avis de keiichi73
Cette page présente tous les avis écrits par keiichi73, partageant ses réflexions détaillées sur les films, les séries, etc.
43 commentaires
Cameron Crowe's We Bought a Zoo is a harmless movie about some very nice people who, yes, end up buying a zoo when they go looking for a new place to live. Unfortunately, while the movie is harmless, it's also not very interesting. Same goes for the people. They're nice and all, but don't seem to have a lot on their minds. Even the zoo animals seem kind of bored. This certainly isn't a bad movie, just a very familiar one.
The film is based on the true story of Benjamin Mee (played here by Matt Damon), a single father who is coping with the recent passing of his wife, and having to raise his two children on his own. His teenage son, Dylan (Colin Ford) is your typical isolated young man, who expresses himself by getting in trouble at school, and drawing graphic pictures of death in class. His younger daughter, Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones), is one of those cloying little movie kids who always has something cute or clever to say on cue whenever the camera is pointed at her. He also has a supportive brother (Thomas Haden Church), who is mainly there for sarcastic comic relief. Benjamin decides the time has come for a change when Dylan is expelled from school, and he himself becomes fed up with his newspaper job, and walks off. He wants to start a new life for himself and his family.
He finds the perfect home somewhere in the Southern California countryside. Naturally, it's the one that the realtor seems the most nervous about, due to the fact that the house comes with its own struggling private zoo. In what has to be one of the biggest impulse buys in the history of cinema, Benjamin decides to buy the house when he sees how happy his little daughter is around the animals. I certainly hope there was more than that behind his decision to buy the property in real life. The family moves in, and they take charge of the zoo, which comes with its own staff of colorful stock characters. There's Kelly the zookeeper (Scarlett Johansson), who serves as somewhat of a love interest for Benjamin. The zoo's staff even has a teenage zookeeper (Elle Fanning) to act as a love interest for Dylan. There's an attempt at a subplot about Fanning's character trying to help Dylan come out of the emotional shell he's been in since his mother died. Too bad it never really works on an emotional level. Maybe if she had been written as an actual character, rather than someone whose main character trait is to smile a lot.
The rest of the staff is made up of eccentrics and oddballs that the movie can't think of anything to do with, so they're not worth mentioning. I understand what Crowe was going for here - He wanted to make a big-hearted movie about a family's emotional healing after a crisis, and how this family adventure of trying to run the zoo brought them closer together. You can literally see the screenplay co-written by Crowe trying its hardest to push our emotional buttons. You can also see him throwing just about every audience-pleasing trick in the book. A cute child, a shy teen romance, the struggle to save a sick tiger, a monkey who makes cute little reactions to what the characters say, a father trying to move on from his painful past, as well as connect with his emotionally distant son...It gets to be a bit much. I have not read the book that inspired this film, so I don't know if things actually happened this way. But, it felt awfully manipulative and contrived to me.
I was also put off by the severe tonal shifts that go on throughout the movie. The stuff concerning Damon and his son are actually pretty good, and there are some honest moments. But then, there are a lot of moments that are so overly sentimental or broad that they seem like they belong in a different movie. Thomas Haden Church is one of my favorite actors, but his role as the dry-witted brother is out of place. He's like a character on a sitcom, his every word a sarcastic quip. Equally out of place is John Michael Higgins, who plays the film's villain, a safety inspector who wants to close down the zoo, and does his best to find problems with it. Higgins plays the part too broad. As soon as he steps out of the car with that confident and smug smirk plastered on his face, you know what role he's supposed to play. And that smirk never leaves his face. It's like he's silently telling us at all times, "Yep, I'm a jerk. How can I be so terrible to these nice people? Don't you just hate me?"
We Bought a Zoo wants to wear its great big heart on its sleeve, and it does. But then, for some reason, it thinks we don't notice, so it keeps on hammering good, sunny feelings into each scene to the point that I started to feel assaulted by the film's manipulations. Like I said, I have not read the book that the film is based on, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's more honest and subtle than what's up on the screen. It has to be, because it's real life. This movie is an overly sunny, sitcom-level imitation of real life.
The film is based on the true story of Benjamin Mee (played here by Matt Damon), a single father who is coping with the recent passing of his wife, and having to raise his two children on his own. His teenage son, Dylan (Colin Ford) is your typical isolated young man, who expresses himself by getting in trouble at school, and drawing graphic pictures of death in class. His younger daughter, Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones), is one of those cloying little movie kids who always has something cute or clever to say on cue whenever the camera is pointed at her. He also has a supportive brother (Thomas Haden Church), who is mainly there for sarcastic comic relief. Benjamin decides the time has come for a change when Dylan is expelled from school, and he himself becomes fed up with his newspaper job, and walks off. He wants to start a new life for himself and his family.
He finds the perfect home somewhere in the Southern California countryside. Naturally, it's the one that the realtor seems the most nervous about, due to the fact that the house comes with its own struggling private zoo. In what has to be one of the biggest impulse buys in the history of cinema, Benjamin decides to buy the house when he sees how happy his little daughter is around the animals. I certainly hope there was more than that behind his decision to buy the property in real life. The family moves in, and they take charge of the zoo, which comes with its own staff of colorful stock characters. There's Kelly the zookeeper (Scarlett Johansson), who serves as somewhat of a love interest for Benjamin. The zoo's staff even has a teenage zookeeper (Elle Fanning) to act as a love interest for Dylan. There's an attempt at a subplot about Fanning's character trying to help Dylan come out of the emotional shell he's been in since his mother died. Too bad it never really works on an emotional level. Maybe if she had been written as an actual character, rather than someone whose main character trait is to smile a lot.
The rest of the staff is made up of eccentrics and oddballs that the movie can't think of anything to do with, so they're not worth mentioning. I understand what Crowe was going for here - He wanted to make a big-hearted movie about a family's emotional healing after a crisis, and how this family adventure of trying to run the zoo brought them closer together. You can literally see the screenplay co-written by Crowe trying its hardest to push our emotional buttons. You can also see him throwing just about every audience-pleasing trick in the book. A cute child, a shy teen romance, the struggle to save a sick tiger, a monkey who makes cute little reactions to what the characters say, a father trying to move on from his painful past, as well as connect with his emotionally distant son...It gets to be a bit much. I have not read the book that inspired this film, so I don't know if things actually happened this way. But, it felt awfully manipulative and contrived to me.
I was also put off by the severe tonal shifts that go on throughout the movie. The stuff concerning Damon and his son are actually pretty good, and there are some honest moments. But then, there are a lot of moments that are so overly sentimental or broad that they seem like they belong in a different movie. Thomas Haden Church is one of my favorite actors, but his role as the dry-witted brother is out of place. He's like a character on a sitcom, his every word a sarcastic quip. Equally out of place is John Michael Higgins, who plays the film's villain, a safety inspector who wants to close down the zoo, and does his best to find problems with it. Higgins plays the part too broad. As soon as he steps out of the car with that confident and smug smirk plastered on his face, you know what role he's supposed to play. And that smirk never leaves his face. It's like he's silently telling us at all times, "Yep, I'm a jerk. How can I be so terrible to these nice people? Don't you just hate me?"
We Bought a Zoo wants to wear its great big heart on its sleeve, and it does. But then, for some reason, it thinks we don't notice, so it keeps on hammering good, sunny feelings into each scene to the point that I started to feel assaulted by the film's manipulations. Like I said, I have not read the book that the film is based on, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's more honest and subtle than what's up on the screen. It has to be, because it's real life. This movie is an overly sunny, sitcom-level imitation of real life.
Is it me, or are Adam Sandler movies getting stupider with each passing one? Oh sure, Sandler's sense of humor has been pretty dumb from the beginning, sometimes in an enjoyable way. But lately, his movies seem to be reaching for a lower form of humor than I even knew existed. I'm guessing it won't take long until we get a movie comprised of nothing but Sandler sitting on the toilet and belching for 90 minutes straight.
But, I'm here to talk about Jack and Jill, a stupefyingly dumb comedy that places Sandler in a dual role as both an uptight ad executive and family man, as well as his loud, obnoxious sister. The movie was a miscalculation from the start. Seeing Sandler dressed in drag and talking in a whiny voice probably would have been pushing it in a three minute sketch back in his Saturday Night Live days. In a 90 minute movie, the performance is excruciating. Was there no one around to stop him and tell him the performance, and the character in general, was just a bad idea? No one to say that it just wasn't funny? Seeing a movie like this makes you want to sit Sandler down, and make him watch his performances in Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, Funny People, and Reign Over Me to remind him that he is so much better than this.
The plot (such as it is) concerns Jill (the sister) coming to visit her brother Jack and his family for Thanksgiving. She's only supposed to be there for a few days, but she extends her vacation time, and winds up staying almost to New Years. During that time, we get a lot of toilet humor (much more than a PG-rated comedy aimed at kids needs), a ton of product placements (How much did Dunkin' Donuts pay to get their brand worked into the plot of the movie? And would it have been better for business if they had just stayed out of the movie all together?), and a lot of celebrity cameos that include Sandler's friends, as well as some big names cashing a paycheck. The cameos in this film include David Spade (in drag, no less), Dana Carvey, Johnny Depp, Regis Philbin, John McEnroe, Shaquille O'Neal, Drew Carey, Christie Brinkley, and Bruce Jenner. Oh, and then there's Al Pacino.
Yes, I said Al Pacino. Only he's not making a cameo, he's a main supporting character. He plays a caricature of himself as a raving oddball who speaks gibberish in order to fool people he can speak other languages, and becomes inexplicably attracted to Jill when he happens to meet her at a basketball game. Jill has no interest in Pacino, but Jack's ad agency wants to hire the actor for a Dunkin' Donut campaign, so he tries to bring the two together. When Jill further resists, Jack is forced to dress up as his sister and be seduced by Pacino. But never mind. The important thing is Pacino gets the film's only laughs, because he tackles the material head-on and with full passion. He obviously knows this material is stupid, but he gives such an energetic performance, you sometimes find yourself laughing, even if what he says isn't that funny. Say what you will about his decision to appear in this movie, but he earns every cent of that paycheck when he appears in trash like this.
Outside of Pacino's off the wall performance, I can't say I laughed very much at Jack and Jill. The movie's just not that funny. Don't tell that to the guy who was sitting two rows behind me at my screening, though. Every tired pratfall, every loud fart that blasted on the soundtrack, and every knock to the head caused him to erupt in extremely loud fits of laughter, stomping of feet, and slapping his knees. I wanted to ask him what he found so funny about the movie. Most of all, I wanted to be enjoying myself as much as he was. That's obviously the intention of the movie. It wants to make us laugh and forget our problems for 90 minutes or so. That's admirable. But it fails on both counts. My guess as to the reaction of the man sitting behind me? He's been locked away somewhere for a very long time, and has never seen a movie in his life.
I won't go so far as to say that Jack and Jill is the worst comedy of the year, as there's much worse out there. But, it's certainly one of the most annoying. This is the kind of movie where the filmmakers started with the idea of Sandler playing brother and sister, and then stopped there, not developing the screenplay, characters, or the jokes. Considering that the initial idea wasn't that hot to start with, maybe they shouldn't have even gone as far as they did.
But, I'm here to talk about Jack and Jill, a stupefyingly dumb comedy that places Sandler in a dual role as both an uptight ad executive and family man, as well as his loud, obnoxious sister. The movie was a miscalculation from the start. Seeing Sandler dressed in drag and talking in a whiny voice probably would have been pushing it in a three minute sketch back in his Saturday Night Live days. In a 90 minute movie, the performance is excruciating. Was there no one around to stop him and tell him the performance, and the character in general, was just a bad idea? No one to say that it just wasn't funny? Seeing a movie like this makes you want to sit Sandler down, and make him watch his performances in Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, Funny People, and Reign Over Me to remind him that he is so much better than this.
The plot (such as it is) concerns Jill (the sister) coming to visit her brother Jack and his family for Thanksgiving. She's only supposed to be there for a few days, but she extends her vacation time, and winds up staying almost to New Years. During that time, we get a lot of toilet humor (much more than a PG-rated comedy aimed at kids needs), a ton of product placements (How much did Dunkin' Donuts pay to get their brand worked into the plot of the movie? And would it have been better for business if they had just stayed out of the movie all together?), and a lot of celebrity cameos that include Sandler's friends, as well as some big names cashing a paycheck. The cameos in this film include David Spade (in drag, no less), Dana Carvey, Johnny Depp, Regis Philbin, John McEnroe, Shaquille O'Neal, Drew Carey, Christie Brinkley, and Bruce Jenner. Oh, and then there's Al Pacino.
Yes, I said Al Pacino. Only he's not making a cameo, he's a main supporting character. He plays a caricature of himself as a raving oddball who speaks gibberish in order to fool people he can speak other languages, and becomes inexplicably attracted to Jill when he happens to meet her at a basketball game. Jill has no interest in Pacino, but Jack's ad agency wants to hire the actor for a Dunkin' Donut campaign, so he tries to bring the two together. When Jill further resists, Jack is forced to dress up as his sister and be seduced by Pacino. But never mind. The important thing is Pacino gets the film's only laughs, because he tackles the material head-on and with full passion. He obviously knows this material is stupid, but he gives such an energetic performance, you sometimes find yourself laughing, even if what he says isn't that funny. Say what you will about his decision to appear in this movie, but he earns every cent of that paycheck when he appears in trash like this.
Outside of Pacino's off the wall performance, I can't say I laughed very much at Jack and Jill. The movie's just not that funny. Don't tell that to the guy who was sitting two rows behind me at my screening, though. Every tired pratfall, every loud fart that blasted on the soundtrack, and every knock to the head caused him to erupt in extremely loud fits of laughter, stomping of feet, and slapping his knees. I wanted to ask him what he found so funny about the movie. Most of all, I wanted to be enjoying myself as much as he was. That's obviously the intention of the movie. It wants to make us laugh and forget our problems for 90 minutes or so. That's admirable. But it fails on both counts. My guess as to the reaction of the man sitting behind me? He's been locked away somewhere for a very long time, and has never seen a movie in his life.
I won't go so far as to say that Jack and Jill is the worst comedy of the year, as there's much worse out there. But, it's certainly one of the most annoying. This is the kind of movie where the filmmakers started with the idea of Sandler playing brother and sister, and then stopped there, not developing the screenplay, characters, or the jokes. Considering that the initial idea wasn't that hot to start with, maybe they shouldn't have even gone as far as they did.
In the small town of Ogden Marsh, Iowa, a farmer does his chores, friendly neighbors greet each other, and American flags wave peacefully outside just about every building. The town Sheriff, David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant), is at the local baseball diamond to cheer on wholesome, clean-cut high school baseball team. The serene mood is interrupted when the town drunk suddenly comes walking onto the field with a loaded shotgun in his hand. David tries to reason with the man, but he is unresponsive to his words and raises his gun. David is able to raise his gun first and fires, killing the man in front of everyone.
David feels remorse for his action, and doesn't know what to say when the man's grief-stricken wife and teenage son confront him. He assumed the incident was brought on by the man's alcohol problem, but the wife insists he had been sober for two years. These opening moments intrigued me, and made me think I had stumbled upon the rare, thoughtful and character-driven horror film, but the plot speeds right on ahead, and introduces us to the Sheriff's wife, Judy (Radha Mitchell), who is the town doctor. She too has a strange incident with a despondent and unresponsive man who is brought in for an examination by the man's concerned wife. She can't see anything physically wrong with him, despite his odd behavior, and sends him home to rest. That same night, the man ends up locking his wife and young child in the closet before he sets the house on fire with them inside it. It's a chilling scene to be sure, and it would have been even more so if the film had slowed down to actually let us feel for the people these things were happening to. Instead, the plot plows on ahead once more.
Are you noticing a pattern here? The Crazies keeps on setting up interesting and terrifying situations, then just moves right on along. It'd be one thing if the movie was hurrying along to something truly interesting, but director Breck Eisner eventually settles down into a predictable series of non-stop jump scares. After the early promise, we get a fairly typical plot for this sort of film. We find out that the town's water supply has become tainted, and is turning the people slowly into mindless and murderous creatures. The military quickly swoops in and seals off the town, killing anyone on sight who shows any sign of illness. The film is a remake of a 1973 horror film by George Romero, and it feels like a remake, because you constantly feel like you've seen it all before. David and Judy try to escape from the town and the military forces with the help of David's Deputy (Joe Anderson) and a young woman from Judy's office named Becca (Danielle Panabaker). All the while, they're constantly menaced by people who have succumbed to the disease ("the crazies" of the title), who all act exactly like every single generic monster villain that's ever walked, lurched, or slithered across the silver screen.
This really had the potential to be so much more. Aside from a scene where young Becca sees her boyfriend get gunned down and incinerated by the military, we never really get a sense of the tragedy of the situation. We don't know anything about the townspeople, or who they really were before the disease hit. The script by Scott Kosar and Ray Wright starts out smart, and offers some genuine thrills. But then the whole thing goes on autopilot in the second half, and I found myself losing interest little by little, until I just didn't care anymore. The movie stops being tense and scary as well at this point. I'm tired of horror movies that rely solely on things jumping out for their scares. They don't even provide a good jolt, since we pretty much can sense a set up for an attack from a mile away.
At least I can complement the movie on a technical level. It's very well made for a film of its kind. The vast cornfields and desolate streets do give a small sense of isolation that I wish the movie was smart enough to utilize more. The cast also manage to wring out as much personality as they can out of their thinly written characters. At least none of the heroes are annoying. In movies like this, there's usually one character that you hope will get chomped by the monsters or shot by the army, but no such feelings were stirred within me here.
I tried my hardest to hold onto the early feelings of intrigue and enjoyment I felt during the first 40 minutes or so watching The Crazies. I eventually found myself wishing that Woody Harrelson's character from Zombieland would show up and liven things. If ever there was a movie that needed a guy who still knew how to have fun when modern society is collapsing all around him, it's this one.
David feels remorse for his action, and doesn't know what to say when the man's grief-stricken wife and teenage son confront him. He assumed the incident was brought on by the man's alcohol problem, but the wife insists he had been sober for two years. These opening moments intrigued me, and made me think I had stumbled upon the rare, thoughtful and character-driven horror film, but the plot speeds right on ahead, and introduces us to the Sheriff's wife, Judy (Radha Mitchell), who is the town doctor. She too has a strange incident with a despondent and unresponsive man who is brought in for an examination by the man's concerned wife. She can't see anything physically wrong with him, despite his odd behavior, and sends him home to rest. That same night, the man ends up locking his wife and young child in the closet before he sets the house on fire with them inside it. It's a chilling scene to be sure, and it would have been even more so if the film had slowed down to actually let us feel for the people these things were happening to. Instead, the plot plows on ahead once more.
Are you noticing a pattern here? The Crazies keeps on setting up interesting and terrifying situations, then just moves right on along. It'd be one thing if the movie was hurrying along to something truly interesting, but director Breck Eisner eventually settles down into a predictable series of non-stop jump scares. After the early promise, we get a fairly typical plot for this sort of film. We find out that the town's water supply has become tainted, and is turning the people slowly into mindless and murderous creatures. The military quickly swoops in and seals off the town, killing anyone on sight who shows any sign of illness. The film is a remake of a 1973 horror film by George Romero, and it feels like a remake, because you constantly feel like you've seen it all before. David and Judy try to escape from the town and the military forces with the help of David's Deputy (Joe Anderson) and a young woman from Judy's office named Becca (Danielle Panabaker). All the while, they're constantly menaced by people who have succumbed to the disease ("the crazies" of the title), who all act exactly like every single generic monster villain that's ever walked, lurched, or slithered across the silver screen.
This really had the potential to be so much more. Aside from a scene where young Becca sees her boyfriend get gunned down and incinerated by the military, we never really get a sense of the tragedy of the situation. We don't know anything about the townspeople, or who they really were before the disease hit. The script by Scott Kosar and Ray Wright starts out smart, and offers some genuine thrills. But then the whole thing goes on autopilot in the second half, and I found myself losing interest little by little, until I just didn't care anymore. The movie stops being tense and scary as well at this point. I'm tired of horror movies that rely solely on things jumping out for their scares. They don't even provide a good jolt, since we pretty much can sense a set up for an attack from a mile away.
At least I can complement the movie on a technical level. It's very well made for a film of its kind. The vast cornfields and desolate streets do give a small sense of isolation that I wish the movie was smart enough to utilize more. The cast also manage to wring out as much personality as they can out of their thinly written characters. At least none of the heroes are annoying. In movies like this, there's usually one character that you hope will get chomped by the monsters or shot by the army, but no such feelings were stirred within me here.
I tried my hardest to hold onto the early feelings of intrigue and enjoyment I felt during the first 40 minutes or so watching The Crazies. I eventually found myself wishing that Woody Harrelson's character from Zombieland would show up and liven things. If ever there was a movie that needed a guy who still knew how to have fun when modern society is collapsing all around him, it's this one.
If Paul Blart: Mall Cop had been made 20 years ago, it would have starred John Candy. That's a complement, by the way. Candy had a knack for playing bungling, yet good-hearted people who mainly wanted to please. He certainly specialized in playing people who tried too hard to be nice to cover up past pain. There's a lot of this in Kevin James' performance as the title character here. He's more than just a comic goofball. James turns him into a likable and surprisingly sympathetic hero that we find ourselves cheering for by the end.
Kevin James rose to fame on television starring on the sitcom, The King of Queens, and has been trying to break into movies for a while now. He's acted along side stars like Will Smith and Adam Sandler, but this is his first shot at a stand-alone starring role. Sandler is still there behind the scenes (His Happy Madison production company produced the film.), but this is James' film all the way, and he doesn't waste the opportunity. His Paul Blart is admirable in a way. He's overweight and he suffers from hypoglycemia, but he always tries to do the right thing. He's passionate about his job as a mall cop, but he'd really like to be a police officer on the street. He's taken the physical entrance exam many times, but his health problems have prevented him from finishing. He makes up for his shortcomings by being the best mall cop he can be, and by also being a good single father to his teen daughter (Raini Rodriguez), who respects him and wishes he could fall in love again. Paul has his eyes on a young woman named Amy (Jayma Mays), who also works at the mall. The first half hour or so of the film is devoted to Paul's life, and it certainly helps us get into his corner when the actual plot kicks in.
It's Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, and some high tech criminals stage a lock down and a hostage situation at the mall as they pull off their theft plan. They place motion sensors and small bombs at the entrances, so no one can get in or out. They think they've removed everyone from the building, but didn't notice Paul was in the back of the arcade playing Guitar Hero. When he emerges from the arcade, he quickly learns about the hostage situation, and discovers that both Amy and his daughter are amongst them. This kicks off the main action, where Paul must use his resources around him to out think and outrun the criminals while keeping everyone alive. I liked this aspect of the story, and how Paul Blart actually has to be clever in order to outsmart the captors. The movie is rated PG, so it's never too violent or scary for kids, which is the perfect target audience for the film. They'll like the film's gentle and goofy humor, and accompanying adults may find themselves charmed by Blart himself.
I never laughed out loud while watching this movie, but I did smile a lot, and I found myself caring more about the main character than I imagined. Let me tell you, that's more than I expected walking into a movie called Paul Blart: Mall Cop. There's plenty of sweetness during the early moments, establishing Paul's shy relationship with Amy, and the caring one he shares with his daughter. When the time comes for him to be a hero, we can cheer for him, because the movie makes him into a true underdog. He's constantly battling with his own shortcomings and health issues, and it's clever the way he keeps on finding ways to keep himself going, driven by saving the ones he loves. If I'm making the movie sound too serious, it's not. There's plenty of slapstick gags, surprisingly no bodily fluid or toilet humor to be found, and some pretty good physical comedy on display. If there's any major shortcoming to be found, it's that the movie is pretty inconsequential, and will probably be forgotten by me a few months from now.
Still, considering the kind of junk that usually clogs theaters in early January, Paul Blart certainly is not bad. I imagine the movie will make a good rental, since its somewhat small scale will make it perfect for watching on TV rather than the big screen. If anything, it's one step closer to making James the cross-over star he obviously wants to be. I wouldn't mind seeing the same kind of likability he gives here in a less juvenile script. He's on to something here, he's just gotta find the project where he really knocks one out of the park.
Kevin James rose to fame on television starring on the sitcom, The King of Queens, and has been trying to break into movies for a while now. He's acted along side stars like Will Smith and Adam Sandler, but this is his first shot at a stand-alone starring role. Sandler is still there behind the scenes (His Happy Madison production company produced the film.), but this is James' film all the way, and he doesn't waste the opportunity. His Paul Blart is admirable in a way. He's overweight and he suffers from hypoglycemia, but he always tries to do the right thing. He's passionate about his job as a mall cop, but he'd really like to be a police officer on the street. He's taken the physical entrance exam many times, but his health problems have prevented him from finishing. He makes up for his shortcomings by being the best mall cop he can be, and by also being a good single father to his teen daughter (Raini Rodriguez), who respects him and wishes he could fall in love again. Paul has his eyes on a young woman named Amy (Jayma Mays), who also works at the mall. The first half hour or so of the film is devoted to Paul's life, and it certainly helps us get into his corner when the actual plot kicks in.
It's Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, and some high tech criminals stage a lock down and a hostage situation at the mall as they pull off their theft plan. They place motion sensors and small bombs at the entrances, so no one can get in or out. They think they've removed everyone from the building, but didn't notice Paul was in the back of the arcade playing Guitar Hero. When he emerges from the arcade, he quickly learns about the hostage situation, and discovers that both Amy and his daughter are amongst them. This kicks off the main action, where Paul must use his resources around him to out think and outrun the criminals while keeping everyone alive. I liked this aspect of the story, and how Paul Blart actually has to be clever in order to outsmart the captors. The movie is rated PG, so it's never too violent or scary for kids, which is the perfect target audience for the film. They'll like the film's gentle and goofy humor, and accompanying adults may find themselves charmed by Blart himself.
I never laughed out loud while watching this movie, but I did smile a lot, and I found myself caring more about the main character than I imagined. Let me tell you, that's more than I expected walking into a movie called Paul Blart: Mall Cop. There's plenty of sweetness during the early moments, establishing Paul's shy relationship with Amy, and the caring one he shares with his daughter. When the time comes for him to be a hero, we can cheer for him, because the movie makes him into a true underdog. He's constantly battling with his own shortcomings and health issues, and it's clever the way he keeps on finding ways to keep himself going, driven by saving the ones he loves. If I'm making the movie sound too serious, it's not. There's plenty of slapstick gags, surprisingly no bodily fluid or toilet humor to be found, and some pretty good physical comedy on display. If there's any major shortcoming to be found, it's that the movie is pretty inconsequential, and will probably be forgotten by me a few months from now.
Still, considering the kind of junk that usually clogs theaters in early January, Paul Blart certainly is not bad. I imagine the movie will make a good rental, since its somewhat small scale will make it perfect for watching on TV rather than the big screen. If anything, it's one step closer to making James the cross-over star he obviously wants to be. I wouldn't mind seeing the same kind of likability he gives here in a less juvenile script. He's on to something here, he's just gotta find the project where he really knocks one out of the park.
In Bolt, a small American White Shepherd dog has amazing adventures, not realizing that none of it is real. The little guy (whose voice is provided by John Travolta) is actually the star of a highly rated action show for kids, but the show's director is a believer of method acting, and wants the dog to think the things that happen to him on the show are real to get a more natural performance from him. On the show, Bolt the dog travels with his young human owner, Penny (Miley Cyrus), cross country searching for Penny's father, a scientist who has been kidnapped by the diabolical madman, Dr. Calico (Malcolm McDowell). Bolt has been genetically enhanced to have super canine abilities (actually special effects that are performed right there on the set), and uses those abilities to battle Calico's forces.
The concept of an actor on a TV show living in a make believe world, and not realizing his every move is being filmed by hidden cameras reminded me greatly of the Jim Carrey drama from 10 years ago, The Truman Show, and made me wonder if this was going to be another look at the same idea aimed at a much younger audience. The movie drops this idea fairly early on, and turns into a standard road trip comedy, but I wasn't disappointed. The film has plenty of wit, charm, and heart to go around. Bolt is forced to hit the road when he believes Penny is in danger. The most recent episode ends with a cliffhanger where the girl has been kidnapped by Calico. After the shoot, Bolt is sent to his private trailer as always, but believing that Penny has actually been kidnapped, he breaks free and ends up accidentally inside a shipping box which is sent to New York City. In his strange real world surroundings, Bolt initially doesn't understand why his "powers" don't work like they usually do. He's still determined to track down Penny, even in his supposed weakened state, and forcefully brings an alley cat he finds named Mittens (Susie Essman, wonderful here) along for the ride, believing that she has ties to the evil Dr. Calico and can tell him where his human is.
The relationship between the delusional dog and the street wise, sarcastic cat is at the heart of Bolt, and also what makes the film work above all else. I loved the way that Mittens the cat begins to train him in the art of being a real dog. Bolt has been living a fantasy his entire life, and has never even experienced the joy of playing with a chew toy or sticking his head out an open window with his tongue flapping in the breeze. With so many animated films forcing the idea that animals are just like us, only with fur, here is a movie about a dog who learns to enjoy the simplicity of a natural life. I liked that angle, and I liked the way that Mittens slowly warms up to Bolt's situation. She's a cat with a past, as she used to belong to some people who were forced to abandon her when they moved. She doesn't understand Bolt's devotion to Penny, as she believes humans can only hurt. The spot on vocal performances by Travolta and Essman add a lot of the heart the character's hold.
Also along for the trip is a pudgy little hamster named Rhino (Mark Walton), who is familiar with Bolt through watching his adventures on the "magic box" from his cage. He's mainly there to provide comic relief, and though kids will likely enjoy him, I found him a little grating. Fortunately, the movie never allows him to distract from what works. I was surprised by how sympathetic Bolt is, and how much I ended up caring for the characters. Even young Penny gets some effective moments. The preteen actress has always felt bad about having to lie to the little dog, and make him think their adventures were real. When he runs away, she feels responsible. As mentioned earlier, Penny is voiced by pop singing sensation and actress, Miley Cyrus, and this movie hints that she may have a future after the Hannah Montana fad comes to an end.
The film is wonderful to look at, too. The visual style is bright and vibrant, and the character designs carry a lot of personality. When we see Bolt as a puppy at the very beginning of the film, playing with a toy, it's filled with much more character and emotion than any of the live human actors can muster in this weekend's other big release, Twilight. I also greatly admired the attention to detail in many of the film's settings. There's a brief montage where the three traveling animals visit different landmarks as they make their way cross country, and a shot of them watching the famous "water show" outside the Belagio hotel in Las Vegas looked like the real thing. This movie makes even the well animated Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa pale in comparison. The fact that this movie has some actual soul and heart behind it, unlike that mediocre cash-in sequel, certainly helps.
Over the years, the Disney studio has been trying to catch up to the works of Pixar with some of their own in-house computer animated films, and the results have up to now been middling. (Does anyone really remember Chicken Little or Meet the Robinsons?) Bolt is by far their best effort to try to capture the tone of a Pixar film, and while the film takes a few wrong steps (mainly with its unfunny comic relief character), it's definitely the closest they've come to their league. Bolt proves you don't always need original ideas as long as you have a lot of genuine emotion and likable characters on your side.
The concept of an actor on a TV show living in a make believe world, and not realizing his every move is being filmed by hidden cameras reminded me greatly of the Jim Carrey drama from 10 years ago, The Truman Show, and made me wonder if this was going to be another look at the same idea aimed at a much younger audience. The movie drops this idea fairly early on, and turns into a standard road trip comedy, but I wasn't disappointed. The film has plenty of wit, charm, and heart to go around. Bolt is forced to hit the road when he believes Penny is in danger. The most recent episode ends with a cliffhanger where the girl has been kidnapped by Calico. After the shoot, Bolt is sent to his private trailer as always, but believing that Penny has actually been kidnapped, he breaks free and ends up accidentally inside a shipping box which is sent to New York City. In his strange real world surroundings, Bolt initially doesn't understand why his "powers" don't work like they usually do. He's still determined to track down Penny, even in his supposed weakened state, and forcefully brings an alley cat he finds named Mittens (Susie Essman, wonderful here) along for the ride, believing that she has ties to the evil Dr. Calico and can tell him where his human is.
The relationship between the delusional dog and the street wise, sarcastic cat is at the heart of Bolt, and also what makes the film work above all else. I loved the way that Mittens the cat begins to train him in the art of being a real dog. Bolt has been living a fantasy his entire life, and has never even experienced the joy of playing with a chew toy or sticking his head out an open window with his tongue flapping in the breeze. With so many animated films forcing the idea that animals are just like us, only with fur, here is a movie about a dog who learns to enjoy the simplicity of a natural life. I liked that angle, and I liked the way that Mittens slowly warms up to Bolt's situation. She's a cat with a past, as she used to belong to some people who were forced to abandon her when they moved. She doesn't understand Bolt's devotion to Penny, as she believes humans can only hurt. The spot on vocal performances by Travolta and Essman add a lot of the heart the character's hold.
Also along for the trip is a pudgy little hamster named Rhino (Mark Walton), who is familiar with Bolt through watching his adventures on the "magic box" from his cage. He's mainly there to provide comic relief, and though kids will likely enjoy him, I found him a little grating. Fortunately, the movie never allows him to distract from what works. I was surprised by how sympathetic Bolt is, and how much I ended up caring for the characters. Even young Penny gets some effective moments. The preteen actress has always felt bad about having to lie to the little dog, and make him think their adventures were real. When he runs away, she feels responsible. As mentioned earlier, Penny is voiced by pop singing sensation and actress, Miley Cyrus, and this movie hints that she may have a future after the Hannah Montana fad comes to an end.
The film is wonderful to look at, too. The visual style is bright and vibrant, and the character designs carry a lot of personality. When we see Bolt as a puppy at the very beginning of the film, playing with a toy, it's filled with much more character and emotion than any of the live human actors can muster in this weekend's other big release, Twilight. I also greatly admired the attention to detail in many of the film's settings. There's a brief montage where the three traveling animals visit different landmarks as they make their way cross country, and a shot of them watching the famous "water show" outside the Belagio hotel in Las Vegas looked like the real thing. This movie makes even the well animated Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa pale in comparison. The fact that this movie has some actual soul and heart behind it, unlike that mediocre cash-in sequel, certainly helps.
Over the years, the Disney studio has been trying to catch up to the works of Pixar with some of their own in-house computer animated films, and the results have up to now been middling. (Does anyone really remember Chicken Little or Meet the Robinsons?) Bolt is by far their best effort to try to capture the tone of a Pixar film, and while the film takes a few wrong steps (mainly with its unfunny comic relief character), it's definitely the closest they've come to their league. Bolt proves you don't always need original ideas as long as you have a lot of genuine emotion and likable characters on your side.
Make no mistake, W. is an often entertaining and surprisingly even-handed look at our current President. Given the fact that this film was rushed into production to be released just in time for the elections, I was expecting much worse. However, this film also gives strength to another argument - Oliver Stone, once one of the most controversial and outspoken filmmakers, is losing his edge. The movie never quite delves deep enough into the man or into his political legacy, and pretty much tries to sum up everything in one simple phrase - George W. Bush has daddy issues.
This is not the hard-hitting or critical look at Bush that many expected. The movie completely glosses over or skips entirely certain important events, like the 2000 election fiasco. It is a Cliffs' Notes version, only hitting some major notes, and jumping through them without any in-between or lead in. The movie skims over his notorious hard drinking early years, equally skims over his years trying to find a place in the world, and then pretty much jumps into his decision to run for political office. Faces fade in and out of the narrative, and we never once feel like we're getting the whole story. Maybe Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weiser (who previously collaborated with the director on 1987's Wall Street) became intimidated about going into too much detail.
And yet, for all its obvious flaws, I cannot deny that W. intrigued me in a lot of ways. I may have been left wanting more, but at least I was liking what I was seeing enough to want more in the first place. Although I do think the movie puts too much weight into it, and pretty much uses it as its single answer to almost every question it presents, I did enjoy the relationship between Bush and his father. In the film, George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) is presented as a man forever in the shadow of his dad (James Cromwell). It's something that is stressed from the beginning, such as the scene when Bush is called into his father's office, pretty much only so that his dad can say he's a real disappointment to him, since he can't seem to hold down a job. When his father runs for President in the 88 election and asks for his son's support, George is hurt by the fact that his dad turned to him only after his brother, Jeb Bush (Jason Ritter), turned him down to concentrate on his own work. And when George starts to make strides toward his own political career, his father cannot say he is proud of his son, and simply hands him a note saying he's proud.
This antagonistic father-son relationship is pretty much what drives the entirety of the film. Brolin portrays our President as a man constantly trying to please everyone around him, though he never seems quite to know how. He's faced with the legacy of his father, his brother, and those he respects. All he seems to really want is recognition, and maybe some appreciation, but that becomes continuously out of grasp as the situation in Iraq spirals out of his control. Josh Brolin certainly does a great job at capturing Bush's mannerisms and speech, without turning it into a Saturday Night Live-style parody. It's a performance that takes a little while to get used to (seeing him try to pass himself off as a 19-year-old fraternity pledge is a bit of a stretch), but he grows into the role quite quickly, and before long we forget we're watching an impersonation. As the elder Bush, Cromwell does not even try to mimic the appearance or talk of him, which is most likely for the best, as it probably would have ended up going into Dana Carvey territory. He simply gives a strong performance as an emotionally closed-off father who doesn't know how to react when his son succeeds or fails.
Stone has cast the movie with a sharp eye, and it's amazing how many of the actors resemble their real life counterparts. Of special note are Richard Dreyfus as Vice President Dick Cheney, and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. Like Brolin, they have the speech, the mannerisms and definitely the look down. What bothered me is that's about all they do have. The movie doesn't give a lot of the supporting cast a chance to stand out, aside from a few meeting scenes as they discuss the war situation. Unlike Brolin's Bush, they come across as imitations rather than genuine characters. In a way, it's understandable. There are so many people who played a part in the story that Stone tries to tell that it's impossible to fit them all and give them due credit in a movie that runs just a little over two hours. But at the same time, I felt like I was watching a bunch of talented actors dressed up as recent political figures, and not much else beyond that.
I think in the end, the main problem with W. is that it's not time to tell the story. We need more distance, more reflection before we can start to truly understand him, or his Presidency. It's interesting that one of the final scenes of the film is Bush being asked by a reporter how he thinks history will remember him, and he becomes tongue-tied right there in front of the cameras. Oliver Stone often seems equally confused with this film. This is a well made movie that contains some good performances and a number of very good stand-alone scenes. Those scenes just never come together to form a completely satisfying film.
This is not the hard-hitting or critical look at Bush that many expected. The movie completely glosses over or skips entirely certain important events, like the 2000 election fiasco. It is a Cliffs' Notes version, only hitting some major notes, and jumping through them without any in-between or lead in. The movie skims over his notorious hard drinking early years, equally skims over his years trying to find a place in the world, and then pretty much jumps into his decision to run for political office. Faces fade in and out of the narrative, and we never once feel like we're getting the whole story. Maybe Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weiser (who previously collaborated with the director on 1987's Wall Street) became intimidated about going into too much detail.
And yet, for all its obvious flaws, I cannot deny that W. intrigued me in a lot of ways. I may have been left wanting more, but at least I was liking what I was seeing enough to want more in the first place. Although I do think the movie puts too much weight into it, and pretty much uses it as its single answer to almost every question it presents, I did enjoy the relationship between Bush and his father. In the film, George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) is presented as a man forever in the shadow of his dad (James Cromwell). It's something that is stressed from the beginning, such as the scene when Bush is called into his father's office, pretty much only so that his dad can say he's a real disappointment to him, since he can't seem to hold down a job. When his father runs for President in the 88 election and asks for his son's support, George is hurt by the fact that his dad turned to him only after his brother, Jeb Bush (Jason Ritter), turned him down to concentrate on his own work. And when George starts to make strides toward his own political career, his father cannot say he is proud of his son, and simply hands him a note saying he's proud.
This antagonistic father-son relationship is pretty much what drives the entirety of the film. Brolin portrays our President as a man constantly trying to please everyone around him, though he never seems quite to know how. He's faced with the legacy of his father, his brother, and those he respects. All he seems to really want is recognition, and maybe some appreciation, but that becomes continuously out of grasp as the situation in Iraq spirals out of his control. Josh Brolin certainly does a great job at capturing Bush's mannerisms and speech, without turning it into a Saturday Night Live-style parody. It's a performance that takes a little while to get used to (seeing him try to pass himself off as a 19-year-old fraternity pledge is a bit of a stretch), but he grows into the role quite quickly, and before long we forget we're watching an impersonation. As the elder Bush, Cromwell does not even try to mimic the appearance or talk of him, which is most likely for the best, as it probably would have ended up going into Dana Carvey territory. He simply gives a strong performance as an emotionally closed-off father who doesn't know how to react when his son succeeds or fails.
Stone has cast the movie with a sharp eye, and it's amazing how many of the actors resemble their real life counterparts. Of special note are Richard Dreyfus as Vice President Dick Cheney, and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. Like Brolin, they have the speech, the mannerisms and definitely the look down. What bothered me is that's about all they do have. The movie doesn't give a lot of the supporting cast a chance to stand out, aside from a few meeting scenes as they discuss the war situation. Unlike Brolin's Bush, they come across as imitations rather than genuine characters. In a way, it's understandable. There are so many people who played a part in the story that Stone tries to tell that it's impossible to fit them all and give them due credit in a movie that runs just a little over two hours. But at the same time, I felt like I was watching a bunch of talented actors dressed up as recent political figures, and not much else beyond that.
I think in the end, the main problem with W. is that it's not time to tell the story. We need more distance, more reflection before we can start to truly understand him, or his Presidency. It's interesting that one of the final scenes of the film is Bush being asked by a reporter how he thinks history will remember him, and he becomes tongue-tied right there in front of the cameras. Oliver Stone often seems equally confused with this film. This is a well made movie that contains some good performances and a number of very good stand-alone scenes. Those scenes just never come together to form a completely satisfying film.
Tyler Perry's back to his old tricks with The Family That Preys - A film that is just as manipulative and as ham-fisted of a melodrama as some of his earlier work. The only saving grace are a pair of performances at the center.
Those performances come from Kathy Bates and Alfre Woodard. They play the matriarchs of two very different families who have been friends for the past 30 years. Their characters come from very different worlds. Bates plays Charlotte Cartwright, a wealthy tycoon who is in danger of losing control of her company as her greedy son William (Cole Hauser) plots to slowly get rid of her influence and power in the business. Woodard plays Alice Pratt, a God-fearing middle class woman who runs a local diner, and likes to help the homeless on the side. The two actresses have great chemistry together during their subplot, which concerns them leaving their troubles behind for a little while, and going on a cross country road trip. Their performances are almost enough to make us forget just how poorly they've been written in Perry's screenplay. Take for example the fact that Charlotte seems to suffer from a split personality. Usually when she's around Alice, she's a fun and spirited woman. But whenever she's alone, she comes across as a cold and unfeeling millionaire right out of an 80s prime time soap opera like Dallas. Unfortunately, this won't be the last time I use the word soap opera in this review.
That's because The Family That Preys isn't really about the two women I just mentioned, it's about their intertwined family, and the numerous betrayals, affairs, and other ludicrous overstuffed plots that would be right at home in any afternoon soap. Let's just see how many plots there are. The first concerns Alice's daughter, Andrea (Sanaa Lathan) having an affair with Charlotte's previously mentioned son, William. Andrea's husband, Chris (Rockmond Dunbar), works as a construction worker for William's company, and has no idea about their bedroom meetings behind his back, even though it's painfully obvious to everyone else. Poor Chris comes across as the slowest guy in the world, as he frequently stares the obvious in the face, and chooses to look the other way until the screenplay decides to finally give him a clue. Chris and his best friend on the construction crew, Ben (Tyler Perry), want to start their own construction company, but Ben doesn't know if they should take the chance, despite the urgings of his wife, Pam (Taraji P. Henson), who just happens to be Alice's other daughter. Meanwhile, William's wife, Jillian (KaDee Strickland) is a bit more on the ball than Chris is, and suspects her husband's affair. Not only that, there's another woman worked into the story named Abby (Robin Givens) who has just been hired to the company by Charlotte, much to the anger of William, since he wanted the position and is upset that his mom didn't give it to him.
All this, and I still haven't mentioned the mysterious homeless person (Sebastian Siegel) whom Alice helps out, and eventually ends up playing a part in the plot. There's also friction between Charlotte and William's wife, because Charlotte never approved of her, although the movie doesn't go very deep into this. And yes, there's also that previously mentioned road trip between Charlotte and Alice as they go on a trip of self discovery, while stopping at various cowboy bars and male strip joints along the way. (Because this is a Tyler Perry movie, Charlotte also stops to get baptized at one point.) Watching this movie, you can almost picture Tyler Perry writing this screenplay after a marathon viewing of his daytime TV soaps. The writing, direction, and storytelling is all on the same level here. He does his best to juggle the film's various plots, but they never come together. It's jarring the way the movie constantly jumps between its numerous characters and plots. It seems that Perry had a hard time squeezing them all in, as some get more attention than others. The whole affair situation between William and Andrea gets the most attention, but even that never seems to truly build anywhere. The characters just keep on going through the same motions over and over, while Andrea's husband Chris begins to resemble an unintentional running gag with how clueless he is about everything.
The only aspect of the film that does work are the scenes between Bates and Woodard, and that's more due to their screen presence than the material the film gives them. If the movie had trimmed away all lamebrained corporate backstabbing and affairs and just centered on them, I may have been able to forgive the sometimes dopey dialogue between them, and the last minute revelation about Bates' character that cries out of desperation. The Family That Preys obviously wants to tackle some heavy issues, but everything's been written in Perry's trademark over the top style. This makes it hard to identify with just about anyone who walks into the frame of the camera. The only character who does come across as a genuine human is the one Perry has written for himself, and unfortunately, he plays a minor role in everything. Given his somewhat genuine performance here, it's hard to believe that this is the same guy who dresses in drag and a fat suit for his most famous portrayal. Perry fans will be glad to know that his Madea character will be back in his next film, Madea Goes to Jail. Everyone else has been warned.
Those performances come from Kathy Bates and Alfre Woodard. They play the matriarchs of two very different families who have been friends for the past 30 years. Their characters come from very different worlds. Bates plays Charlotte Cartwright, a wealthy tycoon who is in danger of losing control of her company as her greedy son William (Cole Hauser) plots to slowly get rid of her influence and power in the business. Woodard plays Alice Pratt, a God-fearing middle class woman who runs a local diner, and likes to help the homeless on the side. The two actresses have great chemistry together during their subplot, which concerns them leaving their troubles behind for a little while, and going on a cross country road trip. Their performances are almost enough to make us forget just how poorly they've been written in Perry's screenplay. Take for example the fact that Charlotte seems to suffer from a split personality. Usually when she's around Alice, she's a fun and spirited woman. But whenever she's alone, she comes across as a cold and unfeeling millionaire right out of an 80s prime time soap opera like Dallas. Unfortunately, this won't be the last time I use the word soap opera in this review.
That's because The Family That Preys isn't really about the two women I just mentioned, it's about their intertwined family, and the numerous betrayals, affairs, and other ludicrous overstuffed plots that would be right at home in any afternoon soap. Let's just see how many plots there are. The first concerns Alice's daughter, Andrea (Sanaa Lathan) having an affair with Charlotte's previously mentioned son, William. Andrea's husband, Chris (Rockmond Dunbar), works as a construction worker for William's company, and has no idea about their bedroom meetings behind his back, even though it's painfully obvious to everyone else. Poor Chris comes across as the slowest guy in the world, as he frequently stares the obvious in the face, and chooses to look the other way until the screenplay decides to finally give him a clue. Chris and his best friend on the construction crew, Ben (Tyler Perry), want to start their own construction company, but Ben doesn't know if they should take the chance, despite the urgings of his wife, Pam (Taraji P. Henson), who just happens to be Alice's other daughter. Meanwhile, William's wife, Jillian (KaDee Strickland) is a bit more on the ball than Chris is, and suspects her husband's affair. Not only that, there's another woman worked into the story named Abby (Robin Givens) who has just been hired to the company by Charlotte, much to the anger of William, since he wanted the position and is upset that his mom didn't give it to him.
All this, and I still haven't mentioned the mysterious homeless person (Sebastian Siegel) whom Alice helps out, and eventually ends up playing a part in the plot. There's also friction between Charlotte and William's wife, because Charlotte never approved of her, although the movie doesn't go very deep into this. And yes, there's also that previously mentioned road trip between Charlotte and Alice as they go on a trip of self discovery, while stopping at various cowboy bars and male strip joints along the way. (Because this is a Tyler Perry movie, Charlotte also stops to get baptized at one point.) Watching this movie, you can almost picture Tyler Perry writing this screenplay after a marathon viewing of his daytime TV soaps. The writing, direction, and storytelling is all on the same level here. He does his best to juggle the film's various plots, but they never come together. It's jarring the way the movie constantly jumps between its numerous characters and plots. It seems that Perry had a hard time squeezing them all in, as some get more attention than others. The whole affair situation between William and Andrea gets the most attention, but even that never seems to truly build anywhere. The characters just keep on going through the same motions over and over, while Andrea's husband Chris begins to resemble an unintentional running gag with how clueless he is about everything.
The only aspect of the film that does work are the scenes between Bates and Woodard, and that's more due to their screen presence than the material the film gives them. If the movie had trimmed away all lamebrained corporate backstabbing and affairs and just centered on them, I may have been able to forgive the sometimes dopey dialogue between them, and the last minute revelation about Bates' character that cries out of desperation. The Family That Preys obviously wants to tackle some heavy issues, but everything's been written in Perry's trademark over the top style. This makes it hard to identify with just about anyone who walks into the frame of the camera. The only character who does come across as a genuine human is the one Perry has written for himself, and unfortunately, he plays a minor role in everything. Given his somewhat genuine performance here, it's hard to believe that this is the same guy who dresses in drag and a fat suit for his most famous portrayal. Perry fans will be glad to know that his Madea character will be back in his next film, Madea Goes to Jail. Everyone else has been warned.
If there was ever a movie that needed Jack Black, this is the one. The lead character in The Rocker almost seems to be written with him in mind, and I don't know, maybe it intended to be a starring vehicle for him at one time, but other projects got in the way. Whatever the reason, it's impossible not to think what kind of energy he'd bring to this film - Energy that Rainn Wilson (the actor who does headline this movie) cannot supply, despite his best efforts. At least he seems to be trying.
Wilson plays Robert "Fish" Fishman, a washed up drummer who lost his chance at stardom back in 1986 when he was the drummer for a rising heavy metal hair band named Vesuvius, only to have his bandmates ditch him right before fame came knocking for the group. His attempt to stop his former friends from running away from him brings about an inspired comic sequence, where Fish seemingly develops superhuman abilities while chasing after their fleeing van. He can run at impossible speeds like a human Terminator, and he then leaps on top of the van, and punches holes through the roof with his drum sticks, causing his bandmates to scream in terror. I laughed a lot at this sequence. I liked its goofy tone, which seemed to be parodying horror films, and it set my mind at ease early on that director Peter Cattaneo (The Full Monty) would be giving the movie a likeably offbeat sense. As soon as this sequence ends, however, the movie goes on total auto pilot and never looks back.
Robert is now jobless, homeless, and holding a major grudge against his former band, which has gone on to chart-topping success. Opportunity comes knocking while Robert is living at his sister's house, trying to get his life together. His nephew, Matt (Josh Gad), is in a high school garage band called ADD, and they have recently lost their drummer right before their first gig at the school's prom. Matt asks Robert to fill in as a last resort, much to the dismay of his two fellow bandmates - lead singer and songwriter Curtis (Teddy Geiger), and cynical guitarist Amelia (Emma Stone). They eventually welcome Robert into the band, since he can get them other gigs, and they find their popularity quickly building, especially after Robert becomes an Internet sensation when a video of him drumming naked becomes a hit on Youtube. Seemingly in a matter of weeks, the band is going on tour, selling out massive concert halls, and releasing hit CDs.
The Rocker seems to know just how derivative it is, as it races through its various pre-required stops, almost as if it was checking its clichés off one by one. Robert gets a love interest in the form of Curtis' mom (Christina Applegate), who accompanies the band on tour. Despite Applegate getting second billing in the cast, though, her character barely registers, and her plot hardly goes anywhere. There are relationships within the band itself, as young Matt has his eyes on a girl who appears at all of their concerts, and Amelia and Curtis keep on exchanging meaningful glances at each other, but can't speak their feelings. These are dealt with the same lack of interest, almost as if the screenplay is just throwing these ideas out there, but doesn't want to do anything with them. And of course, there has to be turmoil amongst the bandmates. There's a slimy manager who pops up now and then to manipulate Curtis into turning against Robert, but this brief spat is resolved about two scenes later, so we're left to wonder why the movie bothered in the first place. This film is so haphazard and lazy in its tone that even the band getting arrested and going to prison isn't a very big deal in this movie.
Instead of creating characters or situations that we can care about, we're left with a lot of music montages, which seem to make up 80% of the film's middle. But, at least the music was able to distract me a little from most of the film's humor, which seems to be under the rule that seeing Rainn Wilson getting hit in the face or the privates gets funnier each time it tries it. When he's living at his sister's house early on in the film, it seems to be designed for him to hit his head or fall backwards over something, almost as if The Three Stooges had built the house. I can just picture someone on the construction crew while the house was being built asking why they were making the ceiling and boards in the attic so low, and the head foreman saying, "Trust me, it will be funny when some guy has to live up here someday". Even when he's not in the house, he seems to be a magnet for bees flying in his mouth, tree branches smacking his face, and TV boxes in hotel rooms striking his crotch.
Despite its message of embracing a rebellious spirit and never giving up on your dreams, The Rocker is completely substandard and instantly forgettable. This almost seems to be the kind of movie the month of August was made for. It's not exactly bad, but there's absolutely nothing that stands out about it. Now that the big summer movies have come and gone, it's time for the movies that won't be remembered a month from now. If only the movie had kept the same level of insanity of its first five minutes. Then The Rocker would be a movie worth seeing.
Wilson plays Robert "Fish" Fishman, a washed up drummer who lost his chance at stardom back in 1986 when he was the drummer for a rising heavy metal hair band named Vesuvius, only to have his bandmates ditch him right before fame came knocking for the group. His attempt to stop his former friends from running away from him brings about an inspired comic sequence, where Fish seemingly develops superhuman abilities while chasing after their fleeing van. He can run at impossible speeds like a human Terminator, and he then leaps on top of the van, and punches holes through the roof with his drum sticks, causing his bandmates to scream in terror. I laughed a lot at this sequence. I liked its goofy tone, which seemed to be parodying horror films, and it set my mind at ease early on that director Peter Cattaneo (The Full Monty) would be giving the movie a likeably offbeat sense. As soon as this sequence ends, however, the movie goes on total auto pilot and never looks back.
Robert is now jobless, homeless, and holding a major grudge against his former band, which has gone on to chart-topping success. Opportunity comes knocking while Robert is living at his sister's house, trying to get his life together. His nephew, Matt (Josh Gad), is in a high school garage band called ADD, and they have recently lost their drummer right before their first gig at the school's prom. Matt asks Robert to fill in as a last resort, much to the dismay of his two fellow bandmates - lead singer and songwriter Curtis (Teddy Geiger), and cynical guitarist Amelia (Emma Stone). They eventually welcome Robert into the band, since he can get them other gigs, and they find their popularity quickly building, especially after Robert becomes an Internet sensation when a video of him drumming naked becomes a hit on Youtube. Seemingly in a matter of weeks, the band is going on tour, selling out massive concert halls, and releasing hit CDs.
The Rocker seems to know just how derivative it is, as it races through its various pre-required stops, almost as if it was checking its clichés off one by one. Robert gets a love interest in the form of Curtis' mom (Christina Applegate), who accompanies the band on tour. Despite Applegate getting second billing in the cast, though, her character barely registers, and her plot hardly goes anywhere. There are relationships within the band itself, as young Matt has his eyes on a girl who appears at all of their concerts, and Amelia and Curtis keep on exchanging meaningful glances at each other, but can't speak their feelings. These are dealt with the same lack of interest, almost as if the screenplay is just throwing these ideas out there, but doesn't want to do anything with them. And of course, there has to be turmoil amongst the bandmates. There's a slimy manager who pops up now and then to manipulate Curtis into turning against Robert, but this brief spat is resolved about two scenes later, so we're left to wonder why the movie bothered in the first place. This film is so haphazard and lazy in its tone that even the band getting arrested and going to prison isn't a very big deal in this movie.
Instead of creating characters or situations that we can care about, we're left with a lot of music montages, which seem to make up 80% of the film's middle. But, at least the music was able to distract me a little from most of the film's humor, which seems to be under the rule that seeing Rainn Wilson getting hit in the face or the privates gets funnier each time it tries it. When he's living at his sister's house early on in the film, it seems to be designed for him to hit his head or fall backwards over something, almost as if The Three Stooges had built the house. I can just picture someone on the construction crew while the house was being built asking why they were making the ceiling and boards in the attic so low, and the head foreman saying, "Trust me, it will be funny when some guy has to live up here someday". Even when he's not in the house, he seems to be a magnet for bees flying in his mouth, tree branches smacking his face, and TV boxes in hotel rooms striking his crotch.
Despite its message of embracing a rebellious spirit and never giving up on your dreams, The Rocker is completely substandard and instantly forgettable. This almost seems to be the kind of movie the month of August was made for. It's not exactly bad, but there's absolutely nothing that stands out about it. Now that the big summer movies have come and gone, it's time for the movies that won't be remembered a month from now. If only the movie had kept the same level of insanity of its first five minutes. Then The Rocker would be a movie worth seeing.
The funniest thing about Meet Dave is that one of the credited screenwriters is Bill Corbett. Corbett was one of the head writers and stars of the 90s cult hit TV show devoted to bad movies, Mystery Science Theater 3000. Seeing his name here makes me think he still had bad movies on the brain when he wrote this uninspired and dull family comedy about tiny aliens coming to Earth. Take away the big budget and the name star above the title, and this movie would be right at home on the show he used to work on, and would be rightfully ridiculed.
Meet Dave reunites Eddie Murphy with his Norbit director, Brian Robbins. The good news is that this is a vast improvement over their last collaboration. The bad news is that's not saying much. As is usual in his recent films, Murphy plays a dual role. He plays the Captain of a race of microscopic intergalactic travelers who have come to Earth to save their far off world. He also plays their vessel, a giant robot/spaceship that looks and talks exactly like the Captain. The aliens pilot the robot from within, trying to fit in with human society, as they seek an orb that belongs to them and crashed on Earth three months ago. The orb is designed to destroy the Earth so that their planet can live by "borrowing" our world's resources. But, shortly after arriving on Earth, the aliens befriend a single mom named Gina (Elizabeth Banks) and her young son, Josh (Austin Myers), who discovered the orb when it initially crashed, and has been holding onto it ever since. The more time that the Captain and his crew spend around the humans, the more interested they become in our society, and begin to doubt their own mission.
Take that bare bones premise, and stretch it to the breaking point of 90 minutes, and you pretty much have the movie right there. To call Meet Dave padded is an understatement. The movie kind of sits there, unsure of what to do with itself. It throws in some subplots, such as a pair of cops who suspect that "Dave" (the name the giant robot the aliens pilot goes by) is not from around here, and a concerned neighbor of Gina's, but does absolutely nothing with its own material. It sets it up, and then forgets about it, so it can focus on more uninspired antics by Murphy and his co-stars. Not even the plots amongst the aliens themselves are developed to any real degree. There's a shy relationship between the Captain and a fellow crew member (Gabrielle Union), the crew's weapons specialist discovers he's gay after watching only 10 seconds of a Broadway musical, just so the movie can throw in some tired "flaming" stereotype humor (which seems very out of place in a movie targeted at kids), and the ship's second in command (The Daily Show's Ed Helms) stages a mutiny when he fears that the Captain is too interested in the Earthlings, and has forgotten the mission. In any other movie, these could have been workable story lines (okay, probably not the one about the weapons specialist...), but here they're just thrown about the plot at random, and genuinely ignored.
Meet Dave is quite literally a crashing bore. I was sitting there, seeing all this money thrown up on the screen, and I had to wonder what anyone saw in this project. It does not want to entertain, it does not want to inspire, and despite its imaginative premise, it does not want to be original. Say you were assigned with the task of writing a comedy about tiny aliens coming to Earth in a giant robot body to study us. Think of the possibilities and imagination such a premise would inspire. Would those possibilities you come up with include Murphy literally shooting money out of his rear end (and later hot dogs)? Would they include Murphy singing the Bee Gee's "Staying Alive" in a goofy voice for no reason? Would they include product placements for Old Navy? This is a commercially bankrupt film that did not have a single thought put into it, aside from how the filmmakers could make this as bland and lifeless as possible. And yes, I do think this was intentional. At one point maybe, this was a creative and witty concept, and maybe even a real screenplay. Then some studio heads got a hold of it, and tried to dumb it down as much as possible. The end result is a movie that will most likely already be gone before August hits. (Judging by how vacant my screening was.)
The summer movie season of 2008 has been one of the strongest in recent memory, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to waste their time with Meet Dave. Kids will be bored, and adults will spend a majority of their time looking at their watches as the minutes slowly tick by. When it's done, you walk out a little bit sadder, and with a little less money in your wallet. No one needs that, and no one needs this movie. Murphy's career has survived much worse films (Norbit and Pluto Nash, anyone?), but if this is the best material he can find, he needs a good long vacation.
Meet Dave reunites Eddie Murphy with his Norbit director, Brian Robbins. The good news is that this is a vast improvement over their last collaboration. The bad news is that's not saying much. As is usual in his recent films, Murphy plays a dual role. He plays the Captain of a race of microscopic intergalactic travelers who have come to Earth to save their far off world. He also plays their vessel, a giant robot/spaceship that looks and talks exactly like the Captain. The aliens pilot the robot from within, trying to fit in with human society, as they seek an orb that belongs to them and crashed on Earth three months ago. The orb is designed to destroy the Earth so that their planet can live by "borrowing" our world's resources. But, shortly after arriving on Earth, the aliens befriend a single mom named Gina (Elizabeth Banks) and her young son, Josh (Austin Myers), who discovered the orb when it initially crashed, and has been holding onto it ever since. The more time that the Captain and his crew spend around the humans, the more interested they become in our society, and begin to doubt their own mission.
Take that bare bones premise, and stretch it to the breaking point of 90 minutes, and you pretty much have the movie right there. To call Meet Dave padded is an understatement. The movie kind of sits there, unsure of what to do with itself. It throws in some subplots, such as a pair of cops who suspect that "Dave" (the name the giant robot the aliens pilot goes by) is not from around here, and a concerned neighbor of Gina's, but does absolutely nothing with its own material. It sets it up, and then forgets about it, so it can focus on more uninspired antics by Murphy and his co-stars. Not even the plots amongst the aliens themselves are developed to any real degree. There's a shy relationship between the Captain and a fellow crew member (Gabrielle Union), the crew's weapons specialist discovers he's gay after watching only 10 seconds of a Broadway musical, just so the movie can throw in some tired "flaming" stereotype humor (which seems very out of place in a movie targeted at kids), and the ship's second in command (The Daily Show's Ed Helms) stages a mutiny when he fears that the Captain is too interested in the Earthlings, and has forgotten the mission. In any other movie, these could have been workable story lines (okay, probably not the one about the weapons specialist...), but here they're just thrown about the plot at random, and genuinely ignored.
Meet Dave is quite literally a crashing bore. I was sitting there, seeing all this money thrown up on the screen, and I had to wonder what anyone saw in this project. It does not want to entertain, it does not want to inspire, and despite its imaginative premise, it does not want to be original. Say you were assigned with the task of writing a comedy about tiny aliens coming to Earth in a giant robot body to study us. Think of the possibilities and imagination such a premise would inspire. Would those possibilities you come up with include Murphy literally shooting money out of his rear end (and later hot dogs)? Would they include Murphy singing the Bee Gee's "Staying Alive" in a goofy voice for no reason? Would they include product placements for Old Navy? This is a commercially bankrupt film that did not have a single thought put into it, aside from how the filmmakers could make this as bland and lifeless as possible. And yes, I do think this was intentional. At one point maybe, this was a creative and witty concept, and maybe even a real screenplay. Then some studio heads got a hold of it, and tried to dumb it down as much as possible. The end result is a movie that will most likely already be gone before August hits. (Judging by how vacant my screening was.)
The summer movie season of 2008 has been one of the strongest in recent memory, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to waste their time with Meet Dave. Kids will be bored, and adults will spend a majority of their time looking at their watches as the minutes slowly tick by. When it's done, you walk out a little bit sadder, and with a little less money in your wallet. No one needs that, and no one needs this movie. Murphy's career has survived much worse films (Norbit and Pluto Nash, anyone?), but if this is the best material he can find, he needs a good long vacation.
So, I was sitting there watching Penelope, and the mental image of a balloon with a lead weight tied to the end of it kept on appearing in my mind. Much like that balloon, this is a movie that wants to take off and fly, but is constantly held to the ground. In this case, the lead weight is the script provided by Leslie Caveny (TV's Everybody Loves Raymond). For a movie billing itself as a modern day fairy tale and romantic comedy, there is a surprising lack of magic in the story, and even less romance thanks to two leads that never generate any sparks together. Penelope is a case of a cute idea that should work, but it's brought down by its underdeveloped screenplay.
The title character (Christina Ricci) is a young woman who was born to wealthy parents (Catherine O'Hara and Richard E. Grant) and seemed destined to have it all, if it weren't for the fact that her father's side of the family is cursed. It seems that years ago, her father's family angered a local witch, who placed a curse on them that the next woman born into their family would be born with the face of a pig. Indeed, Penelope was born with the snout of a pig, and the curse can only be broken if she finds true love. Her parents have sheltered her from the outside world all this time, but this hasn't stopped them from trying to find a man for their daughter that can break the curse. Unfortunately, every guy who lays eyes upon her nose goes diving out the window in terror. (A visual gag that is cute the first time the movie uses it, but tiresome the 30th.) Penelope eventually decides to run away from home and experience the outside world, wrapping a scarf around the bottom part of her face to hide her abnormality. There might be someone out there who can break the curse, and that someone just might be Max (James McAvoy), a penniless piano player and gambler who initially is working for a sleazy tabloid photographer (Peter Dinklage) to snap a picture of the fabled and often rumored "pig girl", but starts to fall for her the more time he spends around her.
Despite the support of Hollywood star, Reese Witherspoon (who not only produced the film, but also has a small role as a woman who befriends Penelope after she heads out on her own), Penelope has been sitting on the studio shelf for a little over two years. My guess is the recent success of Disney's modern day fairy tale, Enchanted, inspired the studio to try its luck. Penelope is no Enchanted, however. This is a surprisingly dull and lifeless film that doesn't even seem interested in its own premise. Here is a movie that cries out for a light, funny, magical touch, but the pace of the final product on display is leaden and uninspired. It takes almost an hour for the story to finally reach the outside world, which means we have to sit through a good 50 minutes or so (and this is a 90 minute movie) of Penelope isolated in her own home, and the gag of people throwing themselves out the window or running away over and over for far longer than necessary. Even after the lead character finally sets out, and the movie looks like it's finally going to pick up, things remain the same. We never get to truly experience Penelope discovering the world, as most of this aspect of the story is pushed aside in music montages. The most we get is Penelope sitting in a bar, sipping a beer mug from a straw, so that no one can see what's beneath her scarf. Here is a movie that could have been spirited and uplifting, but its so concerned with the mundane aspects, it never takes advantage of its own potential.
The love story that is supposed to be at the center of Penelope is also curiously lacking, due to the fact that the romantic leads spend so little time together, and the few scenes they do spend together are completely dull and lifeless. We never get a sense that a real relationship is building between the two, not only because the movie gives them nothing to do together, but they come across as complete opposites in terms of performances. Christina Ricci is plucky and likable in her portrayal of Penelope, so much so you wish her performance was inhabiting a better movie. James McAvoy, on the other hand, is a lifeless bore, who never comes across as anyone the audience can get behind. Not even the usually reliable Catherine O'Hara can escape from the film's sloppy writing. Her performance as Penelope's mother runs the range of being sympathetic and sweet, to being a screaming harpy who is insensitive and shrill. Her character fits whatever the story requires her to be, so sometimes she comes across as being sensitive to her daughter, and sometimes she is treated as the villain. Her relationship with her husband, and the strain the curse must have placed on their relationship all these years, is also completely ignored. It's ignored so much, Richard E. Grant may as well have not even bothered to show up as her father, as he's given little dialogue, and even less to do with anything that happens in the movie itself.
As is often the case when I'm stuck watching a movie that doesn't grab my attention, I found myself asking a lot of questions. Here's a good one to ponder. If Penelope's parents have been keeping her locked away from society all this time, how do they explain to the people hired to replace the numerous broken windows in their house about why they need their windows replaced so frequently? That could have been a funny scene, but the movie completely skips over this obvious idea.
The title character (Christina Ricci) is a young woman who was born to wealthy parents (Catherine O'Hara and Richard E. Grant) and seemed destined to have it all, if it weren't for the fact that her father's side of the family is cursed. It seems that years ago, her father's family angered a local witch, who placed a curse on them that the next woman born into their family would be born with the face of a pig. Indeed, Penelope was born with the snout of a pig, and the curse can only be broken if she finds true love. Her parents have sheltered her from the outside world all this time, but this hasn't stopped them from trying to find a man for their daughter that can break the curse. Unfortunately, every guy who lays eyes upon her nose goes diving out the window in terror. (A visual gag that is cute the first time the movie uses it, but tiresome the 30th.) Penelope eventually decides to run away from home and experience the outside world, wrapping a scarf around the bottom part of her face to hide her abnormality. There might be someone out there who can break the curse, and that someone just might be Max (James McAvoy), a penniless piano player and gambler who initially is working for a sleazy tabloid photographer (Peter Dinklage) to snap a picture of the fabled and often rumored "pig girl", but starts to fall for her the more time he spends around her.
Despite the support of Hollywood star, Reese Witherspoon (who not only produced the film, but also has a small role as a woman who befriends Penelope after she heads out on her own), Penelope has been sitting on the studio shelf for a little over two years. My guess is the recent success of Disney's modern day fairy tale, Enchanted, inspired the studio to try its luck. Penelope is no Enchanted, however. This is a surprisingly dull and lifeless film that doesn't even seem interested in its own premise. Here is a movie that cries out for a light, funny, magical touch, but the pace of the final product on display is leaden and uninspired. It takes almost an hour for the story to finally reach the outside world, which means we have to sit through a good 50 minutes or so (and this is a 90 minute movie) of Penelope isolated in her own home, and the gag of people throwing themselves out the window or running away over and over for far longer than necessary. Even after the lead character finally sets out, and the movie looks like it's finally going to pick up, things remain the same. We never get to truly experience Penelope discovering the world, as most of this aspect of the story is pushed aside in music montages. The most we get is Penelope sitting in a bar, sipping a beer mug from a straw, so that no one can see what's beneath her scarf. Here is a movie that could have been spirited and uplifting, but its so concerned with the mundane aspects, it never takes advantage of its own potential.
The love story that is supposed to be at the center of Penelope is also curiously lacking, due to the fact that the romantic leads spend so little time together, and the few scenes they do spend together are completely dull and lifeless. We never get a sense that a real relationship is building between the two, not only because the movie gives them nothing to do together, but they come across as complete opposites in terms of performances. Christina Ricci is plucky and likable in her portrayal of Penelope, so much so you wish her performance was inhabiting a better movie. James McAvoy, on the other hand, is a lifeless bore, who never comes across as anyone the audience can get behind. Not even the usually reliable Catherine O'Hara can escape from the film's sloppy writing. Her performance as Penelope's mother runs the range of being sympathetic and sweet, to being a screaming harpy who is insensitive and shrill. Her character fits whatever the story requires her to be, so sometimes she comes across as being sensitive to her daughter, and sometimes she is treated as the villain. Her relationship with her husband, and the strain the curse must have placed on their relationship all these years, is also completely ignored. It's ignored so much, Richard E. Grant may as well have not even bothered to show up as her father, as he's given little dialogue, and even less to do with anything that happens in the movie itself.
As is often the case when I'm stuck watching a movie that doesn't grab my attention, I found myself asking a lot of questions. Here's a good one to ponder. If Penelope's parents have been keeping her locked away from society all this time, how do they explain to the people hired to replace the numerous broken windows in their house about why they need their windows replaced so frequently? That could have been a funny scene, but the movie completely skips over this obvious idea.
Remember those old soft drink commercials that would show elderly people drinking the product and acting young by listening to rap music, doing the latest street dances, and talking about "catching waves"? If you hated those commercials as much as I did, you will hate The Bucket List, which is basically a 100 minute variation on the same idea. It features two great actors running around acting young, but it adds a couple disturbing twists. The first is that they are both terminally ill with only months to live. The second is that they don't seem to care about anything but themselves, not worrying about friends or loved ones who may be concerned about them.
The two men at the center of the story are played by a pair of great actors, namely Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. Unfortunately, these are not great characters that they are playing. They are merely playing rifts on the same roles they've occupied for the past 10 years or so. Freeman is once again the sagely type who gives advice to anyone who will listen, and also acts as the film's Narrator. It's a role he perfected in Million Dollar Baby, and this seems like nothing more than a mere rehash. Nicholson is once again the seemingly-grumpy "I don't give a damn" type, who is eventually revealed to have a heart of gold after spending time with a person who changes his life. It's a role he perfected in As Good as it Gets, and once again we are stuck with a rehash here. They both find out early on that they are dying of Cancer, and that they only have a few months to live. Freeman's character introduces an idea to the other about a "bucket list" - a list of things you want to achieve before you die. Nicholson's character just happens to be a devil-may-care millionaire who figures they should act upon this list, since they only have a short time left. The two men supposedly pack their bags (I say supposedly, as no luggage is ever used or seen), and go on a whirlwind around the world journey.
The Bucket List obviously wants to be a big, heartfelt movie that leaves us walking out of the theater with a tear in our eyes and a spring in our steps. The heart at the center of the movie, however, is completely artificial and calculated. Okay, I can sort of buy the fact that two men near the end of their lives could just suddenly up and leave at a moment's notice on a trip around the world. But, you'd think they would require medication and constant monitoring given their current states. Not only do these men not need any luggage to travel around the world, but they also don't need any medicine or professional medical evaluation the moment they leave the doctor's care. As soon as they decide to take their journey, they're skydiving out of a plane. Well, actually, a pair of stunt doubles are skydiving out of a plane. The movie uses special effects to paste the faces of the two actors onto the heads of the stunt doubles diving through the clouds in an effect that does not look the least bit convincing. Their globe-trotting adventure that leads them to such places as China, the Himalayas, and the Pyramids of Egypt is mostly accomplished through special effects. We're usually not watching these two actors visiting these places, we're watching them sitting in front of a blue screen while an image of their current location is projected behind them. I'd like to think that director Rob Reiner is making a statement on how phony and unrealistic the screenplay he's been stuck with is, but I'm afraid that's not the case here.
You'd think the movie would handle the most obvious question. What about the people these two guys leave behind? Wouldn't they be worried sick that these guys who are terminally ill and will be dead in a year or less are jumping out of planes and flying souped-up race cars off of ramps? The script by Justin Zackham dodges this issue by basically ignoring it. Nicholson's character is a grump who doesn't really have any friends, so he's covered. But Freeman's character has a concerned wife and family. We get a scene before they go on their adventure where his wife tries to talk him out of it, but the guy doesn't back down, basically saying he has to be his own man. Not once during his trip does he make any attempt to contact his wife, friends, or loved ones to let them know that he's doing okay or even if he's still alive. He does eventually return home to his family, but he doesn't get to share any real scenes with them. His entire family is treated like a prop, used only to sit at his bedside when he's not jaunting about with his friend. There is a subplot about Nicholson having a daughter that he doesn't talk to, but the movie is not interested, and merely tosses it out as a vague attempt to give his character something resembling humanity. In movies where someone is dying, there's always some unresolved family crisis. The script knows this, and includes it, but doesn't care. The inevitable reunion with his daughter is treated as a throw away scene that gives us what we expect, but no reason to care.
The Bucket List knows what emotional buttons to push, but it doesn't push hard enough. This is a shameless movie that wastes the wonderful talents of two great actors, and puts them through a dopey screenplay that's far beneath their talents. They deserved better, and so do their fans, who will no doubt flock to this movie expecting something great. Despite the best intentions of everyone involved, this movie falls far short of even being good.
The two men at the center of the story are played by a pair of great actors, namely Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. Unfortunately, these are not great characters that they are playing. They are merely playing rifts on the same roles they've occupied for the past 10 years or so. Freeman is once again the sagely type who gives advice to anyone who will listen, and also acts as the film's Narrator. It's a role he perfected in Million Dollar Baby, and this seems like nothing more than a mere rehash. Nicholson is once again the seemingly-grumpy "I don't give a damn" type, who is eventually revealed to have a heart of gold after spending time with a person who changes his life. It's a role he perfected in As Good as it Gets, and once again we are stuck with a rehash here. They both find out early on that they are dying of Cancer, and that they only have a few months to live. Freeman's character introduces an idea to the other about a "bucket list" - a list of things you want to achieve before you die. Nicholson's character just happens to be a devil-may-care millionaire who figures they should act upon this list, since they only have a short time left. The two men supposedly pack their bags (I say supposedly, as no luggage is ever used or seen), and go on a whirlwind around the world journey.
The Bucket List obviously wants to be a big, heartfelt movie that leaves us walking out of the theater with a tear in our eyes and a spring in our steps. The heart at the center of the movie, however, is completely artificial and calculated. Okay, I can sort of buy the fact that two men near the end of their lives could just suddenly up and leave at a moment's notice on a trip around the world. But, you'd think they would require medication and constant monitoring given their current states. Not only do these men not need any luggage to travel around the world, but they also don't need any medicine or professional medical evaluation the moment they leave the doctor's care. As soon as they decide to take their journey, they're skydiving out of a plane. Well, actually, a pair of stunt doubles are skydiving out of a plane. The movie uses special effects to paste the faces of the two actors onto the heads of the stunt doubles diving through the clouds in an effect that does not look the least bit convincing. Their globe-trotting adventure that leads them to such places as China, the Himalayas, and the Pyramids of Egypt is mostly accomplished through special effects. We're usually not watching these two actors visiting these places, we're watching them sitting in front of a blue screen while an image of their current location is projected behind them. I'd like to think that director Rob Reiner is making a statement on how phony and unrealistic the screenplay he's been stuck with is, but I'm afraid that's not the case here.
You'd think the movie would handle the most obvious question. What about the people these two guys leave behind? Wouldn't they be worried sick that these guys who are terminally ill and will be dead in a year or less are jumping out of planes and flying souped-up race cars off of ramps? The script by Justin Zackham dodges this issue by basically ignoring it. Nicholson's character is a grump who doesn't really have any friends, so he's covered. But Freeman's character has a concerned wife and family. We get a scene before they go on their adventure where his wife tries to talk him out of it, but the guy doesn't back down, basically saying he has to be his own man. Not once during his trip does he make any attempt to contact his wife, friends, or loved ones to let them know that he's doing okay or even if he's still alive. He does eventually return home to his family, but he doesn't get to share any real scenes with them. His entire family is treated like a prop, used only to sit at his bedside when he's not jaunting about with his friend. There is a subplot about Nicholson having a daughter that he doesn't talk to, but the movie is not interested, and merely tosses it out as a vague attempt to give his character something resembling humanity. In movies where someone is dying, there's always some unresolved family crisis. The script knows this, and includes it, but doesn't care. The inevitable reunion with his daughter is treated as a throw away scene that gives us what we expect, but no reason to care.
The Bucket List knows what emotional buttons to push, but it doesn't push hard enough. This is a shameless movie that wastes the wonderful talents of two great actors, and puts them through a dopey screenplay that's far beneath their talents. They deserved better, and so do their fans, who will no doubt flock to this movie expecting something great. Despite the best intentions of everyone involved, this movie falls far short of even being good.
I lay the blame for The Comebacks on anyone who enjoyed Date Movie and Epic Movie. You people encouraged the Fox studio to keep on churning out desperate parody films, and now we're faced with what just may be the laziest and most desperate one of them all. The Comebacks barely qualifies as a parody. Heck, it barely qualifies as a movie. This is a comedy in theory, but not in execution. No one, not even the people involved with this mess, could have possibly fooled themselves into thinking they were making a funny movie. Director Tom Brady (The Hot Chick) has made something truly wretched here.
The plot, if you can even call it that, centers on a man named Lambeau Fields (David Koechner). Right when I heard his name within the first couple seconds of the film, I knew I was in for a long movie. Funny names are seldom funny, and become even less funny the more you hear them. Lambeau is one of the worst coaches in the world, but he's been given another chance by his best friend, Freddie Wiseman (Carl Weathers), to coach a ragtag high school football team called The Comebacks. Lambeau must not only lead the team to victory, but also teach them the ways of inspirational sports movie clichés. He expects his kids to have poor grades and problems with alcohol, and ridicules them when they don't. When it looks like the team has a chance to play at the big championship Toilet Bowl game (Did 10-year-olds write this script?), Lambeau is shocked to discover that Freddie is the coach of the big rival team that his team will be playing against. Turns out Freddie only encouraged Lambeau to take the coaching job, because he wanted The Comebacks to lose.
The Comebacks is a movie so forced and pathetic, I almost had a hard time believing what I was watching. Spoof movies have recently turned into a game of "spot the movie reference", and this continues the tradition. It tries to squeeze in as many references to other sports movies as it can, but it either does absolutely nothing with them, expecting us to just point at the screen and laugh out of familiarity, or it attempts to be funny and falls flat on its face. Some of the films referenced include Field of Dreams, Bend it Like Beckham, Rocky Balboa, Friday Night Lights, Stick It, Radio, Miracle, Remember the Titans, Gridiron Gang, Invincible, and Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. But wait, wasn't Dodgeball already a parody of inspirational sports movies? So, in other words, we're watching a parody of a parody of inspirational sports movies. If that makes any sense to you, you're just the audience this movie is looking for. Some of these films are referenced in the plot, and some (like the Rocky one) are just thrown in for no reason, because the filmmakers wanted to try to reference as many films as possible. There are some that the movie even feels the need to explain to us in its dialogue, just in case we've missed the obvious reference. You know a movie is in trouble when it has to spell out its own jokes to us.
The worst thing is that the screenplay by TV veterans and first time screen writers, Ed Yeager and Joey Gutierrez, doesn't even know the first and most important rule of parody - You have to play it straight. The actors have to pretend they're not in on the joke. The reason why the classic Zucker Brothers movies like Airplane, Top Secret, and The Naked Gun are remembered so fondly is because they cast serious actors like Leslie Nielsen (yes, he was a serious actor before he turned to comedy) and Robert Stack, and then threw them into ridiculous situations. What made it funny is that they acted like they weren't in a comedy, and kept a stone face to the weirdness around them. Those films wouldn't have worked if they played their roles broadly. The Comebacks proves this, as all the actors are forced to play their roles so goofy, it's like they're screaming at us to laugh. David Koechner keeps on flailing his arms, bulging his eyes, and screaming at the top of his lungs to the point he looks like someone who knows he's trapped in a dead-end comedy, and just tries too hard to pretend he's having a good time. The movie also doesn't understand the art of celebrity cameos (also an important factor when it comes to parody films). What kind of cameos do we get in The Comebacks? Andy Dick and Dennis Rodman.
By the time the movie throws in an out of nowhere and extremely pointless cast musical number to Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I was just about ready to walk out the theater door. I was the only person at my screening, and the thought of this movie going on its pathetic way to a completely empty house kind of appealed to me. I did sit through the rest of The Comebacks, and I was not rewarded for my efforts. The sad thing is, Fox is not yet done killing the spoof genre. They have a parody of 300 coming out next year called Meet the Spartans. I'd say it can't be much worse than this, but I've seen the trailer, and I wouldn't want to get your hopes up.
The plot, if you can even call it that, centers on a man named Lambeau Fields (David Koechner). Right when I heard his name within the first couple seconds of the film, I knew I was in for a long movie. Funny names are seldom funny, and become even less funny the more you hear them. Lambeau is one of the worst coaches in the world, but he's been given another chance by his best friend, Freddie Wiseman (Carl Weathers), to coach a ragtag high school football team called The Comebacks. Lambeau must not only lead the team to victory, but also teach them the ways of inspirational sports movie clichés. He expects his kids to have poor grades and problems with alcohol, and ridicules them when they don't. When it looks like the team has a chance to play at the big championship Toilet Bowl game (Did 10-year-olds write this script?), Lambeau is shocked to discover that Freddie is the coach of the big rival team that his team will be playing against. Turns out Freddie only encouraged Lambeau to take the coaching job, because he wanted The Comebacks to lose.
The Comebacks is a movie so forced and pathetic, I almost had a hard time believing what I was watching. Spoof movies have recently turned into a game of "spot the movie reference", and this continues the tradition. It tries to squeeze in as many references to other sports movies as it can, but it either does absolutely nothing with them, expecting us to just point at the screen and laugh out of familiarity, or it attempts to be funny and falls flat on its face. Some of the films referenced include Field of Dreams, Bend it Like Beckham, Rocky Balboa, Friday Night Lights, Stick It, Radio, Miracle, Remember the Titans, Gridiron Gang, Invincible, and Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. But wait, wasn't Dodgeball already a parody of inspirational sports movies? So, in other words, we're watching a parody of a parody of inspirational sports movies. If that makes any sense to you, you're just the audience this movie is looking for. Some of these films are referenced in the plot, and some (like the Rocky one) are just thrown in for no reason, because the filmmakers wanted to try to reference as many films as possible. There are some that the movie even feels the need to explain to us in its dialogue, just in case we've missed the obvious reference. You know a movie is in trouble when it has to spell out its own jokes to us.
The worst thing is that the screenplay by TV veterans and first time screen writers, Ed Yeager and Joey Gutierrez, doesn't even know the first and most important rule of parody - You have to play it straight. The actors have to pretend they're not in on the joke. The reason why the classic Zucker Brothers movies like Airplane, Top Secret, and The Naked Gun are remembered so fondly is because they cast serious actors like Leslie Nielsen (yes, he was a serious actor before he turned to comedy) and Robert Stack, and then threw them into ridiculous situations. What made it funny is that they acted like they weren't in a comedy, and kept a stone face to the weirdness around them. Those films wouldn't have worked if they played their roles broadly. The Comebacks proves this, as all the actors are forced to play their roles so goofy, it's like they're screaming at us to laugh. David Koechner keeps on flailing his arms, bulging his eyes, and screaming at the top of his lungs to the point he looks like someone who knows he's trapped in a dead-end comedy, and just tries too hard to pretend he's having a good time. The movie also doesn't understand the art of celebrity cameos (also an important factor when it comes to parody films). What kind of cameos do we get in The Comebacks? Andy Dick and Dennis Rodman.
By the time the movie throws in an out of nowhere and extremely pointless cast musical number to Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I was just about ready to walk out the theater door. I was the only person at my screening, and the thought of this movie going on its pathetic way to a completely empty house kind of appealed to me. I did sit through the rest of The Comebacks, and I was not rewarded for my efforts. The sad thing is, Fox is not yet done killing the spoof genre. They have a parody of 300 coming out next year called Meet the Spartans. I'd say it can't be much worse than this, but I've seen the trailer, and I wouldn't want to get your hopes up.