July Movie Reviews
AWAY WE GO
In this film co-written by author Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, Verona (Maya Rudolph) and Burt (John Krasinski) take a funny, introspective look at their lives, realizing they are in their 30s, expecting, and have no idea what to do about any of it. Acknowledging that they don't know the type of parents they really want to be, Verona and Burt go on a road trip across the country, visiting parents from all schools of thought and walks of life. Cameos include Catherine O'Hara and Jeff Daniels as Burt's parents, and a particularly hilarious Maggie Gyllenhaal as the type of New Age mom who uses a doula and refuses a stroller. The story and situations depicted here seem to be yet another step in the already shifting direction of the modern romantic comedy (see: Juno, Knocked Up), where more genuine characters, tougher life circumstances, grittier reality and a dash of indie flair are replacing the cookie-cutter romcoms that were so popular in the ‘80s and ‘90s. The film is bolstered by the brilliant direction of Sam Mendes and the individual charm and collective chemistry of The Office’s Krasinski and Saturday Night Live’s Maya Rudolph. The SNL alum in particular delivers a surprisingly sensitive, touching performance that is far removed from the sketch comedy skits she's known for. (B-) –Rebecca Crosby
FOOD INC
Someone once said that grocery store shoppers could survive (and even thrive) by purchasing items strictly along the perimeter of supermarkets. You know, just meats, veggies and juices, with nothing down the aisles. Can you imagine? Nope, we couldn’t either. But after sitting through this fly-on-the-farmhouse-wall documentary, you’ll have second thoughts about that idea. Fear, of course, isn’t director Robert Kenner’s intent. If anything, the men behind this eye-opening encounter –Fast Food Nation scribe Eric Schlosser is one of Food Inc’s producers- want consumers to be more informed on the how/why/what is in their Kroger shopping carts. And, man oh man, the things you’ll learn about corn (of all grocery store items, 90% contain some form of corn, including batteries and diapers), meat (only 13 slaughterhouses for the entire country) and illnesses (one in three children born after 2000 will get diabetes). You’ll spend half of your time unnerved by the whole food production process –Beef and chicken eaters, beware!- and use the other half wondering if your lunch made the same ride to your plate. The people Kenner introduces you to along the way are nearly as fascinating as the tactics some companies employ to keep their profit margins intact. Joel Salatin, the Virginia farmer behind mom ‘n pop outfit Polyfarm, is probably the most memorable person in a most memorable movie. He’s approachable and funny. He’s 100% upfront in telling it exactly like it is... In other words, he’s the exact opposite of the camera-shy big shots at Perdue and Tyson. (A) –DeMarco Williams
THE HANGOVER
A chicken, a fiery chair, a tower of empty beer bottles and Mike Tyson’s Bengal tiger. Sounds like the set-up for a bad joke, right? Nah, this time it’s these fellas’ afterparty’s after effects. Like the movie tagline suggests, some guys just can’t handle Vegas. Going into Doug’s (Justin Bartha) long bachelor weekend, of course, schoolteacher Phil (Bradley Cooper), dentist Stu (Ed Helms) and bride-to-be’s brother Alan (Zach Galifianakis) probably thought they could handle whatever spirits or strippers that came their way. But as you and the crew wake from the aforementioned stooper to end all stoopers, oblivious to how anything went down, it’s clear discretion wasn’t on the itinerary. The only other thing anyone can really gather is that Stu’s missing a tooth, a baby’s crying in the closet and Doug’s nowhere to be found. If you had to call on any director to make sense of the Sin City silliness, you’d best bypass Judd Apatow and John Hamburg to find The Hangover’s Todd Phillips (Road Trip, Old School). Of course, it wouldn’t be much summer fun if Phillips had the goofy troupe –the Joaquin Phoenix-bearded Alan blames Bin Laden for the crackdown on in-flight masturbation- merely sober up and look at hotel video footage for answers. What he does do, however, is mix Iron Mike, Heather Graham, Mike Epps, a peculiar Asian mobster and a few bumbling cops into the wacky weekend, making an 18-year-old’s perfect night out at the movies. But guys, understand this isn’t the best idea for a first date. Officials in 49 of the 50 states, in fact, would likely deem the drug references and insane NC-17 snapshots in the film’s closing inappropriate. Mind you, we wouldn’t party with any of the offended, but we do hear they’re out there. (B) –DeMarco Williams
THE HURT LOCKER
After numerous films attempting to critique the American military while walking on eggshells around the armed forces, director Kathryn Bigelow's latest smashes those shells, revealing that, while our soldiers aren't saints, they are human. And they’re far more compelling when viewed in that light. Set in Iraq, the story hurls you right into the action of a bomb disposal unit: Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and new Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner). While James seems like an OK guy, the cautious Sanborn and the neophyte Eldridge soon realize the's completely out of control, which is of concern when your day is spent cuddling up next to devices are designed to "send us back to Jesus." If there's a more pulse-pounding two hours of cinema this year, I don't want to see it because I'll have a heart attack. Renner crafts a fresh, complex character, portraying James as a man whose only way to be in control is to be completely out of control. The film opens with the line, "War is a drug," but we've never seen a character as addicted to battle as James. All future Iraq War movies will have to take note that you can revere the troops, but you dishonor their sacrifice if you simply tell their stories as hagiographies. Eldridge is clearly scared to death, certain he'll die in combat; Sanborn is the responsible one, but as he constantly clashes with James, the cracks in his armor begin to show and we see how he's clinging desperately to the rules of engagement. It's only natural that, in order to survive, everyone must find something or someone to believe in, but The Hurt Locker has the balls to insist that it's not always as huggable as family, friends, religion or country. This is the Iraq War film both audiences and our troops deserve. Bigelow understands that no one needs to be told that our military is filled with honorable men and women, but she also understands that honor is meaningless without context. Her film strives for honesty and complexity, all wrapped-up in a ticking time bomb of action that blows away ponderous conversations and armchair politics. (B+) –Matt Goldberg
LAND OF THE LOST
I don't blame Universal for trying to sell this as a family film. This is a big-budget summer movie based on a campy ‘70s TV show, so of course you're going to highlight the T-Rex and maybe Will Ferrell dumping a vat of dinosaur urine over his head. What you won't highlight is a scene wherein Ferrell's character whispers to Cha-Ka the ape-boy, "Fuck you1" It's clear that this movie was conceived as a subversive, R-rated comedy and Universal said, "Are you insane? We're not spending a $100 million on that!" The compromise is a film that you're not expecting, even if you can totally predict its lead actor. After a disastrous interview with Matt Lauer, Dr. Rick Marshall (Ferrell) is reduced to championing his theory of parallel universes available through his Tachyon Amplifier to kids on their class field trip to the La Brea Tar Pits. But he has a fan in grad student Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel), who believes in his research and spurs him to finish the device. The two go to a source of "tachyon energy"– the shittiest amusement park on the planet– and test the Amplifier on a ride with their guide Will Stanton (Danny McBride). When Marshall activates it, a portal opens up and they're thrown into the Land of the Lost. Wacky adventures ensure, with only grudging acknowledgments to the series. This film is mostly The Will Ferrell Show, with him playing another arrogant dumb guy who yells a lot and delivers odd observations. Ferrell is funny, but he's not giving us anything we haven't seen before, which almost allows McBride to step in and steal the show. Despite the familiarity I found myself laughing, but Anna Friel is absolutely wasted, the action is mostly forgettable, and the film seems ambivalent about whether it wants to embrace the low-budget camp of the original or use that big budget. Ferrell has stuck to what he knows best, and what he knows best isn't family comedy: He knows swearing, yelling and jokes that make people uncomfortable, and this film gives you exactly what you expect from Will Ferrell. I just wish he’d surprise us with something unexpected. (B-) –Matt Goldberg
MY SISTER’S KEEPER
Director Nick Cassavetes’ latest film is a tearjerker that manages to be more as it raises questions about the limits of science, morality and ethics in the modern world. The film follows the story of Kate (Sofia Vassilieva), a teenager who has battled cancer since age 5, and her sister Anna (Abigail Breslin), who was genetically engineered to be a perfect donor match for her sister. As Anna gets older she questions the purpose of her life and the rights to her own body. It's a question her mother Sara (Cameron Diaz) can't seem to understand, as she's spent Anna's whole life focused on saving Kate. My Sister's Keeper is well-acted (notably by Diaz in a rare dramatic role), thought-provoking and, if you never read Jodi Picoult's New York Times bestselling novel of the same name, it's a great movie. But the paradox is that many moviegoers will go because they read the book, and, while it is the cliché readers' lament that the movie is rarely as good as any particular book it is based on, this one is hardly based on the source material at all. Entire characters and sub-plots are omitted, crucial events are completely changed, and it bears little more than a loose resemblance to the novel itself. Picoult's method of storytelling, with several different narrators, doesn't quite translate onscreen, leading to poor character development and a slightly choppy story. Bottom line: read the book or see the movie, but not both. (C) –Rebecca Crosby
THE PROPOSAL
Good romantic comedy is exceedingly hard to do because romance in the movies works nothing at all like real romance. In real life, people meet, date, decide they like each other and stay together. In romantic comedies, it’s all backward: You take two smart, attractive characters (like the ones Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds play here) who can’t stand each other and put them in a ridiculous situation– like a boss/employee relationship that turns into a blackmail-driven green card marriage involving a trip to meet the parents in Alaska– filled with lies, deceit, manipulation and one-upmanship so that, even though they’re smart, the leads don’t realize until the final act that they might actually like one another. As long as the romantic leads are working their hardest to deceive everyone else in the movie, the audience believes that they might not be able to see the great love that’s clearly right in front of them. The Proposal, surprisingly, does the formula right and is a really fun, very funny movie as a result. It succeeds because of charming performances from Bullock and Reynolds, strong supporting turns from Betty White and Craig T. Nelson, and because it has a wicked screenplay that dares to put a cute dog in peril, to let White be bitchy, and to strip both leads naked and make them collide. It even asks the right questions of the situation: For every skeptic in the audience who doubts Bullock and Reynolds ever becoming a real couple, a character expresses the same doubt. And every time the film seems like too much of a rip-off of every other romantic comedy, the story takes a turn and raises the stakes so much that the clichéd “happily ever after” ending starts to come into doubt. An excellent change of pace for a summer movie, not to mention one of Bullock’s best in quite some time. (B+) –Benjamin Carr
THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3
I didn't have much hope for Tony Scott's remake of Joseph Sargent’s brilliant 1974 film, but I hoped it would at least acknowledge the greatness of the original. The plot is the same– four armed men take hostages on a NYC subway, and it rests on a civil servant to handle the situation– but there seemed to be plenty of room for an update. While writer Brian Helgeland does an admirable job of weaving in modern technology, Scott drops much of the simple stuff that made the first film such a tight thriller, instead focusing on ADHD-addled editing and John Travolta’s obnoxious portrayal of the villain. It’s a wise choice to go in another direction from Robert Shaw's cool, calculating performance in the original, but Travolta gives the same kind of hammy performance we've seen in Broken Arrow, Face/Off and every other baddie he plays. Tonally, it matches Scott's headache-inducing edits perfectly, but the result feels like two people screeching at you. In the middle of it all is the great Denzel Washington, an actor far better than Scott deserves. The two clearly enjoy working together (this is their fourth collaboration) and Washington manages a performance reminiscent of Walter Matthau's, but which ultimately stands on its own. The Oscar-winner delivers shading, patience, humor, sadness, and a fully developed character that’s completely out of place in this otherwise mediocre movie. What’s most frustrating is the fact that this remake could’ve been surprisingly good. In addition to the technological upgrades and the post-9/11 setting, Travolta's character is an interesting villain who manipulates the stock market and blames others for his misdeeds. Under the terrible "thug" threads and painful acting, there's a timely character waiting to be unleashed here. And under the "look-at-me" editing, there's a story that could’ve been a tight little thriller with just a bit of extra polish. Instead, Scott provides a tedious, silly version of Spike Lee's Inside Man that neglects the brilliant 1974 version of this story. (D+) –Matt Goldberg
TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN
When Transformers hit the multiplex, I had low expectations– a big-budget Michael Bay blockbuster based on the flimsy premise of cheap toys fighting didn’t seem to hold much promise– but I was happily proven wrong. There were characters, jokes, and the movie wisely paced out the action. But then the fans started bitching, “Why wasn't my favorite Transformer in the movie?” Here, Bay has not only embraced their empty-headed pleas, he’s also indulged his worst impulses while encumbered by a PG-13 rating that allows him to go right up to the line of good taste and then piss over it. Since it takes "Revenge" an hour to move the plot forward, I'll just say most of the film is Sam (Shia LaBeouf), his girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox), and his annoying roommate (Ramon Rodriguez) running from Decepticons, then the Decepticons fighting with the Autobots. The film is interspersed with juvenile humor, not to mention two of the most racist caricatures in recent mainstream cinema (Autobots Skids and Mudflap ). Still, average folks will eat this shit up, as Transformers is clearly about spectacle. Who cares if the characters are weak and the robots have no personalities? Let's see robots punching each other! I hate to break this to everyone, but that gets old fast when you don't care about the robots doing the punching. Without a worthwhile story, it's just the world's most expensive videogame that no one can play. As much invective as I'm hurling towards the film, I don't hate Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. If anything, as a fan of the first film, I'm just deeply disappointed by the sequel. What I enjoyed most about the first film was removed, replaced with weak humor and meaningless spectacle. Near the end, when the film cut to a close-up of a Decepticon's testicles as two giant wrecking balls (a shot that should offend and sum up every critique ever written about Michael Bay and his filmmaking), I was simply too exhausted to care. (C-) –Matt Goldberg
UP
Pixar making a film of unparalleled quality isn't noteworthy, yet every Pixar film manages to surprise me in the risks it takes, the characters they develop, and the feelings they inspire. Up is no exception. 2009 may go down as the year when movies had us from the opening minutes, but there's nothing in recent memory that holds a candle to what Pixar’s latest does in its first 12 minutes. If you're not on the verge of tears by the time the intro is finished, there's nothing on this Earth that will get to you. But Up doesn't go downhill from its powerful opening; if anything, it soars. Elderly gentleman Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) ties balloons to his home and flies to South America only to find an accidental co-passenger on board in the form of Russell (Jordan Nagai), a Junior Wilderness Explorer. Together, they end up on a grand adventure the likes of which you’ve never seen it before. Up is a visually lush and kinetic film where you're taken in by the varied South American landscape of "Paradise Falls" and the breathless battles between Carl's humble floating house and various antagonists he and Russell encounter along the way. But it's the little things that show why Pixar is at the cutting edge of filmmaking. Too often has "family film" become synonymous with "lazy filmmaking," and Pixar deserves some kind of special honor for acknowledging that kids and their parents deserve better. There could be so many dumb, easy jokes to make with a main character like Carl or the lovable dog, Dug, who appears later in the film (and almost steals it, along with a gigantic bird named Kevin). By working harder for the feel-good laugh, Pixar comes away with memorable characters and a film that you'll never forget. Greatness is greatness, and the Pixar brand is as close as anything audiences have when it comes to a guaranteed great time at the movies. Up continues that tradition and flies far above not only most family films, but almost any film you'll see this year. (A) –Matt Goldberg
YEAR ONE
Comedy legend Harold Ramis’ latest follows two cavemen (Jack Black and Michael Cera) as they make their way through various Bible stories, including the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel (David Cross and Paul Rudd), Abraham and Isaac (Hank Azaria and Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and the city of Sodom (which is ridiculously tame). There are pathetically feeble character arcs involving Black's character believing he's special and Cera's character being too chicken to talk to a girl who's in no way interested in him, but a weak story can be secondary provided the comedy delivers serious laughs. Sadly, the humor here is completely forgettable. The only jokes I can remember are the gross out gags, but most of the humor seems to be derived from stale stand-up comedy riffs on ancient times. In the end i all comes down to Black, Cera and a couple of supporting players to carry the film. Without any real jokes or well-drawn characters, Black and Cera are each reduced to doing their usual shtick, with Black highly energetic and physical while Cera is awkward and restrained. That's not to say it's bad, but it's not particularly fresh, and almost turns their respective styles of comedy into a stock performance. A couple of the supporting characters come off slightly better– Cross does a good job as Cain and makes you wonder why he isn't cast as smarmy characters more often, while Bill Hader is funny in his brief cameo as a witch doctor– but no one really gets to shine. In the end, Year One seems like a pointless endeavor. It's a terribly sloppy film, with editing that abruptly ends scenes and joke set-ups that never receive pay-offs. I can't say I hated it, but the film is undeniably stale and Ramis (Groundhog Day) can deliver a better comedy than this. (C-) –Matt Goldberg
«HOME |
