Lost in La Mancha

Lost in La ManchaTerry Gilliam is one strange dude.  His films run the gamut from entertaining to head-scratching to cerebral to just plain nut-job.  He’s not exactly a household name, though chances are most people have seen at least one of his movies or remember at least one of his sketches from the heyday of Monty Python.  A visionary he certainly is, though, and after a few decades of filmmaking he tried to get a production of the classic Spanish novel Don Quixote off the ground.  Lost in La Mancha is a story of how the entire production of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote went down, from the early stages of preproduction to the final nail in the coffin, and even though Gilliam’s movie never did get finished, directors Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe were able to craft an astonishing documentary that chronicles the entire production.  In doing so we are treated to an intimate look at the process of getting a big-budget Hollywod motion picture brought to life, and how sometimes even the sharpest vision and strongest determination just can’t make a project work.

Perhaps the most apt comparison I could make with Lost in La Mancha is to Spinal Tap, but whereas the latter was a chronicle of the fictional exploits of a heavy metal rock band with the purpose of poking fun at the whole music scene, La Mancha is, sadly, an all-too-true tale of how crazy things can get during a movie production.  Like Quixote himself, Gilliam is consumed by a desire to make his film no matter how irrational it might be.  The project, the most expensive movie ever to be filmed in Spain, had to be cut drastically from its initial projections in order to come in under budget.  But such woes are the beginning of Gilliam’s troubles.  Preproduction is beset by scheduling conflicts, prop disasters, and location issues, but the crew forge ahead nonetheless with a hopeful optimism and desire to see it through to completion.

Lost in La Mancha: Terry Gilliam

Gilliam directing Rochefort, and fighting his own windmills the whole time.

From the very first day of filming, though, the hassles just continue to pile up.  Fighter jets flying overhead disrupt the initial shots, and a rainstorm that night literally washes thousands of dollars of film equipment down the drain.  And when Jean Rochefort, who plays Quixote, develops health problems that prevent him from riding a horse, it’s clear the writing is on the wall.  And yet Gilliam and his crew forge ahead, shooting scenes with Johnny Depp, posing for group photos with the project’s financial backers, and scrambling to adjust schedules to accommodate Rochefort’s continuing health issues.  Christopher Guest himself couldn’t make this stuff up if he tried, folks.  It’s as heartbreaking as it is entertaining, and through it all is Terry Gilliam–the indomitable visionary who will do everything in his power to make the film come together.

The strength of La Mancha is how Fulton and Pepe treat their subject with such a deft hand.  Neither overly melodramatic nor overly lighthearted, they simply show the events as they unfold.  Bits of footage that did get filmed, screen tests of the giants, magnificent costumes, and the exuberance of Johnny Depp as he gives 100% to a part that even he knows is never going to end up in theatres, hints at the fantastic Movie That Could Have Been.  The determination of Gilliam and his crew to accomplish the impossible against all odds, even when it’s pretty obvious that the film is really not going to get finished, is admirable but drenched with an undertone of foreboding and even sadness.  Gilliam’s undaunted spirit is well-nigh inspirational, though, and even though his Quixote film eventually gets canned, the experience, as anyone who watches Lost in La Mancha, was certainly not without merit.  And besides, word has it Gilliam is even planning to give it another shot…if things don’t fall apart again.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

The Maiden Heist

The Maiden HeistI’m a sucker for a good heist or break-in movie.  From Ocean’s 11 to The Score to Mission: Impossible to The Great Train Robbery, it’s always fun to watch a band of robbers break into a secure vault and make off with a pile of loot.  Since break-in films generally follow the same structure (introduce characters, reveal impenetrable vault, set the stakes high, establish urgency, encounter conflict before reaching the goal, and either get caught or get away), what makes a good break-in movie are compelling characters and an interesting setup.  The stakes don’t even necessarily need to be all that high, as long as the characters are interesting and the conflicts are engaging.  And that’s exactly what The Maiden Heist is:  a stripped-to-the-bone heist flick with neither flair nor style, but exuding charm and class in every frame.  Sort of like a geriatric version of The Thomas Crowne Affair, the movie revolves around three museum workers who conspire to steal three pieces of artwork rather than let them be shipped off to Denmark.

Christopher Walken hams it up as Roger Barlow, a security guard enamored of a painting called “The Lonely Maiden” and vows to save it from being shuttle off to a foreign country where, he is certain, no one will appreciate it like he does.  He soon teams up Charles Peterson (Morgan Freeman, playing the part with a wink and a smile) and George McLendon (William H. Macy, doing his best William H. Macy impression) who also want to save another painting and a statue.  The three of them hatch a not-very-elaborate scheme to steal the pieces of artwork on moving day, and even though the ending is a foregone conclusion it’s a lot of fun getting there.

The Maiden Heist: Morgan Freeman, William H. Macy

Freeman and Macy, conniving over cotton candy.

Macy practically steals the show as a possible army veteran who may or may not have been involved in several military conflicts, but has clearly seized the opportunity to play out his version of a James Bond fantasy with the theft of the artworks.  His flamboyance and eccentricities are matched perfectly by Walken, who could hold audience enraptured by simply reading a nursery rhyme.  Thrown into the mix is Walken’s overprotective wife Rose (Marcia Gay Harden) whom Charles has convinced he is taking on a long-overdue vacation to Florida.

As the old Chinese proverb states, the journey is the reward, and that certainly holds true with The Maiden Heist.  The fun of the movie isn’t in wondering what will happen or if the triumvirate will succeed, but in watching it all unfold.  Walken, Freeman, and Macy are clearly too old for sneaking around, rappelling down walls, and that sort of thing, but someone obviously forgot to tell them.  They have such a blast playing not-quite-inept thieves that it’s hard to not enjoy it with them, and Harden’s hysterics only add to the mix.

This is not a film to be taken seriously, but it is a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half.  It could never hold its own against more technically accomplished and meticulously planned Hollywood counterparts, but then, that’s not really the point.  If you’re interested in a fun little heist flick, or have any appreciation for these three fantastic leading actors, The Maiden Heist deserves a rental.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

Revenge of the Nerds

Revenge of the NerdsI think watching this movie must be kind of like an inside joke, in that you had to be there to get it. In this case, you had to be a high schooler or college student in the 1980s to appreciate the humor…I guess. Maybe once upon a time this movie would have been funny, but I found it to be dull and tedious, with jokes as blunt as a cardboard knife and all the subtlety of a sledge hammer. The few bright spots seemed more accidental than anything, but again, something had to have worked or else Revenge of the Nerds would have probably died a quick death instead of spawning a series of sequels.

In theory the premise has promise: a bunch of socially awkward college nerds band together to fight the oppression of the big-time fraternity on campus. One imagines it might feature lots of jokes about outcasts turning the tables on the frat dudes, jocks receiving a well-deserved comeuppance, and a healthy dose of fish-out-of-water gags. But it’s all so contrived, so thinly-packaged, and so poorly executed that the whole thing collapses on itself.  The nerds are about as stereotypical as one could imagine: Lewis and Gilbert, best friends armed to the teeth with highwater slacks and pocket protectors, are the leaders of the motley pack of misfits who get kicked out of their dorm to make way for the dudes of Alpha Beta fraternity, who accidentally burn their own house down during a night of wild partying.  The nerds are forced to live in the school gym until they find their own house, and eventually band together to form the Adams College chapter of the Lambda Lambda Lambda fraternity.  But darn it, those mean Alpha Betas keep picking on them (just like in high school, which apparently no one in the movie has gotten over) and the nerds decide they have no choice but to fight back at those dumb old jocks who keep ruining their fun.

Revenge of the NerdsIt’s a setup that seems ripe for comedy, but the problem is that most of the humor just falls flat.  Every one of the nerds seems to have been borne from a checklist of stereotypes, which leaves little room for actual characterization.  In the gym, as the nerds are settling in to their new accommodations of army cots and basketball-induced study interruptions, the asian nerd Takashi (Brian Tochi) asks the slacker nerd Booger (Curtis Armstrong) “Excuse please, but why do they call you ‘booger’?”  And of course Booger simply replies “I don’t know” while he picks his nose.  Oh, I get it, says the viewer.  They call him booger because he picks his nose!  Har dee har.  Painfully obvious setups and fourth-grade-level punchlines permeate the entire film, and midway through I was honestly checking the clock to see just how long until the misery would be over.

Many scenes just reek of sheer laziness on the part of the writers, such as the party thrown by the Nerds to convince the ruling members of the Tri-Lambda council to accept their admittance into their fraternal order.  The party goes nowhere, and consists of a series of amusing awkward moments when the nerds attempt to be social, but it’s not until Booger produces a joint straight out of a Cheech and Chong movie that things start to liven up.  Really?  Is that the best they can do?  With all the ripe character potential at their disposal, the filmmakers take the cheap way out and instead play for the lowest common denominator: laughing at people under the influence making fools out of themselves.  Gee, how funny.

Like Caddyshack, Revenge of the Nerds was probably funnier in its time than it is now, and I fully admit that much of the comedy is probably lost on me–someone who came of age with movies like Ghostbusters, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and later, Office Space.  And one day my children are probably going to watch them and wonder what the big deal was with those movies too.

Rating:[Rating:0.5/5]

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Scott Pilgrim vs. The WorldWatching an Edgar Wright movie is a bit of an experience in and of itself, and requires a certain amount of detachment from reality.  In the vein of hyper-kinetic filmmakers like Guy Ritchie and Tom Tykwer, Wright’s movies tend to be fast-paced and filled with quirky, incredibly flawed but ultimately lovable characters who are just trying to do the right thing.  His style is well-suited to a post-MTV generation weaned on ten-second YouTube clips and augmented-reality mobile applications that meld a virtual world with the real one.  Pairing this type of director with source material steeped in videogame references and indie music seems like it would be a match made in heaven.  And you know what?  It pretty much is.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, like Avatar, isn’t so much a movie to watch as it is a film to experience.  Michael Cera plays Michael Cera Scott Pilgrim, a 22-year-old socially awkward slacker who plays bass in a band (flaunting 80’s geek-cred with their name Sex Bob-omb) and is dating a high schooler named Knives Chau (Ellen Wong).  His life is going nowhere, and his friends are more interested in working the local music scene than going to college or getting real jobs.  With lives steeped in 8-bit video games and indie music, Scott and his friends are content to live their lives in Toronto, Canada, without too many worries outside of (what else?) winning the local Battle of the Bands competition and getting signed to a record label.

But since Scott Pilgrim is an Edgar Wright movie, even this bit of exposition near the beginning is far more interesting than it could be.  The opening Universal Pictures logo is re-done with pixellated graphics and music that could have been ripped from an original Nintendo game.  Visuals of Sex Bob-omb playing in their ramshackle apartment are augmented with anime-style lightning bolts and Batman-style words that pop out with each “one-two-three-four” screamed by drummer Kim Pine (Alison Pill).  Video game sound effects and music from permeate the onscreen action, even if it’s just two people talking to each other.  And yet the characters in the movie are entirely conscious of this hyper-realistic world around them, which invites the viewers to just sit back and enjoy the blissful escape from reality.

Scott Pilgrim: Ramona

Hey Scott, 1996 called. They want their Smashing Pumpkins shirt back.

Scott soon meets up with aloof emo chick Ramona Flowers at a party and immediately falls in lust love with her.  But in order to go out with her, he must defeat her seven evil exes.  Yeah, defeat.  As in, fight, even though Scott has no training in martial arts beyond a couple rounds of Street Fighter.  And so when her first evil ex Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha) shows up during the first round of the Battle of the Bands, he and Scott immediately jump into a bout that could give Neo and Agent Smith a run for their money.  They fly through the air, landing punches with all the hyper-stylization of Japanese animation, and verbally spar with trite dialog to match.  When Scott lands the finishing blow, Patel literally disintegrates into a pile of coins, just like in a video game.

After this initial fight, the movie pretty much falls into a pattern.  Since Scott must defeat all seven of Ramona’s exes, the rest of the movie is somewhat of a foregone conclusion as we witness one round after the next, each one upping the ante in terms of outrageousness and nintendo-meets-anime-meets-live-action visual overload.  It’s something to behold, really, especially the fight with ex number two Lucas Lee (Chris Evans) who meets his demise in a fiery explosion as he skateboards at near-supersonic speeds down an icy outdoor handrail.  There’s also a nice joke at the expense of vegans when Scott fights Todd Ingram (Brandon Routh, continuing to rebuild his acting career after the disaster that was Superman Returns).  All of it is darkly whimsical and not to be taken with one iota of sincerity, and even though the plot of the movie is about as deep as Wayne’s World or Ace Ventura, it nonetheless contains the same type similar type of disenchanted charm and warm appeal as well.  There’s quite little in the way of actual plot, mind you, but like the Super Mario Bros. movie, the plot isn’t really the point.  Unlike the Super Mario Bros. movie, though, one could probably make a convincing argument for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World as the best video game movie of all time. (And the video game adaption of the movie looks to be pretty good too.)

Basically, if you like Michael Cera, or have ever played an original Nintendo, you will probably dig Scott Pilgrim.  It’s a movie that proudly wears 80’s and 90’s counterculture cred on its well-torn sleeve, but infuses it with a playful energy that feels altogether fresh and new.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

Amelia

Amelia MovieI’m sure the story of Amelia Earhart is compelling. The tale of the first woman to fly across the atlantic, who paved the way for generations of women aviators, and who ultimately embarked on an ill-fated flight around the world, no doubt has to be interesting. The events that shaped her life, the people with whom she was involved, and the challenges she faced throughout her storied career as a pilot are probably thrilling, exciting, and thoroughly engaging. It’s just too bad the movie takes the life of this amazing woman and makes it about as interesting as a carpet warehouse.

Part biopic, part adventure tale, and part romance story, Amelia chronicles the adventures of Earhart from her days as a child on the Kansas prairie, seeing planes fly overhead and yearning to be at the helm of such a magnificent and graceful piece of machinery, to the final moments of her flight around the world. But a story is only as interesting as its people, and unlike other tragic adventure tales, Amelia unfortunately sacrifices characters and relationships for spectacle and scenery. It is like watching a live-action version of a fifth-grade report on Amelia Earhart, as the experiences she has and people she encounters over her years as a pilot play like a series of bullet points on a fact sheet. Even Earhart herself is poorly developed, and Hillary Swank does her gosh-darned best while suffering through lines of dialog so bad they could have come straight from the George Lucas School of Screenwriting. A free spirit and independent grrl, she eventually fall in love, we are told, with her publicist George Putnam. But again, the movie continually violates one of the first rules of storytelling: show, don’t tell. Two characters should not have to continually pontificate about their love for each other–it’s like hitting the audience with a frying pan and telling them explicitly that these people got something goin’ on.

Amelia: Earhart and Putnam

Earnart and Putnam, like, totally in love with each other.

Midway through the film Earhart, married to Putnam, falls for author Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor phoning it in) even though the two barely have more than a small handful of lines of dialog together. A awkward tryst in a hotel elevator substitutes for any meaningful emotional connection, and from that moment on we are supposed to just accept the fact that Earhart and Vidal have fallen for each other. The film jumps from one stage of Earhart’s life to the next with little to carry things forward naturally, and the result is a choppy, uneven storyline that offers little in the way of character development. Not until the final act is any sense of an emotional connection established between the audience and Earhart, and then only because of the impending doom that is about to befall her and her navigator.

Throughout the two-hour run time we are treated to many scenes of sweeping vistas and gorgeous landscape panoramas as Earhart travels the globe, hopping from continent to continent and documenting her journeys on an 8mm camcorder like a giddy child. Hillary Swank fits the role well, as does the rest of the cast, but the source material is so poor it feels like the actors all gave up halfway through and showed up on filming days just to collect a paycheck. Even Gere, whose natural charm and infectious charisma can often gloss over a crappy role, gives a lifeless performance. Amelia feels like the shell of a great movie, which is a tragedy in and of itself. A hero like Earhart deserves much better.

Rating:[Rating:2/5]

Caddyshack

CaddyshackWhen someone mentions this film, some common scenes usually come to mind:  A crazy gopher being pursued by Bill Murray.  A golf bag with a TV and stereo.  Chevy Chase sinking a half-dozen impossible putts.  And of course the visual lesson on the perils of introducing a Baby Ruth candy bar into a swimming pool full of wild teenagers.  And these scenes are, without a doubt, hilarious in their own right.  But the problem with Caddyshack is that the movie as a whole just doesn’t work very well.  It’s more like a collection of short vignettes strung together with the barest of plots that exists to serve as a showcase for quirky stars like Rodney Dangerfield and Chevy Chase to chew some scenery.

I suppose that’s the appeal of this movie, though, and when every individual is a caricature, and the antagonist a wily gopher, it is incumbent on the viewer to not take any of the material too seriously.  But even with a hefty grain of salt, Caddyshack is still a strange amalgam of odd material that only loosely fits together, if at all.  Consider the plight of Carl Spackler, the dim-witted but indomitable country club groundskeeper charged with eliminating the gopher threat that has been plaguing the greens.  He embarks on a series of misguided attempts, much like a character in a Warner Brothers cartoon, to outsmart the gopher but is foiled at every turn.  His Final Solution is so outrageous, yet ultimately ineffective, that it’s hard to not laugh at the sheer spectacle of it all.

Caddyshack: Chevy Chase

Chevy Chase, proving that sometimes a blindfold is the best golf accessory.

It’s not the absurdity of the intertwining stories in Caddyshack that cripple the movie, it’s the way in which director Harold Ramis flips between Spackler and the rest of the movie without any apparent idea of where he’s going with all of it.  The plot wanders from country club to swimming pool to yacht club to suburban homes without any clear aim or goal other than to allow Dangerfield to spew forth a fountain of pithy one-liners or Chase to wax philosophical while hitting golf balls barefoot.  But before I get strung up as a soulless nincompoop who can’t just laugh at absurd comedy, rest assured that this movie certainly does have its funny bits.  It’s just that a couple bits of hilarity aren’t enough to concoct a solid comedy any more than a couple scoops of sugar are enough to bake a cake.

Perhaps my distaste for Caddyshack also comes from a dislike of Rodney Dangerfield, who commands a rather large amount of screen time for no discernible reason other than to showcase his unique brand of what some would consider comedy.  Hurling weak insults like someone with a mild case of tourrette’s is fine for a stand-up comic, but doesn’t work in a movie.  Literally every second that Dangerfield is on screen, his character Al Czervik is taunting, insulting, or dismissing everyone he lays eyes on.  The charm of such a character wears off almost immediately, and quickly turns into grating irritation.  Dangerfield’s character, removed by the barest margins from the man himself, is a one-trick pony who quickly wears out his welcome.

It’s been 30 years since Caddyshack made its way to theatres, and even though it has achieved cultlike status as a solid piece of comedy, I found it to be uneven and, at times, downright boring.  The cast is certainly having a good time.  I just wish it was a party the audience could enjoy too.

Rating:[Rating:2/5]

Lost: Season 3

Lost Season 3Warning: this review most likely contains spoilers, depending on how much of the show you have seen. Read at your own risk…

The second season of everyone’s favorite Gilligan’s Island-meets-The Matrix drama left off with several unexplained questions and one doozy of a cliffhanger.  And though Season 3 addresses a precious few of the lingering issues, by the end we are left with even more unexplained riddles and lingering problems.  So much so that the show begins to walk a fine line between engaging drama and self-parody, as the near-ridiculous heights to which the drama gets ratcheted are sometimes too outlandish to be taken seriously.  But through it all is a solid yarn of character-based dramatic storytelling that keeps things from spinning entirely out of control, and keeps the interest level high enough to hold the interest of even the most impatient of viewers.

Whereas the first season was mostly exposition, introducing us to the characters, their backstories, and the island, the second season went a great deal farther into what was actually happening on the island.  We were introduced to the Dharma Initiative, the Hatch, the Others, and the mystery behind characters like the french woman was swept away.  But Season 3 takes things in a different direction, as the group of survivors is now fragmented physically as well as interpersonally.  Sawyer, Jack, and Kate are imprisoned by the Others, and the rest of the Oceanic 815 survivors get by as best they can without their leader while also trying to rescue their friends.  Much of the first several episodes deal with the Others, who become much more humanized and less like faceless evildoers.  In fact, if there is a theme to Season 3 it would be the pulling back of the curtain, as some of the mysteries about the Others are found to have perfectly normal and rational explanations.  Even the mysterious smoke monster becomes more understandable, and we learn of its limitations as well.

Lost: John Locke

John Locke, not taking "no" for an answer.

One reason the series has always worked well is that the dramatic tension is a natural extension of the characters and their situations.  In Season 1, we wanted to know who these people were and how they were going to survive.  Season 2 furthers this idea by introducing new conflicts and revealing more about larger issues like the Dharma Initiative.  But Season 3, partly due to the compressed time frame (the events of the entire season only span a few weeks’ time on the island), tends to fall back on some relatively cheap 24-like tactics to hold viewer interest.  Watching Jack engage in yet another shouting match with Ben, or having an endless stream of people being held at gunpoint unless so-and-so does such-and-such, or ending episodes with cheap cliffhangers tends to deviate from the spirit of the show.  It’s not bad, just unnecessary, and possibly a response to somewhat downward trends in ratings too. (The first episode of Season 3 had almost 19 million viewers.  By the end it was down to just under 14 million.)  What is a travesty, though, is the killing off of some characters, both long- and short-term, that started near the end of Season 2 and continues here as well.  Killing off a beloved individual just to up the ratings or stymie a case of writer’s block is cheap, and it’s sad to see Lost treading down this path.

One of the biggest issues I have with the show is how characters just never give a straight answer to anything.  It seems as though many of the conflicts, problems, and deaths could be easily avoided if Ben and his friends sat down with Jack and the survivors and calmly explained what in the world was going on.  Even the most simplest of questions are met with enigmatic answers followed by a quick fade to the title card or a commercial break.  I still trust that the writers know what they are doing, but there are a couple times when it seems like the reason Jack or Sawyer can’t get a straight answer out of Ben or Juliet is because the show creators don’t even know what’s going on.

Lost: Hurley

Remember Hurley's all-important "numbers" from Season 2? Neither do the writers of the show...

However, when the show gets it right, it really gets it right.  Ben emerges as one of the more complex and characters in recent television, and the exploration of what is really going on with the island becomes thoroughly compelling. Character flashbacks continue to add new levels of depth to Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, and the rest of the core gang, and Desmond’s penchant for predictions is pretty potent as well.  There is even one character who kicks the bucket right at the bitter end, but in a meaningful and perhaps even inspirational fashion.  The budget is clearly bigger than ever before too, which means we are treated to grandiose sets, large explosions, and a lot more sheer grandeur than before.  The downside to all this?  Some characters are left behind, and by the end of the season if we didn’t have the occasional group shot to remind us of the 40-odd people on the island, one would think the survivors were limited solely to a mere handful of misplaced good-looking mid-20’s SoHo dwellers.

Lost is still one of the best shows on TV, and its rich blend of science fiction, drama, and mystery remain almost as compelling as ever.  But a few cracks are beginning to show around the seams by the end of Season 3, and I just hope things improve a little for the next go-round.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

New in Town

Watching this movie is like eating a bowl of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese.  It’s not fancy, it’s not special, but it gets the job done and you generally don’t regret it afterwards.  But not every movie can be The Godfather, and not every meal can be gourmet steak.  Sometimes, though, the basics are all you need, and even though New In Town contains not one single original idea, character, joke, or plot point, it’s also a refreshing trip to the basics of lighthearted celluloid fare.  Take Sweet Home Alabama, substitute the classy Renee Zellweger for the saucy Reese Witherspoon, drop the production in the frozen tundra of Minnesota instead of the sweltering heat of the deep south, and you’ve got another in a long line of fish out of water tales that does everything you would expect–no more, no less.  But in a day and age when Hollywood continues to push the envelope of gratuitous spectacle at the expense of storylines, New In Town is a welcome change from the usual and a solid way to pass the time if you’re just looking for a simple, enjoyable movie.

The plot is as basic as can be:  Lucy Hill (Zellweger), playing Stuffy Female Corporate Executive Hollywood Character #16-B, is transplanted by her national dairy corporation employer from the sunny beaches of Florida to the frozen wasteland of New Ulm, Minnesota, in the dead of winter to shut down the local yogurt factory.  Lucy hates the cold, wants to get in and take care of business as quickly as possible, and will be gosh-darned if she’s going to make friends with any of the locals.  And if you can’t tell where things go from there, you might as well turn off your computer right now and cry yourself to sleep, as you have no business reading a movie review web site.  :)

New In Town: Ice Scraping

Ah, the classic credit card ice scraper maneuver. Well known by all Minnesotans.

Harry Connick, Jr., shows up to flash a smile and collect a paycheck as Ted Mitchell, the local blue-collar dude with perpetual five o’clock shadow and a rusty pickup to match.  Of course he and Lucy don’t get along, especially since he’s the local union representative for the dairy factory.  But as quickly as you can say “Lutheran church potluck” the two hit it off and realize that true love, or at least fleeting Hollywood infatuation, knows no bounds.

Despite the headache-inducing predictability, the story is enjoyable and there’s enough Minnesota jokes to satisfy even the Coen Brothers.  It’s fun watching Lucy get the hang of a small Minnesota town in winter, experience the joys of hunting and ice fishing, and learn how to appreciate pee-wee hockey matches.  Siobhan Fallon does an excellent job as Blanche, a mentor of sorts for Lucy who goes to bat for her with the locals and even unashamedly questions her about her Christian faith, or lack of it.  I was honestly shocked at this, and could hardly believe a major (or at least semi-major) Hollywood production would take Christians seriously rather than treat them as cheap jokes, tired stereotypes, or easy punchlines.  Blanche and many of her fellow New Ulm residents are serious about their faith and serious about witnessing to outsiders, and I found this to be a supremely welcome change from the norm.

Will love triumph over career obligations?  Will the dairy operation shut down and put all the residents out of a job?  Will Blanche ever reveal the secret receipt for her tapioca?  Such questions are moot, as the answers are as easy and uncomplicated as pouring powdered cheese and milk into a vat of boiled noodles.  But if these items were ever in doubt, then you’re looking for the wrong movie.  New In Town is a well-made, respectable, and enjoyable 90 minutes even if you’ve seen it all before in a dozen other movies.  Just goes to show the staying power of a classic formula.

Rating:[Rating:3.5/5]