Review by Alyn Darnay
Directed by: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel, 21 Grams and Amores Perros)
Starring: Javier Bardem, Blanca Portillo, Eduard Fernandez, Maricel Alvarez.

“Biutiful” is not beautiful, not by a long shot. There are three things you need to know about this film right from the start:  1) Javier Bardem’s performance is masterful, dazzling, the best he’s ever been and worth seeing for it’s absolute daring (He’s been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, and he probably deserves to win).  2) Inarritu is a very talented director, a virtuoso who has made several stand out films characterized by his singular bleak worldview.  3) Watching this film will make you feel like you’re serving an eternity in purgatory; so unrelenting and painful is the hero’s journey here.

Bardem plays Uxbal, a low-level entrepreneur in Barcelona’s seedy underworld. Even though he struggles hard for every dime he makes, he cares desperately for the people who work for him, mostly immigrants living in the multi-ethnic barrio, Al Raval. He runs any con or rip-off he can, to make money for his two beloved children. You see, above all, this is tale of fatherhood, of absolute love for one’s children, and the fight to see that they are taken care of.

Uxbal has left his estranged wife, a manic-depressive sex addict, and maintains custody of the children. As the story starts Uxbal discovers he is dying, and has only a few weeks left to live. As he desperately tries to find ways to provide for the children, everything in his life goes tragically wrong. It’s a constant downward spiral that even his best intensions are not good enough to stop. As the pressure mounts from every side, his struggle to earn a living is replaced by his desperate need to stay alive long enough to protect those he loves. It’s a long dark ride into the abyss, two and a half hours of it.

It’s not that the film is made badly, it’s not. The performances are uniformly superior, the handheld cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is fantastic, Gustavo Santaolalla’s musical score soars, and even Inarritu’s direction is flawless. The problem is that “Biutiful” is just too unrelenting, too dark, too soul sucking. In the end it lost me, I felt as defeated as the main character. But if you like long depressing art films, and many people do, this one’s right up your alley, everyone else, take a pass.

When I first saw previews for “No Strings Attached” I really wanted to see it.  I like Ashton Kutcher.  I like Natalie Portman.  It looked like a fun, sexy comedy.  Well, I was wrong.

Emma (Natalie Portman) and Adam (Ashton Kutcher) first met at summer camp during their awkward teenage years.  They didn’t see each other again until years later, then a few other random times after that.  They didn’t date; however, until “one fateful night” after Adam finds out that his father (Kevin Kline) is dating his ex-girlfriend.  Yuck!  After a drunken evening, Adam wakes up naked in Emma’s apartment.  That morning, they end up having sex.  Then they decide to use each other for sex, whenever, wherever.  They even have rules, like “no cuddling”, “no breakfast”, “no lying”, “no jealousy”, etc.  I don’t understand why someone would rather have a “No Strings Attached” agreement instead of a real relationship.  But I guess Emma and Adam thought it would work.  Of course, it didn’t.  Someone always catches feelings.

I didn’t feel there was any chemistry between the main characters, which surprised me because usually they are both really good in their roles.  Emma was stubborn and she really irritated me.  She had this great guy but she was all “oh I’m not getting in a relationship with you because I’m scared”.  Wah.  Cry me a river.  Adam tried but not hard enough in my opinion.  He gave in to Emma’s retardery way too easily.  Overall I was disappointed with “No Strings Attached”.

I did like Lake Bell as Lucy, Adam’s spastic co-worker.  She was awkward and funny.   Kevin Kline was also good as Adam’s father.

Bottom line:  Natalie Portman should stick to dramas.  She was great in “Black Swan” and, of course, the “Star Wars” prequels, among other more serious films.  I would rather have waited for “Friends with Benefits”, set to be released in July.  Also, they didn’t play *N SYNC’s song “No Strings Attached” ever in this movie, which would have fit perfectly!!

Swift shot: Fans of gory slasher exploitation films will line up for this one, might gather a cult audience, but mainstream cinema – this aint.  Still, there was a raw intensity to the overall product that kept intriguing me.  Give these film-makers a real budget to work with, and something tells me this film would be much better.  The editing was my biggest complaint, at times I could understand the essence of what was being communicated, but the overall message was fuzzy and lacking focus – like a lot of the stylized shots.

I get it, this is a nod to the classic blood bath slasher films of the 70s, but using a real life menace to society, a little Romero veritas if you will permit.  Taken in that vein (excuse the pun) it accomplishes the mission, but it isn’t entertaining, at least I didn’t find it that entertaining.  It’s basically a play by play of the crimes of one sick puppy, Danny Rolling – who terrorized Gainesville area residents in 1990. Zachary Memos plays the dual role of Danny/Gemini – who may or may not have existed in Rolling’s mind.

Mr. Everything (Josh Townshend) shot, cut, directed, probably bled this film out of his wrists onto the silver screen for your enjoyment.  But, that is what kept bothering me, should you enjoy this film?  I’m still torn on that, because I really enjoyed the special effects on the murder scenes – but, I keep coming back to these were real victims.  I was the one guy in high school who used to leave a party when my friends broke out the Faces of Death VHS tapes.  I never felt right watching genuine end of life, taking a life, even a scumbag like Rolling, means something.  So, to sit with my idiot friends talking about girls, eating pizza and watching some guy get set on fire while imprisoned in tires was not, and still is not, my thing.  I prefer fiction, but I will give Josh credit for bringing some of the harsh ugliness this world usually keeps under a rock, with all the slimy things that you shouldn’t play with, to the forefront.

This film has a lot of potential, but gore alone cannot justify butts in seats.  The character development is essential when you are telling a real story, and going back to Fiona Slater’s review, here, the scenes showing the tension in Gainesville needed more emphasis.  And, the reach out and can’t touch someone sequence, cut it altogether, or make it more obvious that these were parents trying to call their kids, students at UF.  I liked the artsy quality to the film, but it was a bit overdone, like the newscast all choppy and fuzzy, was that a metaphor for something I missed?  Gainesville was not fuzzy during that time, they as a community were lethal, feral, shooting at anything that bumped in the night – chaos defined.

And, again, to allude to Slater’s review, what made Rolling so elusive was his attention to detail when cleaning the crime scenes, and yes, staging the bodies made him somewhat unique in the annals of true crime serial killers.  With the excellent makeup and effects Townshend had at his disposal, this is where his strengths really lie, because those stabs looked and even felt real, kudos for that.

Overall, if you enjoy slasher films, wait til this is on DVD and just fast-forward to all the gory parts.  If you like true crime dramas, you aren’t going to be sucked into the characters, which usually is key to any good crime flick.  I don’t want to rip on everything in the film though, because there were moments were Memos truly became Rolling/Gemini – he just wasn’t consistent in his performance.  Putting yourself in the victim’s shoes, or bed sheets, will effectively make your skin crawl – even one burly guy is dispatched by waking up with a friggin Ka-Bar jabbed into his chest.  It gives a whole new meaning to rude awakening.  I think Townshend will be a director to watch in the next few years, if he can get the interest of a decent studio with a solid budget, he can make a good film.  But this first attempt falls well short of “good” – but indie junkies might disagree.

Incidentally, if you want to see the craziest interview, our very own H-Man interviewed Mr. Everything, Josh Townshend, here.

Look out superheroes, the villains are taking center stage.

***More despicable pictures, here***

Gru, voiced by Steve Carell with a very weird, and sometimes difficult to understand Slavic accent, prides himself on being the world’s most villainous thief along with a resident evil scientist, Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand) and his myriads of minions. That is, until a little healthy competition comes along. When a new rival villain, Vector (Jason Segel) steals the Great Pyramid of Giza, hides it in his backyard, and replaces it with an inflatable replica, Gru realizes he must do something even more spectacular and plots to steal the moon.

After funding for his evil scheme is denied by the Bank of Evil (“formerly Lehman Brothers”, the movie’s best laugh) due to Gru’s history of heists which have been more costly than financially rewarding, Gru sets off to steal the Shrink Ray prototype, not yet perfected, from his new nemesis in order to shrink the moon and bring it back to earth . . .  bringing the world to its knees.

Unfortunately, penetrating Vector’s laboratory proves to be impossible, until he observes Vector purchasing Miss Hattie’s cookies from three orphans, Margo (Miranda Cosgrove), Edith (Dana Gaier), and Agnes (Elsie Fisher) who are peddled out by the Home for Girls’ Miss Hattie (Kristen Wiig) to sell cookies door to door. Gru seizes the opportunity to gain entry to Vector’s lab through their cookies and adopts the adorable trio.

Gru has little interest in the girls, but after some time the children help Gru discover his sensitive side through their demands for him to read bedtime stories, and flashbacks to his childhood reveal Gru’s mommy issues. Gru’s scheming and crazy plans are really just his attempts to make his mother proud of him. (how original)

This transformation story is funny, with one gag after another. The yellow pill-shaped minions provide most of the comic relief similar to the penguins in Madagascar. So many elements of the movie are reminiscent of Up, The Incredibles, Monsters vs. Aliens, and other recent films, making Despicable Me seem far less inventive than the story really is.  Despicable Me is tolerable, hardly the children’s spy thriller it could have been, and not as funny as the previews might suggest, but overall it would suit if you were looking for a few (and I do mean few) laughs on a rainy day at the theater, and of course you’ve already seen Toy Story 3.

Three reviews to choose from!

For an up and coming critic from the Windy City – just click Limacher or on Jacob’s pic.

Or a no-nonsense mom about town –  just click Starshine or Bella’s pic. 

Finally, for an uber cynic - just click H-Man or on Edward’s

Who got it right?  Let the battle commence!

Hex hears dead-people, and who gives a Horton?

***Need Megan Fox images?  No!?!  Well, screw you then, don’t CLICK HERE***

The H-Bomb: There seems to be some kind of consensus that thus far this summer movie season has, for the most part, been dull, dreary, and lackluster. Sadly, the release of “Jonah Hex” is going to do very little to buck that trend. As a comic book action western, it’s about as dull, dreary, and lackluster as they come. All this despite the impressive cast (well… impressive on paper, anyway), loud action, and flashy direction.

The last time, at least that I can think of, that Hollywood tried to make a summer blockbuster out of the western genre, they ended up with the truly abominable Will Smith turd sucker “Wild Wild West”. “Jonah Hex” is marginally better, but that’s kind of like saying that drinking cat piss is preferable to eating dog shit… neither is very appetizing.

What’s it about? Please, stop me when this sounds clichéd (no, seriously, please do stop me). “Jonah Hex” tells the oh so original story of a scarred Civil War vet named… you guessed it, Jonah Hex, who has made it his mission to track down the dastardly Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich), the man who murdered his wife and son. But, unfortunately for our hero, fate steps in reins in his revenge.

So, now a man without a mission, Hex becomes a fearsome, famed bounty hunter who can speak to the dead (don’t ask). But unbeknownst to Hex, a new cretin is plotting to get a hold of some super cannon dubbed a “Nation Killer” that he plans to level Washington D.C. with during the celebration of the U.S.’s Centennial. Now it’s up to our charred faced, ghost whispering anti-hero to try and stop the plan.  Do I really need to tell you where it goes from there?

From beginning to end, this is the epitome of “been there, done that.” Despite all the over the top gun-play, violence (the PG-13, spatter-free variety, naturally), and shit blowing up in every direction, the movie is just a plodding, predictable 80 minutes of sheer boredom. It was one of those rare films where I found myself glancing at my watch periodically just to see how much longer it would drag on. It’s not a slow movie, it’s just curiously devoid of any kind of a pulse.

Jimmy Hayward (whose previous directing credit was “Horton Hears a Who”) over does it behind the camera and directs the thing like a music video, throwing in all sorts of wild visuals, including animation, in a desperate attempt to breathe some sort of life, any sort of life, into this D.O.A., flatter than a pancake script. He failed.  If Horton heard this who, he’d hang himself with his own trunk.

In fact, not only was the director short changed by the script, but so was the cast. This is particularly true of Josh Brolin. As we’ve seen in recent years, he’s a helluva good actor, and even though he’s no Clint Eastwood, he’s got the grizzled look and the gruff voice, and he could’ve been great in this role, if only he had the material to back him up.

Malkovich, one of modern cinema’s best go to bad guys, is a real disappointment here. He wears his boredom on his sleeve and phones in his performance completely. He looks like he’d rather be stuck in a traffic jam on a hot summer afternoon in a car with no A/C than be anywhere near this movie set.

Megan Fox, as the whore with the heart of gold (for Jonah, at least), is shown prominently on the posters and in the TV spots, but in reality she’s barely in the film at all! If I added up every single moment of her screen time, it would probably only amount to about ten minutes, if that much. I must admit, though, I can think of worse things to stare at than her sweaty, working girl cleavage, which the movie did display in generous amounts. For that I am grateful.

Other somewhat familiar faces (Wes Bentley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Michael Shannon) pop up briefly throughout the picture, but they’re given so little to do that I wonder why they even bothered to show up.  In fact, I wonder why anybody who worked on this movie in any capacity bothered to show up, given the limp dick results of their labor.

Now, this isn’t a terrible film. It’s not, “Oh my God, this horrid shit bomb is gonna make me slit my fucking wrists” bad, it’s just really not that good, and there are certainly better ways to put your ten bucks to use, such as; donating it to the Salvation Army, or using it as toilet paper, or giving it to an alcoholic vagrant so he can go get tanked up… anything. Because despite all the bangs and booms and bams that this flick provides, it’s ultimately nothing but a tired action yarn that is never even remotely exciting nor suspenseful. It could probably make a decent rental someday… maybe. But only if you’re really, really bored.

The  loveable Great Dane, Marmaduke  from the long running comic strip debuts on the big screen in John Davis’s latest animal adventure. Marmaduke is cut from the same cloth as Garfield, his comic strip adaption from 2004, yet his personality is not nearly as endearing as Garfield’s. To pitch the idea to Fox, Davis put a Great Dane inside a Mini Cooper- the dog was so big that its head stuck prominently through the sunroof- and parked it outside the office of the studio chairman Tom Rothman.

Marmaduke features the voice of Owen Wilson, despite the fact that Marmaduke is one of the few comic strip animals that never spoke. The film also includes the voice talents of George Lopez, Fergie, Emma Stone, Jeremy Piven, and Steve Coogan.

Marmaduke plays a large part in his human family’s life, but when the Winslows (Lee Pace and Judy Greer) move from Kansas to Orange County, the teenage canine joins the crowd at the dog park and discovers that fitting in with his new pals is going to be a challenge.

The dog park social scene plays out much like a typical American High School with all of the accompanying cliques. A Mutts vs. Pedigrees turf war ignites, leaving Marmaduke to choose between impressing the beautiful Collie, Mazie, who is dating the top dog alpha male of the park, and his new found friends who are less than popular, all while trying to help his human family transition through the new move.

In the film’s other plot line, Marmaduke’s owner Phil is trying to make an impression as the new marketing director for a pet food company run by an eccentric pet lover, played by William H. Macy. Phil is torn between work and family life until Marmaduke goes missing…at which time the family pulls together to save the day in a whirlwind rescue of the supersize dog.

The kids will love the crude potty humor and Marmaduke’s antics, but the canine romantic triangle side plot was unnecessary and the writers could have done a better job integrating the human family into Marmaduke’s world. The film would mostly be benefited by Marmaduke not talking period. Overall it was entertaining for the kids, and I would recommend the movie to all canine lovers.

***Check out our Facebook page for more pix – just click image above***

Robin Hood is the latest version of a story that is well known and told a different way every time they make a movie about it.  The latest version is the story of how the legend first began; and as far as I know is the most historically accurate telling thus far. Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe team up once again attempting to capture the magic they shared with Gladiator.  Robin Hood, unfortunately fizzled and the bottle was shattered – the magic was gone.

Following the ill-fated Crusades led by King Richard of England, Robin Longstride, a mere archer in the King’s army is wrapped up in espionage and intrigue that catapult his life into legend.  All the standard Robin Hood characters make an appearance in this film: Little John (Kevin Durand); Prince John (Oscar Isaac); Will Scarlet (Scott ‘Critters’ Grimes); Marion (Cate Blanchett); and even Fryar Tuck (Mark Addy).  Each character plays a role in the grand chess board that makes up England – post Crusade.

King Richard (Danny Huston) and his valiant men return home from their 10 year tour spent fighting in the Holy Land, in which large amounts of money and lives were lost with not much of an outcome.  In fact, King Richard decides on his way back to England to ransack several of France’s castles to make up some of the debt lost from the wars. It is here that we first encounter Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) again a standard archer in Richard’s army.

Prince John is running things while the king is away, and as all the versions of Robin Hood portray him, he is a lech of a man, a traitor to his noble blood and a coward – nothing new there.  John takes a liking to running the show while Rick wages another adventure, this time on a former ally – France.  His mother, Elinor of Aquitaine (Eileen Atkins) is determined to see her son, not Richard, the rightful heir to England.  Together with her son and other nefarious types, they plot to kill Richard whilst he is pillaging France’s castles to pay for war debt incurred in the Crusades.

John’s closest consort, Godfrey (Mark Strong) betrays Richard to the King of France and political intrigue really starts to develop.  Following events that are inevitable, but I won’t divulge them here – Robin and his band of loyal troops flee John’s army to wage a war with the usurping king of England.

The movie continues to gradually build as the legend of the “real” Robin Hood is laid out for the viewer to judge, but the filmmakers seemed to preach more than present – as the history of Robin Hood is told for “how it truly was”.  I personally thought the movie dragged on at points and wasn’t as good as I hoped. The more “experienced” audience enjoyed the movie, while the younger audience actually became so bored a few of them left the theater. All in all the action scenes were good, but the movie was not great at all. I say if you’re like me, save your money and hour of your time and watch the Disney cartoon classic Robin Hood instead!

***click pic above for more images***

For all you cheesy romantics out there – never fear, Hollywood still has your back. While super heroes and geriatric action stars are dominating this year’s summer season, “Letters to Juliet” offers a more low key distraction. A love story for all ages, this generally chipper chick flick isn’t the brightest or the wittiest - it isn’t even mildly sexy. It will; however, make the preteen crowd and their moms swoon.

Amanda Seyfried stars as Sophie, a fact checker and hopeful writer for the New Yorker, who ends up in Verona on a pre-honeymoon vacation with her fiancee, Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal). While Victor scours the Italian countryside for the best food and recipes to take home to his new restaurant, Sophie is left to wander the city alone – but not for long.

When she discovers a letter written to the mythical Juliet of Shakespearian fame, she can’t help but respond to a woman who long ago was searching for her true love. Soon, Sophie has met the woman who wrote the letter, a now aged Claire (Vanessa Redgrave), and her grandson, Charlie (Christopher Egan). The three venture off to find Claire’s true love, while Sophie finds her own.

If any of this sounds familiar to you, you’re probably right. Not much about this film is new and it doesn’t re-examine anything old. Still, films like this one continue to get made because they appeal to anyone with a skewed sense of love and romance. Considering the lingering popularity of Disney princesses, let’s face it, these doe-eyed hopefuls are here to stay.

One of the more enjoyable aspects of “Letters to Juliet” is the scenery. Picturesque countrysides and all the fine architecture of Italy seem to be forever bathed in a perfect orange glow. Couples can be seen walking hand in hand throughout the film, and while it’s all more than a bit hokey, it does transport the audience to a world where true love can be found, if indeed it does exist.

Most of the cast isn’t able to breathe much life into the deflated story. Seyfried gives a disappointing performance and is frequently overshadowed by Bernal’s over the top caricature and Redgrave’s perfectly like-able bleeding heart. In fact, Redgrave is the one that steals the show. She’s funny enough where it counts, and even the stoniest of hearts will find themselves hoping she ends up with her long lost beau.

The romance that develops between Sophie and Charlie doesn’t come as a surprise, even if you haven’t seen the trailer. In fact, the whole film is as predictable as they come. It’s disappointing to see little develop out of either of Sophie’s relationships, though their premises are ripe for growth. In the end, it just stops becoming interesting.

As a whole, “Letters to Juliet” is a poorly written cookie cutter love story. The acting is, for the most part, bland, and the cinematography can only redeem the movie to an extent. Despite all of that, it does pluck a few heartstrings and is perfectly aimed at the tween crowd. Don’t expect any sex, passion, or, you know, anything real, and you might just find the film watchable. At the very least, guys, it makes for a good date movie.