact, there are times when it seems a bit too convenient that things are happening the way they are.  But it's a romantic comedy and I can forgive a lot of that stuff in the genre.

All around, the acting is decent.  Carell went more towards his role in Little Miss Sunshine or Date Night than anything goofy.  And this is when I think he is actually at his best.  The man has some very decent range.  The rest of the cast is nothing to write home about but isn't bad either.  It was pretty much what I would expect from people like Ryan Gosling, John Carroll Lynch, Kevin Bacon and Julianne Moore.  The only one that I thought was really out of place was Marissa Tomei.  She appeared to be trying to steal her scenes and her over the top character didn't fit in with the rest of the understated feel of the movie at all.

Ultimately, I have to judge a romantic comedy on two criteria.  First, did it make me laugh?  It is a comedy after all so it needs to do that.  Second, did it make me feel good at the end?  You want to come away from a romantic comedy feeling glad that you watched it.  The answer on both fronts is "yes."  It wasn't anything to blow me away on either front but it did do both.  See it.  It isn't groundbreaking or cream of the crop by any means but it is a nice diversion.

Drive Review

"OK, so here's what I want to do.  I'm going to make a movie about a professional criminal driver who would really just like to make a fresh start in the tough town of LA.  He meets a girl and tries to do the right thing by her in his own weird and immoral way.  We've seen this type of thing before.  But I'm going to add a twist.  I am going to ensure that the actor I get to play him has always just taken a lot of valium before we start shooting."  I can only imagine that's how the film makers went about pitching this movie to the studios.  I know that Ryan Gosling's character is supposed to be mysterious and quiet and have a past that we can only speculate about.  But there's a difference between calm and collected and almost comatose with lack of emotion.  He went a little too far towards comatose.

The supporting acting wasn't a whole lot better.  I could never believe Bryan Cranston's limp but maybe that's just because all I ever see when he's on screen is Malcolm's dad.  Ron Perlman was a disappointment too.  Normally, he's very good.  But he went too far over the top with most of what he did and it came off as plastic.  Finally, I guess the Simpsons has ruined me because even if I see that it's Albert Brooks on the screen, as soon as he starts talking, all I get in my head is Hank Scorpio offering Homer Simpson some sugar.  But even with my own biases towards the choice of actors, none of their performances really made me believe in the characters.  Cranston just couldn't make me think of a two-bit part time criminal.  Perlman couldn't make me believe he was a mafioso type.  And Brooks did not project the fear and terror that a character like that should.

Often in these reviews I will say that it has a really good story but they just don't tell it right.  Well, in this one, I don't even think they had a very good story.  I know there's a limited number of basic archetypes out there and I don't mind retelling of things with a different angle.  But they really fell flat with their "man with no name as a flawed hero" style of story.  And even though Gosling has a name in it, it really is that story.  Instead of sticking to that, they take it and try to add an element of LA angst that is somewhat akin to Punch Drunk Love or the book "Bright Shiny Morning" by James Frey (a movie and book I would highly recommend to anyone).  It worked those.  It did not work here.  Their melancholic locations, inappropriate use of slow motion and what can only be described as baffling choices in both soundtrack (faux 80s music) and score (often just one monotonous sound or a build up that is supposed to be used when a big change or realization is supposed to happen) and I'm actually quite confused as to what they were trying to do.  There didn't seem to be any emotional changes at all in the movie even though, from what was going on, I could tell that tension was supposed to be building.  But there is not a proper base for the story from the start.  For a long time, they jump from plot point to plot point instead of taking you there with proper exposition.  Without building that base, the viewer is not vested enough in the film to really feel the tension when it is needed.

With everything they tried in this movie, they really failed to deliver.  I could see that they were trying to be a bit experimental and innovative.  But it just didn't work.  Don't see it.

Coriolanus Review

I'll start by saying that I do not like Shakespeare.  I used to be vehemently against everything about Shakespeare and thought it was irrelevant and should not be taught at all.  I have since softened that stance and can now see the literary and historical benefits of studying it.  However, I have yet to be convinced that there are any cinematic benefits to maintaining the Shakespearean language in a screen adaptation of his plays; especially a modernization.  As a reader, I can read and reread a passage as many times as it takes to understand what is being said.  As a film viewer, I get one chance and because it is essentially a different language that uses English words, I become lost in dialogue.  That should not happen in a movie.  Many people argue that to change the language to a more modern version is an insult and travesty and yadda yadda yadda.  This is an argument that I just do not buy.  Take the play and translate it scene for scene and shot for shot.  You do not have to leave out story elements because those are great in Shakespeare's work.  I don't go to the movies to hear a beautiful poem.  I go to see a movie and watch a good story unfold.  Because it is so different from the English we use today, it needs to be translated just like any other language.  This is especially true if you are going to modernize everything else about the film.  It is the same problem they had with Romeo and Juliet.  Don't go halfway.  If you are going to modernize the setting, filming, costumes, etc., you need to modernize the language too.

That is the main problem with this movie.  Unfortunately, the benefits of Coriolanus are not enough to outweigh the fact that the language caused me to zone out a bit and have my mind wander.  But that could also be due in some part to the fact that it moved a lot slower than I originally thought it would.  I came in thinking that this would be much more of a political/action movie and it turns out to be another tale of pride, betrayal and treachery that many of Shakespeare's tragedies are.  In fact, I should have known better because not only is it Shakespeare, it is Ancient Rome and Ancient Rome was basically nothing but pride, betrayal and treachery.  But, because it was a Roman story, I wanted to see it.  I am a huge history buff and Rome is my favourite topic.

Add the fact that it has some terrific actors in Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler and Brian Cox and I actually made a point of seeing it.  Fortunately, through all of the actors' body language and inflection, I was able to follow the story all right.  The acting performances were quite good and had the right emotions for the situation all the way around.  With that and very good use of sets and settings in Fiennes' direction, it made it easier to understand what was going on. (I must stop and say I liked Fiennes directing but he did make the mistake of using a shaky camera so that's another strike against the film.)  However, because of the Shakespearean language, I found it very difficult to understand why anything was happening.  Why was Fiennes calm then infuriated?  Why did the crowd want him as Consul and then do a 180 within 30 seconds?  Why did Butler say he understood Fiennes' feelings and then do a 180 himself?  Why? Why? Why?  In an intricate story of pride, betrayal and treachery, the why becomes pretty important.  I think that's why I enjoyed the Tempest much more.  It was pretty much a comedy and I could sit back and laugh.  In fact, I enjoy Shakespeare's comedies more simply because of that.

Sadly, I cannot recommend this film.  Rome is one of my favourite topics and because of that, I wanted so badly to love this movie.  But, when I cannot understand why things are happening, that overshadows all the good things about the film making.  Don't See it.

Hugo Review

The first thing you need to know about this film is that the marketing for it is very deceptive.  All of the marketing efforts and clips from the Academy Awards made it out to be some fantasy where magic would allow for a robotic boy to come alive or something similar.  None of that is true of this movie.  Instead, it becomes a much more plausible story of finding your purpose and getting a second chance.  While there are a lot of elements to the film that are a bit out there and unrealistic, the basics of it stay grounded in reality much more than I had expected them to be.  When I get thrown a curveball like this, I find it a bit more difficult to get into a film and, thus, have a bit more difficulty enjoying it.

That's not to say that I did not enjoy Hugo.  I did.  It was just harder to get into than I thought it would be.  The visuals for this movie are absolutely fantastic and, even if it was not the story I was expecting, it was still a very good and solid tale.  Usually, I do not like movies where the main hero is a child.  They often come across as too brave in the situation for it to be realistic (I call it the Jurassic Park Effect).  However, in Hugo, this is mitigated somewhat.  While he is brave and stands up to Melies somewhat, there is an air of fear about him when it comes to the Station Inspector that makes him seem much more human and realistic.  Overall, he does have to rely on the help of others to fulfill his mission.  When you do that with a child hero, it becomes an easier story to accept.

Acting wise, Hugo is very strong too.  There are very good performances all around.  You expect that from someone like Ben Kingsley or Emily Mortimer or Christopher Lee.  The pleasant surprise was with Sacha Baron Cohen.  I really cannot stand the man and most of what he does offends me; not because of what he does but why it is justified for him and only him to do it.  But I won't get into that.  As the Station Inspector, he performs very well.

So, while this is a very good movie, I don't think it deserved all of the accolades that it got.  Yes, costumes and visual effects were superior to a lot of what's out there.  But I think Academy Award nominations for Picture, Directing and Screenplay were based more on the fact that it deals a lot with movie nostalgia.  If you watched this year's Academy Awards you will have noticed that there was a lot of "back in the day when my dad used to take me to the movies and it was magical."  Well, Hugo is ripe with that theme.  Hollywood, Vaudeville, pre-War Paris, etc.  The Academy has a tendency to really favour films that evoke those emotions.  (I think Scorsese knows this and thought it might be a ticket to another Oscar.  But that's my own speculation.)

But, if you read this web log regularly, you will notice that I often give See recommendations to movies that would never even get considered by the Academy.  This is no exception.  See it.  Even though it may not be what you expect, you should still come away with that warm, happy feeling at the end at that, ultimately, is the point.  One final piece of advice though.  You may not want to make it a "lazy weekend afternoon film" because it moves quite slowly in spots.