(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Growing up a bonafide comic geek, my circle of friends would occasionally pose the question: What powers would you want to have? It was always a gas to hear the reasoning behind the power choices. One of my favorites discussed was the power to manipulate time…usually for criminal and perverted acts. My choices were varied at first, from super strength, to invisibility, and finally settling on Telekinesis. It was the one power that seemed limitless. You want to lift a car? Done. You want to fly? Done. You want to stay dry in the rain? Done. I could go on, but I’ll assume you get the picture. When tasked to see Chronicle, of course I jumped at the opportunity.

Until I realized it was a ‘found footage’ film, which meant shaky camera shots, poor composition, and weird angles that may or may not get the scene. So, yeah, I’m not a big fan.

I found myself pleasantly surprised, however, when watching Chronicle. Sure, there was every aspect that I hated about ‘found footage films’ present front and center; however, I think it was handled fairly well, and thankfully only a fairly short amount of time was spent on the hand held aspect of the cam. Once the boys get their powers, the shots get smoother, as one of them uses their Telekinetic ability to keep the cam afloat. Ingenious.

The other issue I had was that the plot might have been taken from a 2002 film called The Surge (or The Source, depending on where you’re from.) That movie was about a group of friends that stumble onto a rock in the forest that imbues them with powers – not at all dissimilar from Chronicle. Thankfully, that’s about all they share as the stories they tell branch off sharply from there.

As the boys fine tune their powers, all kinds of shenanigans ensue. Unfortunately, for those of us that previously had watched the trailers online and on TV, there won’t be many surprises coming that way. The hilarity doesn’t last long; however, as Andrew (Dane DeHaan, who incidentally, looks strikingly like he could be Leonardo DiCaprio’s brother) allows his home life and school life to affect his increasingly reckless behavior, boiling to the inevitable pulse pounding showdown between friends.

Chronicle does a passable job in creating a sympathetic villain in Andrew. He’s bullied at school, his father is abusive, his mother is terminally ill, and he barely has any friends. The pieces were in place, but the execution seemed lacking, as the only sympathy I could muster for him was superficial at best. His relationship with his mom was never solidified, or portrayed deep enough for you to see how he felt about her. There were glimpses, but nothing that convinced me his descent into madness was believable. Likewise with the abusive father. I got the impression the abuse was only recent, as his father was unable to cope with his wife’s ailment and recent job loss, but the resentment Andrew shows would indicate a longer stint as a punching bag than I’d imagined.

Those few hiccups aside, I enjoyed Chronicle. The story was good, and the way they altered camera shots to piece together the story kept it interesting. The special effects delivered most of the time, though there were a few noticeable missteps. And the acting was well done, considering how difficult it is to act like you’re not acting. All the boys handled that task well.

If you were on the fence about seeing Chronicle, hop off it now and go see it. You could do worse at the theater.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Just let this sleeping dog lie.

The H-Bomb: Young, dull newlyweds David (James Marsden) and Amy (Kate Bosworth) move from L.A. to the small southern town where Amy grew up. David is a screenwriter, and he hopes that the peace and quiet of their isolated farm house will be the perfect place to work on his script. Unfortunately for him, the local hillbillies they hired to fix up the barn roof have other ideas. It’s bad enough that David is an outsider and a city boy with a condescending, intellectual air to him, but the fact that he hired Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard), Amy’s old high school beau, to work on the roof only makes matters worse. See, Charlie still has an eye for Amy, and he doesn’t much care for her running off and marrying this nerdy little Joe Hollywood douche bag, so… I think you can guess where this is going.

Charlie and his buddies’ taunts start out as minor annoyances; showing up to work at the crack of dawn with their shit-kicker music blasting, walking into David’s house uninvited and just helping themselves to whatever’s in his fridge, cutting out at midday to go hunting, so on and so forth. Being that David is a product of the Left Coast and a very principled pacifist (so he tells us), he is willing to turn the other cheek and try not to let it get to him.

But Charlie’s antics soon escalate and become more hostile and dangerous; David is run off the road by their truck, pet cats turn up dead (why does that sound familiar), and eventually a vicious assault takes place. If David and Amy had even an iota of common sense, they would just cut their losses and leave, but David isn’t about to be driven out of his home, and he now has a lot of manning up to do before the inevitable violent showdown.

You’d think after the dismal failure that was the “The Getaway” remake, that Hollywood would know better than to redo Sam Peckinpah, the guns n’ booze auteur who had an arresting, kick-to-the-dick style that no one could ever replicate, but that didn’t stop them from trying. This time, they tried doing it with “Straw Dogs”, his 1971 film about a non-violent man pushed to the breaking point. It was mucho controversial when released, but it’s kind of tame by today’s standards.

For this remake, the setting has been changed from rural England to the rural U.S., and the main character’s profession has been switched, inconsequentially, from mathematician to screenwriter, but everything else follows the plot of the original to the letter. The result is a banal, quasi-boring film which adds nothing new to the story thematically, and ultimately has no reason whatsoever to exist. The graphic violence of the Peckinpah film is retained, including the infamous use of a bear trap, but the potency is gone.

Writer/Director Rod Lurie (“The Contender”, a putrid film) also didn’t do himself any favors by making all the small town folk a bunch of tobaccy chewin’, beer swilling, narrow minded primates who enjoy bullying and tormenting outsiders when they’re not too busy fucking their own relatives. It’s the kind of lame, clichéd small town stereotype that could only have been written by some snotty writer who has never actually been to a small town in his life.

I also love how Lurie has his protagonists say and do the most stupid, illogical things imaginable simply because the plot needs them to, like having the atheist David wax philosophical about religion with Charlie by calling God a “bully,” or having him say shit like, “I’m a writer, that means I work for a living” to a blue collar guy who actually does work for a living. Jesus, a fucking first grader would know better.

But the real kicker, the one that truly insults the intelligence, is what Lurie has Amy do after she catches Charlie and his slobbering goons eyeballing her; she opens her bedroom window and strips naked in front of them. Seriously, is this chick retarded?! What was she thinking? Can she even think? Does she even have a brain? Apparently, Lurie forgot to give her one.

Lurie also forgot to fix the one aspect of the 1971 film that, at least I think, doesn’t work, the reason for the final confrontation. It doesn’t come about from the simmering hatred that builds between David and Charlie, but from a subplot about the town retard who likes to touch children. It bothered me in the Peckinpah version, and it only added to my list of reasons to dislike the Lurie version.

Moving on to the performances, it’s a mixed bag. Marsden and Bosworth are reunited from “Superman Returns” and display the exact same lack of chemistry that they had in that film. They are both big zeros, and it should be noted that James Marsden is no Dustin Hoffman. Skarsgard (son of Stellan) is actually quite menacing and subtle as Charlie. His performance is one of the movie’s few virtues, and for a Swede, he made a pretty convincing redneck. James Woods is fun to watch as the alcoholic ex-high school football coach who also makes trouble for David and Amy. The only problem I had with him was that I didn’t believe for a second that he could actually intimidate an entire barroom full of good ol’ boys the way he does here.

(H-Man Parenthetical: I just remembered that Woods was also in “The Getaway” remake, as well. Weird.)

After all is said and done, this new “Straw Dogs” isn’t a terrible movie, it’s just a terribly pointless one. There’s nothing in here that Peckinpah didn’t already do better in his original film some forty years ago, and there is just no reason for this watered down, dumbed down version to have been made at all. If you must see “Straw Dogs”, do yourself a huge favor and watch the original, and give this future piece of K-Mart bargain bin fodder a pass.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Review by Alyn Darnay

Directed by: Rodrigo Garcia

Cast: Glenn Close, Mia Wasikowska, Aaron Johnson, Janet McTeer, Pauline Collins, Brenda Fricker, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Brendan Gleeson, Maria Doyle Kennedy, Antonia Campbell Hughes, Mark Williams, James Green, Bronagh Gallagher, John Light

This film, an intricate tale of women passing as men in 19th-century Dublin, is a true labor of love for actress Glenn Close, and her performance is brilliant. She played this role on stage in the 80’s and has been trying to bring it to the screen ever since. I’m glad she did, for it’s thrilled me with what I believe to be the best performance by an actress in the past 10 years.

The carefully measured and calibrated performances by Glenn Close and her co-star Janet McTeer, as two women who succeed in passing as men in a stifling period of time where the only choices for women were virtually limited to being wives or scullery maids, or prostitutes, are a joy to behold.

Here’s the storyline: Professionally attired as major domo of the elegant Morrison Hotel, Albert Nobbs is a small, fastidious, impeccably correct gentleman, thought of fondly by guests and most of the other employees. When not working he keeps to himself in the dreary bedroom where he has carefully concealed every cent of his earnings under the floorboards. He lives a dreary, lonely life, devoted to his job and devoid of true human contact. Think of Albert as a sad Chaplinesque figure, walking stiffly, speaking in monotones, and acting masculine in a way that is at once captivating, revealing and yet heartbreaking.

This behavior has gone on since Albert was traumatized early in life and made the decision to hide her feminine self away in this elaborate disguise. All would have gone on like this forever, had not Hubert the painter (Janet McTeer) accidentally entered Albert’s life. Turns out, Hubert is also a disguised woman (married to another woman), who has been very successful in achieving a reasonable life for herself. She becomes Albert’s role model and then mentor. How Albert reacts to his/her renewed desires for a full life makes up the balance of the film. It’s a pure joy to watch, and I don’t want to spoil it for you, so just go see it.

The film is based upon the short story titled “The Singular Life of Albert Nobbs” by George Moore; and Glenn Close, Gabriella Prekop and John Banville painstakingly wrote the script. It was skillfully directed with grit, grace and a deep understanding of what a person’s singular dream of liberation means, by the talented Rodrigo Garcia, whose ability to pull tour de force performances out of actresses is becoming legendary.

“Albert Nobbs”  is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Sex and violence, more implied than shown.

TRT: 103 minutes

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

High on fun, low on believability.

The H-Bomb:  A mysterious man (Sam Worthington) checks into a Manhattan hotel alone.  He treats himself to an extravagant meal, then wipes the room clean of all fingerprints and climbs out the window and onto the ledge.  It’s not long before he’s spotted by some do-gooder on the street far down below, and a crowd gathers to see if he’ll jump.  Some even cheer for him to jump!  Soon the police and the media both show up, and the whole thing turns into a big fiasco.

Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks), a police psychiatrist with a drinking problem and a sad back story, is called to the scene to try and talk the man down off the ledge, and in their back and forths she gets the feeling that he’s not really suicidal, and that there is something else going on.  Of course, we the audience, through some rather clumsy flashbacks, already know more about this man than Lydia.  We know that his name is Nick Cassidy, that he is an ex-cop who went to prison for a crime he says he didn’t commit, and that he’s an escaped fugitive trying to clear his name.

But what does all that have to do with Nick dangling off the ledge in full view of hundreds of people?  Well, maybe it’s to keep people’s eyes off of what his brother, Joey (Jamie Bell) and Joey’s girlfriend Angie (Genesis Rodriguez) are doing across the street, in the diamond vaults of slimy, big shot Wall Street broker David Englander (Ed Harris).  Normally, I’d be reluctant to give that much away, but the trailer already did it for me, so I figure, the hell with it.

In fact, for the audience to enjoy “Man on a Ledge”, they’ll have to say the hell with it, too, because that is exactly the kind of movie it is.  The kind of highly contrived, ridiculously illogical thriller that Hollywood cranks out every so often.  The kind where if you scrutinize the plot, the characters, or anything that’s happening, you’ll just end up frustrating yourself, but, if you can just kick back and go with it, you’ll find it fairly enjoyable.

Basically, “Man on a Ledge” is a popcorn movie, one that wouldn’t cut the muster in the summer, hence it’s being released in January, when movie theaters resemble post-apocalyptic wastelands, but essentially it is 90 some odd minutes of pure, dumb brain candy.  Those looking for a tense, single location thriller like “Phone Booth” may be disappointed, as this actually is an overly plotted heist movie in the “Inside Man” vein, only about a thousand times more improbable, and not nearly as memorable.  It’s entertaining, but you’ll be straining to remember anything that happens in it the day after you see it.

As far as performances go, this really, truly is not a performance movie, but everyone on hand does their best. Worthington is an actor who has never interested me at all.  Frankly, I find him about as exciting as a piece of plain toast and as charismatic as a bullfrog, but here, he’s actually all right.  He hasn’t converted me into a born again Worthington fan or anything, but on this occasion, he managed to make me root for him… even though the Hasselhoff hair he sports doesn’t do him any favors.  Banks, as the alcoholic police shrink, does okay, as well, but like Worthington, I find her kind of bland.

Fortunately, the solid supporting cast does help spice up the mix.  Bell is funny as Joey, Nick’s well meaning but clumsy brother, Anthony Mackie is smooth as Nick’s best friend and a fellow cop who’s a little too interested in his predicament, and Harris hams it up nicely as the stereotypical smug, cigar sucking, fat cat bad guy.  Fans of William Sadler will be pleased to see him in a smallish role as a helpful Bellhop, it’s just too bad he looks as though he aged twenty years in the past ten. I was disappointed to see Ed Burns relegated to the throwaway role of some generic detective who spends the whole movie on the sidelines.  This guy used to be a full fledged movie star.  He helped save Private Ryan, for Christ sake!  What happened?

Of everyone in the cast, the one true standout is Genesis Rodriguez.  Never heard of her before?  Don’t worry, neither have I, but I have a hunch we all will in the near future.  Her turn as Joey’s girlfriend/amateur cat burglar is sassy, sexy, and almost steals the show.  The moment where she strips down in her bra and panties to slip into her skintight catsuit is perhaps the most hysterically gratuitous thing I have ever seen in any movie, but in a movie this hokey, it’s allowed.

And hokeyness is the order of the day with this one.  There are some intensely suspenseful moments (the bit with the news chopper is great), some nifty action towards the end, and even some laugh out loud moments throughout (the old Hippie in the crowd shouting about Attica is priceless).  It all leads to a climax that is both howlingly absurd and a little under-whelming, but if you keep your expectations modest and your brain turned off, there is fun to be had… provided you have absolutely nothing better to do.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Read my interview with Director Asghar Farhadi here!

Limacher Low Down:  A Separation recently won the 2012 Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film, and it is easy to understand why.  The film is a character study of several people living in Iran and the circumstances they find themselves in drives the movie. The acting is outstanding, and while a few things may be lost on viewers that don’t understand the culture, the story can easily be considered universal.

The movie begins in a courtroom, and we see two people through the eyes of the judge. Immediately we learn that a couple has filed for divorce, and the only thing holding up the proceedings is the issue of custody of their young daughter.  Nader (Peyman Moadi) is the father who wants to stay in Iran with his daughter to take care of his elderly father who is stricken with dementia. Simin (Leila Hatami) is the mother who wants to flee from Iran and move somewhere to be with her family without possible prosecution. Simin wants to leave right away before her passport expires, and does not want to leave without her husband and daughter. This is really an interesting set of circumstances. When most of us think of divorce, it is because of issues that cannot be resolved. This couple still loves each other, but because of insinuating circumstances, they need to divorce.

There is a moving scene in Nader and Simin’s apartment where they discuss the court proceedings with their daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi). Nader is a loving father, and it seems while Termeh speaks with Simin, she wants to stay with her Father. Simin understands that she needs to leave and leaves the number of a person to take care of Nader’s ailing father since she will no longer be around to take care of him. Enter Razieh (Sareh Bayat) who becomes the caretaker of Nader’s father.

Razieh has strict religious beliefs which don’t allow her to take care of some of the duties that she needs to perform to take care of Nader’s father. After thinking long and hard about whether or not to return the next day, she does. This is interesting because it gives some insight into the religious beliefs of some in Iran, and where the line is truly drawn. It also shows that people can/will do whatever they can to support their family in times of need and that theme builds the crescendo of the film.

Razieh returns the following day to take care of Nader’s father, but leaves to take care of some personal business. Instead of taking care of Nader’s father, she decides to get creative with his care.  Nader returns home to find his father nearly dead lying on the floor.  Razieh and Nader exchange some words that leads into another story that starts to develop into multiple story-lines which all come together.  Putting the angst into the heart of the audience, the film made me question my own emotions and left me curious where the story would  go next.

Nader receives a call that Razieh is in the hospital and that Simin is still with her family in the city. Nader and Simin rush to the hospital to find out what happened to Razieh and to find out if there is anything they can do to help. They come across Razieh’s husband, Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini), who at first is very calm and thankful that Nader and Simin have come to the hospital to check on his wife.  While Nader is first greeted with grace by Razieh’s husband, things change rapidly and Nader finds himself the target of a lawsuit.  This is the point in the movie where I lost all control of how to react. I started to question the people and how I might react in a similar situation. This scene really opens up the characters to scrutiny, and when you think you have answers . . . all the questions develop more questions.

Facts come to light, but not all the answers are given and it remains up to the viewer to draw their own conclusion. The movie flows continuously and is unrelenting as a way of making the viewer not only question the actions of the actors, but also question how they would react in a similar situation. Right when you think everything is tied up the ending comes and leaves the biggest question of all.  Read my interview with Director Asghar Farhadi to get more of an understanding about the climax.

The film grants the audience the proverbial fly on the wall perspective to the drama that unfolds over the course of the story. While it may not be for everyone, people who enjoy drama and excellent story-telling will be more than inclined to go out of their way to see “A Separation”.  The thing that makes this film so compelling is the way the story sticks with you. These are not characters who are easily forgotten, and it is films like this that make movie going a genuine experience.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

A film, long, long overdue, in a decade not so far away

Swift shot: Despite a tacky soundtrack and a high-school AV club font for the credits which looked like it was ripped right from Windows Paint, this film delivered some solid memories.  Thanks to the previews, I was expecting it to have modern music for the sound, ala “A Knight’s Tale” and “Marie Antoinette”, but they went with a more traditional score.  I wish they had opted for the modern style, because the music never worked for me . . . granted I was focused on it the whole time.  I was also expecting a lot from the folks at Lucas’ Industrial Lights & Magic (ILM), and they didn’t let me down.  The gritty attention to detail paid to the P40 Warhawks with rusty bolts and hinges in contrast to sexy, mint P51 Mustangs was noteworthy.  The actors were a bit rough around the edges, but as the film progressed, I found myself more drawn to the characters and less focused on the film’s elements.

Set in 1944, Italy, we follow the “historical” adventures of the 332nd Fighter Group, comprised entirely of “negro” pilots and crewmen.  In 1944, the brass has decided to grant black soldiers the chance to prove they can stand toe-to-toe with any other Americans in the war effort.  One bold initiative creates the 332nd and, at least on paper, affords the men that chance.  Met with nothing but resistance along their path to become pilots, the men form a strong bond – probably more significant than most other soldiers who essentially take for granted that they have at least earned a grudging respect from their comrades.  Not so for the 332nd, everything they are doing is literally being scrutinized by everyone in the world, not just the military, and not just the Americans.  They are under a lot of pressure to be beyond good . . . thing is, the brass isn’t exactly giving them any real missions worth a damn.

And that is where we come in, after a routine mission of “killing traffic” (one of my favorite lines) their Colonel, Bullard (Terrence Howard) is called to Washington D.C. following some harsh words from the press that the negro pilot experiment is a failure.  One particularly nasty Colonel, Mortamus (Bryan “Breaking Bad” Cranston) has leaked the false story in the hopes of putting an end to them once and for all.  Now the pressure is higher than ever for them to show they can take on dangerous missions, and they are granted an air cover mission for an Allied Landing . . . Operation Shingle.  Not only do they accomplish their mission, they log some significant kills.   Speaking of killing . . . this film is incredibly violent, lots of strafing runs, lots of explosions and people meeting their mortal end.  For the most part these people were Nazis, so no one really minded, but in all wars even the good guys die, and Red Tails does show a few of the good guys eating dirt too.  In fact, with four words, the entire tone of the film shifts in one dramatic dogfight.

I read on imdb that George Lucas started this project in 1988 and couldn’t get any significant funding, because “an all black cast isn’t going to sell tickets”.  Interestingly, he foot most of the bill for this film himself, and stylized the leads after historical figures from black civil rights lore, Easy, or Capt Marty Julian (Nate Parker) was inspired on Martin Luther King, Jr.  Lightning, or Capt Joe Little (David Oyelowo) was inspired on Malcolm X, and considering the screenplay was co-written by the controversial “Boondocks” writer Aaron McGruder, it makes perfect sense.  His characters are always bigger than life and inspired on great men and women.

The other characters make up a fairly motley crew of pilots and mechanics which reminded me a lot of the Black Sheep Squadron that I used to watch with my dad, with clever call-signs and a bit of arrogance and flair.  There really were too many to list here, but my favorite supporting actor would have to be Ne-Yo as Smokey who delivers the most clever line of the film.

I wanted to like this one a little bit more, and it is a freakin’ crying shame that in 2012 no one stepped up to the plate and assisted George Lucas to the point where this film was on an epic scale, I wasn’t overly impressed with Terrence Blanchard when I am spoiled with John Williams doing Lucas’ other scores and some other elements felt tacked on at the end as well.  In once scene, Lightning takes on an entire Officer’s Club filled with white pilots, and he is in the stockade the next scene without a scratch on him, not so much as a hangnail.  That might fly in an amateur’s reel, but not when I see Lucas’ name attached.  Ultimately, this film was not all that it could, and should, have been.  The aerial combat sequences were tight and magnificent, and I really have not one bad thing to say about them.  The story was interesting, but I felt that a lot of the film was rushed in order to get as much “history” into the final edits and I think some things should have been cut out altogether.

As far as the historical accuracy of this film, I will let you do your own research.  But in my research it was interesting to see that even as late as this decade, controversy over the historical accuracy of the documented combat missions still hasn’t been soundly put to rest.  Perhaps this film will serve to do what it was ultimately intended to do, get Americans, black, white, red, yellow, blue, purple, green, who cares, to care about the sacrifices of these ‘colored’ men who not only had to fight a war, they had to fight to earn even a modicum of respect in their “free” country.  We all have battles, and we have all had to deal with prejudices, but I challenge anyone to say these aviators weren’t some of the most mentally tough men to ever wear wings.  The Red Tailed Angels of the sky.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Carano, you have arrived!

Swift shot: From the jump, let me just say I am not a Soderbergh fan, I didn’t care for Ocean’s Eleven; I am not big into the heist movies, they are always rife with double-crosses and become pretentious parodies of anything worthwhile in my earnest opinion.  But, regardless of that disclaimer, I actually liked Haywire despite its obvious attempts to stylize itself as one of those predictably unpredictable heist movies.  Haywire had one element that I couldn’t resist . . . Gina Carano.  She made Darth Vader’s choke hold look like a stilted pantomime.  In one brutally sexy scene, she dispatches a bad guy between her legs!  Wonder what that guy’s last thoughts were . . . The rest of the movie was just filler at that point, getting her from one kill to the next, so even though the journey was tedious at times, I did enjoy the payoff at the end.

I was happy to see that Channing Tatum finally took my advice and got himself some acting lessons.  They paid off.  But with the award-winning supporting cast of Antonio Banderas, Ewan McGregor, Michael Douglas and even a few small scenes with Bill Paxton, newcomer Gina Carano was tough-as-nails on scene and somehow didn’t come off as a fighter who plays at acting, or an actor who plays at fighting, she came across as a lethal fucking weapon, in every sense of that phrase.

[Swift aside: I blew an opportunity to interview her in South Beach, and all I can say is I hope she doesn't bear any grudges, because the thought of Gina Carano gunning for me, quite frankly, terrifies me.  Again though, depending on how she dispatched me, there are worse ways to die, I suppose.]

Because this movie was stylized as a heist film, with the requisite double-crosses and a pseudo 70′s soundtrack, I can’t give away too much about the story.  Point of fact, there wasn’t much story to be told, there was a whole hell of a lot of walking and foot-chases to sate Jason Bourne fans.  They won’t be disappointed.  I did hear one person in my row say, “What the hell, they are just showing her walking . . . and there’s no music.”  I hope Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy doesn’t translate into more of these ‘extended transition moments’ in cinema.

Haywire starts out with Marine veteran, Mallory Kane (Carano) meeting someone in an upstate New York diner.  Then things quickly go, wait for it, haywire!  (I love when the title of the film fits so perfectly into a review).  Mallory is a sub-contractor for a government agency that handles things the employers might not like traced back to their government.  She manages to escape the diner and sorta carjacks a young college kid, Scott (Michael Angarano) who, let’s face it, aint exactly trying to get away from her.  To me, Carano looks like a cross between Jolie and Spears, but she can literally hand you your ass!!  (Hey, I wanted to give you something special, so, here is your ass).  Accordingly, Scott buckles up and listens to her spill her guts about why she is on the run.

It isn’t clear if she is normally an assassin, a body guard, a goon, or what, we just know that on this particular job, she has been hired to retrieve a hostage in Barcelona, or to go along with the heist theme, the hostage, Jiang (Anthony Brandon Wong) becomes the sought after ‘package’.   Her team manages to retrieve the package, but other folks have different plans for that package, and she is caught in the middle.  Can she trust her employer, and lover, Kenneth (McGregor), the government agent (Michael Douglas) or her new MI6 contact, Paul (Magneto…I mean Michael Fassbender)?  Hell, can she trust anyone?  She soon finds out that the only person she can really trust is her dad, a Retired Marine Colonel (Semper Fi) who is a successful writer of his exploits overseas.  Paxton didn’t have his a-game in this one, but he didn’t suck either.

I recommend checking this Soderbergh film out, but not because of anything he did, other than get an incredible performance out of a neophyte actress who is sure to be all over the freakin’ place soon!  He just launched her career, she will be the most sought after ass kicking beauty this decade . . . mark my words!  She did this one thing in the film where she kept kind of biting her lip, and I don’t know if that was scripted, directed, but whoever came up with that little tick . . . keep it!  Hell, Gina, take some friendly advice, make that your “thing” – Arnold had “I’ll be back.”   You can do that lip biting thing in all of your movies and you will have at least one fan for life.  Oh, I also wanted to add she walked around with an umbrella which reminded me of Mrs. Peel from The Avengers or a lethal Marry Poppins, either way, I heard she is in talks to be the next Wonder Woman, you don’t need the lasso of truth to know I second that!

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

A whole lot of nothing!

The H-Bomb:   Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) is an A-list movie star living the Hollywood Bad Boy life; boozing, partying, women, so on and so forth.  Basically, all the drinking, all the drugging, all the screwing are supposed too compensate for the fact that, despite being filthy rich and successful, his life is pretty damn boring (just so you know, the word “boring” and its various synonyms are going to appear frequently in this review).  It’s all Johnny’s way of filling the utter emptiness of his existence.  That’s not to say his life isn’t without its little pleasures; he’s treated to a show by a couple of pole dancing stripper twins, which he falls asleep during, he’s receiving obscene text messages from an unknown sender, he’s asked stupid questions by idiot journalists with strange accents in a press conference, and he gives absolutely worthless advice to aspiring actors.

If I had his life, I’d probably bomb myself into a perpetual stupor, as well.  Oh, but there is a bright spot through Johnny’s chemically induced haze: his lovely little daughter, Cleo (Elle Fanning), who is dropped on his doorstep at the famed Chateau Marmont hotel one day out of the blue.  The mother explains to him that she has to go off to parts unknown for reasons unknown, and she charges Johnny with the crucial task of getting Cleo to summer camp by a certain date.  Failure to do so could bring about catastrophic consequences that could unravel the space-time continuum and destroy existence as we know it!  Actually, none of that would happen (God forbid that would make this movie interesting, if illogical), but she does have to get to camp by a certain date.

So, stuck with the kid for a few weeks, Johnny hauls her around on all his various exploits of nothingness.  To Italy, to Vegas, and all over L.A.  We sense that he doesn’t really know his daughter, and that this is the first time he’s spending any real time with her.  So, we get treated to the pleasure of seeing them bond by doing a whole lot of nothing together… like eat ice cream in bed while watching “Friends”, or playing “Guitar Hero”, or sunbathing, amongst many, many other edge-of-your-seat activities.  And it’s during all these thrilling non-adventures that they bond in a significant way… I guess, and Johnny learns a valuable life lesson about . . . something . . . or . . . nothing.  I’m leaning towards the latter.

I really would love to discuss more of the plot, except there isn’t any more to discuss.  Sofia Coppola’s fourth film, “Somewhere”, is the latest addition to that ever growing sub-genre of indie film, the “Nothing Happens” genre.  Standing alongside such gems as “The Brown Bunny” and that Jim Jarmusch snoozer “The Limits of Control”, “Somewhere” continues in that same stylistic vein of long, static shots with seemingly endless scenes of characters doing little-to-nothing in them.  And I am speaking very literally, folks.  Every single scene in the film either has Johnny and Cleo doing nothing, or doing something so fucking mundane that it’s really not worth mentioning or watching . . . for that matter.

At the least “The Brown Bunny” rewarded us at the end with Chloe Sevigny sucking off Vincent Gallo.  With “Somewhere”, we don’t get anything even remotely that interesting or memorable.  The only scene that I would qualify as notable, and I am reaching here, is the one involving Johnny and a naked male masseuse.  The only reason I remembered that was because it’s the one quasi-entertaining scene in the entire film.  That aside, Princess Coppola’s newest opus is one in which nothing happens, then more nothing happens, then even more nothing happens, and then, mercifully, after 90-plus minutes, it ends.  This kind of minimalist style can work sometimes, “Elephant” and “Blow Up” spring to mind, but in an instance like this, where there is no compelling story, no emotion, and no drama of any kind, then it just makes for one excruciatingly DULL movie.  It was duller than a butter knife in Al Gore’s drawers.

[Swift thought: while editing this paragraph, "The Simpsons- The D'oh-cial Network" JUST burned on Princess Coppola for making movies where nothing happens!]

I’ve been writing for iRATEfilms since mid-2009, and in that time, I have sat through some genuine shitbags, but I have to say, with all sincerity, this is the worst movie I have ever reviewed for this site.  I shit thee not, dear readers, I would not say it if I didn’t mean it, it is the absolute WORST, period.  I loathed it.  Despised it.  If the DVD weren’t a rental copy, I would smash it to pieces and fucking burn it!  Holy Hell, when crap like “My Soul to Take” and the pisss poor “Hisss” look good by comparison, something is really, truly wrong.  At least those movies tried to tell stories.  They failed miserably, but they at least tried to have actual characters taking part in an actual plot, with an actual beginning, middle, and end.  “Somewhere” doesn’t even attempt any of that.  It is cinematic vapor.  It’s like an entire movie made up of outtakes . . . outtakes that go on for eternity and aren’t even remotely amusing.  And that it was brought to me by an Academy Award Winning Filmmaker makes it all the more infuriating.  Jennifer Chambers Lynch, you are off the hook, there is a new nepotistic Daddy’s Girl director at the top of my shit list now.

Some of the apologists for this empty void of nada masquerading as a movie will argue that it’s a thoughtful (sigh), existential (eye roll) tone poem (face palm) about the life of a man burned out by the meaninglessness of his fast n’ hard lifestyle, and that it’s his relationship with his daughter that brings him true happiness and redemption.  Okay, that’s all well and good, except it’s presented in such a way that it isn’t at all touching or moving.  For Christ’s sake, the movie doesn’t move!  Maybe if Princess Coppola actually bothered to write a script, instead of just turning the camera on and telling the actors to do whatever, she possibly might have had something.  Sadly, she went the lazy route instead.  “But it won Best Picture at the Venice Film Festival!”  Well, to that I have two questions, what the hell movie did they watch, and haven’t the learned to stop sampling the water whilst on those over-priced gondolas?  Did Daddy Coppola have Nitrous Oxide leaked into the theater during that screening?

The damnable thing of it is, I am a fan of Princess Coppola as a director.  “The Virgin Suicides” was near brilliant, and “Lost in Translation” was one of the best films of the last decade (though I must confess, “Marie Antoinette” looked so fucking awful from the trailers I never bothered with it).  So, as a fan of hers, I wanted to see “Somewhere” and I went in expecting to like it, but . . . as I think I clearly stated, I didn’t!  She took the understated style and tone she established with “Lost in Translation” and amplified it to a point where it rendered the movie inert, lifeless, and… did I mention boring, already?

It is a stupefyingly pretentious, astonishingly over-indulgent waste of time.  In fact, it’s worse, it’s a waste of a waste of time, made by one of the most spoiled brats in all of Hollywood, and Daddy Coppola should give that brat a good spanking, send her to her room, and not let her out until she remembers how to make a good movie again.  “Somewhere” is a film that goes absolutely nowhere, and it would be smart of you to go nowhere near it!

(2 People gave this 4.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally released in 1991, “Beauty and the Beast” was the 30th Disney animated film.  It may be over 20 years old now but, like most Disney animated films, it’s timeless.  And hey, this one is a tale as old as time, right??

Belle (Paige O’Hara) lives with her father Maurice (Rex Everhart) in a village in France.  Everyone in their village thinks they are both crazy:  Maurice because he is a crackpot inventor (he’s just a little eccentric!) and Belle because she’s a little odd, and she also enjoys to read.  Gaston (Richard White) is the town brute.  Everyone thinks he’s awesome while in reality he’s really boorish and brainless (as Belle tells him).  Gaston is dead set on marrying Belle, but she wants nothing to do with him.  Belle dreams of adventures and getting away from her village.  She soon gets her wish when her father gets lost on his way to an inventors function and his horse Philippe finds his way back home.  Concerned for her father’s safety, Belle hops on Philippe and he leads her to a castle in the woods.

But this is no normal castle, this castle is magical.  Its residents include a Beast (Robby Benson) and his servants who have been transformed into enchanted objects.  When he was a human prince, the Beast was mean and selfish and he made the wrong person mad, because she happened to be an enchantress who cast a spell upon the prince and his servants, turning the prince into a hideous Beast and his servants into objects such as a candelabra, Lumiere (Jerry Orbach), a clock, Cogsworth (David Ogden Stiers), a teapot, Mrs. Potts (Angela Lansbury), and a teacup, Chip (Bradley Pierce), to name a few.  The prince and his crew were doomed to remain in their new appearances forever, unless someone falls in love with the Beast.

Easier said than done, as the Beast has a bit of a temper problem.  He pretty much kidnapped Maurice and said he would keep him forever (because he trespassed in his castle, but only to escape a pack of wolves and rain), until Belle offers to take his place as the Beast’s prisoner.   The enchanted objects are hopeful that Belle may be the one to break the spell, but to get Belle to fall in love with the Beast is a near impossible task.

The soundtrack to “Beauty and the Beast” features the fantastic songs “Belle”, “Gaston”, “Be Our Guest”, “Something There”, “Beauty and the Beast”, and “The Mob Song”.  Each number is exciting and fun and definitely makes you want to sing along!!

While I’m not a huge fan of 3D in movie theaters (I feel that it belongs in theme parks), I have to mention that the 3D version of “Beauty and the Beast” looked amazing.  It added depth and richness to the scenes in the forest.  It made an already fantastic movie even better.  Also of note, this version of the movie does not include the song “Human Again” which was featured on the Platinum Edition DVD release that came out in 2002.

Trivia:  I did some research and although it’s never mentioned in the movie, according to imdb, it was revealed on a Disney CD-Rom game that the price’s human name is Adam.  So now you know!!

One thing that always puzzled me:  In the prologue, it states that the enchantress cast the spell and gave him a rose that would bloom until his 21st year.  However in the song “Be Our Guest”, the enchanted objects state that they’ve been in their current non-human state for ten years.  So was the prince 11 when the enchantress cast the spell on him?  If so, he looked awful grown for 11 years old!!  And, where were his parents??  Is this an error or am I missing something??

Before the movie, there is a short called “Tangled Ever After”, which continues the story of Rapunzel and Flynn Rider (Mandy Moore and the totally awesome Zachary Levi).   I won’t spoil the plot but I will say that Maximus the horse and Pascal the chameleon totally steal the show!!  It was a nice continuation of the “Tangled” story.  Unfortunately, I did not notice if Rapunzel was wearing shoes this time.

It’s a two for one special you just can’t miss!!