Saturday, August 28, 2010

Review: The Last Exorcism (2010) - 3 Buckets

Had you asked me before I saw The Last Exorcism, I don’t think I could have come up with one favorable example of deceptive film marketing. Usually, when a movie is sold as something it’s not, there’s reason to be pissed off; most viewers rightly expect to have a reasonably good idea of what their $10 are going towards. But there’s an exception to every rule and I’m happy The Last Exorcism is it. Sold by distributor Lionsgate as a Paranormal Activity-esque fright-fest, this actually may be the smartest motion picture American teenyboppers ever voluntarily see. It isn’t high art, but The Last Exorcism is surprisingly less a horror film than it is a thriller that uses its faux-documentary style to forge substantive social commentary about such topics as the blind following of organized religion and the camera’s ability to attract narcissism. The half-hour or so of material that’s intended to be scary in the conventional sense is the side dish, not the main course.

In fact, I’d expect early walkouts from those audience members who go in expecting blood and terror. The movie takes a lot of time—the full first act and more—setting up its lofty premise, free of any immediate scares. Filmed documentary-style from the start, the film introduces protagonist Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) of Baton Rouge, La. At church, he appears to be your ordinary charistmatic, bible-thumping Evangelical preacher. But, in truth, he’s anything gbut. After going through the traumatic premature birth of his son, Cotton grew to find his faith less and less important in his life. The only reason he continues in his profession is because it’s the way he best knows to pay the bills.

The reason for the documentary is Cotton seeks to expose the con of the exorcism within his religion. (I guess he figures he’ll make enough money off of it to pay those bills when it leads to his excommunication?) In an interview segment, he humorously assures viewers that even though the ancient ritual is typically associated with Catholics because “they have The Exorcist,” it’s a actually common practice within many religions. In fact, Cotton was a child prodigy exorcist, with news-clippings showing him performing the ceremonies at as early as 10 years old. But he has come to view them as a hoax, never having seen a ghost or anything remotely supernatural during the many he’s conducted. After hearing news of deaths occurring during exorcisms, he saw the need to create positive change by rigging fake ones and then demonstrating the placebo effect they hold on participants. Of course, his good intentions are matched by his own cocky desire for the camera; he hams it up and has a huge ego throughout the documentary.

Cotton’s subject this time is, to his surprise, 16-year-old Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell). “I don’t like to work with kids,” he says, after realizing he won’t actually be exorcizing Nell’s religious-fanatic father Louis (Louis Herthum), who wrote the letter requesting the act be performed. Nell has allegedly been engaging in strange behavior she has no recollection of, such as killing livestock on the family farm. Cotton tells the Sweetzers—Nell, her dad, and her angry, skeptical brother Caleb (Caleb Landry Jones)—that the demon Abalam is possessing the girl, randomly picking one out of his weathered picture-book. Using a bunch of magic tricks that make disturbing noises, shake photos in the room, and cause his cross to smoke up, Cotton performs the phony exorcism and calls it a day. But then comes the real horror: Nell is still displaying demonic tendencies later that night. Is she just psychologically screwed up, or does Abalam really have a hold over her?

Just as interesting as The Last Exorcism’s style and grander plot is the character Cotton himself, credibly played by television actor Patrick Fabian. Whereas a less complex film would’ve depicted Cotton as your standard well-meaning citizen journalist, director Daniel Stamm and writers Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland don’t fall into this trap. They realize Cotton would have to be a hot-head who loves the camera to be staging this kind of elaborate set-up. Even when Nell starts to show signs of true problems beyond imagined demonic possession, Cotton never second-guesses his decisions regarding her welfare. That requires a certain degree of arrogance, which would be fitting of someone who was a local celebrity at a young age. And yet Cotton never becomes unsympathetic because he admittedly seems to be onto something, meaning the viewer never becomes irritated by or bored of the man who leads them on the journey. Actor Fabian is just as responsible as the script for this success, too, as he nails the dichotomy, turning Cotton from charismatic to flawed and back on a dime.

On a narrative level, the movie is distinguished by its superior building of suspense. What’s really going on with Nell? If she is possessed, then are Cotton and the two documentarians accompanying him in danger, as the bloody drawings that Nell creates while “under the influence” suggest? Nell’s brother Caleb and the local pastor (Tony Bentley) appear to be hiding something; if really they are, what is it? Nothing is resolved with certainty until the film’s final scene, which is sure to be vigorously debated. However, even if one doesn’t like the ultimate outcome artistically, one would be hard-pressed to claim they predicted it.

As the cherry on top of it all, there’s what The Last Exorcism says about organized religion and religious figureheads in America. Louis, who’s been estranged from the local church since the passing of his wife, seems to blindly trust the allegedly expert Cotton to save his daughter from the demon within her… that is, until after Cotton’s exorcism “fails,” and he claims it isn’t a demon at all, but a psychiatric issue. Louis then returns to the scripture, which turns him towards violence. Yes, this is all fun and games and not meant to be taken seriously, but Cotton’s use of religion for selfish purposes and Louis’ literalist backlash bear striking resemblance to certain public figures today. It amounts to a very clever movie that gets the viewer thinking about how Christianity is abused in all kinds of ways, especially when media (in this case a documentary) is involved.

But even after all this praise, I probably still haven’t convinced you that the scare-quotient is irrelevant, have I? Truth be told, if you’re looking for the movie that will raise your heart-rate the highest, you should look elsewhere. There are admittedly some eerie sequences in The Last Exorcism that are shrouded in anxiety-producing mystery, but the number of outright terrifying moments is low. In fact, those who would be likely to jump out of their seats at the “scary stuff” in the final act are probably the same people who would walk out at the beginning of the movie because they find the other elements boring. For those moviegoers who like to be thrilled and think a little bit while they’re at it, however, The Last Exorcism represents multiplex fare at its best.

* * *

The Last Exorcism (2010, USA). Produced by Marc Abraham, Thomas A. Bliss, Patrick Curd, Ron Halpern, Patty Long, Eric Newman, and Eli Roth. Directed by Daniel Stamm. Written for the screen by Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland. Starring Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, Iris Bahr, Louis Herthum, Caleb Landry Jones, and Tony Bentley. Distributed by Lionsgate. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 90 minutes.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 8/27

Well, after last weekend's predictions, my credibility in this arena has reached a new low. The only opener I came close to predicting with 100% accuracy was Piranha 3D. And that's unfortunate, because the highly entertaining bloodbath deserved better than its paltry box office total of $10.1m, much like fellow bomb Scott Pilgrim vs. the World did two weeks ago. But fear not... unlike Scott Pilgrim, Piranha 3D didn't cost very much to make and a sequel is already in the works. So long as another penis is dismembered by a flesh-hungry ancient fish in spectacular 3D, I'm totally game.
This weekend brings us two new films and another in re-release: the low-budget horror mock-doc The Last Exorcism, the urban action flick Takers, and a certain indie with 3D blue people that grossed next to nothing (I forget what it's called).
With a viral Internet marketing campaign and abundant use of handheld camera, The Last Exorcism is most conveniently compared to last year's smash-hit Paranormal Activity. But that's a tricky proposition because of two factors: 1) The Last Exorcism is rated PG-13 whereas Paranormal Activity was R, meaning they may find different audiences, and 2) Paranormal Activity's release pattern (midnight only, then limited, then wide) makes it impossible to form a true opening weekend comparison. For the record, Paranormal Activity made $21.1m in its first weekend of wide release, but I'm only including that figure because I may have gotten you to wondering.
I think a better comparison is The Haunting in Connecticut, which had a different style but similarly supernatural themes. It was also similarly PG-13, catered to a younger audience, and was distributed by mini-major Lionsgate. Also, The Haunting in Connecticut debuted the first week after many teens and college students went back to school from spring break, just as they doing are now from summer break. That Virginia Madsen-starrer grossed an even $23m opening weekend.
Another potential comparison of teen horror with better-than-average reviews and marketing is The Ring, which made $15m in its opening weekend back in 2002. Adjusting for inflation, that number would be around $17.8m today. However, if we want an August PG-13 horror comparison, we have to go back to 2001's The Others, which made $14.1m opening weekend but had legs that took it to $96.5m total, which The Last Exorcism is unlikely to have. If you appropriate The Others' run to be more front-loaded and account for inflation, the number comes close to $30m... which'd be a great, strong surprise for The Last Exorcism.
Other similar PG-13 horror comparisons include The Exorcism of Emily Rose ($30m, a true surprise when it was released), The Stepfather ($11.6m), The Unborn ($19.8m), and 1408 ($20.6m). So, removing outliers, the range seems to be high teens to mid-twenties. Because it falls within that range, I'm sticking with the Haunting in Connecticut comparison and saying $23 million.
Takers, on the other hand, has far fewer easy comparisons. The only example of a similarly-targeted August action film I can think of is S.W.A.T., which played to a massive $37.1m back in 2003. I think it's safe to say that isn't going to happen here. Takers doesn't have the buzz, the big theater count, or the widely-appealing stars. In fact, in terms of that last part, the presence of everybody's least favorite abusive boyfriend Chris Brown may actually hurt its box office take.
That being said, I think those prognosticators who are calling Takers an August dump-job that will gross in the single digits are wrong. Comparisons to Armored ($6.5m) and The Losers ($9.4m) just don't sit right with me, especially given the film has an ad campaign that has done a solid job targeting the African-American community. In this regard, I think Takers has more in common with its distributor Sony/Screen Gems' big hit last summer, Obsessed, which opened to a huge $28.6m. Of course, it doesn't have Beyoncé or that film's high theater count, so it has absolutely no chance of breaking into the 20s or even the mid-teens. But I say it's good for at least 2/5 of Obsessed's gross--yep, I'm sure feeling arbitrary tonight--which is $11.4 million.
Then there's the matter of the Avatar re-release. Even more so than is the case with Takers, there is a complete lack of applicable comparisons here. This substantial a re-release (811 theaters) hasn't occurred at this interval (9 months since initial release) in a very long time. Thus, trying to compare it to the re-releases of the Star Wars or Toy Story movies is just silly. All we know is that there probably is some degree of interest in seeing the film again on the big-screen despite the fact it's on DVD and Blu-Ray because A) it's the highest grossing film of all time so some people must be interested in an additional nine minutes of footage, B) audiences clearly identified the 3D and the IMAX factors as special the first time around, and C) it's being re-released in a dead month with little desirable competition. So what is there to do but throw out a number? I'll say the movie does a solid $7,500 per theater accounting for increased 3D and IMAX ticket prices (yep, I'm really pulling numbers out of my ass now), meaning a total of $6.1 million on the weekend. That'll easily get it past the $750m threshold Fox wants it to exceed for prestige.

My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:
1. The Last Exorcism ... $23m ($8,003 Per Theater Average)
2. Takers ... $11.4m ($5,168 PTA)
3. The Expendables ... $8.5m ($2,501 PTA) -50.0%
4. Eat Pray Love ... $7.4m ($2,381 PTA) -38.9%
5. The Other Guys ... $6.4m ($2,012 PTA) -37.3%
6. Nanny McPhee Returns ... $6.3m ($2,252 PTA) -25.1%
7. Avatar ... $6.1m ($7,512 PTA0
8. Vampires Suck ... $5.5m ($1,701 PTA) -54.9%
9. Inception ... $4.9m ($2,357 PTA) -37.5%
10. Lottery Ticket ... $4.8m ($2,433 PTA) -54.9%
-No longer in the top 10- The Switch ... $4.5m ($2,231 PTA) -46.7%
-No longer in the top 10- Piranha 3D ... $3.9m ($1,566 PTA) -61.4%

Looks like late August, smells like late August, feels like late August. Next weekend, good movies will hopefully bloom anew.

Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at webmaster@bucketreviews.com.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 8/20

Another weekend means new box office predictions. My inaugural guesses faired OK last weekend--I got the order mostly right and got within 10% on most of the holdovers--but there's a lot of room for improvement. This upcoming weekend is really anyone's guess; it brings us five new films that are basically August dump-jobs. Audiences get to pick from the family sequel Nanny McPhee Returns (read my review here), the urban comedy Lottery Ticket, the latest Friedberg/Seltzer paro-trocity Vampires Suck, the 3D-gorefest Piranha, and an old Miramax release called The Switch that has been gathering dust on the shelf for awhile.
With the exception of maybe Nanny McPhee Returns, I don't think any of those films have a chance at seizing the #1 slot. Once again, it would seem the battle is between Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables and the Julia Roberts-vehicle Eat Pray Love. Sly's action-extravaganza dominated the box office last weekend with a strong $34.8 million, but it's likely to have a big drop this weekend. Sly's 2008 Rambo dropped 60.9% week-over-week and I don't think there's a better comparison. That would put The Expendables in line for a weekend of $13.6m.
Eat Pray Love, on the other hand, opened to significantly less last weekend ($23.1m), but its drop should be comparatively soft. Last year's Julie & Julia, the best comparison, dropped 39.8% on its second weekend. I think Eat Pray Love will fall a little more than that because selling-point Roberts and the beloved source material suggest more front-loading. On this one, I'll go with a drop of 42.5%. That'd put Eat Pray Love in the neighborhood of $13.3m -- it'll be a real cage match for #1 among these two holdovers.
Close behind (if not ahead), undoubtedly, will be Nanny McPhee Returns. Yes, on one hand, the original did open to a very strong $14.5m in only about 2/3 of the theaters of this sequel. But the follow-up has two things going wrong for it: 1) it isn't as good as the first (contrary to the critical consensus) and 2) lots of kids are going back to school Monday, meaning they may spend the weekend shopping for supplies and getting ready rather than going to the movies. Last year, the kids film Shorts debuted in the same frame to a paltry $6.4m. That being said, I could definitely eat my words on this one come Sunday. For now, I'll go with my gut and pick a moderate number out of the sky -- $13.1m, I think.
Another noteworthy debut is Lottery Ticket. Over the years, box office prognosticators have been taught to never underestimate the urban comedy, which has a tendency to be marketed in African-American areas and nowhere else. Thus, those of us who live in other places are often unaware of the potential for success. Lottery Ticket could represent such a case. Marketing-wise, I sense a lot in common with First Sunday, which was likewise "dumped" in January to the unexpectedly profitable tune of $17.7m. However, the presence of the church in that film may have attracted the potent Tyler Perry audience more than this film will. Not to mention, Lottery Ticket skews pretty young, with once kid-rapper Bow Wow headlining. Bow Wow's previous film, 2005's Roll Bounce, opened in about 300 less theaters (1,625 vs. 1,937) to only $7.6m. Even calculating for inflation from 2005, that'd put Lottery Ticket at only around $8.3m by direct comparison. But my gut tells me the best comparison here is 2006's similarly young, African-American targeted ATL, which opened to $11.6m. Accounting for a little inflation, that'd put Lottery Ticket in line for an opening of $12.3m.
Next up is Friedberg/Selzer's Vampires Suck, which debuted yesterday to the tune of $4m. With most of the audience still out of school and the potential for front-loading rife, my guess is that Friday only matches that gross, and maybe even sees less. Not to mention, the Wednesday opening should fare worse for its over-the-weekend internal multiplier than the writer/director duo's previous August release, Disaster Movie, as most of the first-choice audience will have seen it already by Friday. Disaster Movie managed to multiply its Friday gross by an impressive 2.88, but I think Vampires Suck will be more in the realm of 2.5. That'd put its weekend at an even $10m.
Then there's the very-adult Piranha 3D, which has nifty ads, momentum online, and good early reviews funneling in. (After last weekend's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World bombing, however, one must be skeptical of all three things.) With a similar theater count to last year's My Bloody Valentine 3D, one could make a case that this one has a chance at coming out of left-field and replicating that picture's successful $21.2m opening, even considering internal problems at distributor Weinstein. But I wouldn't buy that argument for a second. Murderous piranhas and washed up '80s stars may sound cool to me and many other geeks online, but they don't make for the kind of mainstream success that the former 3D horror film enjoyed. The camp factor is high here. Very optimistically, I could go for the argument that this matches Snakes on a Plane's $13.8m, including the 3D-surcharge. But I think it will probably be lower, as the mainstream appeal just doesn't seem to be there. Another significant factor is that urban audiences make up a big percentage of the horror demographic, and they will be siphoned away by Lottery Ticket. Ultimately, I'm going to be a pessimist on this one. I'll go with last year's tropical horror film A Perfect Getaway's $6m opening, plus a big increase for 3D (I'd expect about 75% of tickets to be sold in that format), plus another $1.5m for additional geek interest. That'd put Piranha 3D at $9.9m, figuring average 2D ticket-prices of $8 and 3D of $11.
The last film of the lot is The Switch, which boasts all of the signs of a huuuge bomb. My best guess is it ends up splitting the difference between stars Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman's previous late-summer releases. Those would be Love Happens ($8.1m) and Extract ($4.3m), respectively, putting my prediction at $6.2m, well below the standards of these actors and the genre.
So, if I'm on the right track, what we end up with are some OK holds and some OK openings, but nothing special. Sounds like late August to me...

My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:
1. The Expendables ... $13.6m ($4,159 Per Theater Average) -60.9%
2. Eat Pray Love ... $13.3m ($4,315 PTA) -42.5%
3. Nanny McPhee Returns ... $13.1m ($4,707 PTA)
4. Lottery Ticket ... $12.3m ($6,234 PTA)
5. Vampires Suck ... $10m ($3,358 PTA)
6. Piranha 3D ... $9.9m ($4,008 PTA)
7. The Other Guys ... $9.4m ($2,707 PTA) -46.0%
8. Inception ... $7m ($2,915 PTA) -38.0%
9. The Switch ... $6.2m ($3,082 PTA)
10. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World ... $6.2m ($2,199 PTA) -41.6%

Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at webmaster@bucketreviews.com.

Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) - 2 1/2 Buckets

The original Nanny McPhee was a pleasant surprise, arriving on the scene billed as just another dumper of a January kids’ flick but then proving itself to actually be rather funny and touching. The magic of the movie was that it allowed the audience to both laugh at its child cast’s mischievous antics and root for the title Nanny (an unrecognizable Emma Thompson) in rearing them. A then 16-year-old friend and I went to see it because it was the only thing we hadn’t yet caught and I could get us in for free as an employee of the theater. We came out floored that even we, the antithesis of the target audience, had laughed and had ourselves a jolly good time.

Nanny McPhee Returns is not a bad movie, but its lack of originality and humor compared to the first film seem like more severe offenses than they really are because of the high standards in place. This time, writer/star Thompson and new director Susanna White place Nanny McPhee and her subjects into a conventional wartime weepy and, while it beats Tooth Fairy or The Spy Next Door as family fare any day, one could definitely argue that viewers would be better off watching its predecessor again instead.

This time around, the ill-behaved children are those of Isabel Green (Maggie Gyllenhaal, doing her best British accent), who live on a farm in the English countryside circa World War II. Their father (Ewan McGregor) is off fighting and his lack of presence is obviously taking a toll on the family. The kids’ antics wear on Isabel, who’s already stressed because she may have to sell the farm if she can’t come up with her monthly tractor payment. So what better idea but to add two more to the mix? The Cousins, as they’re dubbed, arrive at the farm, apparently because their London home is unsafe due to the firebombing. More ruckus ensues. Enter Nanny McPhee, who will surely teach the kids how to behave and how to care.

The biggest error Thompson and Grant make is not using Nanny McPhee enough. It feels as though the staple of the franchise is reduced to a footnote here, showing up when the strike of her whimsical cane is needed but otherwise simply looming in the background. This character is who audiences are paying to see, so why minimize her part?

Then again, maybe Nanny McPhee’s role in the first movie only seems comparatively larger because the surrounding story was better, meaning her absences were less of an issue. Unlike this sequel, the original film offered a lot of juicy narrative elements, like the love story between dad Colin Firth and maid Kelly Macdonald. While the original was hardly unpredictable, it was always entertaining because it engaged the viewer’s sense of wonder. Nanny McPhee Returns, on the other hand, features a family story that is conventional not only in plot, but emotion. We know from the beginning that the two main crisis-points for the family will be 1) whether or not their father dies in combat and 2) whether or not they have to sell the farm. Based on this short synopsis, I bet you can guess the outcomes of both story threads.

Nanny McPhee Returns also relies on cutesy trifles that are mildly amusing, but that simply amount to diversion where the first would have relied on heart. Yes, CGI pigs performing a synchronized swimming routine are worth a laugh and will undoubtedly amuse kids, but then again, are they really that funny and aren’t kids amused by anything? The same goes for the CGI baby elephant and Nanny McPhee’s trusty bird that uses its gas problem for the greater good.

But all this criticism is simply an indicator of the fact that I feel Nanny McPhee Returns is inferior to the first film, not that it’s a very bad film itself. As a Saturday matinee babysitter, it may not be Pixar, but it certainly won’t be a painful watch for parents. Maggie Gyllenhaal, for one, is delightful in the lead role. Her character may be too standard-issue to make much of an emotional impact, but viewers will enjoy Gyllenhaal’s sparkling presence throughout. The entire cast of kids, too, delivers strong performances that don’t suffer from the typical difficulties child actors often face. And, minimized as she may be, Nanny McPhee is just as charming as ever, so much so that one might still find oneself hoping Thompson reprises this role again, despite the sequel’s significant drop in quality. Nanny McPhee Returns settles for pleasant, moderate fun, but is unlikely to elicit strong enthusiasm from any moviegoer over the age of 10.

* * *

Nanny McPhee Returns (2010; UK, France, USA). Produced by Tim Bevan, David Brown, Liza Chasin, Lindsay Duran, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward, Debra Osbourne, and Emma Thompson. Directed by Susanna Grant. Written for the screen by Emma Thompson, based on the characters created by Christianna Brand. Starring Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Oscar Steer, Asa Butterfield, Lil Woods, Eros Vlahos, Rosie Taylor-Ritson, Rhys Ifans, Maggie Smith, and Ewan McGregor. Distributed by Universal Pictures. Rated PG, with a running time of 109 minutes.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Review: Salt (2010) - 3 Buckets

My requirements of a thriller break down like this: 1) it’s suspenseful and keeps me guessing until the final reveal, 2) it features an interesting protagonist and villain, even if who’s who is often in question, and 3) it handles action deftly, without any additional fat to bog up the plot. Salt holds to these core values. While detractors of the film may argue it’s pretty empty, with a thin story only designed to move the characters from one improbable action set piece to another, I think they’re overanalyzing things. There’s nothing ignoble about what Salt sets out to do—entertain with supreme skill and style—and it executes its plan masterfully. This certainly doesn’t make it a masterpiece, but it will make for a jolly good Friday night guessing-game at the cinema. I can’t think of anything released in the past three months that better embodies the spirit of summer movie-going, thanks to star Angelina Jolie and director Philip Noyce.

The movie’s tagline summarizes it pretty well: “Who is Salt?” We first meet Evelyn Salt (Jolie) as an American CIA agent, in a flashback sequence where we see her being freed from a torture camp in North Korea. Flash-forward several years and she’s still with the organization, working out of Washington D.C. She’s asked to interrogate a Russian national named Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski), who claims she is a Russian spy who will participate in a doomsday plot called Day X. He alleges that this will begin the next day when Salt assassinates the President of Russia at the late U.S. Vice President’s funeral. Provided he has not “beat” the lie detector test, Orlov is telling the truth.

It’s clear Evelyn has some part in Day X when she breaks out in a sprint, fighting to make her way out of the secured building in a grandiose chase sequence involving even a makeshift fire-gun. And surprise, surprise—we learn Orlov is aligned with Salt, as he kills two guards and escapes. Surely enough, the next day, Salt shoots the Russian President at point-blank range at the funeral in yet another extravagant, preposterous action sequence. She’s momentarily taken into custody but once again—you guessed it—escapes, only to then kill Orlov at their secret meeting place before continuing on with the Day X plot. The viewer quickly realizes there must be more to the story, but what? Just who is Salt and who exactly is she working for? Could she be a triple-agent?

Angelina Jolie was born to play this role. It’s ideal for her because, not only does she have the chops to handle the action sequences, the character also doesn’t require her to be likable. Jolie, despised as a public figure and an actress by a vocal minority, usually plays powerful women the viewer must love in order to truly get absorbed in the plot. But here, her character is shrouded in mystery and the viewer isn’t supposed to know whether they like her or not. As a result, even those who don’t consider themselves Jolie fans will make for potential fans of Salt. You don’t find many action films or thrillers where you don’t need to root for the main character to find them engaging, but this is that rare exception. And, man oh man, is Jolie photogenic as ever in the wham-bam action sequences. Rumored to have done many of her own stunts, she delivers a strong physical performance that keeps the adrenaline-level at maximum throughout. Whether Salt is actually with the good guys or the bad, there’s no denying she kicks ass.

Sealing the deal is the superior staging and pacing of director Philip Noyce, who hasn’t made an action film since 1997’s The Saint starring Val Kilmer. Noyce moves from one action-packed sequence to the next, making Salt a supreme popcorn movie if there ever was one. (I might be compelled to use the phrase “testosterone-filled” if not for the fact that there’s a female lead.) And yet, even though Noyce is unrelenting in his approach, the action is very clear and understandable, making it so much more engrossing than that of the music video-style genre-efforts that have become ubiquitous in Hollywood. Noyce’s vision puts the audience in a visceral position, making them feel the thrust of each punch and the sound of each gunshot. In a silly movie with no real consequences such as this one, this sort of feeling is very important for a director to maintain in order to keep hold of the audience. In this respect, Noyce is even more integral to the film’s success than Jolie; he’s the true puppeteer of the play.

If you require more of a thriller than that it is well-constructed action with audiovisual power, Salt may not be your cup of tea. But for the rest of us, it’s a good reminder that a simple, lean popcorn flick can actually be done satisfyingly. (When condemning the latest Michael Bay film mainly for lacking in the substance department, I usually forget that there are movies like Salt and the recent Scott Pilgrim vs. the World that actually do the style-only thing pretty well.) Noyce’s movie is filled with enough technical prowess that viewers don’t need to follow that dumb old adage: “Turn off your brain.” They simply need to redirect their mind’s attention to the good stuff Salt has to offer, which is admittedly not intellectual, but it sure is entertaining.

* * *

Salt (2010, USA). Produced by William M. Connor, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Samuel Dickerman, Ric Kidney, Hannah Minghella, Sunil Perkash, and Mark Vahradian. Directed by Philip Noyce. Written for the screen by Kurt Wimmer. Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schrieber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Daniel Olbrychski, and August Diehl. Distributed by Columbia Pictures. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 95 minutes.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) - 3 Buckets

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is one of those movies we must admire for its accomplishments all the more because of all the ways it could have gone horribly wrong. The movie promises nearly two hours of comic-book action done in the style of a video game, with a repetitive plot to boot. Can you imagine what that might have meant had Paul W.S. Anderson been the man in charge? Throw in the fact that lead Michael Cera was all but guaranteed to pull of his action-star role and the delightful final product that writer/director Edgar Wright has concocted seems like a minor-miracle.

This really is an auteur piece for Wright, in spite of how faithfully he’s adapted (with Michael Bacall) Bryan Lee O’Malley’s source comic. His previous quasi-parody charmers made with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, showed that he definitely had a knack for comedy and action, but they were comparatively calm and low-budget. Thankfully, Wright has no problem pulling off the schizophrenic kinetics and whip-snap jokes of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, assembling them with such command that it’s fair to compare his work to Quentin Tarantino’s, with a little Diablo Cody thrown in for good measure.

Michael Cera is the title Scott Pilgrim, a sorta-likable 22-year-old deadbeat who plays in a Toronto rock band called Sex Bob-omb. We first meet him when he’s begun dating 17-year-old Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) in a pathetic attempt to try to get over a big heartbreak, at the behest of his younger sister Stacy (the always-great Anna Kendrick) and even his admittedly dysfunctional gay roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin). But Scott’s interest in Knives wanes quickly when he sets his sights on the new girl in town, a punk American named Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). After an awkward first exchange at a party, he’s able to score a date with her on their second encounter, which unleashes something he never bargained for… Scott must battle Ramona’s “seven evil exes” to win her for himself. We meet them as they come, from actor/skateboarder Lucas Lee (Chris Evans) to twins Kyle and Ken Katayanagi (Shota and Keita Saito) to the big one at the end, the mysterious Gideon (Jason Schwartzman).

The movie’s aesthetic is dizzyingly complex, borrowing elements from both comic books and video games. Interjections like “Wham!” and bright colorful lines signifying action and noise spring from the characters, just as they would in a panel of the former medium. And, as you’d see in the latter, superfluous points are recorded onscreen as Scott battles it out with Ramona’s exes. Likewise, special weapons are awarded to the players for certain achievements and, when Scott defeats an ex, they explode into coins. And yet I would not consider Scott Pilgrim vs. the World to be a “video game movie.” Yes, it contains many of the rapid cuts and excessive stylizations that have fostered that derogatory term. But Wright not only implements these elements far more skillfully than we’ve ever seen before, he also uses them to comment on the sensibilities of the video game era in general. The film’s style is as much about observing these young characters’ need for instant gratification and ubiquitous communication as it is offering those elements to actual teens and 20-somethings in the audience. As such, those who don’t usually like seeing such frenzy on the screen (myself included) will actually find it enlightening, not annoying here.

Wright also deserves credit for keeping the interest level so high in a rather long film (an hour and 52 minutes) that is recurrent in nature. While the weapons and the players change, Scott battles all seven of Ramona’s exes in structurally similar fights. The film could’ve easily mirrored the agonizing experience of watching two friends play a video game and not being able to participate, but instead it’s entertaining throughout. One reason for this is that Wright and Bacall’s screenplay is filled with a constant barrage of witty allusions and quips that keep the viewer on their toes. Another is that the action, for all its in-your-face relentlessness, is quite formally interesting. Perhaps Hot Fuzz was good training for Wright because, in spoofing directors as diverse Michael Bay and Sam Peckinpah, he learned what would and what wouldn’t work in his own turn at large-scale action.

The performances aren’t exceptionally memorable, but they fit the bill nicely and keep things high-energy. Cera plays a version of the geek he always is and, for the most part, it works. That he has the chops for this kind of action shows he may not just be a one-trick pony. It’s also worth noting that all but the most awkward of young adults won’t be able to live vicariously through Scott, which is often a tactic that this type of movie is able to win viewers over too easily with. Instead, Cera does a good job at playing Scott for the loser he kind of is, but ensures the audience sympathizes for the character enough to be rooting for him to win the battles and get the girl. Likewise, Mary Elizabeth Winstead understands that Ramona may not be the great prize Scott thinks she is and she certainly has intimacy issues, but she’s nevertheless the one that Scott wants. (I was about as attracted to her as a square like me could be to a girl with purple and blue hair.) In smaller parts, Culkin, Kendrick, Schwartzman, Wong, Evans, Aubrey Plaza, Brandon Routh, Thomas Jane, and Brie Larson all offer their own distinct amusements.

So why am I not about to call Scott Pilgrim vs. the World a masterpiece or even a really, really good movie? Because the heart isn’t there. It may seem like I’m contradicting myself given I just praised the fact that the movie doesn’t manipulate the viewer by creating disingenuously appealing characters. Thus, where could it find the heart I desire? I dunno; maybe it’s a Catch 22. But for me to truly love a movie, I must get an unwavering feeling in my gut that it’s something amazing and special. In Scott Pilgrim vs. the World’s case, I may cognitively think it’s those things, but the visceral passion isn’t there. Yes, the characters are interesting enough and the style is overflowing and even groundbreaking in that it’s the first movie to really use the video game aesthetic right. But, as I established years ago when Kill Bill came out, I don’t think style—even when it’s what the movie is about—can become substance. Style can be moving and memorable, but it isn’t lasting in the emotional sense.

However, it’d be a shame to end on a negative note because Scott Pilgrim vs. the World really is great fun – a roaring Friday night at the movies. Box office numbers for opening weekend have just come out as I’m writing this and I see the movie was only able to sell a paltry $10.5 million worth of tickets, which is a shame because I’m sure a broad spectrum of people would like it. For now, it will have to be content in joining She’s Out of My League as one of 2010’s best kept secrets: that rare Hollywood picture that appeals to both guys, for its action and its comedy, and girls, for its romance. I already can’t wait for Wright’s next movie.

* * *

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010, USA). Produced by J. Miles Dale, Eric Gitter, Lisa Gitter, Jeff Kirschenbaum, Jared LeBoff, Adam Merims, Joe Nozemack, Nira Park, Marc Platt, Steven V. Scavelli, Adam Siegel, Scott Stuber, Ronaldo Vasconcellos, and Edgar Wright. Directed by Edgar Wright. Written for the screen by Edgar Wright and Michael Bacall, based on the graphic novels by Bryan Lee O'Malley. Starring Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Anna Kendrick, and Jason Schwarzman. Distributed by Universal Pictures. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 112 minutes.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 8/13

I've always been just as fascinated by the numbers behind movies as I am by the movies themselves. As a result, I don't see any reason not to join the cool kids and post weekly box office predictions. And what better time than now, when I'm revamping Bucket Reviews and getting back into the groove of reviewing and 'blogging, to do so? Without further adieu...
This weekend--the last before we hit true August "dumping ground" territory--brings three relatively big releases, two of them battling it out for #1. They are Sylvester Stallone's testosterone extravaganza starring practically every male action star that's ever lived, The Expendables, and the estrogen-magnet that is Julia Roberts in Eat Pray Love, based on the bestseller. The third release is Edgar Wright's comic-book adaptation Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, starring Michael Cera, which should place between third and fifth depending how well The Other Guys and Inception hold.
While Eat Pray Love has a chance at upsetting, I'm going to agree with the general consensus and say The Expendables will come out on top. While its R-rating may hurt its take among the banned teenage audience, the picture should do well among males of all ages over 17. (Not to mention, quite a few under-17s may end up a part of the total revenue given this could prove the ideal father-son outing.) Stallone's last Rambo picture only opened to $18.2m a couple years back, but The Expendables seems to have much broader appeal, as it features a long list of other headliners (Willis, Statham, Schwarzenegger, Lundgren, Rourke, etc) and isn't as dependent on the nostalgia factor.
There aren't that many R-rated, non-technology based (AKA not The Matrix) comparisons from recent years, which may actually work out in The Expendables' favor as demand for this type of film may be high due to scarcity. An obscure, but possibly apt comparison in terms of its appeal to several generations of males may be Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino, which pulled in $29.5m in its first weekend of wide release. Perhaps more similar are the Kill Bill films, which opened to $22.1m and $25.1m ($25.7m and $28.3m accounting for inflation), respectively. But The Expendables is playing in more theaters than any of those films (3,270 vs. 2,808; 3,102; and 2,971) and seems to have quite a bit of momentum on the advertising front, so I'll go out on a limb and say it does a strong $30 million.
Speaking of momentum-filled ad campaigns, you might think Eat Pray Love bought out every 30-second spot on every TV station this past week. Sony is clearly putting a lot of money behind this one and, after a success-filled summer (The Other Guys, Salt, Grown-Ups, The Karate Kid), they seem to know what they're doing. Reviews are horrendous, but then again, women love the book and they certainly love Julia Roberts, so this one may be critic-proof.
The easiest comparable to Eat Pray Love is Julie & Julia, which opened to just over $20m targeting the same audience on the same weekend last year. However, while that picture boasted great reviews and Meryl Streep, it had nowhere near the ad push that this one has. Couple that with the fact that Eat Pray Love appeals to a broader demographic of women than Julie & Julia due to the apparent increased interest of those under 40 (thanks to Roberts). I think Eat Pray Love should definitely open better than J&J and other older skewing chick-flicks like It's Complicated ($22.1m). But it definitely doesn't have the "date movie" appeal of something like Couples Retreat ($34.3m) because no healthy male would ever want to be subjected to such drivel. I'm going to go with $27.5 million on this one, which would certainly be a success by genre standards.
Then there's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, which is certainly what I am most anticipating as a moderately cerebral young male. The blogosphere would have you believe that this movie is as big as Harry Potter because it's made up of, well, dudes exactly like me. However, in truth, I'm sure distributor Universal would be enthralled if the movie just came in third place.
Michael Cera isn't exactly a huge draw as the lead. His top two openings are Superbad ($33m), which came out before he was a household name, and Year One ($19m), which also starred big-draw Jack Black. The only two wide-release films in which he has been the main draw are Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist ($11.3m) and Youth in Revolt ($6.8m), but those both played to different audiences than the one Scott Pilgrim is targeting. Likewise, writer/director Edgar Wright's previous two features, Shaun of the Dead ($3.3m) and Hot Fuzz ($5.8m), played to niche audiences in smaller release-platforms and are therefore not good comparisons. I suspect Scott Pilgrim will do moderately well with teens, 20-somethings, and comic-book devotees but hardly anyone else, which optimistically puts it in line for a $15 million opening.
There are hardly any limited releases of note this weekend. Disney is testing the waters with Hayao Miyazaki's son Goro's first feature, Tales of Earthsea, in five sites. Sony Classics is putting out the Aussie drama Animal Kingdom in a similarly small release, with expansions to come. Don't count on either making more than $10,000 per site.

My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:
1. The Expendables ... $30m ($9,174 Per Theater Average)
2. Eat Pray Love ... $27.5m ($8,761 PTA)
3. The Other Guys ... $18.8m ($5,149 PTA) -47.1%
4. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World ... $15m ($5,323 PTA)
5. Inception ... $12.8m ($4,103 PTA) -30.8%
6. Step Up 3-D ... $7.2m ($2,952 PTA) -54.5%
7. Despicable Me $6.6m ($2,262 PTA) -28.9%
8. Salt ... $6.3m ($2,223 PTA) -42.2%
9. Dinner for Schmucks ... $4.9m ($1,609 PTA) -52.8%
10. Toy Story 3 ... $2.6m ($2,133 PTA) -16.6%

Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at webmaster@bucketreviews.com.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Review: The Other Guys (2010) - 2 Buckets

Leave it to Hollywood to release two ‘80s cop movie send-ups—not exactly a burgeoning genre—within six months of each other. Thankfully, comedy team Adam McKay and Will Ferrell spare audiences another atrocity in faring better with the material than Kevin Smith, Bruce Willis, and Tracy Morgan did in their dreadful Cop Out. Then again, that isn’t much of a compliment given how abysmal Cop Out was. In fact, only by comparison to that dud does The Other Guys seem like a clever riot.

Let’s get the good out of the way first. One thing McKay and Chris Henchy admittedly get right is their use of genre references, which is far broader and more story-focused than that in Cop Out. Whereas Kevin Smith’s film just felt like a long string of nods to ‘80s clichés, The Other Guys seems like its own modern movie. For instance, at the beginning of the film, McKay and Henchy have the hilarious team of Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson play super-cops who are so full of themselves, they leap off a skyscraper in order to catch criminals at ground level, falling to their deaths. This isn’t a recognizable reference to any particular movie, but a wildly hyperbolic parody of an ‘80s cop movie prototype. This is much funnier than a more specific approach would have been. In fact, The Other Guys leaves most of its pointed references for more obscure topics, like TLC songs.

The plot itself is built around a topical villain—Ponzi scheme artist David Ershon (Steve Coogan)—but remains within the realm of an homage thanks to protagonists Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) and Terry Holz (Mark Wahlberg). They’re your typical low-level NYPD partners who never see any action. Allen has no aspirations beyond paperwork at the bureau and Terry’s accidental shooting of Derek Jeter during the World Series put the kibosh on his goal of becoming a distinguished officer.

Early on, Terry decides he wants to live large once again and begins suckering Allen into attempting real police work, albeit out of Allen’s ruby-red Prius. They aren’t very successful at first, but mistakenly strike gold when Allen goes after the mysteriously wealthy Ershon for scaffolding violations on his construction projects. The duo isn’t smart enough to piece together the their suspect’s fraudulent scheme right away, but somehow they slowly string evidence together. As they inch towards cracking the Ponzi scheme Ershon has cooked up—against orders to stay off the case, of course—one misadventure after another ensues.

There are several laughs to be had, but The Other Guys ends up unsatisfying. The main reason for this is the script gets progressively less funny, further descending into mindless action rather than comedy. The most entertaining segment of the film is its first ten minutes, which feature the aforementioned Johnson/Jackson antics, not leads Ferrell and Wahlberg. That’s never a good sign, as the viewer naturally becomes more impatient and in need of compelling material as a picture moves, making its absence even more bothersome. The Other Guys only runs an hour and 47 minutes, but it feels longer because the comedy is poorly paced.

Another crushing blow to the funny-factor is that Ferrell’s ridiculous antics just aren’t as amusing as they once were. His delivery of a bit in which he explains to Wahlberg how a family of tuna could hunt a lion probably would have been hilarious five years ago, but now it just feels like Ferrell rehashing a previous performance. As a staunch defender of Ferrell over the years, I’ve previously never wanted to join detractors in commenting: “Yes, we get it – you’re obnoxious, dumb, and do not understand other people’s emotions, what’s the big deal?” But The Other Guys sadly had me ready to scream those words at the screen on a few occasions. Ironically, Ferrell proves the funniest here when he’s at his most understated.

Then there’s McKay’s weird inclusion of political commentary, which misses being interesting and just seems out-of-place. There are several strangely serious anti-corporate jabs throughout The Other Guys, capped off with an end-credit sequence full of statistics about bank bailouts, Ponzi schemes, and other related topics. I’m all for comedy being topical and resonant, but McKay just throws in these ideas haphazardly and the result is that the movie always seems to be hinting at something grander but that never confronts it. Viewers who read McKay’s regular politically-charged Tweets might cast their own projections on this aspect of the film, but looking at it objectively, it just seems like a vague distraction to the story.

Ultimately, The Other Guys feels like it would have been better off as a series of shorts on McKay and Ferrell’s FunnyorDie.com so as to not wear out its welcome. While that may have led to budgetary constraints making Jackson and Johnson’s big gag at the beginning impossible, the rest of the truly funny material would’ve remained intact as it doesn’t stem from expensive action. Instead, it’s the little things, like Michael Keaton’s police chief, who makes constant humorous references to the fact he must work a second job at Bed Bath & Beyond to put his bisexual son through a frou-frou program at NYU. Unfortunately, these are exactly what disappear as the movie reaches its bullet-filled finale, succumbing to mediocrity. Sure, The Other Guys is better than Cop Out, but with so many lame ‘80s cop flicks surely about to find new life on Blu-Ray, why do we need new ones at all?

* * *

The Other Guys (2010, USA). Produced by Joshua Church, William M. Connor, Patrick Crowley, Jessica Elbaum, Will Ferrell, Chris Henchy, David B. Householter, Adam McKay, Rizelle Mendoza, Kevin J. Messick, and Jimmy Miller. Directed by Adam McKay. Written for the screen by Adam McKay and Chris Henchy. Starring Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Steve Coogan, Eva Mendes, Michael Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson, Dwayne Johnson, and Lindsay Sloane. Distributed by Columbia Pictures. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 107 minutes.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Review: The Kids Are All Right (2010) - 3 1/2 Buckets

What we have here is that increasingly rare type of movie that trusts its actors to flesh out its characters properly. The script, penned by Stuart Blumberg and director Lisa Cholodenko, doesn’t see the need to spell out every one of these people’s motivations in dialogue because, after all, life isn’t like that. Thankfully, the cast is top-notch—established veterans Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, and Mark Ruffalo join promising newcomers Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Josh Hutcherson (Bridge to Terabithia)—and the result is a film that tells us more about people than any other so far this year.

You wouldn’t think I’d be saying that about an agenda film, much less a progressive agenda film I’m keen to disagree with. The reason I’m extolling such praise is because The Kids Are All Right, quite simply, is not an agenda film despite its subject matter and its Hollywood funding. While I’m sure the movement to defeat Prop 8, fresh off its victory in a California court, would love to make the case that the years-long relationship between Moore’s Jules and Bening’s Nic makes a good case for gay marriage, they’re ignoring the point.

The movie itself simply exists and lets the viewer make his own decisions, to the point at which politics are a non-issue. Yes, it was made by progressives on a progressive topic, but it focuses on ideas that all viewers can relate to (family, relationships) and not more alienating ones. In a less authentic movie, a skeptic might even have reason to question the statement being made by characters driving a Prius. But here, it’s quite clear that hip and educated Los Angeles teens like Wasikowska’s Joni and Hutcherson’s Laser would naturally be sporting the popular hybrid. Just as organic, surprisingly, is Cholodenko’s graphic depiction (still clearly censored for the MPAA) of not only female, but male gay sex.

Now down to what matters, the nitty-gritty of this terrific story and its characters. Teenagers Joni and Laser have grown up under the roof of their loving, but very different moms. Nic is the disciplinarian – a control-freak who makes sure everything’s in order when she gets home from working long shifts as a doctor. Jules, on the other hand, mostly stays at home with the kids and floats from one flimsy small-business idea to the next; this time, it’s landscaping.

Matters complicate and pre-existing frictions are unleashed, however, when now 18-year-old Joni, at underage Laser’s request, seeks to meet their sperm-donor. (Jules and Nic each pooled from the same man’s genes to conceive the kids.) After a few phone calls, the teens—unbeknownst to their parents, who would flip if they found out—find themselves meeting Ruffalo’s lackadaisical, motorcycle riding Paul for an awkward, locally-grown meal. (He’s a gardener and aspiring restaurateur.) Next, after Laser spills the beans to Jules and Nic, the whole family meets Paul in just as awkward a fashion. Shortly thereafter, we realize Nic may be an alcoholic, Jules and Paul have started to have sex, and the kids are feeling smothered by these less-“all right” adults. Chaotic, yes, but doesn’t the American family endure?

This is not exactly a groundbreaking story by itself—we’ve seen heterosexual variants of it a million times before—but it becomes one thanks to the actors. While Cholodenko enriches the film with drama, the performances are complex enough that they’d remain just as believable if the movie were a verite-style mock-doc. Contrary to what progressives might suggest for political gain in the heat of an argument, lesbian relationships are certainly not “just like” straight ones. They, of course, come with their own distinct characteristics because of the unique sensibilities of women. This fact makes the work of Moore and Bening, two straight actresses, all the more remarkable in that they capture this foreign dynamic in performances that feel effortless and natural. Certainly, they had the—ermmm—first-hand knowledge of Cholodenko in their director, but the relationship the two capture is nonetheless remarkably fresh and authentic. This is important, because when their partnership is flung into crisis-mode due to Jules’ infidelity, the experience takes on a visceral power that it would not have achieved without a strong baseline.

Consider also the fact that simply showing what is—or, most pessimistically, once was—a stable lesbian relationship functions as something far more powerful and dare I say progressive than anything more inherently political would have. As one who is somewhat isolated in the California bubble of acceptance, I must remember that The Kids Are All Right has come out at a time when a large population of Americans still don’t accept the gay lifestyle in general. While it’s safe to say the bulk of this population won’t be seeing it, Cholodenko’s film functions as a desirably progressive, even informative cultural text in this regard. Yes, Jules and Nic certainly aren’t an ideal example of relationship health—in fact, one of the kids even observes that their “perfect gay image” is tarnished in the third act—but it’s impossible to invalidate their accomplishments as a couple.

But I realize it’s a shame that properly reviewing this complex picture requires reducing it to the gay element. Just as integral to the movie’s success are Joni and Laser, excellently played by Wasikowska and Hutcherson, and their interactions with Paul. From the teens’ first strained attempts to figure out exactly what it is they’re searching for in their biological father to the ensuing heartbreak when he causes the family turmoil, Wasikowska and Hutcherson capture their characters so realistically it was almost uncomfortable for someone so close in age as myself to watch. And yet, Joni and Laser are clearly pliable, as any healthy member of their age-group is. Ruffalo plays no small part in the success of these two as characters; he refrains from ever succumbing to “lovable loser” status and plays all Paul’s flaws for what they are. Even if The Kids Are All Right doesn’t get everything right—though I might argue it does—one certainly cannot fault its pitch-perfect human element.

Raw and observant, The Kids Are All Right stands as one of the few semi-big budget American indies (and certainly Sundance entries) that doesn’t rely on “quirky” situations or ridiculous character eccentricities to move the plot along. Instead, the audience is provided a journey in the company of rich characters experiencing life as it comes – all that a movie should be and more.

* * *

The Kids Are All Right (2010, USA). Produced by Charles E. Bush Jr., Gary Gilbert, J. Todd Harris, Jordan Horowitz, Neil Katz, Todd J. Labarowski, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte, Riva Marker, Camille Moreau, Joel Newton, Anne O'Shea, Celine Rattray, Laura Rosenthal, Andy Sawyer, Steven Saxton, Christy Scott Cashman, Ron Stein, Bergen Swanson, and Daniela Taplin Lundberg. Directed by Lisa Cholodenko. Written for the screen by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg. Starring Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson, and Mark Ruffalo. Distributed by Focus Features. Rated R, with a running time of 106 minutes.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Review: Dinner for Schmucks (2010) - 2 Buckets

In general, it’s a good thing when the viewer is surprised by a comedy, a sign that said comedy is doing its job. When a laugh arrives at a moment the viewer would least expect it, for instance, it may seem funnier than it actually is. The ensuing sense of uproar could be dismissed as artificial by cinema purists, but I find that it’s satisfying when the surprise is done right. Dinner for Schmucks, on the other hand, is a good example of how a comedy should not surprise the viewer.

The premise is rife with potential for nasty, mean comedy that goes straight for the jugular. Paul Rudd plays a deep-down good guy who, in order to climb the corporate ladder, must moonlight as a jerk by finding the “biggest idiot” he can to bring to a mockery-filled company dinner-party. His ability to score a promotion hinges on how much he can entertain his boss.

Going into the movie, I felt ready to indulge my dark side for two hours by playing along with the soulless execs at the party. What’s the harm in laughing at idiots when it’s all just make-believe, right? And with Rudd (who’s uncharacteristically good at capturing the fine line between likable bro and the despondent asshole) and Steve Carell (born to play men even more idiotic than Michael Scott) at the helm, how could Dinner for Schmucks steer me wrong?

But instead of running in the right direction and surprising with unique idiot-gags, director Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Austin Powers) and writers David Guion and Michael Handelman surprise by going in the complete opposite direction and ruining a perfectly good idea. The result is a picture that seeks to be heartfelt (in a phony, Hollywood kind of way) by teaching Rudd’s Tim that it’s not OK to abuse uhh… less-smart guys like Carell’s rat-taxidermy connoisseur Larry for selfish purposes. Unfortunately, this means the movie is not only less funny than it would’ve been had it been meaner, but also that it feels like it wants to have things two ways. Dinner for Schmucks wants us to sympathize for simple ‘ol Larry, but also realizes his blunt stupidity is the only thing funny about the material so it ultimately exploits him just as much as Tim does.

Yes, there are still several laughs. How could there not be with this cast, which, in addition to the mighty Rudd and Carell, features comedy-prodigy Zach Galifianakis and Flight of the Conchords deadpan-artiste Jermaine Clement? But they are, as any rational viewer would expect, mostly centered on how moronically Larry and his “extraordinary” counterparts behave at the title dinner. As a result, even when you’re laughing, you’re either wishing the movie had gone farther in this funny direction or dreading the lame morality-lesson that will undoubtedly follow.

Worse still is the ultimate feeling Dinner for Schmucks leaves with the viewer: that it isn’t trying. Instead of doing something crafty with an interesting idea—actually taken from a 1998 French film that will be fun to rent for comparison—it settles for Hollywood clichés. Even with some enjoyable moments, there’s nothing here reflective of the outside-the-box comedy its cast and crew are capable of. Typically, I’d dismiss it as a good rental—not substantial enough to merit a theatrical viewing but inoffensive and sorta-OK—but this time I just can’t approve of such mediocrity. As alluring as Dinner for Schmucks might seem on paper, it proves just as lazy as any other Hollywood comedy.

* * *

Dinner for Schmucks (2010, USA). Produced by Gary Barber, Sacha Baron Cohen, Roger Birnbaum, Laurie McDonald, Walter F. Parkes, Jon Poll, Jay Roach, Amy Sayres, and Francis Veber. Directed by Jay Roach. Written for the screen by David Guion and Michael Handelman, based on the film "The Dinner Game" written by Francis Veber. Starring Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Zach Galifianakis, Jermaine Clement, and Stephanie Szostak. Distributed by Paramount Pictures. Rated R, with a running time of 114 minutes.