Land of the Lost

landoflostOne of the worst moviegoing experiences I’ve endured this year has to be Brad Silberling’s 2009 bomb “Land of the Lost.”  What a waste of talent, resources, time and budget (at $100 million).  Now, I haven’t seen the classic TV-show.  Subsequently, I have no basis for the film’s comparison, but I can’t imagine I would have been thrilled by the TV series after seeing the film, even if it is only vaguely reminiscent.

Will Ferrell continues his losing streak after “Semi-Pro,” “Step Brothers,” and now this botched movie.  He plays Rick Marshall, a scientist with a theory involving multiple dimensions in the universe that meet in a distant space-time continuum.  He explains that rather than time-travel moving forward and backwards, it moves side to side, creating a dimension where past, present and future collide at once.

The movie kicks off with a stranded astronaut being hunted by a T-Rex in this other dimension, which the movie never follows up on.  After the title credit, Ferrell’s character Rick gets a brain slap and a boot of embarrassment from NBC Today’s Matt Lauer.  Fast forward three years and Ferrell finishes his boombox time-warp machine that transplants him and two others in another dimension with dinosaurs, primate ancestors, and several other creatures.  Rick shouts, “Matt Lauer can suck it.” Of course, Rick and friends must somehow prevent the disturbances of this other-world from resulting in planet Earth’s demise, and also find an exit from the alternate world to their own.

Humor is not the film’s strong suit, and Ferrell is constantly the brunt of sight gags that have him covering himself in dinosaur urine, consistently failing to outsmart a T-Rex, and idiotic banter with the primate.  The special effects in the movie also wreak.  The creatures and dinosaurs look terrible, and much of the action sequences fall apart.  “Land of the Lost” would have been easier to forgive as a kid’s film, but with the profanity, sexual humor, drug-related scenes, and some scary creatures–it doesn’t exactly cater to youngsters.  Regardless, the movie is really an exercise in wasted time and money.  It’s one of the year’s worst films.

[Rating:0.5/5]


Danny Deckchair

If I had to describe this movie in one word, it would be simple.  There’s nothing complicated here, nothing that will change your perceptions, challenge your ideas, or leave you with any real sense of wonderment.  The plot is straightforward and painfully predictable, the characters are cobbled together from the bargain bin of Hollywood cardboard cutouts, and the message isn’t anything beyond what most people have heard since third grade.  And yet, the movie is ultimately more than the sum of its parts, and proves to be, if nothing else, good old-fashioned entertainment: the kind of check-your-brain-at-the-door moviegoing experience that is tailor-made for a Friday night rental, provided it is accompanied by a good date and a bucket of buttery popcorn.

(click for trailer)

(click for trailer)

The entire premise of the movie can be surmised from the poster:  average  dude floats away on a lawn chair and starts his life over.  Despite the fact that this idea has actually been tried by real people, it’s still kind of an interesting premise and makes one wonder why more people don’t pull a Peter Gibbons (or, in this case, a Danny Morgan) and just try something new for a change.  Danny, played by quintessential “that one guy” Rhys Ifans (better known as the wiry guy from The Replacements), is a construction worker in Sydney, Australia, with an unappreciative girlfriend and a head full of odd ideas that never quite come to fruition.  One day he decides that he can escape his problems by floating away on a chair tied to several helium balloons, and he ends up in a town where no one knows him and he essentially gets a second chance at life.

There’s nothing here we haven’t seen before in all kinds of fish-out-of-water movies, and the entire story after Danny lands in the small town of Clarence is a paint-by-numbers exercise in Hollywood deja vu.  Danny meets a girl, fails to explain who he really is, and begins living a double life as someone he is not.  The entire town is fooled, he becomes a local hero, but ultimately the truth comes out and Danny must deal with the mess he has created.  Not exactly an Alfonso Cuarón work, folks.

Danny and his friend-girl Glenda share a tender moment.

Danny and his friend-girl Glenda share a tender moment.

And yet, the movie ends up being rather enjoyable due in large part to the incredible charm of Ifans.  Sort of a skinny, blonde, Australian version of Vince Vaughan, he is the type of everyday guy most of us can relate to.  His bumbling, deer-in-the-headlights character who manages to succeed at unwittingly convincing an entire town that he really is a good, honest, salt-of-the-earth guy in spite of himself is eminently endearing and enjoyable.  Miranda Otto, the spitting image of Laura Linney, does a great job at playing the straight-laced parking cop Glenda who turns out to have a more adventurous and carefree side that is (betcha didn’t see this coming) brought out the more she gets to know Danny.

This movie sort of caught me by surprise, and I was struck at how little of the storyline actually revolves around Danny and his deckchair.  The chair is simply a brief means of transportation and ultimately has almost nothing to do with the movie as a whole.  Massive stretches of logic are required just to watch it, too:  if the entire town of Sydney is looking for Danny after he floats away, why does no one in the town of Clarence realize that the mystery man who appeared in town the same night the man from Sydney floated is, in fact, Danny?  Does no one in Clarence watch the news?  A subplot involving Danny kind of exposing a local politician for being somewhat of a fraud is entirely dropped with no resolution, and Danny’s girlfriend Trudy is about as cliché as they come.  But let’s not miss the forest for the trees here:  it’s a fun movie in spite of itself, and just by reading the title you should probably be expecting just about what you’re getting.

Rating: [Rating:3.5/5]

Glory Road

GR posterHistory has often shown us the power of sports to inflame people’s passions and sway their opinions. Hollywood, of course, wouldn’t miss a chance to cash-in on this fact. One such attempt is Glory Road.

The movie is a good illustration, however, of just how hard it is for movies to do what sports do. They rarely do anything to challenge our views, but rather reinforce our comfort in what we already assume. Ironically, they have a habit of acting as if they are saying something revolutionary. Consider, for instance, the end of Remember the Titans, from Jerry Bruckheimer, also the producer of Glory Road. The end of the film jumps to several years later, at a funeral, when the narrator, Sheryl Yoast, says “They say it can’t work, black and white. But when they do, we remember the Titans.” I found myself wondering “Just who are ‘they’?”

Glory Road sets the same mood as Titans, starting off at about the same time (mid-sixties) when schools, and therefore sports, were generally segregated. Josh Lucas of Secondhand Lions becomes a white Denzel Washington as Texas Western’s head basketball coach. What do you call a white man surrounded by five black men?

Frustrated with the lack of good players who want to play for TW, Lucas’ Don Haskins combs the ghettos and recruits seven black players for the team. This gives rise to the film’s first really cheesy line: “I don’t see color; I see skill and I see quick.” In the predictable spirit of Titans, for the most part, all black schools and black basketball teams seem to disappear, so the unsympathetic characters are all white (although they meet one team with a few black players midway through the movie). They win consistently, until the black players, angry over a graffiti incident, refuse to pass to the white ones, resulting in the season’s only loss. In spite of this, or maybe because of it, Haskins decides to play only black players in the national championship game, and they go on to narrowly beat the all-white Kentucky team. So the question becomes, is Bruckheimer trying to convey the message that he was in Titans that the discipline brought on by working through racial tension builds strength, or is he simply saying that black guys play basketball better than white guys?

Either way, it’s nothing we haven’t heard before. It’s never been any secret that competitive basketball became widely black as skill began to show through prejudice, and then became almost exclusively black when television took over and skill took a backseat to image. Ironically, the film has to establish a mentor-student relationship. Consequently, there are a few scenes of Haskins schooling black players on the court.

Glory-Road-movie-05

Let’s look at some of Hollywood’s other efforts to cross-breed sports and race. In 1992, The Mighty Ducks was released. A hot shot attorney (Emilio Estevez) is caught driving drunk and has to do the community service of coaching a washed-up athletic team from a poor district. In the tradition of Hollywood happy endings, he turns the team around completely and they win the league championship. At the championship, they meet the team that haunts Estevez’s memory – his childhood team, sponsored by a wealthy district. The players on this team are all essentially identical to one another, forming a single character more than a team of individuals. The Ducks, conversely, represent a schmorgasboard of cultures and personalities and provide the colorful characters that every movie needs (and that sports teams tend to suppress for unity).

It was no accident, of course, that Disney chose the sport of hockey as a setting for this story. It was the only sport where the “bad” team could be all white with any credibility. Once hockey was used up, Little Giants and The Big Green couldn’t present quite the same hegemony. I always looked forward to a similar movie about basketball. It figures that when one finally came, it would be set in the sixties.

I’ve been around the block enough that I’m comfortable saying a lot of black people will not find Glory Road particularly inspiring. Average black people have often complained  that the most athletic members of their culture hog the spotlight, leading their young men away from solid careers in a hopeless bid for stardom.                                                              Coach C poster

To round out my perspective I rented another basketball movie, Coach Carter, which addresses exactly that concern. Quite different from Road’s images of grandeur and triumph, Coach Carter ends with crushing defeat – on the court. But the epilogue shows success in much more important areas. Coach Carter is also more fun, because the team has a token white guy.

Here’s an idea for a basketball movie that would follow the standard formula, and would be a lot more fun. Start with a black coach in a ghetto neighborhood. Have him get pegged as an “Oreo,” or otherwise ostracized from the community. So he has to put his team together from neighborhoods outside his own. Naturally, this would involve including some white, Asian, and Hispanic members. Throw a few women onto the team just to shake things up. When his team goes up against a district full of all black, all male teams, no one would expect them to win – but hey, it’s a movie! Now you just need to figure out a way for the fate of the universe to hang on the championship game, and you’re set.

Can a basketball game really change the world? If it does, count on Hollywood to pretend they got there first. Perhaps the line from the Texas Western assistant coach rings true: “This is just proof that knuckle heads come in all shapes, sizes and colors.”

[Rating:1.5/5]

Inglourious Basterds

I B Teaser 1-Sht.Few cinematic visionaries have an eye and an ear quite like Quentin Tarantino.  The man is a brand of his own.  When you sit down for one of his movies, you know that the experience of it will be quite different from any other piece of filmmaking not of his craft.  Tarantino is a storyteller through and through, possibly a little self-indulgent in his work and overly animated in his regard for gratuitous violence, but he has a talent for originality from concept to execution.  “Inglourious Basterds” surpasses all of his recent works.

I won’t pretend to know anything about the previous incarnation of “Inglorious Bastards,” but I will say I doubt there can be much comparison based on Tarantino’s signature style and knack for meaty ongoing dialogue.  Much of “Basterds” is just that: a lot of style and talky-talky.  But, like all Tarantino works, the dialogue is so interesting, well-thought-out, and well-delivered that it really absorbs the audience.  Many scenes in the film are built around conversation and the tension often skyrockets.  The actual plot (or plots) of the film seem to exist as an afterthought when the written page onscreen has us so wrapped up.

hanslanda

Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa

I will admit I underestimated the storyline for this film.  I assumed (based on the marketing) that Brad Pitt’s character, Lt. Aldo Raine, and his group of soldiers would spend 2 1/2 hours trekking through WWII Germany hunting, mutilating, torturing, and beating Nazis to bloody pulps.   Well there is some of that, yes, and some of it is very gratuitous and very violent.  Ultimately, that’s not the meat of the story.  Like all Tarantino movies, he constructs these sub-plots that intersect into one final meeting for the characters.  And that is the case here as well.  The movie opens with with a group of Nazi soldiers searching for Jews in hiding.  The Nazi leader, Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), drills a dairy farmer for suspected harboring of a missing Jewish family, which the farmer has secretly been doing.  Upon the family’s discovery, Col. Landa orders them to be executed.  One of the younger girls of the family manages to escape and carries the horror of that day with her, until four years later she has an opportunity to avenge her family, which plays into the other developments of the story.  This particular scene reaches an unbelievable amount of tension and is, truthfully, beyond spectacular.  Heartbreaking, yes, but unbelievably effective.  Besides Tarantino’s expert penmanship, due credit belongs to Christoph Waltz’s slithering, brilliant performance–one that will guarantee him an Oscar nomination come year’s end.  Every time he’s onscreen, there is an unsettling sensation running through your veins, and he has many scenes to steal the show.

inglorious picThe Basterds’ chapter comes in after that setup.  As promised by all the commercials and trailers, Brad Pitt’s (who is hugely funny here) slurring southern Leuitenant calls upon him eight soldiers–experts in Nazi killin’.  Among the most recognizable faces are B.J. Novak from ‘The Office’, and Eli Roth (director of Cabin Fever and Hostel).  Roth is the only ‘actor’ in the film that doesn’t quite fit the bill.  It feels very much like an extended cameo by a filmmaker, and it never quite works for the overall look and feel of the movie.  It’s not that he hinders the movie per se, but his presence and performance fail to mesh with everything else.  And that’s hard to do in a film where Tarantino lets anything fly as he totally rewrites history in scene after scene, amounting to sheer brilliance for the most part.

“Inglourious Basterds” is not just violent, or bloody, but it’s also quite humorous, as Tarantino turns Hitler into a cry-baby cartoon, and then saddles every character with outrageous, gut-busting dialogue.  Listen to Brad Pitt pronounce “Bonjour-no” trying to masquerade through a Nazi gathering as an Italian.  Many viewers will walk away offended by the treatment of WWII and the Holocaust as presented here, but this movie is all about fantasy.  This is an alternate-reality revenge-flick put upon the Nazi regime.  Think a successful version of “Valkyrie” meets “Pulp Fiction” meets “Man on Fire.”  The tone of “Basterds” almost works perfectly, but Tarantino does let his scenes run on for some extended length, which make for a very long movie.   Almost every frame actually does work, but as usual for its writer-director, this movie takes its sweet old time.

I can’t complain too much.  This is the work of a filmmaking pioneer, like it or not.  Quentin Tarantino’s short resume has revolutionized cinema to some extent.  “Inglourious Basterds” is a welcome return to greatness we haven’t seen since 1994’s Pulp Fiction, and one of the few great films we’ve been granted this summer.  As a whole, this movie is a bit hit-and-miss, but mostly an awesome, violent, bloody, hilarious, history-rewriting event that should not be missed.

[Rating:4/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

This movie is exactly what anyone would expect–nothing more, nothing less.  It’s an enjoyable, mindless romp full of pratfalls and slapstick humor that strives to be little more than lighthearted entertainment.  And as such, it succeeds admirably.

Few professions are as oft-maligned or disrespected by the public as that of “rent a cops” like the patrolmen we often see at malls, banks, or entrances to gated communities.  Never minding his public image, however, our hero Paul Blart (with a name that perfectly fits his character) played by the affable Kevin James, is determined to do his job and do it well.  He might not have the best home life, he might not be the coolest guy in the crowd, but he has a duty and he will see it done no matter the consequences.  Blart exists to serve the public as a mall security guard, and he takes it upon himself to perform this task, that might seem insignificant or silly to the rest of us, as best as he possibly can.  In the meantime he falls for a cute kiosk worker, finds ways to bond with his daughter, and ends up saving the day when a gang of robbers take over the mall in an attempt to get millions of dollars by hacking the…oh, it really doesn’t matter anyway.  What’s important is that Blart saves the day and we learn a thing or two about not judging people in the process.

Despite the movie’s predictability and total lack of originality, it is an enjoyable story that is perhaps even more noteworthy for what it is not:  a crass, sophomoric, attempt to push the boundaries of family comedy like so many of its contemporaries.  I’m so tired of seeing PG-13 rated schlock, that is just barely not edgy enough to deserve an R-rating, being passed off as family or teenage entertainment.  But Paul Plart is far more the exception to this trend than the rule, and the movie not only has blatant messages about the importance of family relationships, not judging others by their looks, never giving up under pressure, and even a hint of Ecclesiasted 9:10.  I was surprised at how clean this movie was, and in today’s day and age, that’s something noteworthy in and of itself.   Take note, Hollywood:  Paul Blart and his nearly $100 million domestic total at the box office might just be saying a few things about entertainment today.

But enough of my digression.  What really matters here is that this movie is silly but funny, and enjoyable from start to finish largely because of Kevin James’ over-the-top portrayal of the classic mall cop.  The movie never takes itself too seriously (since when do bank robbers use skateboards and BMX bikes?) and everyone can find something to relate to in Blart–whether he’s longing (not lusting) for Amy, his kiosk-inhabiting coworker, wishing he could save the day by doing something special, standing up to one of his high school tormentors who is now in charge of the SWAT team, or simply trying to put in an honest day’s work.  Despite a few flaws (every character here is a stereotype, and there really is nothing original onscreen in terms of plot) this is an enjoyable movie that, honestly, the whole family could enjoy together.

Yes Man

It’s been quite an interesting ride for Jim Carrey.  The man who started his career with goofy personas and characters all built on his near-inhuman physical elasticity and penchant for over-the-top humor found great fame and fortune with such endearing characters as Rubberface, Ace Ventura, Lloyd Christmas, and even The Riddler (yes, Batman Forever stunk, but Carrey played his character to the hilt.  I blame the film’s faults solely on Joel Schumacher, one of the worst directors this side of Uwe Boll) also tried his hand at serious films such as Man on the Moon and The Truman Show.  And for the most part, he did well, and Truman remains one of the more touching and poignant films of his long and staid career.  After flirting with drama, another stint with the Farrely brothers, a turn as The Grinch, and one of the most challenging roles any actor could ask for–that of Joel Barish in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind–Carrey has spent the past few years returning to his proverbial roots in outlandish physical comedy.  His recent roles have been much more along the lines of those that originally made him a household name, and to some extent he has to be trying to prove to the world that he still has it.

But does he?

Enter Yes Man, the film from directory Peyton Reed, about a man named Carl Allen who is so down on himself and life in general that he turns down every chance for surprise, fun, or even enjoyment.  But soon Carl, played by Jim Carrey, decided to say “yes” instead of “no” to virtually any opportunity that comes his way.  Whether it’s a homeless man asking for money, a friend asking him to foot the bill for the bar tab, a stranger asking if he wants a ride on her motorbike, or the chance to take a spontaneous trip to exotic Lincoln, Nebraska, Carl soon realizes that saying “yes” often leads to more excitement and, ultimately, a life well lived.

And that’s about it.  Sure there’s a few conflicts with friends, an oddball coworker, a love interest, and a lesson about moderation, but really this film isn’t much more than a story about a guy who learns to have fun by saying yes (though, ultimately, in moderation).  The movie’s true raison d’etre is simply to provide a vehicle for Jim Carrey to be Jim Carrey.  That means plenty of physical gags, odd voices and accents, sexual jokes, and more than a few PG-13 rated squirm-worthy moments that felt like they should have belonged back in the Farrely trash bin where they belong.  While the overall concept seems nifty enough, it’s almost as if the filmmakers, in adapting Danny Wallace’s original book, were searching for nothing more than a way to get Jim Carrey back into an outrageous funny role.  And then crafted a screenplay around it.

[Read more…]

Funny People

2009_funny_people_wallpaper_001

Judd Apatow, with his mega reputation as the savior of comedy in the last few years, has his first misstep as a director. ‘Funny People’ is an odd comedy-drama that is  an overlong (an Apatow trademark) and mostly depressing look at a celebrity comedian’s life. Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, much like the star himself, a comedic actor with a lot crappy blockbusters on his resume who discovers he is dying from a form of lukemia. Simmons then decides to hire a struggling stand-up comedian (Seth Rogen) to work as a live-in assistant and writer for him. Midway through the film, Simmons finds out his experimental treatment on his disease has actually cured him, so he decides to seek out his former love interest (Leslie Mann), now married, and attempt to win her back.

At the point Sandler’s character thinks he’s going to win back his former love does ‘Funny People’ start to sink into a slump it can’t recover from. Otherwise, the first hour or so of the film actually works to Apatow’s credit. Sandler plays a disspirited, selfish character stuck in regret and despair. You don’t like or sympathize with George Simmons the entire film, and that’s a big problem.  I didn’t care about his impending death or his lost relationships.  Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman and many celebrity cameos are the saving graces of the film and provide a lot of the real genuine laughs and help this near 2 1/2 hour endeavor keep on moving.  Yes, 2 1/2 hours, a seriously long time to wade through a film about a main character that you don’t like. Unlike Mickey Rourke in ‘The Wrestler’ who also had a screwed-up life and torn relationships, you sympathized with the character. He played a man seeking redemption, but kept taking the wrong turns. Sandler plays a character that hates everyone about as much as he hates himself, and he continually uses people for his own benefit. The final hour of the movie introduces Leslie Mann, Sandler’s ex, as he travels with Seth Rogen to her suburb home. She’s stuck in a relationship with a cheating husband (Eric Bana) and two daughters. She wants out and back with Sandler, but everything gets complicated, leading to a lot of long, depressing scenes that seem out of left field for the movie.  The moral here, is that despite Simmons’ second chance at life and outlook that he can change for the better, the man will never find happiness because he will always be himself. It’s a long road to figure that out, and despite great performances from all the actors involved and some good scattered laughs, ‘Funny People’ is a mixed-bag that is too long and odd to recommend. It’s the mistake of an immensely talented filmmaker, so hopefully with his next feature he sticks to the lighter tones of what made ‘The 40-Year-Old Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’ comedy gold.

[Rating:2/5]

The Proposal

the-proposal-movie

Synopsis: A pushy boss (Sandra Bullock) forces her young assistant to marry her (Ryan Reynolds) in order to keep her Visa status in the U.S. and avoid deportation to Canada.  (IMDB)

Review in short: Yuck. Pure formula, top to bottom. It’s without a hint of originality at any point in the film. The two leads are fine, but they aren’t engaging ever. The plot is about as science-fiction as the new ‘Transformers’ sequel, and if there was even a dash of winning humor or a single hearty moment – it would’ve been better. As is, it’s mediocre as can be, and worst of all, not funny.

[Rating:1.5/5]