Bang! Pow!

And other such noises made by characters in comic book movies, the subject of this week's A-List on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?indexID=32

Monday Morning on Tuesday Afternoon

Yes, I'm a bit off, but no matter! Read this Monday Morning Quarterback...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11556

A Look Back at Finding Nemo

Copyright 2003, Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar Animation Studios

Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios have made, as of today, nine films. 2003's Finding Nemo is the fifth; as a midpoint in the current output from Pixar, it's interesting to look at the film as the major turning point for the fledgling computer-animation company. Two main stories have emerged since the film's release, both of which could have pegged the film as a failure. First, the unspoken truth of the original voice of the film's lead, Marlin, a neurotic father whose son goes missing in the vast reaches of the sea; though Albert Brooks, who does voice Marlin, was the first choice for the film's director and co-writer, Andrew Stanton, William H. Macy got the role and did the entire script before...well, Stanton and friends just didn't think his voice worked. Obviously, we're never going to hear Macy's work, but the story goes that he understood as much as the Pixar folk that he wasn't right for the part. Either way, Brooks is fantastic in the role.

The other story is more well-known: in 2001, as Monsters, Inc. was readying for release, the head of the Walt Disney Company, Michael Eisner, was not thrilled with the work being done on Nemo. He thought it was weak & Marlin was shrill and annoying. He figured that this film would be the first slight against Pixar, which had been previously perfect; critics and audiences loved their films, and he figured Nemo would stop that streak. Thanks mostly due to Stanton's wise decision to alter the film's story around and to fix some script problems, Eisner was proven wrong. Stanton had originally held back on revealing exactly why Marlin was so neurotic (his wife and the rest of his children are eaten by a barracuda), explaning the story in flashback. As we now see it, the entire scene opens the film and wastes no time in explaning why the character voiced by Albert Brooks sounds and acts exactly like...well, most characters played by Albert Brooks: neurotic, worrying, and seemingly weak.

Eisner, as I said, was wrong. In fact, he was so wrong that it ended up, in some way, costing him his job and getting Pixar to pretty much control far more of Disney than he might have wanted. Finding Nemo is Pixar's most successful film, with just about $340 million domestically, and over $850 million worldwide. It's the highest-selling DVD of all time; musicals, theme park attractions, and the like have been created because of the film's success. Most importantly, Finding Nemo was the movie that helped reinforce this idea: when it comes to animation, there is now no longer Disney vs. everyone else. There is Pixar, and then there is the long distance between them and everyone else. When Disney reigned supreme, it was because there was no competition. Pixar came along and rivals sprung up; as successful as those rivals are, when you boast Kung Fu Panda as your strongest film....I don't know how well it speaks for DreamWorks.

Finding Nemo may not be the most complete break from the older Pixar films, the movies that added plenty of clever humor based on human-style interactions among non-human characters (the first 10 minutes of Nemo poke fun at fish in the same way), but it's the first film that dealt with main characters and their realistic drama. Before this, only Toy Story 2 hinted at this with the subplot involving Jessie the cowgirl. Here, though, is a movie whose main character is genuinely complex for genuine reasons; his sidekick has a mental disease which impairs her severely (yes, Dory the tang is adorable, but the truth is the truth). The dentally savvy fish who Nemo meets in the aquarium he's stolen away to by an arrogant Australian dentist are almost too human to function in the ocean and have been completely institutionalized.

Yes, I'm reading too much into Finding Nemo, which is one of the more exciting adventure films of the past decade, a breathless and suspenseful story about a father's undying love for his only son. But the complexities are there in a different way than any Pixar film that came before it. Still, Finding Nemo is a far less complex film than Stanton's next directorial effort, WALL-E. Despite that, the animation in Nemo is arguably the best Pixar's ever offered, and that is saying a lot. The general design of the ocean and its inner workings looks close to photo-realistic without seeming too real. The fish in the film, from Marlin and Dory to Nemo and Gill, look real enough; some look freakish, such as the menacing fish with a light attached to its forehead. It took the folks at the studio in Emeryville, California six years to complete the picture, and all the work shows.

The script, by Stanton, Bob Peterson, and David Reynolds, is sharp and crisp; we spend enough time with every character and feel like they're all clearly defined, even the three dads who pester Marlin, a clownfish, to tell them a joke. Of course, with Brooks and comedienne Ellen DeGeneres as Marlin and Dory, the movie is made in the shade. Brooks and DeGeneres take two characters who are very potentially awful and obnoxious and make them not only fully realized but fully lovable. Though Dory is the more hilarious, both characters are brilliantly conceived and performed. Their relationship is easily the best twosome since Woody and Buzz. Moreover, it's easy to note a similarity between these two mismatched characters and Wall-E and Eve. The only difference here is that the main character of Nemo is the Eve substitute, not the Wall-E substitute.

I can't believe that I could have gotten you to read this far down if you haven't already seen Finding Nemo (hence my lack of explaining the plot beyond saying that Marlin, the dad, has to find his missing son, Nemo), so presuming that you are that rare person....SEE THIS MOVIE. Just stop reading and see it. I wouldn't put Finding Nemo at the top of my list of Pixar favorites (still WALL-E, Ratatouille, and The Incredibles at the top), but it's a great film, a great animated feature, and massively entertaining.

The Soloist

Copyright 2009, DreamWorks Pictures

It's interesting that, only one week after State of Play opened in American theaters, The Soloist comes out; both films are almost completely different with one big exception: a subplot in each film deals with the demise of the newspaper industry. Both film's main characters (or some of them) decry the lack of interest in the 21st-century American public in the newspaper industry and the stories they have to offer. For many reasons, the argument is sold better in State of Play.

A major part of that is due to the fact that The Soloist, based on its marketing, shouldn't have anything to say about the newspaper industry. Yes, one of the main characters, real-life columnist Steve Lopez (Robert Downey, Jr.), writes for the Los Angeles Times, and other characters work in a newsroom, but based on the trailers, this movie is about Lopez's relationship with Nathaniel Anthony Ayers, Jr. (Jamie Foxx), a homeless man who was once a student at Juilliard and is a skilled cello player. Old media dying shouldn't be part of this film.

Even worse, the film's director, Joe Wright (previously of Pride and Prejudice and Atonement), and screenwriter, Susannah Grant, don't care enough to talk about dying papers past the first half of the film. In general, The Soloist is a film with too much going on. First, we see the blooming friendship between Lopez and Ayers. Second, we're given flashbacks into how exactly Ayers went from cello prodigy to a mentally disturbed homeless man. Third, we're shown how dominant the problem of the homeless community in Los Angeles is. Fourth, finally, is the newspaper's death. In a film that barely reaches two hours, that's just too much to work with, especially since Grant's script gives short shrift to the final two elements.

Wright and company are able to pull off three of the plots; only the newspaper section completely falls flat. I mentioned in my review of State of Play that the supporting characters in the newsroom felt believable, as did their interactions with the main characters played by Russell Crowe and Rachel McAdams. The Soloist fails there; aside from Downey, Jr., the only other major players in the newsroom are Mary, Lopez's ex-wife, played by Catherine Keener; and two of Lopez's fellow writers, played by Rachael Harris and Stephen Root. Keener's character is given more to do with regards to her marriage to Lopez. [Spoiler alert] When Mary is told, in the middle of a musically-tinged sequence that focuses more on Ayers, that she's being fired, even Keener's natural charm can't make me care; this lack of interest is compounded because her job loss is never mentioned again. Very lazy.[End spoilers]

Despite all of this, I liked The Soloist, completely because of Robert Downey, Jr. and Jamie Foxx, two immensely charismatic actors who play off each other well. Downey, Jr. sells his frustrated writer role better than most; though this isn't his best performance, he's about as good as you'd expect, meaning that he's amazing. In a role that could very easily be cheesy and hammy, Foxx does a great job of reining his homeless character in. Though he delivers many verbose and nonsensical monologues, Foxx embodies Ayers, making him feel realistic even when he's pushing those who care about him most away. Keener, as mentioned before, is quite good in a thankless role. The other supporting cast has very little to do, with Nelsan Ellis, as a smart but somewhat uncaring homeless shelter worker, being a standout. Aside from the strong lead performances, Wright manages to be flashy (especially in a psychedelic sequence as Ayers watches the Los Angeles Philharmonic play Beethoven) but not as forcefully so as in Atonement (go on, tell me WHY the five-minute sequence needed to be one take or even needed to occur).

Overall, The Soloist is a film hampered by a weak script but lifted up by great actors who deserve better. I'd say see it, even with its flaws and the burden of being known as an ex-Oscar contender (what with having been moved from its cushy November slot).

Why Do I Know Who This Woman Is?

So...why DO I know who this woman is? Why is this woman's name--Susan Boyle, for those of you lucky people who've been living under a rock--easily recognizable to me, or to anyone else? No, I don't read US Weekly, or any such gossip rag; I don't watch shows like "Access Hollywood" or "Extra," with the exception of whatever jaw-droppingly awkward clips get shown on E!'s "The Soup"; I haven't seen the YouTube clip, only the five-second snippet was tagged to the credits of whatever entertainment gossip show that comes on before NBC's "Chuck." So why do I know who Susan Boyle is and why should I care?

That's the real question. With everything going on this world (serious and otherwise), I honestly don't know why anyone in the mainstream American media thinks this is a story. The point of the Susan Boyle thing is this: people have talent! People who aren't younger than 30 have talent! People who aren't attractive and are older than 30 have talent! I mean, is that even possible? We are living in the world of Logan's Run, right? Oh...wait, this is the real world? Where people of any stripes have talent? Well, holy fucking shit, you just blew my mind.

This is the thought process the media is having. Journalists for the AP and regular entertainment sources (some of whom may just have peaked 30 years old a long time ago) think it's a big deal that a superficially unattractive woman from the United Kingdom can sing well. And why is that? Because people have forgotten what the point of a show like, in this case, "Britain's Got Talent" is supposed to be. The same goes for "America's Got Talent" and "American Idol." The point of these shows is to find people (sometimes of a certain age range, sometimes not) who can do something well. And that's all it is. Now, they've become something completely different; "American Idol" is far guiltier of screwing up here. The point is to find talented people or, at the very least, talented voices.

All of this is meant to say: Susan Boyle is a person. People have skills, unique to themselves. Susan Boyle's unique skill, or one of them, is her voice. Media: Get over it. Please.

It Will Put You In...Suspense!

Alfred Hitchcock's movies, that is. Specifically, 1955's To Catch A Thief, which I reviewed for the Classic Movie Reviews section of Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11551

And Now, the A-List

This one's based on a true story! Read the A-List...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11546

Two Months Out II

It's the second part of Two Months Out on Box Office Prophets, folks! Step right up!

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11548

Is June Really That Far Out?

Two Months Out, to be exact, which you can read on Box Office Prophets; Land of the Lost is the first topic o' discussion...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11545

State of Weak Play

Unfortunately. Great movie, weak B.O. Not that kind. Check out the insights in Monday Morning Quarterback, Part Two, at Box Office Prophets.

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11539

Zac Efron=Macaulay Culkin?

God, let's hope so; I'm tired of seeing him on my movie screens. We talk about his recent success with 17 Again in this week's Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11538

You want to read it....you WILL read it...

A Look Back at Monsters, Inc.

Copyright 2009, Disney/Pixar

First of all, I wanted to apologize for pushing this back so far. It's been a long few weeks since I looked back at 1999's Toy Story 2, the third Pixar animated feature. I was hoping to get this one up last week but, for some reason, Netflix found it unnecessary to ship this DVD until a few days later. That said, do expect another look back at Pixar each weekend, leading up to the May 29 release of Up.

Speaking of which, it's interesting to take a look now at the 2001 Pixar release, Monsters, Inc., as that film's director, Pete Docter, also takes the reins for the next Pixar cartoon. Though Docter didn't take any of the script credit for Monsters, Inc., I imagine his sensibility from the earlier film will shine through for Up. Either way, when watching Monsters, Inc., I found that I really had forgotten a lot about this movie. I'd still say it's lower on my list of preferred Pixar films, but I enjoyed the film more this time around than I had when I saw it in theaters. It's hard for me to quantify why this is still not going to end up higher than, for example, a bug's life; I guess there's some nostalgia about watching that pint-sized movie.

Monsters, Inc. is really entertaining but unlike anything Pixar's done; though it has plenty of adventure in its third act, the first half of the film is the closest they've come to creating a screwball farce. Once the lead characters, James P. "Sully" Sullivan and Mike Wazowski, get trucked off to the Himalayas, the story is strictly an adventure, but until that point, as Sully and Mike attempt to hide the human girl who snuck into the monster world, farce reigns. As such, this film is the fastest, the craziest, and the one without a strong emotional anchor. Yes, I know that Sully becoming a father figure to Boo, the toddler with the quick moves, is meant to be the source of emotion, but so little time is spent on their relationship. Though we believe Sully has become so attached to this girl (mostly thanks to John Goodman's stellar voice work), there's not enough time to build the relationship what with all the wackiness going on around it.

The strongest element is the friendship between Sully and Mike; I'm not sure how much chemistry was added by having Goodman and Billy Crystal in the recording studio together, but I'm sure it helped. Listening to Crystal riff as Mike and have Goodman's Sully be the sole thing that seems to calm Mike down provides a lot of laughter. Also, the third-act sequence involving all the doors the monsters use to scare children is not only great, but a roller-coaster ride waiting to happen. The plot is meager (monsters really do scare children, but only to create energy; when a child sneaks into the monster world, havoc ensues), but the crisp animation along with the fast pace and lots of clever humor helps lift this movie past it.

I've got the least to say about Monsters, Inc., but let me point out one thing: the first billed screenwriter is Andrew Stanton, who was the director of Pixar's next film, Finding Nemo, which I'll discuss next week. Consider the similar father-child relationship in that film along with the devotion Sully shows to Boo in this film. It's interesting to consider how a similar theme plays out in both films, even more so since the idea works out far better in the underwater opus. But...we'll talk about Nemo next week.

Bolt

Copyright 2009, Walt Disney Pictures

I finally caught up with last November's Bolt on Blu-ray yesterday. From Walt Disney Pictures' animation studio (but produced by Pixar's John Lasseter), Bolt was a modest success at the box office and was thought of by most people I read as a charming addition to the Disney canon. Though it is absolutely better than other recent Disney-only animated films (less said about Chicken Little and Meet The Robinsons), Bolt is, by no means, a great movie.

Overall, the animation is probably the best thing about the movie. Though it's still hard to hold a candle up to what Pixar's doing with its films, the characters in Bolt are strikingly animated, both quirky and realistic. The title character is at once adorable and fierce; we can see why his "person," Penny, falls in love with him when she sees the pooch at a local pound in the opening scene. The humans don't look too garish nor too realistic, and the colorful backdrops also work in the film's favor.

Whatever issues I have with this film are strictly in the plot. Before I harp on the film's slight lack of originality, let's get this out of the way: there is no way that, in the real world, an entire television show's production would care AT ALL if the sole dog in the show thought everything was real. The whole plot of the movie is that Bolt doesn't realize he's just a dog on a TV show; he thinks he really can shoot heat from his eyes, his bark can destroy people, and he's incredibly fast. Why does he think it's real? It's not because, you know, he's a really dumb dog, it's because the director of the show tries to keep him in the dark. The best part about this early explanation is the rejoinder that comes from the network executive who's on the receiving end of the director's monologue: in essence, make a better show, or you're fired.

Why, though? Why would a dog have to be kept in the dark that much? It's just ridiculous. Thus, despite the fast-paced opening action sequence, I was kept at a distance from really enjoying this movie. I realize that I have to suspend my disbelief when I'm watching a movie about a talking dog, but there's a limit. When the filmmakers spend more than a few seconds on discussing a TV show's ratings points, I feel like there's a disconnect between fantasy and reality. There's a way to make something unbelievable seem realistic, but no such luck with Bolt.

As the title character, John Travolta's fine, selling some of Bolt's bombastic lines and also his third-act realization of his true self. The infamous Miley Cyrus plays Penny and has little to do, aside from worry that Bolt's been lost; the actress is billed second but is only in about 20 minutes of the movie. I'm sure her agent helped that second-billing happen, which is ironic thanks to the smarmy agent character who follows Penny around during the movie. The real second lead is Mittens, a streetwise cat who helps Bolt get back to Los Angeles, voiced by comedienne Susie Essman. Essman's pretty good, managing to tone down her sly harshness for the movie but not too much.

The other issue with the plot, as I mentioned above, is originality. Having a lead character believe he is a superstar of some kind has been done before...by Pixar. Having a female lead character with self-pity because her owner or owners left her behind has been done before...by Pixar. Moreover, Pixar's done it better. I know that Bolt went through a lot of changes in every level and, again, it's a good movie, but the potential for greatness was here. I know I sound like a real downer, but Bolt is a good movie, a strong entry for Disney. If they're able to make more movies like these without Pixar being attached, I'm thrilled. I just hope they work on improving with the next film.

State of Play

Copyright 2009, Universal Pictures

After much ballyhoo about the original stars of the political thriler State of Play jumping ship (they were Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, for those keeping count), the movie's finally been released with two just-as-able leading men in the roles, Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck. Having not seen the six-hour British miniseries on which this American remake is based, I can't speak to this film's success in changing the story around for those of us in the States; I can say, though, that this is a tightly wound, suspenseful thriller with some good surprises and strong performances. That State of Play's final message is a bit tone-deaf is a more minor problem than you might think.

First of all, I cannot say enough how wise a choice it is to cast Crowe as the main character, rusty journalist Cal McAffrey. Brad Pitt, who I presume would've played this role, wouldn't have been anything close to right for this role. First of all, though Pitt's 45, he looks far younger and doesn't seem to have the right sensibility to play a journalist whose entire life is a mess, inside and out. Crowe fits the profile better and sells each scene very well. Norton, who would've played Congressman Stephen Collins, a straight-arrow from Pennsylvania, probably wouldn't have had any problem getting into character, though.

I say all of this mostly to boost up Crowe and Affleck, who are both solid and charismatic in State of Play. In some ways, this kind of plot isn't too unfamiliar to most of us (I equate it to a good paperback novel you read on a long airplane trip), but I was sold on most of the surprises. Sure, I probably should have figured things out a little quicker than I did. However, being so completely in the dark about, at least, the final twist made Cal and his sidekick, political blogger Della Frye (Rachael McAdams), easier to believe when they were equally surprised.

The plot revolves around the mysterious presumed suicide of a researcher on Collins' staff who he had an affair with. Is her death connected to the Blackwater-esque contractor the congressman is trying to bring to justice? McAffrey spends most of the movie trying to investigate the death and two seemingly unrelated murders that end up, of course, as big pieces of the puzzle. Frye's along for the ride after sticking her nose into McAffrey's story; they're hounded by the editor of their paper, the Washington Globe, played wonderfully by Helen Mirren. What works better in this film than the somewhat old-fashioned plot machinations is the atmosphere created by director Kevin MacDonald and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto. Also, I want to throw some kudos out for the editor of State of Play, Justine Wright, who corrals a potentially wide-ranging story into a suspenseful and slick two-hour film.

The best thing about the script, by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy, and Billy Ray, is the relationships that are already in progress by the time the movie starts. Usually, thanks to awkward line readings or a lack of chemistry among actors, such relationships fall flat but when we see Cal interacting with his fellow journalists (played by Michael Weston and Josh Mostel), it feels real. Crowe purely embodies a journalist, and these two guys are absolutely real as his cohorts. The worst thing about the script--maybe just the most misguided--is the message that sneaks through the entire movie and ends up being the biggest point MacDonald makes. I'll boil it down for you: New media bad! Old media good! Though Della's a blogger, she ends up believing that this story should be solely printed in newspapers. A major portion of the end credits play over a montage of how a newspaper ends up being created in a nearby warehouse, from the printing press to the delivery truck.

That montage, though, just proves the opposite of the film's message. When a story as the one that breaks at the end of State of Play is as important as it is, why would you want to waste hours of time on publishing the story in an actual paper as opposed to sending it to the masses online? The newspaper business is, in its print form, falling by the wayside. Also, as pointed out by my wife, wouldn't the story just go online anyway? More people are likely to read such a story online. Investigative reporting is important, but it can be important in any form and the quickest one to access (also the cheapest) will win.

Despite that montage (which is well-shot and edited) and the overall message, State of Play is an efficient and entertaining thriller with some great performances (as a sleazy PR agent, Jason Bateman steals the show). Just ignore that last scene.

OK, This is the Stunning Conclusion

Smart me, not even aware of the third part of One Month Out on Box Office Prophets until now...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11528

Read!

I Should Be His Agent!

OK, I'm probably not the first person who's thought of this idea, but with the news this week that HBO is prepping a movie version of the 2008 election, McCain, Palin, Clinton, and of course, President Obama, along with his supporting role in State of Play, which I'll have a review of tomorrow....anyone else think that Harry Lennix is a perfect person to play Obama? Take a look at that picture above and tell me he's not perfect. Tell me!

Jaw-Dropping!

Spoilers abound in this week's A-List on Box Office Prophets, all about classic twist endings:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11529

Check it out!

Fast Days of May, Again

Check out the second part of One Month Out at Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11527

Do it!

Fast Days of May

The first part of our predictions for the blockbusters of the next month on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11526

Slow Days of April

As evidenced by the "Oh, wow, Hannah Montana did amazing at the box office" fervor from those who ignore the fact that the number-one movie of the weekend made less than twice its opening-day gross...

Here's this week's Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11519

I've Loved You So Long

Copyright 2009, Sony Pictures Classics

A few words here about my most recent Blu-ray rental from Netflix (thanks, by the way, for raising that price on your Blu-ray rentals, Netflix; great timing), the French drama I've Loved You So Long, that garnered a lot of Oscar buzz last fall for its lead performance from English actress Kristin Scott Thomas. Thomas was, in a word, shortchanged at the Oscar ceremony. No, she probably wouldn't have won, but her performance as Juliette, a mentally scarred woman being released from a 15-year stint in prison to her younger sister, is phenomenal. Like most of the great performances, Thomas works with her face more than with the dialogue. Only a few times does Juliette ever lash out at someone or raise her voice. When she does, Thomas arguably brings the heat very well. More often than not, she speaks quietly or not at all.

I won't tell you the plot aside from what I've already mentioned. Thanks to the description Netflix wrote for me, I knew a bit more about Juliette's past than I should have; there's really only one mystery here, one that unravels slowly and painfully. The less you know, the better. Overall, the film is very strong, much like an engrossing short story. The movie doesn't just focus on Juliette, but also her sister, the happier, more content Lea (Elsa Zylberstein). Their relationship is so real, so raw, it's a bit of a shock to see that the film's writer and director is a man, Phillippe Claudel, making his feature debut. I did have a few quibbles about some scenes during the film; one in particular where a truly rude dinner guest won't shut up about wondering where Juliette's from and why he's never heard about her before really pissed me off, not because of the character, but because it felt unnecessary and unrealistic. Overall, though, I've Loved You So Long is a strong character study worth checking out.

Monsters Vs. Aliens

Copyright 2009, DreamWorks Animation

The debate comes up every time a DreamWorks or Pixar film is released: does story or money matter more? DreamWorks, mostly because they just make more movies per year, always ends up with more money in the bank than Disney/Pixar does. Should it matter that DreamWorks wins the financial end of things when Pixar is more likely to make a film that will resonate for more than a few seconds after you leave the multiplex? And so the debate rolled on when, two weeks ago, the latest DreamWorks animated feature, Monsters Vs. Aliens, was released in theaters, in 3-D.

Well, the debate will rage on. Monsters Vs. Aliens made a pretty penny at the box office and helped push forward the idea to theater exhibitors that 3-D technology is a must in just about every screen in the country. With regards to the 3-D debate, I'm with Jeffrey Katzenberg: make 3-D a common thing in movie theaters. The amount of money being made on movies with this technology, such as Coraline or Journey to the Center of the Earth is helping woo some exhibitors over. Monsters Vs. Aliens is another strong argument for 3-D, partly because of how many more people saw it in 3-D instead of 2-D, and partly because the animation speaks for itself. Of course, the animation in the 2008 DreamWorks animated feature Kung Fu Panda was far stronger, but the 3-D technology helps make Monsters Vs. Aliens seem more real, more alive.

You may have noticed that I'm talking more about the technology than the story here and, well, there's a damn good reason: Monsters Vs. Aliens is not a movie about story. Like most DreamWorks films, the movie is about making you laugh at pop-culture references delivered by big-name actors and never remembering the experience. Granted, the animation has come far from the time when Will Smith was made into a fish that looked remarkably like...Will Smith, in 2005's Shark Tale. Still, one of the biggest gags in this movie is that Stephen Colbert plays the President of the United States. The gag isn't what he says as the character, but the fact that he's playing the character.

I can't say I wasn't moderately entertained by Monsters Vs. Aliens (its San Francisco-based action sequence was about as zippy and fast-paced as you can get these days), and I do love the cast of the film (among the stars are Colbert, Hugh Laurie, Seth Rogen, Reese Witherspoon, Will Arnett, Kiefer Sutherland, Paul Rudd, Amy Poehler, John Krasinski, and Jeffrey Tambor). That said, the movie tries too hard to be funny and tries for the wrong audience. Having the President try to communicate with an alien via the five-note theme from Close Encounters of the Third Kind is amusing enough to the adults in the audience, but having him then follow with the synth theme from Beverly Hills Cop is awfully stupid. First of all, why that theme? Second of all, no kid in the audience is going to get that reference. Speaking of, though I've seen the film two weeks late, I was in a relatively packed crowd, filled with lots of kids who didn't laugh...at all. I bet they liked it, but the only ones who laughed at this movie were the adults. I'll say it again...DreamWorks is aiming for the wrong audience.

Still, a movie like Monsters Vs. Aliens is far more tolerable than recent DreamWorks animated entries, and I continue to hope for their success in the future. One can only hope for them to work as hard on the stories as they do on the technology.

Observe and Report

Copyright 2009, Warner Bros. Pictures

A movie like Observe and Report is a good way for a comic actor to get all the bile out of his or her system every few years, I guess. Observe and Report belongs to the same group as Punch-Drunk Love, The Cable Guy, or The Razor's Edge, movies where funny men don't really act as cheerfully funny as you'd expect or want them to. Though it has plenty of funny moments, I'd be hard-pressed to call Observe and Report a straight-up comedy. Shock value aside, most of the violence in this film along with the sheer insanity of the lead character dampens any potential comic value.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy Observe and Report, a far darker film than the previews hint at. No, I liked it very much--I do hesitate to use the word "like," for obvious reasons, but you get my drift. Starring Seth Rogen as a mentally unstable head of mall security in the local suburbs, Observe and Report is a movie about why some people really shouldn't touch any kind of firearms. OK, it's not really about that, but when you see Ronnie Barnhart (Rogen) picking up a pistol at various points during the story, you cringe. Cringing is what you'll do, much more than you will laugh. Writer-director Jody Hill (he of The Foot Fist Way and Eastbound and Down) loves the cringe-worthy humor in life more than the relatable or wacky humor. Crazy things happen in Observe and Report, but all comes with a guarantee that laughter shouldn't be the most immediate reaction. Is it really funny when Ronnie finally gets his way with Brandi (Anna Faris), the slutty makeup clerk in the mall by date-raping her? Is it really funny when he takes out his aggression on a mean-spirited fast-food manager? Is it funny to see Ronnie take on some drug dealers? The last one is somewhat funny, if only because it gives Rogen and Danny McBride another excuse to play off each other.

The point is still the same, though. Much of this film is bogged down in realism, until the final 15 minutes. There have been many comparisons between this film and Taxi Driver. Don't worry; Taxi Driver is still a much better film, but in the way that Ronnie thinks and leads his interior monologues, a line can be drawn between him and Travis Bickle. The difference is this: what happens at the end of Taxi Driver could be explained as a fantasy ("could" being the operative word). What happens at the end of Observe and Report is, apparently, all real. All of it happens, and that leads me to wonder whether Hill wants this character to get off so easily. I won't ruin the ending for you, but in the same movie where Rogen both gives and is given a beatdown by local cops in the mall, it's hard to have a happy ending.

I admire Seth Rogen for doing something different (Ronnie is a truly repulsive person, except when he talks to Nell, a handicapped fast-food clerk), and I admire Hill for making this a studio-distributed comedy. If only Hill had gone just a bit further with the story and character. It may have been painful to watch, but the journey would have more sense and been more satisfying.

Let My Review Go...

Check out my review of The Fifteen....no, wait...Ten! Ten Commandments at Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11513

Ah Huh Huh Huh

My bad impression, in word form, of Seth Rogen's laugh. This week, he and his laugh are on the A-List at Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11510

A Quick Thought

I realized this as I was about to nod off last night: when you consider that, apparently, the May 6 episode of Lost (still the best show on television, in case you weren't sure where I stood) is going to focus on Richard Alpert, the mystery man on the island whose face we have seen (Jacob's the one who we haven't seen yet). If that's true, will we find out the answer to why we have only one time seen him not looking debonair and eye-shadow-y? With the exception of the episode titled "The Man Behind The Curtain," we've always seen Nestor Carbonell looking young and fresh, no matter what time period the show is set in. In that episode, though, when young Benjamin Linus first met Alpert, he was in raggedy clothing, had unkempt and long hair, and looked a little thrown off and a tad scared. Will we ever find out why? Please tell me it's not going to end up as unknown as those weird-ass numbers.

Anyway....less than an hour to showtime.

The Shocking Denoument

...to this week's Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11502

Monday Morning Quarterback

Fast and Furious makes how much money over the weekend? Geez. Read about it on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11501

Synecdoche, New York

Copyright 2008, Sony Pictures

Usually, when I hear about a movie that must be seen more than once to be properly understood, I avoid that movie, or the person who's saying two viewings are required, completely. It's not that I don't enjoy deep thought; I do, but I also would appreciate that a movie features some interest on each viewing. If it makes me sound like a philistine, so be it: a movie shouldn't be made to be enjoyed the second time I see it only. So, be aware that I say this knowing how hypocritical I sound: if you see Synecdoche, New York (and yes, you should), you should probably see it twice.

Granted, director-writer Charlie Kaufman probably doesn't want you to enjoy this movie. There's no real enjoyment to be had, but the intellectual stimulation that comes from his ideas, the intrigue of the labyrinthine plot, the phenomenal performance by the lead, Philip Seymour Hoffman (using the less-is-more approach): all adds up to a unique viewing experience, one you have never gone through before. My guess is that when I see this film again, I won't feel the same about it, and whatever went through my head the first time around will be completely different. That, more than likely, is the kind of reaction Kaufman's looking for (if he's looking for reactions, demanding them).

Of course, one problem I have with the movie, this time around, is that the point Kaufman makes, or one of them, seems pretty obvious way before Caden Cotard (Hoffman) gets around to realizing it. The movie is both a celebration of life and a neurotic look at the threat of death. Cotard, a director of plays such as an all-young version of Death of a Salesman, receives a MacArthur Grant at the same time that his wife and daughter leave him to go to Berlin; he decides to use his grant to put on a massive show within two enormouse warehouses. The show never has an audience, except for Caden. The show has no script, except for life. The show has no direction, except for Caden and life.

No further about the plot. I couldn't do it justice. The performances all around, mostly by women (such as Dianne Wiest, Hope Davis, Catherine Keener, and Samantha Morton), are great. I can't say I could wrap my head around all of this film, because it's just not easy enough to conquer it in one viewing. I didn't love it, I didn't like all of it, but Synecdoche, New York is the kind of movie that only Charlie Kaufman could make, the kind of movie that few have the daring to stage anymore. It is a fascinating, hypnotic, challenging film to watch, but watch it you should, and watch it more than once.

Adventureland

Copyright 2009, Miramax Films

As I talked about on the recent A-List at Box Office Prophets (which I know you've read, right? Right?), the coming-of-age movie is a common cinematic trope, one that will never die as long as there are a few films every few years that don't drop the ball on the classic predecessors like Say Anything... or Stand By Me. Who knows if there will be more in 2009, but Greg Mottola's Adventureland will definitely keep the coming-of-age genre afloat. Starring Jesse Eisenberg (who now has to fight Michael Cera in a cage match for the Awkward Actor award, I think), Kristen Stewart, Ryan Reynolds, Bill Hader, and Kristen Wiig, this is a charming comedy-drama with enough realism, enough true-to-life situations, that you can't help but be won over.

Eisenberg is James Brennan, who's just graduated with a bachelor's degree in comparative literature and is hoping to go to Columbia to study journalism in graduate school. When his dad gets a pay cut, however, James is left with no option for his summer in Pittsburgh but to get a job. Since James has no job experience with...well, pretty much anything, he has to get a job at the local, rinky-dink amusement park called Adventureland (how Disney never sued this fictional park, I'll never know). James begins working on the carnival-style games that are rigged so no one ever wins, for example, a giant-ass panda...unless they cheat, that is. James hates his job but meets some good friends like Joel (Martin Starr, from Freaks and Geeks), Connell (Reynolds), and Em (Stewart), a beautiful, quiet girl studying at New York University. Despite his naivete, his hang-ups with girls, and his general awkwardness, James falls madly in love with Em, who reciprocates even though she's got her own issues that may screw things up for both of them.

The movie's been marketed as a straight comedy (it helps that Mottola directed 2007's Superbad) but this is far more than just a goofy, teen comedy. Mottola, who also wrote the script, uses Em as the signpost to warn away those expecting raunch. Her entire character, realized beautifully by Stewart (who more than makes up for the first Twilight film here), is complicated, frustrating, and is the type to always make the wrong choices. Though the film, in its romantic dealings, has a typical structure--boy meets girl, boy and girl fall for each other, boy and girl try to deal with personal problems separately, boy and girl fall out, boy and girl get back together--you can't help but admire how the characters go through the paces, making the whole thing feel more real, not something out of a cheesy romantic comedy.

Whatever false moves are made here, mostly involving subplots with supporting characters like Joel, may be excused with a deleted scene or two on the subsequent DVD release. If that's not the case, it's easy to argue that Mottola isn't closing the subplots up because real life doesn't always have pat endings. Along with Coraline, Adventureland is easily one of the finest films of the year, so far.

Sleuth

Copyright 2007, Sony Pictures

A quick word here about another recent watch on Netflix Instant. I remember seeing the 1972 film version of the famous British play Sleuth, starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, and loving it, despite its admitted staginess and heighted, over-the-top reality. I was eager, then, to check out the 2007 remake directed by Kenneth Branagh, adapted by the late Harold Pinter, and starring Michael Caine and Jude Law; for Caine, the role is reversed here. The movie pretty much disappeared from theaters and got tepid reviews, so I was surprised to even see it on Netflix, but I devoured it quickly.

Granted, if you're familiar with the old version, you really don't know what to expect with the 2007 version. Yes, there are two characters named Andrew Wyke and Milo Tindle. Yes, Wyke is an older man, a famous author, married to a younger woman. Yes, Tindle, the younger, lower-class man, is fooling around with Wyke's wife and has come to ask Wyke for a divorce, and games do then proceed. But the design of the film is sharply different, as Wyke's house is no longer filled with nostalgic games and knick-knacks, nor is it homely and inviting in any way. Instead, the house is metallic, cold, at sharp angles, unfriendly; it's modern architecture gone wrong.

Also, the film is incredibly short: 86 minutes with credits, as opposed to the original being over two hours long. Thus, though some of the original's surprises remain intact (I wonder who that mysterious detective investigating Tindle's disappearance could be...), the outcome's shorter. Finally, the subtext is changed, no longer about the class system in Britain, but about the creeping homosexuality that the two leads give off towards each other. Thus, we have a more fascinating yet emptier film to watch. Caine and Law are great, the Pinter dialogue not giving them any pause. The film itself is a little flat, a little too stylish, to make up for the staginess and archness that pervades the surface of this play-turned-movie. I'd say see it, but only if you're a bit familiar with the source material.

Tell No One

Copyright 2009, Magnolia Pictures

I shouldn't be too happy with Magnolia Pictures right now, as I'm one of the unlucky few who ended up buying a Blu-ray of Let The Right One In before I realized all the subtitles had been changed, there wouldn't be any exchanges, and the people who work for Magnolia (or at least one of them) are huge fucking douchebags who don't care about their already-small fanbase. Good way to keep folks happy, guys; don't let us exchange our crappy versions for the RIGHT one. Idiots.

But, since it's been discussed a lot by now and I'd only add more fervent frustration, let's talk about why I'm a little less annoyed at the folks at Magnolia: Tell No One, the French thriller that was brought over to the States for a small, but relatively successful release back in July. Based on an American novel by Harlan Coben, Tell No One is about a man whose wife is killed during a vacation; eight years later, on the anniversary of her death, the man receives a mysterious e-mail featuring a video of a woman near a subway...a woman who looks very much like his dead wife. Or is she dead? Is he going crazy?

That is all the plot you need to know, because if you haven't seen Tell No One, you really must. No, you're probably not going to recognize many faces (though Kristin Scott Thomas shows up in a small role), and it is subtitled, but director Guillaume Canet ratchets up the tension throughout the film, provides a whirlwind foot-chase through the streets of France, and has plenty of surprises up his sleeve. Now, not having read the Coben novel, I can't say how closely the movie hews to the source material, but Coben was heavily involved in the film's production, so I'd guess the film's surprises aren't shockingly different.

I hesitate to say much more about the plot, so let me quickly say that lead Francoise Cluzet (a dead ringer for Dustin Hoffman) is great as the beleaguered doctor trying to discover the truth about his wife and can even run like the wind. The movie's anchored by his performance and by the stylish flourishes Canet throws in (also, his affinity for modern American music littering the soundtrack helps). Kudos all around; if I'd seen it in 2008, Tell No One would easily be in my top ten of the year. Go see it (on Netflix Instant, if you're so able).

Read Me, Seymour, Read Me

A-List--Coming of Age Movies on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11489

Now...go read that story, Seymour.