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]

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince-poster-1Another success of a film, which is to be expected at this point, ‘Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince’ gets to take a look back at the history of Tom Riddle before he became the dark wizard known as Voldemort. Dumbledor requests Harry Potter’s help in seeking information out of an old professor of Riddle’s named Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) who may withhold a secret about Tom Riddle’s past that could prove very useful. Meanwhile, Harry suspects fellow classmate Malfoy to have ties with Voldemort’s dark forces.

David Yates again returns to direct, and will also helm parts One and Two of ‘The Deathly Hallows’ due out November 2010 and July 2011, respectively.  This sixth installment is all build-up for the final film wisely split into two parts by the studio and filmmakers.  ‘The Half Blood Prince’ sees many major events take place that I will not reveal. It’s a continually interesting story, looking back at the young Tom Riddle’s turn for the worse, only briefly touched on in ‘The Chamber of Secrets’ which many may not remember all that well. Or who am I kidding? Potter fanatics (the bulk of the audience) will know everything, but to the average moviegoer having seen each film only once–they may need a refresher that Tom Riddle is in fact Lord Voldemort.  There are many more aspects and developments in this film that I won’t discuss, partly because I refuse to ruin anything and partly because there’s just a lot going on here. Teen romances and ‘Cosmo-girl’ yap also bleed all over this puppy with all the major characters, but it isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and it also adds for quite  a bit of humor this time out. It’s refreshing to see some regular teenager behavior after all the dark and doom fixated over ‘Order of the Phoenix.’ There’s still that darkness intact in this film, but the script allows for more scattered light to shine through. ‘The Half Blood Prince’ is a bonafide blockbuster film, lighter on the action maybe, but another involving installment that ends with a cliffhanger to expected gripe. No worries, the story continues a year and a half from now. This is great entertainment (a rare treat this summer), and on par with my praise for the previous film.

[Rating:4/5]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

harry-potter-and-the-order-of-the-phoenix-1-800x600The best installment of the franchise so far, ‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is a dark and visceral film full of spectacle, action and strong storytelling.

Harry and friends must now do battle with the new evil Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts (it seems there’s always a new one), Professor Umbridge (Imelda Staunton). She takes over Hogwarts and abuses her authority under Ministry rule to rid the school of any performing of magic. No one believes Harry that Lord Voldemort has returned, and since the school can no longer prepare the kids for the dark times to come, Harry takes it upon himself to secretly train his fellow classmates, under the title ‘Dumbledor’s Army,’ to prepare for battle.

This installment of the franchise is brilliant from beginning to end. The story here is most involving. David Yates comes on board for this fifth film adaptation and works wonders. The events in the film truly take the series to new realms and darker corners, but these characters are just great to watch. Imdela Staunton as Professor Umbridge is an evil delight, and a strong addition to the film.  With the impending battle between Hogwarts and Voldemort drawing closer, ‘Order of the Phoenix’ has the opportunity to have a much more plot-driven film, a suspenseful action-adventure that sees further drama bridging to the final events to come. This is a great film.

[Rating:4/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Bram Stoker’s Dracula

BSD posterIn one of the most important chapters in Bram Stoker’s novel “Dracula,” Lucy Westenre tells the story of how she received three marriage proposals in one day. We gain a chuckle by reading it, but we also learn how good Lucy’s heart is and how kind and humble she is, as well as see the character of her suitors.

But there is a fourth man in Lucy’s life, a certain Count we all know. He visits her at night, and she begins to be found in the morning at the brink of death, almost totally drained of blood. Her three suitors rally around her and, with the help of Dr. Van Helsing’s transfusion equipment, literally pour their life into her. So it goes for many pages; the Count steals her life away by night; the men who love her exhaust themselves by day in a desperate battle to save her life. Van Helsing trims her room with garlic. The Texan suitor, Quincy Morris, patrols the grounds around her home all night. But the Count’s craft is too great and Lucy finally succumbs. By this point the characters are sufficiently developed that the reader feels their loss almost as acutely as they do.

But of course, Lucy becomes a vampire. She preys on local children for awhile until once again confronted by her suitors and Van Helsing. Dr. Seward, narrating this part of the story, describes “the thing in the coffin” as a “mockery of Lucy’s sweet purity.” They put a stake through her heart, and watch her turn back to the woman they once knew.  There follows a beautiful paragraph about redemption, eternal life and contrasting inner beauty with the perverse eternal youth of a vampiress.

Would that I had sufficient space to fully describe the literary riches in Stoker’s masterpiece, but that will have to do. Imagine then, my disappointment at Francis Ford Coppula’s attempt to film “Dracula.” To do justice to the book would have required a long movie; probably around three hours. Coppula seems determined to cut it off at two, so that the movie, even in its best moments, is nothing more than a watered-down version of the book. To make matters worse, Coppula crams in a sub plot in which Mina Murray dates Dracula while her fiancé struggles across Europe. Taking a page from “The Mummy” Coppula seems to imply that Mina is a sort of reincarnation of a bride of the historical Dracula. The movie never explains this, however. In fact, the editing of this film is downright schizophrenic. The story I told above takes all of 10 minutes to fly by in the film, and begins with a shot of Lucy lying on a park bench, apparently being raped by a werewolf (I can only assume this is Dracula in some other form, but this too is never explained). Far from being Stoker’s figure of “sweet purity,” Coppula’s Lucy is essentially a 19th century valley girl. Seward and Quincy are barely given any screen time, and with no back-story, Arthur’s lines about how he would give the last drop of his blood to save Lucy are as flat and unbelievable as anything in Hollywood. Even her two death scenes seem insignificant.

drac, mina

Gary Oldman sucks in "Dracula."

To be sure, a proper film version of “Dracula” would get slow at times, bogged down in dialogue and character development, but it was precisely these things that made the book great. It takes the reader through the loss, the grief, the struggle and the eventual triumph of the seven main characters. If we didn’t feel their bravery, their love for each other, and their iron faith, reading the accompanying horror story would have been a waste of time. Perversely, the only genuine affection in Coppula’s film seems to be between Mina and Dracula.

In typical Hollywood fashion, Coppula tries to compensate for this lack of substance with spectacle. Disembodied shadows creep across walls, water flows uphill and blood flows out of inanimate objects for no reason. This entertains for a few minutes, but it’s a poor substitute for a story. It might even be scary, if any of it looked real, or if there was any reason to care.

Coppula’s film is to Stoker’s novel what a vampire is to the person he or she was in life: the same thing, except stripped of its soul, its passion, its humanity, and marked by lurid signs of cruelty and bloodlust.

The book

[Rating:5/5]

The movie

[Rating:0/5]

Lions for Lambs

Robert Redford is one of the most distinguished individuals in Hollywood today:  his decades-spanning film acting career includes such classic titles as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All The President’s Men, and Out of Africa.  As a director he has produced indelible works like Ordinary People, A River Runs Through It, and The Horse Whisperer.  He even played an instrumental role in founding Sundance Film Festival the annual indie-movie showcase named after his role in Butch Cassidy.  Lions for Lambs, his most recent project which directed and in which he starred, is an intriguing film that explores many facets of the War on Terror as seen through roughly intertwining vignettes involving a Republican senator and a liberal interviewer, a college professor and his young mush-minded pupil, and two students-turned-soldiers who are on the front lines of a new attack strategy masterminded by the senator.  While the acting and direction are top-notch, perhaps the film’s most impressive quality is its restraint, as Redford deeply explores many sides of a complicated issue instead of using the hour and twenty minute running time to grind a particular political axe.  It’s classic Robert Redford:  classy.

When this movie came out I was surprised at how little attention it got from the general public.  Having watched it this week, though, I think I can understand why:  Lions for Lambs is not exactly entertaining per se, and it’s also a tricky premise to sell to an audience (especially an audience that has catapulted drivel like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen into the box office stratosphere) because of the multi-faceted approach to telling its story.  The action unfolds in real time as senator Jasper Irving, played by Tom Cruise who looks and acts like the all-growed-up version of his Daniel Kaffe character in A Few Good Men, is being interviewed by journalist Janine Roth, played by Meryl Streep.  She gets him to spill the beans about a new strategy for finally winning the War –a plan that is being put into action in Afghanistan as they speak, and involves two young soldiers who get separated from the rest of their platoon.  The two soldiers just happen to be former students of professor Stephen Malley–Robert Redford in a role that feels as natural as any he has ever played, if a bit more passionate at times.  Malley is, at the same time this is all going on, trying to knock some real-world sense into one of his students (young actor Andrew Garfield, channeling a healthy dose of Judd Nelson’s character from The Breakfast Club), using his former students as examples of true courage and conviction, even though he personally disagrees with their decision to join the military.

The movie isn’t so much a story as it is an exploration of a political topic.  And yet, despite the intensely political nature of the film, it never gets preachy.  The characters come across as passionate but not informed and far from their stereotypical raving counterparts in so many movies today.  There are no easy answers to the solution to the War, and the viewpoints expressed by the various characters are thoughtful and reasonable as opposed to ideological diatribes.  Several express regret over past mistakes, and the media at large is even taken to task for its role in ramping up the hype for the War years ago.  However, all this serves as an interesting essay or PBS debate, but it does not serve to make the most engaging movie.  For all that I appreciate about Lions for Lambs, it does boil down to little more than 80 minutes of dialog, and the disconnected nature of the plot keeps it from being in the same league as movies like Frost/Nixon.  There is no main character to follow, no central storyline other than the peril of the two stranded soldiers, and the conflict rests mainly in the minds of the audience rather than the characters.

But it’s a fine film overall, especially for people who are looking for a more thoughtful approach to politics in their movies.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

gobletJ.K. Rowling’s universe furthers its limitless boundaries, and with ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’, the series’ translation to film continues to impress.  Harry’s world represents endless possibilities, part of the series’ undeniable fun and excitement.

This time, the schools of magic are apparently international, spanning other nations and bringing these different institutions together for one slam-bang tournament known as the ‘Triwizard’, in which three 17-year-0ld students are chosen by the Goblet of Fire (much like the magic hat that selects students’ housing) to compete in a Battle Royale of Magic sort-to-speak; not battling each other, but against tumultuous threats, a competition I can’t wrap my brain around. These kids are put in life-and-death situations that test every ounce of their capabilities in the world of magic. With this knowledge, the school has an uproar when Harry Potter’s name spits out of the Goblet as an illegal fourteen-year-old fourth contestant.  He is shunned by his classmates, especially his best friend Ron, which really made no sense to me. Hermione tries to reach out to him, but Harry keeps his distance. His nightmares of the Dark Lord are getting to him again, and whoever or whatever rigged his name into the goblet seems to spell doom for Harry.  It doesn’t help that the Yule Ball is approaching for the youngsters either, forcing the kids to learn to dance and for the boys to ask out at a date. This could prove more complicating for Harry than anything he faces in the Triwizard Tournament.

goblet 2

This installment finally reaches a pivotal point in this remarkably rich saga. The story in particular finally revolving around the character of Lord Voldemort, which was briskly touched on in ‘The Sorcerer’s Stone’, gets into the thick of the encompassing story.  With the Triwizard tournament, and another new director in the british Mike Newell, the movie has a lot more action than the previous films, lending this particular film a much swifter pace, and more exciting and scary threats for Harry. I could’ve done without the snotty Ron Weasley all up-in-arms over his suspicion of Harry somehow sneaking his own name into the cup. So what if he did? I also can’t quite comprehend how these competing international schools would allow such a tournament to go on. I suppose a lot of the magic performed at Hogwarts, including the fast-paced games of Quidditch, could prove about as dangerous. But Harry has to take on giant dragons, save his own classmates from an underwater obstacle course filled with evil creatures, and then has to wander through an endless, isolated maze that apparently can drive its occupants completely mad. This school takes the threats in the previous films quite seriously, so I guess I can’t understand why they would promote such a dangerous tournament where students could easily be killed.  I also wondered what would happen to the students placed at the bottom of the lake in the second challenge. Harry finds Ron and Hermione among others down there, and wants to save more than one student when his task is to save only the sole selected. Would the remaining student(s) die if left there? Such questions puzzled me, but sort of became a bit irrelevant amidst the film’s excitement and proceedings.

The action here is a doozy. And the darker tone and return of Voldemort (played by a deliciously serpentine Ralph Fiennes) really help the series take a great leap forward. The cast again, redundant as it may sound, continue to take the reigns of their characters, though at times I felt a bit annoyed with Rupert Grint this time around. I think that’s solely because of how whiny his character is in this particular film.  Otherwise, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson continue to impress.  Brendan Gleeson is a welcome new addition to Hogwarts as a Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts.  Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman (my favorite supporting character) may be getting a bit shortchanged, but that is to be expected.  All in all, the film is a marvelously fun accomplishment.  ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’ is a dazzler, an action-packed installment that continues a thrilling series that miraculously dodges audience fatigue with endless surprise and invention.

[Rating:3.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies

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]

Fired Up!

firedUp_poster_s600LSynopsis: The two most popular guys in high school decide to ditch football camp for cheerleader camp. For the girls and for the glory. (IMDB)

Review in short: Truthfully, this movie was painful from start to finish. Once the characters came onscreen, I instantly hated them. Credit that possibly to the terrible script or its complete lack of originality and ambition in its jokes. I hate to say it’s the worst movie ever – I’m sure there’s far worse. It didn’t strive to be much obviously, nor did I expect it to, but it wasn’t so terrible I admired it either. It was just a terrible viewing experience, boring, and deprived of any redeeming qualities.

Zero of four stars.