“Don’t bELIeve”

 

“The Book of Eli”

(2 Stars out of 5)

                The problem I’ve found with a lot of “post apocalyptic” themed films is that generally they’re depressing. Why? Because you’ve got a story about people living in tattered clothes, so far gone that they’re basically back to the stone-age, and many times the sky has been scorched so the color scheme of the film features a lot of grays, deserts and muted colors. It’s difficult to find core audiences for movies that make you feel depressed while you’re watching them. Go ahead- stare a sepia toned photograph for two hours- I guarantee you you’ll be a bit bored.

                Following the lead of (better) films like Mel Gibson’s “Mad Max” series and Kevin Costner’s “Water World” comes “The Book of Eli”. Directed by The Hughes Brothers (“From Hell” and “Menace II Society,” the movie features a quality cast; Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman, back doing what he does so well- playing the bad dude. For Tom Waits fans- he’s here too, making a cameo appearance as “the Engineer”. (Remember, Tom Petty appeared briefly in the “Post Man!”)

                I found the plot is tired. Denzel plays “Eli” a lone soldier on an epic quest through scorched terrain under a dark and dire sky. Eli doesn’t answer to any body and if somebody tries to cross him he takes care of himself, as quickly and as violently as possible. He equips himself with, a lethal bow and arrow, a gun nobody believes is loaded, (apparently bullets will be hard to come by after the fall,) and a giant curved machete that even Rambo would be envious of. Most importantly, Eli travels alone- which is why he’s sour to the idea of Solara (played by “Family Guy’s” Mila Kunis) coming along with him after he passes through her town while on his quest West. Solara wants to get away from the regime led by Gary Oldman’s character, Carnegie in the town that she’s from.

                Solara ends up coming along for the ride because she knows where fresh water is. Remember, it’s post-apocalypse so water’s hard to come by. It would have been nice to see Denzel pee into one of Kevin Costner’s apparatuses from “Water World” that turn urine into fresh water. That would’ve solved most of his problems.

                Aside from lack of water- most of the cliché costume designs are here as well. The ozone’s got a hole in it so everybody’s wearing tinted pool goggles to keep their eyes from going blind from the sun. Nobody showers, and they all wear spray painted football gear and ride around on armored motorcycles. Gary Oldman’s even got the ol’ fleet of armored vehicles to drive around in. We’re not really sure where they get the gasoline from, but that’s beside the point. The “armored” vehicle is text book Post-Apocalyptic Future 101.

                Bad guy Carnegie is powerful because he’s smart. He comes from the “Old World” and has knowledge of what life was like before “the War”.  He uses his smarts and his ability to read to intimidate and lead by a mix of force with fear. Eli is the polar opposite and also comes from the “Old World”. Eli is equally as smart and as dangerous but chooses to live a quiet life of peace. (That is unless he’s provoked- then he becomes the Bulletproof Monk). Carnegie takes an immediate liking to him as soon as Eli strolls into town to get a recharge on the battery he carries. The battery is used to power Eli’s iPod, which he listens to Classic Rock music on to get through his lonely nights.

                Carnegie is also on a quest. He’s looking for a book, one book in particular in fact. He believes that if he possesses the book, he’ll have access to unequivocal power. Since there are many who can’t read, only he can mold minds with the book’s true purpose. As Carnegie so blatantly states, “it’s not a book! It’s a weapon!” You’ve might have figured out by now that Eli is carrying a copy of this book, hence the film’s title. In fact he may very well be carrying one of the last copies of the book in existence. Many of the copies were burned after “the war”. The book is “The Holy Bible” which is supposed to lead audience members to wonder if Carnegie really could instill the power of religion onto a broken and shattered world. If he did so, he would probably twist the Bible’s power for good into that of evil, which is far from the Holy book’s whole point. Eli senses that Carnegie does not have good intentions for the his book and makes the quick decision to protect it at all cost, rather than hand it over. The other men that Carnegie had looking for the Bible can’t read, so be on the lookout for hilarious irony- like when they drop off a shipment they’re sure Carnegie will enjoy. One of the books is >gasp!< “The Da Vinci Code!” Hey people—if you actually read “The Da Vinci Code “ you’d know it was a work of fiction- and no worse to religion than the stories woven in the “Indiana Jones” series. Can we get past Dan Brown being the anti-Christ yet?

                The rest of the movie is standard good versus evil. There just isn’t much here for me to have considered it “good”.  For those who haven’t realized: movie companies save their best films for Summer and Christmas. Anything released in between is just filler. That being said, “The Book of Eli” isn’t terrible filler. You could do worse; “Legion” and “Extraordinary Measures” come to mind if you really want to be depressed. The end of “Eli” features an interesting twist, which almost makes up for the boredom I sat through for the first hour  and the acting is fine- but for the most part, the same type of movie has been done before and in my opinion, done better. I like you Denzel, I really do, but you haven’t impressed me in like 9 years (“Training Day”). And no, “Inside Man 2” is not going to do it.

Quick Takes: Reviewing Some Previews

By the way fans- I saw “Avatar” in the theatre for a second time and liked it just as much if not more. So if I can sit through a 3 hour movie twice, and still have respect for it- then it’s gotta be good! Go see it!!!

Okay, I know this might be serious cheat of a post because I don’t actually have a film to review–but I had to get my feelings out there for all to see.

Is it just me, or do the previews for both “Iron Man 2″ and Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” do nothing to make the movies look good?

The prestige of “Iron Man” was Robert Downey Jr’s motor-mouthed spin as billionaire weapons inventor Tony Stark but the preview for the sequel makes Stark look like an annoying, flamboyant, mockery of himself with Downey Jr. actually trying too hard. I snickered at the scene of Stark going off on duty wanting a kiss from Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts character but I was less than excited for the race car explosion and the team-up of Iron Man and War Machine. (For those of you who don’t read the comic- War Machine is the same type of character as Iron Man- only War Machine is…(drum roll) black and gray!!! WOW!!!!!!)

Sure every comic book nerd in the world knew that War Machine would be coming once Arthur Rhodes looked at the suit in “Iron Man” and said something along the lines of ‘that’s for later’ but does it have to be so corny? If what they show in the preview is the last scene of the movie I might vomit in the aisle. This has the makings of Iron Man being in trouble and War Machine coming in to save the day…(cue War Machine’s solo movie…) Repeat after me: please don’t be “Spider-Man 3″…please don’t be “Spider-Man 3″.

Plus that damn race car explosion- didn’t we blow Tony Stark out of Hummer in “Iron Man”? Do we really need to repeat? Does Jon Favereau really need to cater to NASCAR fans?? I have never seen Tony Stark step foot in a race car in the “Iron Man” comic books. (Though don’t get angry with me if you have, I’ve only been reading the books for the last 26 years…. and Iron Man is a lot older than that.)

I barely want to get started on director Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” starring Russell Crowe. Let’s just call it what it is- “Gladiator 2: The Return of Maximus”. The Robin Hood that I know did not chuck giant swords across battlefields–he shot with bows and arrows and lived in the forest.

And I get that Scott and Crowe are trying to do something ‘new’ with the character, and tell us a story that hasn’t been told before. But guess what, Disney tried to do that with Clive Owen’s “King Arthur” and look how that worked out. Even when I went through a Clive Owen phase, and actually tried to like “King Arthur” it still didn’t work. The only thing memorable about that movie was the scenes of the arrows getting shot, and the viewer gets to follow the flight of the arrow–but even that is done so many times in the movie you become desensitized to it.

I wanted to see Russell Crowe kick ass as Robin Hood. I didn’t want to see Russel Crowe get his ass kicked and BECOME Robin Hood. This preview just reminds me to put Gladiator in the ol’ Blu Ray player and press play. Don’t forget too people, Mr. Scott also directed “Kingdom of Heaven” and didn’t that win Best Picture Forever? Um no, that was more a flop than a fat man diving into a swimming pool. (1 Star out of 5 by the way)

Maybe if I psych myself out for these movies they’ll be great!! Who knows?

Must See Movies of 2009

The last day of the year means that every single Tom, Dick, and Harriet on the planet will be posting their lists of “Top” whatever. Whether its the “Top” of the decade or the “Top” list of the year- I might as well hop on the bandwagon and post my thoughts too! I know my fans have been dying to know; what were the best movies of 2009? Well without further ado, here they are.

Ryan’s 10 Favorite Films of 2010

“Inglourious Basterds” (4 Stars out of 5): If you want to read the full review for director Quentin Tarantino’s latest than it’s in a separate post. “Bastereds” doubles as the most graphic film (scalping) and also the best movie released in 2009. Featuring classic Tarantino suspense scenes and the role of Hans Landa played to perfection by Christoph Waltz. If Waltz does not win “Best Supporting” Actor at the Oscars than injustice has been done. Landa is not only the best character on the silver screen this year, he may be one of the best movie villains of all time. In addition, I’m still quoting the final scenes, where Hitler asks someone for gum and Brad Pitt’s Lt. Aldo Raine tries his best to pass as an Italian. Hey Quentin! “Grazie”.

“Zombieland” (4 Stars out of 5): Still a film I have yet to post a review for, and the only movie that I deemed worth of seeing twice this year. I took my wife to see it once (a Halloween tradition to see at least one gory or scary movie) and then it was so great that I had to take my dad to see it again! One of the best horror comedies I’ve ever seen, all of the blood and guts happens in the opening sequence. If you’re squeamish–fear not- if you can get through the opening 30 seconds the rest of the movie is just plain fun. There’s a couple of scenes that’ll make you jump, but for the most part, you’ll be holding your sides while laughing. This movie is “28 Days Later” meets “the 40 Year Old Virgin” and it features the most hilarious cameo of the year. Funny for the most part- because fans of the film kept it such a secret! As a fan myself, I won’t reveal the special celebrity appearance but I will say it is one of the funniest performances by this person in years. Woody Harrelson is superb as Tallahassee. It was a role that looked like fun to play, and it was obvious that Harrelson made the most fun of it! If you missed it, they probably will not release it on DVD until next Halloween (sad). But that makes the most sense for sales. See it in 2010!!!

“Star Trek” (3.5 Stars out of 5): I have to admit I’m sort of a ”Trekkie”. I grew up watching “the Next Generation” and we made it a family night to sit down together to see (gulp) “Voyager” every week! The last two “Treks” were forgettable at best. One featured villains that gave themselves face-lifts, the other a Romulan Picard clone. Those are the only two things I remember about them. Sorry Jonathan Frakes- I loved ya as Commander Riker, but you almost ruined “Star Trek” forever. Thank you JJ Abrams for bringing it back. Before the opening credits even roll director Abrams changes the “Trek” universe forever by killing off Kirk’s father. This non-stop action-adventure film is awesome from start to finish. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before in Sci-Fi (which is the reason I can’t give it more than the rating I did) but it achieved the one thing that it set out to do: made “Star Trek” cool again. The only corny part of the whole movie takes place on the planet that Kirk is banished to. The rest is action-packed, funny, and very nicely filmed. Great job JJ!!

“The Hangover” (3.5 Stars out of 5): To read my full review, I have a post that I wrote when the film was first released. Now that it’s out on DVD and I’ve seen it again, I still marvel at how little the film had to lose. A cast of unknowns, and a movie that took like a week to film, Todd Phillips’ latest successfully puts him back on top as a great comedy director. Phillips needed his place back after “Starsky and Hutch” and “School for Scoundrels”…ugh! After seeing it twice, “The Hangover” may run 15-20 minutes too long, but it’s laugh-out-loud funny from start to finish. I still wonder what the heck the chicken is doing in the room, but then again I question the crow and squirrel still from “It’s a Wonderful Life”. For fans of raunchy comedy, (“40 Year Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up”) than go out and rent the film now that’s it’s on DVD. Ladies- shut your eyes during the photos shown in the closing credits. To Mr. Galafianakis: 1) Welcome back! 2) Very disgusting photos in those credits!

“Up” (5 Stars out of 5): Another Disney classic. A bit backwards- you’ll cry in the beginning and laugh all the way up to the end. It was great in 3-D at the movies, but I have yet to see the DVD I received for Christmas. I’m still annoyed that they don’t release 3-D movies in 3-D on DVD. The story of a bitter old man in a floating house trying to reach his childhood paradise after the death of his wife is cute and endearing. I’m still quoting the talking dog months later. Do you really need to know more than this? I gave it a perfect score! Just go see it! When was the last time Disney failed with a CGI cartoon? Never.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” (4 Stars out of 5): Nice year Mr. Clooney! For my full review please check out my blog post entitled “Fantastic!!” In director Wes Andersons’ latest, Anderson takes a beloved children’s classic and turns it into the type of movie that Spike Jonze should have made with “Where the Wild Things Are”. The cast is terrific, the stop-animation might be different at first, but you adjust. It’s funny, it’s charming, and it’s classic Wes Anderson! Like “The Hangover” my one beef might be its length. There are one or two scenes I could have done without, but “Mr. Fox” was relased a month after “Zombieland” which means I originally saw it after four weeks of yawn-worthy flops. This film is a must see and hopefully wins an award or two come Oscar time. Its got some stiff competition though–the Best Animated Film category will also feature “Up” and Disney’s “The Princess and the Toad”.

“Avatar” (4 Stars out of 5): To read my full review then go to the post entitled “Hello Hollywood? It’s me Ryan, Thank You for Restorting My Faith in You”. I’ve had friends who’ve seen it since and complain that the plot is poor. The plot?? Um- did you SEE the 3-D effects??? Okay, admittedly the plot might be lacking and at 3 hours long that might be a deterrent for some. The problem with the plot though, is not the acting- it’s the story. The story has been done before, and for a movie that took almost 20 years to make, of course there are going to be things we’ve seen! The beauty of Avatar though, and the reason it will change movies forever, is not it’s plot- it’s the technology and effects of it. It still gets my vote for one of the best movies of 2009! The film achieves something that most movies of its type fail to do, lives up to its hype!

“Up in the Air” (3.5 Stars out of 5): I deem this, “Garden State” for the middle-aged. But you know what? It’s still a great film. There’s nothing fantastic about it, it’s just classically good. The type of film you can watch over and over, and when it’s on television someday it’s that type of movie you can watch bits and pieces of twenty times and still want to watch again whenever it’s on. A lighter version of Sofia Coppola’s “Lost in Translation”. Namely because it took me a couple of views to finally ‘get’ “Lost in Translation”, you really have to be in the right mood for it. Clooney is great in “Up in the Air”. I like any movie that Clooney makes where he forces you to forget that it’s George Clooney you’re looking at. Any movie where I focus on his character more than him is aces in my book. “Up in the Air” is tough to categorize, it’s probably a “dramedy” that flirts in parts with becoming either straight up comedy or drama. It’s from the director of “Juno” and “Thank You for Smoking”. If you’ve seen those movies, than you know the type of genre that you’re in for. “Up in the Air” may win Best Picture and Clooney is sure to be up for “Best Actor” so it’s certainly a must-see. There’s nothing overly spectacular about it, it’s just one of those rare movies that is just plain good, end of story.

“I Love You, Man” (3 Stars out of 5): Did we forget about this one already? Come on! Already becoming supremely underrated, “I Love You, Man” is a comedy love story about two dudes who are not gay cowboys. Paul Rudd plays Peter Klaven, a man on his way to marriage who realizes he’s spent so long on career and his relationship that he hasn’t had time to make any guy friends! The guys that he hangs out with are friends of his wife’s friends that he doesn’t really get along with. Klaven is classically aloof and as a married man myself, I related a lot to him. This was a crude comedy that managed to be funny without being overtly crude. Sure there are a couple of scenes such as, throwing up at a poker game and the ‘masterbation station’ but it’s all in good fun. Rudd and screen partner Jason Segal have great on-screen chemistry. I wouldn’t say Segal is going to be my favorite actor of all time but he’s good enough! “I Love You, Man” is awfully endearing.

“(500) Days of Summer” (3 Stars out of 5): One of the more original films of 2009 takes place in bits in pieces over a time span of 500 days. It’s all spliced up like John Lennon did for “Revolution 9″ on the “White Album”. Day One might take place twenty minutes into the film but then Day Two might not be shown until close to the end, however it all comes together to make sense. Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt and actress Zooey Deschanel are a great on-screen pair. There’s a few scenes that might not make sense to the common movie goer, such as Gordon-Levitt’s dance scene or the part where he’s walking down the street and the shot goes from live action to sketched scenery, to black and white sketch, to erased. I’ve seen plenty of indie films to know a good one when I see it- and this is a good one. Not going to win a lot of awards, and it might lose its allure over the test of time- but with the year in review, it was truly one of the most original and one of the better films released!

There are movies that came out in 2009 that I have not seen yet, but hope to before Oscar time. The reason they didn’t make my list here is because I didn’t see them. I obviously cannot and should not review a movie I didn’t see!

“The Hurt Locker”: Probably going to win Best Picture. Somebody let me know if they find it on DVD!!

“District 9″: I’ve heard it’s “28 Days Later” meets “Cloverfield” and since “Cloverfield” made me sick to my stomach, and I actually had to walk out of it and see “Definitely, Maybe” instead- I’m still waiting to take the plunge…

“Sherlock Holmes“: Okay so I’ve heard mixed things and I know it’s not going to be a “classic”  but I’ve got a man crush on Robert Downey Jr. He’s great!

“Hello Hollywood? It’s Me Ryan, Thank You For Reestablishing My Belief in You!”

“Avatar” 4.5 Stars out of 5

“Wow, that was terrific” were the only words my father and I could muster and say to each other as we clapped and the title “Avatar” came at us in 3-D neon green. The credits rolled, and thus, movies have been changed forever. Twentieth Century Fox never truly got annoying with their sales campaign for James Cameron’s (“Titanic”, “Terminator”, “Alien”) latest, until a week before its release. That’s right around the time that Panasonic realized that it could sell more TVs by…telling us consumers that Cameron used their monitors to shoot the film. Um, can anybody else say—whoopdeedoo?

For years “Avatar” has been where James Cameron has been hanging his hat. Keeping all the plot points a secret, meanwhile swearing to all of us, that his film not only cost over $200 million to make, but that it would change movies as we knew them, forever. He’s even said he’ll never film in any type of medium other than 3-D ever again. Well if that is indeed the case, and his next movies are anything like “Avatar” than my palms are sweating in anticipation.

After what can only be described as the biggest “let down” year in film history, 2009 goes out with a bang releasing “Avatar” and (what I hope to be a great,) “Sherlock Holmes” back to back. “Avatar” has rekindled my schoolboy obsession in movies and has inserted itself instantly into (at least) my top 30 films of all time.

YES! It’s absolutely terrific, with amazing special effects and the most crisp 3-D you’ll ever see.

YES! It mixes the best CGI you’ll ever lay eyes upon with actual footage of human beings with seemless detail. CGI so good that if you leave the theatre to use the bathroom- your eyes take an extra second to adjust because your body has never witnessed technology so good.

YES! Even at almost 3 hours long the movie never seems boring. And it accomplishes this feat with tales of love, betrayal, and religion. It’s not even a non-stop action epic.

That’s what makes it so amazing. “Avatar” not only does exactly what it says, by changing movies forever- it’s actually a great movie as well. It’s like James Cameron put on a chef’s hat and took every part of things like  ”Star Wars”, “Jurassic Park”, ”Lost”, and the “Final Fantasy” video game series, and used our own history involving Terrorism, American Indians and even African-Americans, sprinkled in to spice it all up. He put it all in a pot, let it boil and “Avatar” was formed.

Clocking in at one of the longer films of this year, (2 hours and 40 minutes,) the plot follows a  paraplegic marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington, “Terminator Salvation”)  who has lost his brother.  Sully’s brother was set to embark on a mission to the fictional planet Pandora, where human beings have set up a base.  From this base, the humans, led by Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribissi, “Friends” his sister had his babies) are trying to mine a precious metal that sells for a lot of money per ounce. Parker’s right-hand man is Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang, “Public Enemies”).  Quaritch is the type of cliché cut throat army guy film goers have loved to hate over the years but actor Lang plays him to uncanny degree. 

Sully arrives on Pandora to carry out his brother’s mission. His brother was to link up to a 10-foot tall, blue skinned Avatar, and learn from the local tribe called the Na’Vi. Selfridge wants to mine for their precious mineral and the largest deposit of it can be found directly under a large tree where the Na’vi have made their home. If Sully can join them, learn from them, and earn their trust, perhaps he can get them to move peacefully. In return, Colonel Quaritch will make sure Sully gets his legs back- his “real legs”. Jake has three months, once that time is up Quaritch moves in and takes the area by force.

A seemingly simple mission for Jake Sully turns rapidly into a question of exactly whom he’s fighting for. As American’s with any sense of self-history we’re left to think about our own actions against Native Americans, and the current battle against Terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Na’Vi are a peaceful people who hunt with bows and arrows. Unbeknownst to them, being hunted by humans who have every type of weapon invented by sci-fi at their disposal.

Writer/Director Cameron effortlessly threads together plots of power, love, respect, betrayal, and religion. My one and only beef with the movie is that the Na’Vi are just too cartoonish. All blue, at ten feet tall with four fingers, four toes and a devil’s tail, it’s truly hard to develop real sentiment toward characters that are obviously animated.  I was  torn between the jaw-dropping effects of the movie and whether or not to cry when one of Na’Vi gets killed during the fighting. I am reminded of Matthew Perry’s joke on “Friends” when Chandler is asked why he didn’t cry when Bambi’s mother was killed. He responds with his sarcastic quick wit, “yes it was very sad when the man stopped drawing the deer!”

Also, the Na’Vi all look so darn a-like that when the fighting starts it’s hard to keep track of who’s who! Everybody’s on their flying dragon and dive-bombing the helicarriers, it takes you a moment to focus on who is where. The most unbelievable character in the movie is Sigourney Weaver in her Avatar, because she wears shorts and a Stanford University sweatshirt. I’m not sure what James Cameron was trying to accomplish with there. The Avatars are supposed to be blending in with the locals–why have one of them wearing a Stanford sweatshirt?

That aside, “Avatar” is truly the best movie this year. It was the one and only movie to develop hype and live up to it. For me, it actually went above and beyond- every review I read said “beautifully filmed, average plot”. I disagree. I think the plot was a great- a tad predictable but sometimes that’s a good thing! The special effects are everything they said they would be, and not a single detail was skimmed on. There are hundreds of Na’Vi on the screen- Cameron could have easily made the ones in the background ‘cheaper’ but he didn’t. Not one effect is cheapened, even down to the swirling gnats that are flying around buzzing in your face in 3-D when the characters are trekking through the local flora and fauna.

It gets my vote for Best Picture, Best Director (never had my stomach turned before by an animated character peeking over an animated cliff), and best Special Effects. If the movie truly has changed cinema forever, we cannot cheapen it with a Best Animated Feature Oscar. Cameron also MUST release this movie on DVD in 3-D.

I mean,  is anybody else as annoyed as I am that all these movies we pay extra money for to watch in 3-D come out as normal films when they hit DVD? I mean- “Up” was fantastic. Why the heck didn’t they release it on DVD in 3-D?

“Avatar” was filmed in 3-D. It was made to be seen in 3-D. If the DVD is not released in 3-D I’m going to die just a little inside.

Final thought: DO NOT MISS THIS MOVIE!!!

Fantastic!!

 

“The Fantastic Mr. Fox” (4 Stars out of 5)

So, I apologize for my neglect, but I’ve been dormant for so long because I’ve been waiting for the right review to post for my return. The holidays have begun, and with Thanksgiving weekend now past that means the big-time movies are starting to be released. Now I thought “New Moon” was…oh wait- that movie’s only big because they advertise the crap out of it.

Aside from “Zombieland” which I have yet to post a blog for- the best movie out right now is rated PG and is the greatest stop animation since Gumby. Director Wes Anderson brings together his usual cast for his sixth feature length film and even though it’s a ‘kiddie’ film, he manages to incorporate most of his infamous  trademarks we’ve come to love. For this most recent release Anderson pools together his talents of dry, witty humor and story-telling craft,  into his most easy-paced, funny and accessible film to date. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is like “The Royal Tenenbaums” meets “Wallace and Grommit” and it features grown-up PG humor we’ve come to love from other ‘kiddie’ movies like “Shrek”. (Puss In Boots with the cat knip anyone?) In a word- it’s exactly as it’s title implies; fantastic.

Film veterans George Clooney and Meryl Streep make their Wes Anderson debuts, and are fine in their roles as Mr. and Mrs. Fox. In fact, Clooney plays Mr. Fox like a stop-animation version of Danny Ocean where as Streep takes a gentle, yet strong approach to the role Mrs. Fox. However, it is the usual Anderson ‘go-to’ cast that makes the film its hysterical success. Voices from Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Willen Dafoe, Owen Wilson, Wallace Wolodarsky and even a brief cameo by Adrien Brody bring the film to life. Missing from action this time around is Anderson vet Angelica Huston, and I found myself missing the characters she brings to the table in Wes’ films. For fans of his previous works, she’s noticeably absent.

The plot is based on the original book written by author Roald Dahl. In fact, Wes Anderson actually stayed on Dahl’s property in England to get inspiration for the film. The tree the Fox family lives in is styled after a beech tree found on Dahl’s property and Fox’s study is said to be modeled after the garden hut where Roald Dahl did most of his writing.  

Mr. and Mrs. Fox start out as thieves who wind up in one trap too many and decide its time to wind down and start a family once they find out they’re going to have a baby. Although they create a quiet, simple life for themselves, Mr. Fox is never fully appreciative of his mundane life as a newspaper columnist. Against his better judgement, and the advisement of his lawyer, Fox buys a new home located in a tree that overlooks the farms of Bean, Boggis and Bunce.

The farmers, are three of the nastiest,  and meanest farmers the area has ever seen. Even still, Mr. Fox can’t help but drool over the opportunity to get back to his thieving ways and start stealing everything the farmers have in stock. At first he enlists the help his faithful friend, a possum named Kylie who inadvertently slips in and out of playing dead.

Mr. Fox soon gets in over his head as the three farmers decide enough is enough. Following the lead of Franklin Bean, voiced by (Dumbledore himself,) Michael Gambon, the farmers wage war upon Mr. Fox and start to do everything in their power to uproot his tree and rip out all the ground around it. Fox and his family are forced to dig and flee, narrowly escaping certain death.

What follows is a simple and light story. The other ‘wild animals’ in the area begin to become scared for their lives and eventually they meet up with Fox and his family underground. Fox devises a new plan once they’re far enough underground and out of harms way. With all the animals working together, they can fight back the farmers. The new plan is a success and the animals create a working underground utopia, head up by Mr. Fox himself. All seems grand until the farmers unveil one more trick.

Their new home destroyed by flood, the animals find refuge in a sewer, but along the way they lose one of their young. It’s Mr. Fox’s nephew, Kristofferson. Fox and his crew must come together one more time for a search and rescue mission to  get Kristofferson back and stop the farmers once and for all.

Anderson’s style works perfectly for the film. It’s the type of movie that ’Where the Wild Things Are’ should have and could have been. Granted, I don’t think this is a new medium that Anderson has to stick with for many movies to come, but it was an interesting stray from his norm- and a spot-on perfection of all of his directorial styles. His trademarks are present- dry humor that might take a second viewing to truly understand, the classic ‘in between room’ shot that we’ve seen on Captain Steve Zissou’s ship, the train from Darjeeling Limited and now in ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ as Anderson pans through the animals’ sewer lair.

For a film that runs only one and a half hours, my only gripe with it might be the repetitiveness of the war between the farmers and the animals. Upon leaving a movie I felt like must have run at least two hours, I was shocked by the time when I looked down at my watch. Perhaps the overall story is a little too simple for adults- but the humor and style is there. It’s a great follow-up to ‘Darjeeling Limited’ and it will one day sit upon my DVD shelf with the rest of Anderson’s classics. For all the other R-rated horror flicks out right now, or the 3-D CGI nonsense they shell out, or this damned vampire obsession that needs to die a slow and painful death, the best bang for your buck is a little PG stop-animation movie.  If they ever remake “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” please get Wes Anderson to do it! Happy holidays everybody- up next for me? “A Christmas Carol”.

And that’s all the cuss  I have to say about that!

Reviews from the Vault: Keeping the Faith

“Keeping the Faith” (3 Stars out of 5)

Back in 2000 actor Edward Norton decided to follow up his memorable role in “Fight Club” opposite, Brad Pitt with his directorial film debut. His film, ”Keeping the Faith” follows the story of three life-long friends. One of them, Brian (Norton) has grown up to become a Catholic Priest, another, Jake  (played by Ben Stiller) has grown to become a Jewish Rabbi and the girl of the trio, Anna (Jenna Elfman) has turned into polished corporate professional. When Anna arrives back in New York on business, suddenly the fun and rambunctiousness of their youth turns to an amusing love triangle of sexual tension.

“Keeping the Faith” manages to do a rare thing: incorporate the idea of religion and make it funny, without actually making fun of religion. No, rather the idea behind Norton’s film, written for the screen by Stuart Blumberg (“The Girl Next Door”) is that if you could believe in anything at all, let it be love. (Thank you IMDB)

The plot showcases the trials and tribulations about being a leader in your respective Church community. Brian can’t date or marry since he’s a Priest, and Jake would rather not date until he’s found the right girl.  However, Jake wants to be a more prominent figure at his Synagogue. The problem for him is that in the past, the upper-level positions have gone only to married Jewish men.   Both Brian and Jake are trying to break the molds for their respective communities by offering new, hip, approaches to their weekend sermons, as well as together opening a joint Christian/Jewish coffee shop in their neighborhood to bring their two separate groups together under one, welcoming, roof.

Things spiral out of context for Brian and Jake when Anna returns to town to run a satellite office for her business back in California. They’re not kids anymore, and grown-up Anna just happens to take their breaths away. Brian tries to fight his desires, while Jake gives in to his and takes Anna to bed. A complicated love triangle evolves. For Brian, he can’t be in love with Anna because he’s a Priest. Yet, in his mind, she seems to be throwing him signals. Can Brian just sit and wait in silence, never letting Anna know how he feels, or does he throw everything he’s believed away, to spend life with the girl of his dreams? Brian asks for advice from the other Priests. As one of the older, wiser ones says; he’d been in love once every decade since taking his vows. It all depends on the type of man who Brian wants to be, and his heart should guide him in the right direction.

Meanwhile Anna and Jake are actually in love with each other and they’ve decided to keep it a secret from Brian.  Since Anna is not Jewish, Jake would be looked down upon by the people from his Synagogue.  Jake wants to hide their relationship and do everything he can to keep it a secret.  He lies to himself and he lies to Anna, telling her that he just wants things to stay physical. When Anna breaks down and can’t agree to stay in the friends-with-benefits stage, Jake is forced to make the hard decision and break things off.  It’s for the best, to save his career.

When Jake breaks Anna’s heart, the only person she trusts enough in New York is Brian. She calls him the middle of the night and asks him to come over. Brian takes it as a sign. He’s ready to denounce his faith and spend the rest of his days with Anna. When he arrives at her apartment he can’t wait to tell her. He hardly even notices that she’s upset. Anna tries to get a word in, to tell Brian that her and Jake have been sneaking around behind his back. Instead, out of boiling desperation, Brian tells Anna that he’s in love with her.

What happens next would spoil the ending, and I really don’t like spoilers too much. I like telling the story so that people can make a decision as to whether or not they would like to see a movie. But there’s not point in seeing a movie if you already know how it ends.  ”Keeping the Faith” plays out more like a guilty pleasure movie than a real gem and it has its ups and downs throughout. You could do better with romantic comedies, and you can do worse.  At the very least Edward Norton’s film scores points with its originality.

 Featuring a funny supporting cast, ”Keeping the Faith” keeps you interested enough to stay watching.  I’ve seen the movie twice now and both times I’ve found that I enjoy it. It’s got a good, heartfelt and inoffensive story as well as, a nice soundtrack. My only problem is Jenna Elfman because I just don’t find her altogether appealing as an actress. However, in this role as a grown-up tom boy she seemed to be a nice match for the part. Edward Norton wont’ blow you away with his directorial style, he keeps it simple. Keep it simple and keep the faith, find yourself a nice rainy night and cozy up on the couch to watch a film you maybe missed back at the turn of the new millenium.

My TOP 10 Favorite Films of All Time (2009 Edition)

What I’d like to do for you all is write up a list of my favorite films effective every year. Now, this being my first year of this blog, obviously that’s a lofty promise to keep. However, I think it’s necessary to know where I come from in terms of my taste of movies so that you know a little about where I’m coming from. What follows are my favorite films of all time along with brief explanations as to why for each. The reason it’s good to visit this every year is because tastes change. Had you approached me two years ago, two films that would have been on this list would include,  ”The Last Samurai” and “Garden State”. You will notice that neither of these appear. As I get older, my tastes change. Last time I watched “Garden State” it didn’t hit me as hard as it did back when I first saw it five years ago. A movie like, “Away We Go” is more telling of where I am now in my life.

I also tried my hardest to avoid comedies and Disney films. Movies like “Wedding Crashers” are films that I could literally watch one billion times either on TV (even though I own it…) or on sick days. Most Disney movies, like “Aladdin” and “The Lion King” are obvious classics, but not really my favorite movies ever.  That being said, and without further to do, my top ten fave films are as follows:

1) “The Godfather” (5 Stars out of 5): 

Is it cheating to include trilogies? Sure, but I really don’t care. “The Godfather”,  is more like one movie and a bad sequel. The first two films, (as we’ve seen on AMC,) can be effortless spliced together to make one classic movie. The third film is one I don’t think I’ve seen all the way through, and much like Die Hard 4,  (rated PG-13????) we fans don’t like to talk about it much. A fantastic book by Mario Puzo was turned into two perfect movies by director Francis Ford Coppola. The first Godfather film incorporates a lot of the book, and the second film incorporates even more.  Performances from Brando, Pacino, De Niro, Caan and Duval speak for themselves. If you’ve ever found that you don’t like, or can’t follow the movie- read the book!  True character development for the secondary characters is about the only thing lacking from Coppola’s classics. After reading the book, I couldn’t wait to watch the movies again and they all made perfect sense! The best, most untouchable book adaptations ever.

2) “The Lord of the Rings” (4.5 Stars out of 5):

My favorite books of all time, written by J.R.R. Tolkien. When the preview to the first film, “Fellowship of the Ring” came out I remember tears almost welling up in my eyes. I remember the vivid red background on the movie screen and the single ring flipping down diagonally from left to right. The three films as a whole are near perfect. Watch them one by one, and you can see their flaws.  A lot has been said that “The Two Towers” is three hours of nothing happening, and even more have said that “Return of the King” did not deserve to win Best Picture. True, out of the three, the best is probably “Fellowship of the Ring” but that’s because we’d never seen anything like it before! Director Peter Jackson’s trilogy changed the Fantasy Movie genre forever and his body of work as a whole deserved to win. Best viewed as a 12-hour marathon, the three movies following the quest of Frodo Baggins are great adaptations- though not as perfectly crafted, nor as re-watchable as “The Godfather”.

3) “Good Will Hunting” (4 Stars out of 5):

Say what you will, but this movie does something for me. The relationship between Will Hunting (Matt Damon) and Sean (Robin Williams), his psychiatrist, is something that has yet to be repeated. A seemingly simple plot about a kid growing up rough,  and too tough to admit that he just happens to be a genius. It takes the rougher, tougher, character played by Robin Williams to break Will Hunting down.  Every actor (yes, including Ben Affleck) is pure perfection. Minnie Driver disappeared from Earth since it came out, and it’s a great place to view a young Casey Affleck if you happen to be a fan of his. The film’s accolades speak for themselves- Best Original Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor 1997. Don’t forget that it was nominated for seven more: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress, Best Editing, Best Original Dramatic Score, and Best Original Song. All those nominations were for a reason. If you have never seen it- you’re missing out.

 

4) “Fight Club” (4 Stars out of 5): 

This will forever be the movie that made me a fan of movies. David Fincher’s movie based on Chuck Palahniuk’s original novel is dark, funny, tense and mind-blowing. The first time I saw it- the ending blew me away! Unlike other movies with twist endings (see: “The Sixth Sense)- it’s re-watchable! One of Brad Pitts best performances, (I happen to believe his best acting was in “12 Monkeys”…you may debate me in the comments section,) and definitely Ed Norton’s best work aside from “American History X”. I love seeing Meat Loaf with fake breasts every time I watch it- and Helena Bonham Carter’s only better role might be as Bellatrix LeStrange in the Harry Potter movies. This is just a great a film! ‘Nuff said!

 

 

 5) “Reservoir Dogs” (4 Stars out of 5):

If you want the full review to this movie you can read it on my blog page from back in September. Director Quentin Tarantino’s first big feature film features unforgettable performances and unforgettable movie moments like; Steve Buscemi’s table talk about tipping, Tim Roth bleeding to death in the back seat of a car, and of course Michael Madsen dancing around to Stealer’s Wheel’s ’Stuck in the Middle With You’ while torturing a cop. A beautiful bloody mess of a film that’s already almost two decades old! Where does the time go? Tarantino basically gambled his career to make this movie and won. Other instant classics like “Pulp Fiction”, “Kill Bill” and “Inglourious Basterds” followed suit.

 

 

 

6) “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (4 Stars out of 5): 

I love Charlie Kaufman’s originality. The screenwriter’s best work is here in a film directed by Michael Gondry and starring Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. I would argue that Jim Carrey’s best ’serious’ work is shown in “The Truman Show” but if that weren’t the case, “Eternal Sunshine..” is certainly the movie he could have and should have won some kind of award for. Kate Winslet is good in whatever she’s done, and this might be her most charismatic of roles. The plot features a doctor who has created away to erase memories from people’s minds. Winslet’s Clementine has erased Carrey’s Joel from her mind and he’s so upset about it that he’s going to do it to her too. Once the process starts however, Joel realizes he still loves Clementine he doesn’t want her memory to fade just yet. A great cast and great visual effects, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is the type of film that I’m surprised more people haven’t seen.

 

 7) ”The Matrix” (3.5 Stars out of 5):

There’s no need for me to write a full review for a movie that everybody on the planet has seen 100 times. Perhaps someday my wife and I will watch it again and you’ll get a longer rant from me. There are so many reasons it’s in my favorites, none of them the acting. (Come on, a Keanu Reeves film??If Keanu Reeves was every going to win an Oscar, he should have for this film- this was the perfect part for him!) First of all, the Wachowski brothers reinvented the action movie franchise with their ’bullet time’ slow motion fight sequences. Not even they themselves could copy their own success in the two lame sequels.  Second, the  lobby scene is one of my favorite movie moments of all time. Finally, this movie made sunglasses and long leather duster jackets cool again. And then as soon as it lost relevance, those type of jackets were only cool for fans of Rob Zombie and Static X.

 

 8 ) “The Big Lebowski” (4 out of 5):

One of my more favorite movies to quote. It also features the single best television dub of all time. John Goodman’s character in the original films says, ‘this is what happens when you f**k a stranger in the a$$.’  And when the movie’s on television his character instead says, ‘this is what happens when you meet a stranger in the alps’. The dub is possibly even funnier than the original line. This Cohen brothers movie is an odd comedy featuring Jeff Bridges in one of his best roles as The Dude. The plot is simple, The Dude likes to go bowling and he falls into some bad luck and a case of mistaken identity when two thugs come looking for money. It’s not a movie for everybody, but for those that ‘get it’- it’s true cinema gold!

 

 

 

9) “Tombstone” (3.5 Stars out of 5):

This one is really more of an inside-joke between me and my dad. In the story of Wyatt Earp and the gun fight at the O.K. Corral, we just love Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday. For all of Val Kilmer’s misses, this was the part he was born to play. This is that my ultimate guilty pleasure movie, that when it’s on TV, I can turn it on and before even doing so- know exactly what part it’s at. It might be a little too long but it also might be one of the cooler Westerns to have been made after the movie era when Westerns were at their peak. Kurt Russell is pretty badass as Earp and Sam Elliot is the perfect cowboy as always (Coniger). Powers Booth and Michael Biehn are the classic Western baddies. Look for the early cameo of Billy Bob Thornton, and Terry O’ Quinn (Locke from ‘Lost’) as the town mayor.

 

 

 10) “The Adventures of Indiana Jones” (4.5 Stars out of 5):

I love them all. All four of them. Yes I said it! Did the recent fourth installment feature Harrison Ford as an old man and an ending with computer generated aliens? Yes. But I’ll see your age and aliens and raise you with the girl and Short Round from “The Temple of Doom”. Every Indiana Jones movie is fun it its own right, and all of them are not without flaws.  My favorite of them all is “The Last Crusade” just because Sean Connery is so good. My favorite line of the entire series comes in the third one, ‘we named the dog Indiana!’.  Super cool and super action packed- “The Adventures of Indiana Jones” will stand the test of time, and they are the reason we yearn so bad for more books from Dan Brown. Robert Langdon is alive today because of Indiana Jones and Robert Langdon ain’t got NOTHING on Dr. Jones.  Plus, Steven Speilberg directed all four of them!! What other director has stuck with a film franchise for that long? Oh yea- Indiana Jones 5 is rumored for 2012! Eat that, ‘Lost Symbol’!!!!

Wild Night

Where the Wild Things Are (2.5 Stars out of 5)

It’s the next morning, and I’m still trying to figure out director Spike Jonze’s latest release based on the popular kids book, “Where the Wild Things Are”. Jonze is known for his original style of direction that is apparent in his other releases such as “Being John Malcovich” and “Adaptation”.  For a director like Spike Jonze, it seemed to be a turn in the opposite direction of normality when he decided to adapt the children’s book written by Maurice Sendak. One would figure that Jonze and screenwriter David Eggers would have a simple task before them with a tale about a boy who goes to bed without dinner and lets his over-active imagination take flight (a la “The Polar Express”). “Where the Wild Things Are” however, is anything but simple. It’s a complex, and dark story featuring characters that make you feel depressed rather than nostalgic.

Max (played by newcomer Max Records) is a young boy who spends most of his free time by himself, playing with stuffed animals, creating worlds and stories in his head with the never-ending encyclopedia of his mind. The problem for Max is that others do not seem to understand him.  For instance,  his older sister doesn’t get him, her and her friends try their best not to make too much fun of her weird younger brother. In fact, rather than being bullied by them, the older children seem to embrace Max. It’s the fact that they end up playing too rough (as older kids tend to do) that winds up being the downfall of any type of relationship Max and the older boys might have. No, the only person who seems to truly understand Max is his mother (played by Catherine Keener, always delightful, and a Jonze vet who’s appeared in all of the director’s major releases).

His mom tries her best to deal with Max, especially when his temper strikes and he winds up making big messes. She’s a busy woman though, struggling on a thin string to keep her job and family together. Also, she’s a single mother and Max gets very upset when her boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo) comes over the house for dinner. When the boyfriend is over, that means less time for Max to be with his mom. In fact, Max gets so upset one night when the boyfriend is over, that an argument ends with Max biting his mother on the shoulder, and being punished by going to bed with no dinner.

Instead of taking his punishment, Max rushes out of his house, down the street and through some woods he finds nearby. He pauses to catch his breath for a moment, and it is in those woods that he finds a small sail boat. Max jumps into the sail boat and his adventure begins.

He finds himself on a strange island, inhabited by creatures that look like mutant versions of Snuffaluffagus. Their leader, Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini), looks like a mean teddy bear with bull horns. Carol wants only to keep his gang of misfits together as a family. However his temper and odd leadership qualities ends up alienating him from the rest because they don’t truly understand him. The juxtaposition of Carol and Max in their respective worlds is obvious, and Max befriends Carol the instant he arrives.

After Max declares his magical powers so that the monsters don’t eat him, Carol declares Max as their King and the others excitedly follow suit. From this point forward the story doesn’t actually go anyplace. Carol loves another monster named, D.W. and wants her to return to the group. D.W. is fed up with Carol’s ways and wants to live by the ocean with friends of her own. Carol has a secret hideaway that he ventures off to in order to ‘get away’ and it is there that he has a model built of what he wants his utopian city to look like someday. The other beasts on the island know that Max is a human boy and not their King, but nobody has the heart to tell Carol the truth.

Max spends his time trying to reunite Carol and D.W. and also help Carol to build the city of his dreams. With a new King to guide them, Carol is instilled with a brand new sense of workmanship and the group of beasts get to work on their new home right away. Other than all of that- you just have to shrug. Nothing happens! Well, that’s not entirely true, one character does get their arm ripped off- but that’s not exactly something I want a little kid to see.

Director Jonze and screenwriter David Eggers (“Away We Go”) want the viewer to relate with both Max and Carol. It is also very obvious that both Max and Carol are misunderstood in their own worlds, but together their friendship is unstoppable. You root for them because they’re both easy to care for. However, all the other characters are fairly dark and depressing.  By the end of the film and Max starts to miss home, the viewer is supposed to get all teary-eyed, I was more or less thinking–what the heck?

I’m not sure what audience Jonze is trying to cater to with the film. It’s not  for kids because the characters are just a little too dark. It’s probably not for adults because the plot is a little too light. However, it’s adults who will be the ones who truly understand the contrasting relationship of Max and Carol. “Where the Wild Things Are” wins points for style, originality and intrigue. It loses on everything else that is supposed to make a movie fun. Including a sountrack that is supposed to be ‘artsy’ but just sounds like a bunch of kids chanting and banging on plastic bins.

Sorry folks, I say wait until video or skip it altogether. You’re not missing much- just Spike Jonze trying to create a ‘message film’ that you won’t truly understand the message to. Think of this movie as if “Homeward Bound” was to have a baby with “Requiem for a Dream”. (Okay, not that dark, but you get the idea.)

Couples Retreat: The Little Script that Could (Have Been Funnier)

Couples Retreat (2.5 Stars out of 5)

I had an epiphany last night while watching “Couples Retreat”. My realization was this: Vince Vaughn cannot be a leading man. In order to succeed at what he does best, Vaughn has to be the motor-mouthed sidekick in a movie. As proof of this revelation, take into account the films Vaughn has actually stood out in. Way back in 1996, Vince made himself a star by acting as Jon Favreau’s off-the-cuff best friend Trent, (a character supposedly written for, and based upon the real life version of Vaughn,) in “Swingers”. Then Vince decided he wanted to be a serious actor and played roles in movies like “Jurassic Park: The Lost World”, “Return to Paradise” (a movie I liked…), the remake of Hitchcock’s “Psycho” and his infamous part in Jennifer Lopez’s flop, (does she have a hit?) “the Cell”.

After making himself a star in 1996, it’s debateable that Vaughn didn’t return to the scene as a big name until almost a decade later in 2003 with Todd Phillips’ “Old School” where he played electronics salesman Bernard Campbell. However in “Old School” Vaughn was not the lead character, that title belonged to Luke Wilson who has since disappeared from the face of the planet. Since his comeback in ‘03 Vaughn’s best work has been featured in films like; “Dodgeball”, “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”, “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” and “Wedding Crashers”. His mistakes and missteps include; “Be Cool”, “The Break Up”, “Fred Clause” and last year’s “Four Christmases”. Notice that three of the films he’s performed poorly in are ones in which he’s played the lead role. I guess for me, too much Vince Vaughn ruins his appeal. It is arguable that in “Wedding Crashers” he was co-lead, but the core story of that film involves the love tale between Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams.

“Couples Retreat” disguises itself as an ensemble film with Vaughn being its most bankable star, and therefore his is the only name shown prior to the title on screen. It was partially written and produced by Vaughn too, and features old friend Jon Favreau, Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell, Malin Akerman, Kristin Davis and Faizon Love. The last time a film like this worked for Vaughn was, “Dodgeball” but he had comedy vets Rip Torn, (“Men in Black”) Stephen Root (“Office Space” and “News Radio”) and Ben Stiller to help him. There is no help for Vaughn in “Couples Retreat” which Vince tries his best to carry on his own.

Vaughn plays Dave, a video game salesman who has a seemingly normal life. When his friends Jason and Cynthia announce at Dave’s kid’s birthday party that they’re thinking of getting a divorce suddenly the idea of “normality” comes crashing down. Jason and Cynthia decide that they’re going to give their marriage one final chance by taking a trip to a renowned couple’s retreat at a tropical resort called Eden. The catch, is that they can’t afford to go just the two of them, it’s a cheaper trip if it’s taken with a group rate. After an odd scene featuring Jason trying to break into Dave’s home, the whole gang decides to help their friends try to save their marriage. The group is sold on the idea because Jason and Cynthia tell them that the therapy portion of the trip is optional. When they get to Eden, they find out quickly that couple’s therapy is anything but, ‘optional’.

Aside from Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell), who are the uptight, W.A.S.P.y couple, there is Dave and his wife Ronnie (Malin Akerman, “27 Dresses”). They have been married for years, and have two cute kids. Their problems are mostly mundane, like arguing over tile choices to remodel their home. Joey (Jon Favreau) and Lucy (Kristin Davis) are the couple that has the most problems that they don’t talk about. Together the longest, they are high-school sweet hearts who got married because of a baby they accidentally conceived on prom night. Joey struggles with the fact that he no longer finds his wife attractive and because he got married so young, he believes he missed out on his youth. Then there is Shane, (Faizon Love) who recently divorced and is going through a mid-life crisis by dating a twenty-year old girl (played by relative newcomer Kali Hawk).

Vaughn and Favreau’s script has more problems than funny gags. For one thing, aside from the film he directs, it seems that Favreau has decided the only role he can play these days is that of the aged bully type. He’s played the same exact part in “I Love You Man”, “Four Christmases”, and “The Break Up”. This marking the fourth time in three years that Jon Favreau has played the same type of character, the jokes and gags regarding his character Joey, are already tired and boring.

For another thing, when did Kristen Bell age ten years? Isn’t she still in her twenties? Interesting that forty-year-old Jason Bateman could even woo her in the first place. I’m not trying to judge the age gap- some people make it work. But for me? If I was a twenty-something girl, I don’t think  I would be attracted to a forty-something anal retentive lawyer. The same goes for young party-princess Trudy, dating the older Shane.

Finally, the film just seemed to drag. The funniest scenes are those that you’ve already seen in the preview. There are plenty of laughable parts not seen in the commercials, like the therapists on the island, the yoga class, a rant on ‘Applebees’ and when the boys are in the ’snow’ sauna together. However the build-up to the film’s climax takes too long to reach and the ending itself seems just too outrageous. (Here’s a hint: a character you didn’t realize was missing surprisingly shows up and finds the group…at the end of the week…on an island packed with partying people…)

Overall, I definitely expected more from Vaughn and Favreau’s script. Also, movies about failing relationships are always difficult to watch. I watch films and television shows as an escape from reality. I don’t want to watch things on screen that make me  reflect poorly on myself, or question my past actions. (See: “The Break Up” and the same reasons that movie failed.) If you find yourself a fan of Vaughn’s motor-mouthed antics then there’s enough here for you to enjoy. It could have been funnier and maybe fifteen or twenty minutes shorter. When it comes to Vince Vaughn for me, less is more (funnier).

Film Review Classics: Pan’s Labyrinth

Pan’s Labyrinth (4 Stars out of 5)

Typically, I’ve found that you need to be in the right frame of mind to watch a foreign film.  Otherwise, because of the extra effort of reading the film rather than watching it, you might find that you’re not as into it as you normally would be with an English language film. That was the taste I was left with in my mouth when I saw “Pan’s Labyrinth” for the first time a couple of years back. The movie had received rave reviews, and when I finally watched it, I did not understand why. After revisiting the film last week, I now realize the classic that it is.

In order to comprehend how I even came about viewing this film again, you need to understand how my wife and I have our movies set up. There is a shelf in our house that features my collection of DVDs. Out of the ones that I own that she hasn’t seen, there is a separate pile made. Every night that we decide what we’re going to watch we choose from that pile. On this particular night I spied “Pan’s Labyrinth” and decided to give it a go. I’m certainly glad that I did.

The movie opens in 1944 post-Civil War Spain. Ofelia and her pregnant mother are being taken to Ofelia’s mother’s new husband. Her new husband lives in the hills and is Captain of the fascist regime that resides there fighting off rebels who live in the nearby trees. Ofeilia is a young girl who doesn’t quite comprehend everything that’s happening around her. All that she understands is that her mother has remarried and that she’s being forced to love a new father. In order to escape the reality of real life, Ofelia buries her mind in books of Fairy Tales. It is because of those Fairy Tales that Ofelia has a very active imagination, allowing her to see beauty in even the ugliest of situations. It’s important to note Ofelia’s imagination, since so much of the film happens outside of normal reality.

Escapism is much needed in the world that Ofelia’s mother brings her into. Captain Vidal is a cruel and sadistic man, caring nothing for Ofelia. His care for Ofelia’s mother, Carmen, extends only so far as her unborn child, whom he believes is the boy that he will raise and transfer his skills and knowledge onto. Carmen is very sick and Vidal will stop at nothing to be sure that she delivers a healthy baby boy. Vidal has made a base in an old mill, waiting for the rebels to make their move so that his troops can march against them.

With her mother left ill, and troops all around her, Ofelia has nothing but her imagination and a friend she makes in the housemaid, Mercedes, to get her through her days. It is when Ofelia (believes she) meets an actual fairy that her life changes forever. The fairy brings her to a labyrinth located on the property. At the center, a set of stone spiral stairs. Ofelia descends into the depths, when upon reaching the bottom, she discovers a stone platform with an oddly carved obelisk at its center. It is here she is introduced to the Faun. The Faun reveals to Ofelia that she is actually a Princess of another world and that her father, the King, has spent an eternity looking for her.  For proof, she need only check out the moon-shaped birth mark just below her neck. In order to shed her mortal shell and rejoin her family, she must first prove she is worthy by performing three tasks before the next full moon. Viewing no better alternative, Ofelia agrees to perform whatever she is asked in order to be lifted from her present reality. The Faun disappears and leaves Ofelia to her tasks.

For the first task, Ofelia must venture into the heart of a dying fig tree in order to pluck a gold key from the stomach of a giant frog. The frog is what is killing the tree, once the key is retrieved the frog is vanquished and the tree can live on. For the second task, Ofelia must use magic chalk to draw doorways into another world. Once through the magical doorway, she must tip toe through a morbid dinner party to acquire a certain object from a locked box. For the third and final task, she must spill the blood of an innocent as sacrifice.

Of course, this is all here-say since all of it is made up in Ofelia’s mind as she tries everything in her arsenal to not be where she is. Carmen gives Ofelia a beautiful new dress as a present to wear to the Captain’s dinner party. Instead, Ofelia is out on one of her missions, dirties the dress, and arrives late to the dinner party caked in mud and dirt. When her mother gets really sick, Ofelia is forced to keep away. Her new bedroom seems like a prison, and she uses the chalk to make a doorway and escape on her second mission. Meanwhile all of her shenanigans mixed with those of the rebels in the woods  gradually heat the Captain’s blood to a boil.

This Fantasy/Adventure is not for children, nor for the feint of heart. Through wretched creatures and graphic violence, “Pan’s Labyrinth” earns its R-rating. Ofelia’s greatest gift is seeing beauty through the ugliness that has become her life. For instance, the fairies she sees are merely large, disgusting bugs. The Faun, whom Ofelia probably views as something out of a C.S. Lewis story, is scary and demonic, and if it’s the last thing you see before going to bed- good luck to you. Filmmaker Guillermo Del Toro successfully weaves the genres of Fantasy, War and Horror together with ease. The story which he wrote and produced himself, gets one excited for what he might do with his long-rumored adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien’s “The Hobbit”.

Ivana Baquero is sweet and fragile as young Ofelia. Sergi Lopez is menacing and mean as Captain Vidal, and Maribel Verdu (“Y tu mama tambien”) keeps you on the edge of your seat as the house main Mercedes, whom happens to be a mole working for the rebels.

Del Toro refused to have the film made in English, and all the subtitles were written by him for the English DVD, because he doesn’t trust people to do subtitles for him after seeing English editions of his previous works. As he acted as producer and writer for “Pan’s Labyrinth”, it is amazing how much heart and soul the filmmaker put into his work. It’s beautifully filmed, yet at the same time horribly graphic. The ending will leave you thinking and talking for days. Princess Ofelia’s quest to return to her throne is Del Toro’s best film to date, and quite possibly his masterpiece.  Make sure you’ve prepared yourself for the subtitles and gore, then sit back and enjoy.