Talking Pictures

Rich’s Quickie: Don’t let your artsy-fartsy side keep you from enjoying this one!

Day: I’m pretty sick of vampires and I’m seriously looking forward to the new WOLFMAN movie, even if it stinks.  THAT’S how sick of vampires I am… and STILL a B- for a low-budget vampire flick?  You bet!  I howled with delight a few times during this, what could have been directed by Sam Raimi if it didn’t take itself so seriously most of the time.  I enjoyed a slightly different take on a worn subject, while bringing back some of the underbelly of vampirism – being a vamp is downright icky, again – yay!  You won’t see any lame guys standing around navel-gazing in puffy shirts; or worse, beautifully sparkling in the sun.  These vamps sizzle in sunlight, explode from wooden stakes, and rip your throat out to get to your blood. Sam Neil and Ethan Hawke deliver in what might have been terribly embarrassing roles. Willem Dafoe not so much, although he’s saddled with some dialogue that almost anyone would have a tough time delivering.  Still, DAYBREAKERS feels like a serious version of the movies I loved as a kid; self-contained stories like “They Live”, “The Hidden” or even “Robocop”; flawed here and there, but fun.

Night: Written and Directed by relative newbies Michael and Peter Spierig (or, “The Spierig Brothers” as they bill themselves), DAYBREAKERS is not without its share of problems.  Some plot points are only explained barely (the sunlight cure), some of the effects are good while others illicit a giggle, and the Spierig Brothers also enjoy the cheap-shot “surprise shock” a bit too much.  But even with all of that, I’d rather sit through DAYBREAKERS again than other movies of its ilk anytime.

Movie Grade: B-

MPAA: Rated R for strong bloody violence, language and brief nudity. Runtime: 105 min

Director: Michael Spierig & Peter Spierig

Writers Michael Spierig & Peter Spierig

Rich’s Quickie: Oh, if movies like this only DID come along once every four years…

I said LEAP, maggot! This stew has a lot going for it; Amy Adams in a fine actress, and even Matthew Goode shows promise on occasion. Supporting actor Adam Scott is likable, and John Lithgow has shown us repeatedly what an asset he can be in any role. Meanwhile, the story of a young woman proposing to her boyfriend of 4 years on February 29^th in scenic Ireland is safe enough, and has been created by writers Deborah Kaplan & Harry Elfont, who have had some experience writing romantic comedies such as “Made of Honor” and “Surviving Christmas”, and..

Uh-oh.

Bound: All of these fine ingredients did not make for satisfying cinema stew.  What unfolds onscreen is the story of a single-but-taken, successful and presumably independent woman named Anna (Adams), who is also shallow and spoiled – an “arrogant American” as she is later referred to in Ireland. Her father Jack (a wasted and possibly unnecessary Lithgow), apparently constantly tells her the old wives’ tale of how every Leap Year, a woman can ask a man to marry them in Ireland (how very modern). After an application interview for entrance to a posh, exclusive apartment complex is behind them, her successful cardiologist live-in boyfriend Jeremy (Scott), travels to Ireland for a medical convention.  Before he leaves, instead of giving her a big fat diamond ring, he presents her with… big fat diamond earrings – awwwwwwww!  Tough break.  Anna then remembers her dad’s Leap Year tale (and YOU don’t, he retells you AGAIN in a silly voice over), so she plans a surprise trip to Ireland just in time for February 29^th so she can pop him the question.  Hilarity was to ensue.

What awaits her is nothing short of every stereotypical depiction of Ireland you’ve seen before along with a blatant rip-off of every romantic comedy you’ve ever seen – even ones released just months ago — “The Proposal” comes most quickly to mind.  Anna gets help to Dublin by Declan (Goode), your typical scruffy, non-communicative and emotionally wounded barkeep that girls just go nuts for – especially ones who have apparently fallen for quite the opposite kind of man, already.  Add some ham-fisted dialogue about Anna’s desire to control everything and not believing luck (of the Irish?), and you know where this is gong as surely as you did when you bought your ticket.  Add some typically bad weather that forces our to-be couple off their desired path and into the next Irish set piece (an old bed and breakfast, castle ruins, a charming church – complete with wedding!), and this thing nearly writes itself!  Take scenes directly from other movies – people asking the supposedly married couple (makes it easier on the travel arrangements to Dublin) to kiss… seeing each other somewhat nekkid around shower time, having to share a bed (Again – “The Proposal” anyone?), and the outcome is never in doubt, even with the failed attempts at curveballs near the scripts’ end. Yes, after 4 days with said scruffy Irish guy, Anna is questioning whether or not to marry the man she’s known for 4 years.  But unlike say, in “The Titanic”, wherein girl leaves rich-but-unloving successful jerk for poor-but-affectionate unsuccessful stranger who actually cares for her, Scott’s Jeremy is a successful nice guy who seems genuinely interested in Anna – or at least as interested in her as she is in him; they BOTH talk to each other while texting, they BOTH have busy careers that take up much of their time, they BOTH are slaves to their Blackberrys, they BOTH want the same trappings, and on and on.  But somehow Scruffy Irish Guy who didn’t really treat her well most of the time has stolen her heart (just cook together, apparently), and although she goes through with the engagement to Jeremy, it’s not without some hesitation…

…until back home in the states she discovers through a laughable scene that he may be just as shallow as she is, and runs back to Ireland to Mr. McScruff, whom she is convinced feels the same way about her as she does about him.

Add a dash of slapstick (Anna sliding down a wet hill in the rain!  Anna’s $300 show flying off during those crazy Irish weddings and hitting the bride in the face!  Anna spilling her drink said bride during her apology for the flying $300 shoe!), some action (McScruff finally acting like a man and defending Anna’s honor in a barroom brawl!) all set to an Irish jig – I swear!  Apparently ANYTHING is fun when set to Irish jig background music!  And you’ve got yourself a stew!  Or at least a recipe for disaster; yet another romantic comedy that is neither very romantic nor funny that sets the women’s movement back by a decade or so.

Leap – don’t walk – to the next theater.

Movie Grade: D

MPAA: Rated PG for sensuality and language

Runtime: 97 min

Director: Anand Tucker

Writers: Deborah Kaplan Harry Elfont

Rich’s Quickie: If you’ve had enough of Michael Cera, you’ll get more than you bargained for, here; but you might end up liking that double dose.

Michael Cera is Revolting! Allowing possible one-note actor Michael Cera to stretch a little, Gustin Nash’s screenplay (based on C.D. Payne’s novel), tells the story of young, naive nerd Nick Twisp, who is so hell-bent on winning the rebellious daddy’s little girl of his dreams (well-played by Portia Doubleday), that he creates an alter ego of himself – Francois Dillinger – who just may help Nick seal the deal.  Both Cera and Doubleday are great, as is the Juno-esque dialog delivered by them.  A funny script is supported by the likes of Jean Smart, Zach Galifianakis, Steve Buscemi, Fred Willard, Ray Liotta and Justin Long (among others).  And even with such a large and obvious supporting cast, they don’t feel like stunts; seamlessly working themselves in and out of the main story, which is a quick and enjoyable 90 minutes.

Revolution! I’ve heard this movie doesn’t quite do the novel justice, but since I haven’t read it, that didn’t keep me from enjoying the film, so there. Though a bit absurd in places, it generally keeps its cheek and tone throughout.  The effect of two Ceras onscreen is done so well it doesn’t distract from the story itself.

Rich’s Movie Grade:  B

MPAA: Rated Rated R for sexual content, language and drug use.

Runtime: 90 min

Director: Miguel Arteta

Writers Gustin Nash (screenplay), and C.D. Payne (novel)

Rich’s Quickie: Promotional Activity.

Here is Rich Bonaduce’s General Theory of Relatively Independent Films: because most of them are normally not very good, when one IS marginal, word of mouth blows it up to blockbuster proportions.  It worked with the Blair Witch Project; and it is at work again with “Paranormal Activity”.   I mean; are the people at these film festivals really this easy?

“Activity” suffers from actors who aren’t quite believable (and who rarely respond to paranormal activity the way most people would), and from a hype machine that raises expectations to unrealistic levels.  It gets some genuine props for making a movie on a budget, and for using small events to develop a decent if somewhat prolonged build-up.  But there’s not enough of a payoff to warrant either the hype or the build-up.  Maybe if they’d left the original ending intact I might feel differently; but since they tacked on the silly, Hollywood ending, I’m stuck with this version and it’s stuck with THAT rating.  I do think it might be genuinely better if watched at home, especially at night; so watch for the DVD and the original ending they will no doubt include.

Rich’s Movie Grade: C-

Rated R for language.

Director: Oren Peli

Writer(s): Oren Peli (screenplay)

Rich’s Quickie: “Se7en” for the “Saw” generation.

You’ve seen this movie done before – and much better – with films like “Se7en”.  In fact, this rehash feels like somebody watched that far-superior film and thought – “hmm; not enough action”.

Hence we have this ham-fisted wannabe that’s so roll-your eyes unbelievable that only those suckling at the teet of the ridiculous “Saw” movies will appreciate it.  And literally almost every plot point in “Se7en” is echoed here, just badly; with dialogue for the lowest common denominator and actors who can’t quite pull off the gravitas of a Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey.

Gerard Butler’s antagonist is so out there in trying to teach Jamie Foxx’s lawyer I don’t know WHAT that it’s all moot by the end.  Foxx violates the law and his clients’ civil rights to eventually be partly responsible for his death.  And so Foxx learns… what?  We learned the only thing he COULD have learned from Butler’s outrageous Citizen – oh, just KILL the guy and get it over with.

This is not to say it’s not without its guilty pleasures, and it’s a bit of a decent ride for a while; but if this is your kind of movie, I suggest you pocket the difference and just go rent “Se7en”.

Rich’s Movie Grade: C

Rated R for strong bloody brutal violence and torture, a scene of rape, and pervasive language.

Director: F. Gary Gray

Writer(s): Kurt Wimmer

Rich’s Quickie: Struggles to find its footing and its audience.

I must confess I don’t recall having the children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are” read to me as a kid.  Then again, I don’t remember much of ANYTHING that was read to me as a child, if anything actually was.  I do remember reading things to myself, under the covers, with the proverbial flashlight so as not to bug my brother who was bigger than me and easily bugged.  But I do recall sharing his affinity for anger, and the power even a little kid can feel when the smallest member of the family can bring the world of Adults to a grinding halt with just the screech of a tantrum.

So after taking (literally), a minute or so to read it, this adaptation had to create a lot around its original 10-sentence, award winning children’s book about anger, and it starts off strong right from the wildly scrawled credits.  Personally, I identified very much with Max, filled with pride when building a simple snow fort.  I was right with him and his good-spirited mischief in taking on a whole group older, bigger kids in a snowball fight, and also with the scary shock he feels when it all comes crashing down on him (quite literally), discovering that he is still just a very vulnerable little kid.

Even after he runs away into the night far from his exasperated mother and one-too many tantrums, and retreats into his imaginary world populated with monsters of all sorts, I still could identify with him and the different aspects of his personality displayed in the various beasties.  They sleep as late as they want in the big piles leftover after a lighthearted rumble (but one in which he could still very easily be hurt).  Creativity abounds without the adult restrictions of it actually MEANING anything, with forts and tunnels of all kinds are built only to be wrecked in wanton acts of random and light-hearted destruction.  These strange folks he both fears and requires acceptance from eventually hail him as their king, only to be disillusioned when he obviously cannot live up to such a high bar.  The relationships between himself and even between the beasts themselves turn on a dime, much the same way a child’s relationships to his peers does.

So with all of this personal identification, why do I feel it just didn’t WORK?

With so much to create around its 10-sentence source material, much of this world had been left to our own separate imaginations.  Solidified on the big screen, this imagined world he created to fill in the blanks now takes on a very definite personality of its own, one that this viewer didn’t appreciate.  Various elements are probably too scary for younger kids, while others are too serious or multi-layered for older kids to catch.  And the adult viewer seems to be lost in the middle, trying to rectify their own version of the book that played in their heads to the one that plays out onscreen.

And if real estate is location, location, location; a movie is its ending, ending ending. Critics of the original 1963 book discussed the idea that after Max’s flight of fancy to his wild side, he is pulled back to the real world by a belief in parental love… but if that is what they saw in the book, I think they’d be hard pressed to find it onscreen.  Max leaves his newfound friends for the real world because they reject him, he fears them, and he feels has no where else to go.  And when he finally gets “home”, he is not scolded by his mother for his running away from him (then again, in the book he was merely sent to his room), and nothing is discussed onscreen.  He is treated to a big piece of chocolate cake while his mother, possibly being up all night fraught with worry, succumbs to some much-needed sleep with her head right on the kitchen table.  No yelling, no punishments, no explanations offered or asked for.  And no lessons learned… except for maybe “Mom is great – give me chocolate cake …after I throw a totally inappropriate tantrum followed by an unwise retreat into the night on the streets of my neighborhood for who know how long.”

I don’t know if that makes a good subject for a children’s book, but I know it doesn’t make for a great movie, either.

Still, I hope the limited use of CGI starts a trend toward more conventional effects again.

Rich’s Movie Grade: C

Rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.

Director: Spike Jonze

Writers: Spike Jonze (screenplay) & Dave Eggers (screenplay), Maurice Sendak (book)

Rich’s Quickie:  Even better the second time around… in marvelous 3D!

Funnily enough, I had not seen either “Toy Story” until I saw the 3D double-feature at Disney’s studio in California.  Now I know what all that hype was about years ago!

By now everyone has seen the adventures of Woody et al a 100 times over… why PAY to see it all again?  Not only because spending an afternoon taking your kids to such a wonderful double feature harkens back to the days of old, when a nickel’s worth of moving pictures took up half your day; but also since it’s just plain fun.  Remember THAT about movies? The first “Toy Story” is nearly 15 years old, and shows no signs of wear whatsoever; the messages of both films seem timeless while the visuals have been updated.  The colors pop, and the 3D is full and thick without stooping to typical 3D tricks of making every little thing leap off the screen to show you the movie is in 3D.  The technology has improved to the point that I wore those glasses for a little over 3 hours and had no eye strain or headaches afterward.

Meanwhile, there is a small 10 minute intermission that entertain the ones who DON’T need a bathroom break between films, and a special preview for Toy Story 3 – and all of that at a great, single-movie price.

So why pay to see it them again?  With all of that, why not?

Rich’s Movie(s!) Grade: A

TOY STORY

Directed by: John Lasseter

Writing credits: John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton and Joe Ranft (story); Joss Whedon, Andrew Stanton, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow (screenplay)

TOY STORY 2

Directed by: John Lasseter,  Ash Brannon (co-director) Lee Unkrich (co-director)
Writing credits: John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Ash Brannon and Andrew Stanton (story)
Andrew Stanton, Rita Hsiao, Doug Chamberlin and Chris Webb (screenplay)

Rich’s Quickie: Michael Moore continues to be the least appealing part of his movies; but his latest is still a must-see.

As a professional movie critic (as opposed to your buddy; yeah, THAT one), I had to refrain from leaping out of my seat and yelling, “fetchin-A!” at the screen a few times while viewing “Capitalism: A Love Story”.  Plus, “fetching” sounds so lame.

Already the naysayers are in full-force, trying to discredit the man so as to undermine his message whilst completely missing the point.  As you may recall, they do this to him with every movie he makes before concentrating on the actual films, sometimes even making whole movies to counter what they see as feature-length op-eds.

They have their work cut out for them this time, as Moore delves further into verifiable facts than ever before.  Unless footage has been shamelessly edited and removed from context, it’s hard to talk away the memos, the speeches on the floor of the Senate, or the money trail.  Something stinks in America, and it may not be Capitalism necessarily, but the love affair we have it that seems to trump all rationale.

Some of Moore’s antics in this movie seem less relevant than some earlier ones (particularly in “Sicko”, when he took some folks to get badly needed medical care in Cuba).  But much like the folks being paid to attack and discredit Moore for “Sicko”, who later grew a conscience and recanted, admitting that he was dead on RIGHT. “Capitalism” is likely to start a lot of arguments and then END them.

Rich’s Movie Grade: B+

Rated R for some language.

Director: Michael Moore

Writer: Michael Moore

Rich’s Quickie:  Like its namesake, it has its good and bad points.

More Bias-revealing here; I thought I’d like this film, at least from the trailers.  Maybe that’s why I did – a little.  I wanted to like it more, but it has its problems.  But it also has its charms.  It reminded me a bit of those 80’s sci-fi/horror thrillers, like “They Live” or “The Hidden”; a nifty little story wrapped up by the end. The premise was a good one, but the execution was a bit substandard especially in the special effects/stunts departments.

At only 88 minutes, “Surrogates“ moves surprisingly slow at first. I wanted the backstory of Bruce Willis’ character to be a little more seamlessly integrated instead of being the obvious “slow part” of the movie wherein we learn about him and his past.  That might have allowed for his character to do a little more detective work and fill in some of the holes in the story in the latter half of the film; things seemed to come a bit too easily in his investigation, even with James Cromwell’s character helping him along.  I wanted him to not only earn his discoveries, but to possibly lose more near the end via his tough decision — possibly have a few more folks die before he foils the plans entirely and saves the world yet again.

I loved the premise, though; real people turn to mush while they live vicariously though surrogate androids that allow them to do all the things they couldn’t do in real life – at least not without a lot of work and a bit of risk.  I see tiny hints of this sort of thing even now; with kids telling me they can play guitar because they did it in Rock Band, or thinking they are martial arts experts because they win big in the latest video game.  Meanwhile, they know just enough to get laughed off a stage, or their ass kicked on any playground in the country. Unplug and go get some sun and take a lesson or two, for crying out loud.

Unfortunately, most of the budget probably went to Willis, Cromwell, and the online promotional arm, and it shows onscreen with the stunts in particular.  Also, because many of the main characters are surrogates of themselves, we are treated to some pretty stiff acting most of the time, al la Natalie Portman as the faux Queen Padmé Amidala.  Keeping all of this in mind, it’s still not a horrible time at the movies, but you do get the sense that it could have been so much better.

Rich’s Movie Grade: C

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, disturbing images, language, sexuality and a drug-related scene.

Directed by: Jonathan Mostow

Writers: Michael Ferris (screenplay) & John D. Brancato (screenplay as John Brancato), Robert Venditti (graphic novel), and Brett Weldele (graphic novel)

Rich’s Quickie:  Bring nachos; “Fame” supplies all the cheese you could ever want.

Okay, a bit of B.Y.O.B. here (Bear Your Own Bias), I was never that much into the original 1980’s movie of the same name, nor the short-lived television series that followed it… and that goes double for “Dancing with the Stars” and “So You Think You Can WHAT?”

But even a curmudgeon such as I will tap my foot or clap my hands if something actually moves me to DO so (“I can’t stop my leg…!  I can’t stop my leg!”); this didn’t.  I remember literally dancing in the parking lot after seeing the infectious “Grease” – yes I’m THAT old – but trying to follow the selfish needs of some 10 lead characters chase their self-centered dreams won’t move me to of much of that.  Remember; the movie is called “Fame” – not “Love”.  Most of these people simply “wanna get famous” and are not necessarily doing anything for the love of their respective crafts.  They should be paying me to sit through that. Why would I want to pay 10 bucks to see morons on the big screen whom I wouldn’t want to hang with in real life?

There are some standouts (Naturi Naughton); but with each of the characters ultimately getting so little screen time between them they didn’t stand out for long.  Veterans Bebe Neuwirth, Kelsey Grammer and Charles S. Dutton (each doing much of what they’ve done so often before), get even less screen time, probably due to the size of the teenage cast. That’s probably good, since much of what passes for advice from the teachers is fairly lame.  One particular scene truly epitomizes the “Those who can’t do, teach” axiom: as a voice coach takes the mic at a karaoke bar… and should give it back right away. Yes, some of the dance sequences are well done, but it’s tough to wait it out through the forced drama in between those sequences.  But what really hurts is when even the performance sequences themselves drown in cheese so thick, you expect someone from a Pringles commercial to show up and start tapping the bottom of an empty chip can and join the festivities.

Movie Grade: C-

MPAA: Rated PG for thematic material including teen drinking, a sexual situation and language.

Director: Kevin Tancharoen

Writers: Allison Burnett (screenplay), Christopher Gore (1980 film)