O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 23, 2008
“Emma Smith: My Story” is essentially a companion film to “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration.” Indeed, as in the latter film, we have Katherine Thompson and Nathan Mitchell reprising their roles as Emma and Joseph Smith, respectively. But instead of this film being Emma’s story, as the title suggests, it is merely Emma’s side of Joseph Smith’s story.
In fact, the film isn’t really much of a story at all; instead, it’s like a “greatest hits flashback” that touches on the highlights of Joseph and Emma’s lives. Like a quilt, the film is comprised of historical squares sewn together into one whole. The hodgepodge narrative is delivered through these flashbacks by an aged Emma, a sage with resolute conviction who attempts to buoy her doubtful daughter Julia’s faith through numerous maxims and axioms.
Indeed, what the filmmakers seem to want us to know about Emma Smith, above all, is that she was a strong woman. Yes, I counted at least four times that Emma Smith gave a definition of the word “strength.” Subtlety is not one of the film’s strengths.
“Emma Smith: My Story” has some beautiful moments, to be sure, but these are eclipsed by its shameless dips into blatantly overblown melodrama. At one point a distraught Emma yells for Joseph and is shown running toward him in slow motion. Meanwhile, the soundtrack’s music swells and even her speaking of his name is drawn out into painful slow motion. (I’m surprised Gary Cook and T.C. Christensen would include such melodramatic techniques that have been obsolete in filmmaking for at least 25 years.)
Perhaps the most shocking part of “Emma Smith: My Story” was the brief mention of Joseph Smith’s practicing of polygamy and Emma’s obvious distaste for it. (As I recall, “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration” avoids the topic altogether.)
It was a good idea to make a film that tells Emma Smith’s story. If only the filmmakers had done that. But as a Latter-day Saint myself, I did find the film inspiring, despite its technical faults. Overall, “Emma Smith: My Story” is bittersweet but predominantly sad.
As the film’s history was compiled by The Joseph Smith Jr. and Emma Hale Smith Historical Society, its facts are presumably trustworthy. That being written, if the film is worth seeing at all, it is worth seeing just to learn of Emma’s final words, which are breathtakingly beautiful.
Directed by Gary Cook and T.C. Christensen
Katherine Thompson / Nathan Mitchell / Rick Macy
Drama / Historical 98 min.
MPAA: PG (for mild thematic elements and brief violence)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 278
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Leatherheads (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
The best word to describe “Leatherheads” would be “goofy,” much like “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000), which also stars George Clooney. There is a comment on the Internet Movie Database that mirrors my sentiments about the movie: “I tried so hard to like it, but could not … “ “Leatherheads” is more a comedy than a football movie. And it’s not a very funny comedy.
The year is 1925. Football, particularly professional football, is beginning to develop into the American pastime as we know it. “Dodge” Connelly (George Clooney) plays for (and I think manages) the Duluth Bulldogs, a wily team of mischievous cheaters. Dodge’s team (and many other teams) plays the game for the sheer love of it.
But money is important, too. And due to a lack of fans and therefore funds, many professional teams are folding, including the Duluth Bulldogs. But there is a remarkable young football phenomenon named Carter “The Bullet” Rutherford (John Krasinski, “The Office”) who packs his college stadium full of fans. Carter also happens to be a nationally recognized war hero and veteran of World War I.
Naturally, the crafty Dodge recruits Carter to play professional ball for his Bulldogs, thus remedying Duluth’s fan shortage. But Carter’s high profile attracts Lexie Littleton (Renée Zellweger), a bulldog-of-a-reporter for the Chicago Tribune whose editor suspects that the football superstar-war hero isn’t as perfect as he seems.
As Lexie snoops and digs into Carter’s past with her feminine charms, both Dodge and The Bullet fall for her, leading to a classic romantic comedy love triangle.
“Leatherheads” doesn’t have any real conviction besides its silliness. If it were truly about the beginnings of professional football, or committed to being a full-blown comedy, or romantic comedy, then it might work better. As it is, “Leatherheads” spreads itself too thin, having no particular focus and no specific strengths. Somehow, this movie calls to mind the phrase “Jack of all trades, master of none.”
Directed by George Clooney
George Clooney / Renée Zellweger / John Krasinski
Comedy / Sports 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: April 4, 2008
Copyright 2008: 274
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
The best word to describe “Leatherheads” would be “goofy,” much like “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000), which also stars George Clooney. There is a comment on the Internet Movie Database that mirrors my sentiments about the movie: “I tried so hard to like it, but could not … “ “Leatherheads” is more a comedy than a football movie. And it’s not a very funny comedy.
The year is 1925. Football, particularly professional football, is beginning to develop into the American pastime as we know it. “Dodge” Connelly (George Clooney) plays for (and I think manages) the Duluth Bulldogs, a wily team of mischievous cheaters. Dodge’s team (and many other teams) plays the game for the sheer love of it.
But money is important, too. And due to a lack of fans and therefore funds, many professional teams are folding, including the Duluth Bulldogs. But there is a remarkable young football phenomenon named Carter “The Bullet” Rutherford (John Krasinski, “The Office”) who packs his college stadium full of fans. Carter also happens to be a nationally recognized war hero and veteran of World War I.
Naturally, the crafty Dodge recruits Carter to play professional ball for his Bulldogs, thus remedying Duluth’s fan shortage. But Carter’s high profile attracts Lexie Littleton (Renée Zellweger), a bulldog-of-a-reporter for the Chicago Tribune whose editor suspects that the football superstar-war hero isn’t as perfect as he seems.
As Lexie snoops and digs into Carter’s past with her feminine charms, both Dodge and The Bullet fall for her, leading to a classic romantic comedy love triangle.
“Leatherheads” doesn’t have any real conviction besides its silliness. If it were truly about the beginnings of professional football, or committed to being a full-blown comedy, or romantic comedy, then it might work better. As it is, “Leatherheads” spreads itself too thin, having no particular focus and no specific strengths. Somehow, this movie calls to mind the phrase “Jack of all trades, master of none.”
Directed by George Clooney
George Clooney / Renée Zellweger / John Krasinski
Comedy / Sports 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: April 4, 2008
Copyright 2008: 274
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Nim's Island (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
“Nim’s Island” is a pleasant little family film about how one can draw upon hidden reserves of strength and determination within one’s self. Most kids will probably enjoy “Nim’s Island.” I’d guess it’s targeted specifically for those between 7 and 12 years old but can be enjoyed by just about anyone who is willing to watch it.
Nim (Abigail Breslin) lives with her father, Jack (Gerard Butler), on a remote island off the tip of Patagonia. It is just the two of them and Nim’s many animal friends. Her marine-biologist father loves science and seclusion. Nim loves to read Alex Rover novels, action-adventure books that she believes are autobiographical tales written about the male explorer’s life.
One day Nim’s father sails off for a couple days on a scientific expedition, leaving Nim alone at their island paradise. But after a storm, Nim’s father doesn’t return when he is expected to. A worried little Nim begins to correspond with Alex Rover, which leads to her asking him to come to the island and help her.
But it turns out that Alex Rover is actually short for Alexandra Rover (Jodie Foster), a fiction writer who isn’t an adventurer at all; she’s agoraphobic, which means she’s afraid to leave her apartment.
Rover senses young Nim’s desperation and makes the terrifying trek from San Francisco to Nim’s Island, all the while, prodded and encouraged by her action-hero alter ego, Alex Rover (also Gerard Butler).
What can I say? “Nim’s Island” is cutesy and filled with lots of slapstick humor and acrobatic CGI animals. It probably wouldn’t be an adult’s first pick for entertainment; but if you have kids, “Nim’s Island” is a sure bet.
Directed by Jennifer Flackett and Mark Levin
Abigail Breslin / Jodie Foster / Gerard Butler
Family / Adventure 95 min.
MPAA: PG (for mild adventure action and brief language)
U.S. Release Date: April 4, 2008
Copyright 2008: 273
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
“Nim’s Island” is a pleasant little family film about how one can draw upon hidden reserves of strength and determination within one’s self. Most kids will probably enjoy “Nim’s Island.” I’d guess it’s targeted specifically for those between 7 and 12 years old but can be enjoyed by just about anyone who is willing to watch it.
Nim (Abigail Breslin) lives with her father, Jack (Gerard Butler), on a remote island off the tip of Patagonia. It is just the two of them and Nim’s many animal friends. Her marine-biologist father loves science and seclusion. Nim loves to read Alex Rover novels, action-adventure books that she believes are autobiographical tales written about the male explorer’s life.
One day Nim’s father sails off for a couple days on a scientific expedition, leaving Nim alone at their island paradise. But after a storm, Nim’s father doesn’t return when he is expected to. A worried little Nim begins to correspond with Alex Rover, which leads to her asking him to come to the island and help her.
But it turns out that Alex Rover is actually short for Alexandra Rover (Jodie Foster), a fiction writer who isn’t an adventurer at all; she’s agoraphobic, which means she’s afraid to leave her apartment.
Rover senses young Nim’s desperation and makes the terrifying trek from San Francisco to Nim’s Island, all the while, prodded and encouraged by her action-hero alter ego, Alex Rover (also Gerard Butler).
What can I say? “Nim’s Island” is cutesy and filled with lots of slapstick humor and acrobatic CGI animals. It probably wouldn’t be an adult’s first pick for entertainment; but if you have kids, “Nim’s Island” is a sure bet.
Directed by Jennifer Flackett and Mark Levin
Abigail Breslin / Jodie Foster / Gerard Butler
Family / Adventure 95 min.
MPAA: PG (for mild adventure action and brief language)
U.S. Release Date: April 4, 2008
Copyright 2008: 273
The Ruins (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
I know it seems like an incredulous claim, but as far as horror films go, “The Ruins” is excellent. And what makes it excellent isn’t its “monster,” which is merely some weird vine that infests an ancient Mayan temple; what makes “The Ruins” great is the troubling way its characters choose to deal with their dire circumstances.
Much like the people in “Open Water 2: Adrift” (2006) or the boys in “Lord of the Flies” (1990), the characters initially exist in a thriller, but their disturbing reactions escalate their circumstances to that of horror.
Admittedly, the grabby vines in “The Ruins” are rather lame. But that doesn’t matter. They are nothing more than a plot device to suspend the characters in a panic-inducing scenario.
Four Americans (two couples) from Illinois are about to wrap up their vacation in Mexico, when they hear about an ancient Mayan temple that is not on the map and not a tourist site. (When an impoverished country like Mexico doesn’t use a seemingly attractive site to collect tourism revenue, that should be a tell-tale sign to stay away.) But horror movie characters never know to stay away.
Guided by two newfound friends, one of which is played by Brad Pitt look-alike, Joe Anderson (“Across the Universe”), the two couples arrive at the forbidden temple. Immediately, they find themselves in a realistic and frightening situation. The local Mayan people (led by the remarkably cast Sergio Calderón) surround the group at the base of the temple with guns and bows and arrows. Something very bad happens that sends the kids fleeing up the steps to the top of the temple where they become stranded.
The Mayans essentially quarantine the tourists atop the temple, threatening to shoot them if they try to leave. Cell phones will not work, naturally. They are stuck with no food or water to speak of. Soon they find out why the Mayans have quarantined them: the vines.
All I have described above is merely preliminary setup. The horrors follow as injuries, panic and death unfold. “The Ruins” is graphic, gory and makes you squirm in your seat. It is an effective and deviously fun horror film.
Once my wife was lured onto a similar fiasco to visit some ruins in Honduras. Thankfully she had a better outcome. But after a day’s journey, what she was shown was not a vine-covered temple; instead, it was a tiny statue of a barely recognizable stone frog’s head. She refused to even take a picture of it, just to spite her tour guide.
It has become clear to me that ruins are called “ruins” for a reason.
Directed by Carter Smith
Jonathan Tucker / Jena Malone / Laura Ramsey
Horror / Thriller 91 min.
MPAA: R (for strong violence and gruesome images, language, some sexuality and nudity)
U.S. Release Date: April 4, 2008
Copyright 2008: 272
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
I know it seems like an incredulous claim, but as far as horror films go, “The Ruins” is excellent. And what makes it excellent isn’t its “monster,” which is merely some weird vine that infests an ancient Mayan temple; what makes “The Ruins” great is the troubling way its characters choose to deal with their dire circumstances.
Much like the people in “Open Water 2: Adrift” (2006) or the boys in “Lord of the Flies” (1990), the characters initially exist in a thriller, but their disturbing reactions escalate their circumstances to that of horror.
Admittedly, the grabby vines in “The Ruins” are rather lame. But that doesn’t matter. They are nothing more than a plot device to suspend the characters in a panic-inducing scenario.
Four Americans (two couples) from Illinois are about to wrap up their vacation in Mexico, when they hear about an ancient Mayan temple that is not on the map and not a tourist site. (When an impoverished country like Mexico doesn’t use a seemingly attractive site to collect tourism revenue, that should be a tell-tale sign to stay away.) But horror movie characters never know to stay away.
Guided by two newfound friends, one of which is played by Brad Pitt look-alike, Joe Anderson (“Across the Universe”), the two couples arrive at the forbidden temple. Immediately, they find themselves in a realistic and frightening situation. The local Mayan people (led by the remarkably cast Sergio Calderón) surround the group at the base of the temple with guns and bows and arrows. Something very bad happens that sends the kids fleeing up the steps to the top of the temple where they become stranded.
The Mayans essentially quarantine the tourists atop the temple, threatening to shoot them if they try to leave. Cell phones will not work, naturally. They are stuck with no food or water to speak of. Soon they find out why the Mayans have quarantined them: the vines.
All I have described above is merely preliminary setup. The horrors follow as injuries, panic and death unfold. “The Ruins” is graphic, gory and makes you squirm in your seat. It is an effective and deviously fun horror film.
Once my wife was lured onto a similar fiasco to visit some ruins in Honduras. Thankfully she had a better outcome. But after a day’s journey, what she was shown was not a vine-covered temple; instead, it was a tiny statue of a barely recognizable stone frog’s head. She refused to even take a picture of it, just to spite her tour guide.
It has become clear to me that ruins are called “ruins” for a reason.
Directed by Carter Smith
Jonathan Tucker / Jena Malone / Laura Ramsey
Horror / Thriller 91 min.
MPAA: R (for strong violence and gruesome images, language, some sexuality and nudity)
U.S. Release Date: April 4, 2008
Copyright 2008: 272
21 (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
There is another film titled “21” from 1977 that is the second part of a documentary series which chronicles several individual’s lives, beginning at seven years old, and revisiting them every seven years to compare how they’ve changed. “The Up Documentaries,” as they are often called, are a must-see.
But this new “21” is a different matter entirely. Based on a book by Ben Mezrich, “21” tells an entertaining tale about Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess), a genius M.I.T. student who is nearing graduation and is all but accepted early into Harvard Medical School. But Ben has two problems, however: He doesn’t have the money for the exorbitant tuition, nor does he have the “life experience” to stand out above his competitors to make the final cut into the program.
Ben lucks out … maybe. One of his professors (Kevin Spacey) notes Ben’s extraordinary gifts and invites him to be a part of an exclusive, lucrative team trained to count cards at the blackjack tables in Las Vegas. But the risks are great, even for fool-proof counters like Ben’s crew. There are dangerous “eyes in the sky” like Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne), whose gift for spotting card counters is only rivaled by his ability to beat cheaters to a bloody pulp in the back room.
“21” effectively shows us such a scene early in the movie, so all along we have the suspense of knowing that our likeable Ben is treading on thin ice. And this delicate, dazzling dance of suspense continues as Ben continues to collect his winnings, hoping to reach the $300,000 needed for tuition.
Even though it’s about the supposedly simple science of counting cards, “21” is surprisingly interesting — even fascinating at times. “21” is a safe bet and worth a trip to the video store.
Directed by Robert Luketic
Jim Sturgess / Kevin Spacey / Laurence Fishburne
Drama 123 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and sexual content, including partial nudity)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 270
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
There is another film titled “21” from 1977 that is the second part of a documentary series which chronicles several individual’s lives, beginning at seven years old, and revisiting them every seven years to compare how they’ve changed. “The Up Documentaries,” as they are often called, are a must-see.
But this new “21” is a different matter entirely. Based on a book by Ben Mezrich, “21” tells an entertaining tale about Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess), a genius M.I.T. student who is nearing graduation and is all but accepted early into Harvard Medical School. But Ben has two problems, however: He doesn’t have the money for the exorbitant tuition, nor does he have the “life experience” to stand out above his competitors to make the final cut into the program.
Ben lucks out … maybe. One of his professors (Kevin Spacey) notes Ben’s extraordinary gifts and invites him to be a part of an exclusive, lucrative team trained to count cards at the blackjack tables in Las Vegas. But the risks are great, even for fool-proof counters like Ben’s crew. There are dangerous “eyes in the sky” like Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne), whose gift for spotting card counters is only rivaled by his ability to beat cheaters to a bloody pulp in the back room.
“21” effectively shows us such a scene early in the movie, so all along we have the suspense of knowing that our likeable Ben is treading on thin ice. And this delicate, dazzling dance of suspense continues as Ben continues to collect his winnings, hoping to reach the $300,000 needed for tuition.
Even though it’s about the supposedly simple science of counting cards, “21” is surprisingly interesting — even fascinating at times. “21” is a safe bet and worth a trip to the video store.
Directed by Robert Luketic
Jim Sturgess / Kevin Spacey / Laurence Fishburne
Drama 123 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and sexual content, including partial nudity)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 270
Happy Valley (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
The promotional poster for “Happy Valley” is perfectly deceptive, which complements the film’s overall purpose. It shows a lady (presumably a Mormon) in a pink, polka-dotted outfit holding a plate of green Jell-O. On the surface, the poster seems to be advertising another painfully clichéd, local, LDS filmmaker’s production. But not so.
A closer look at the green Jell-O reveals two prescription bottles and pills. Yes, this documentary about Utah’s so-called “Happy Valley” aims to expose the seeming utopia’s underlying problem with drug abuse and drug addiction (particularly with pain killers). This poster is excellent because it’s a visual representation of the film itself.
Ron Williams, the film’s creator and director, has made an intensely personal movie. He interviews friends and other inhabitants of Happy Valley who have suffered great loss and tragedy due to drug addiction. We, the viewers, are subjected to the woeful words of grieving parents who have lost children to drugs. There are pitiful moments in “Happy Valley” that are unbearably heart-wrenching. Williams also includes his own family’s personal scrapes with addiction.
One of the main points to “Happy Valley” is that the film isn’t solely indicative of Utah County. This film could have been made about Anytown, U.S.A. But, it is worth noting, that the film has much greater appeal to those who actually live (or have lived) in Happy Valley. Indeed, I doubt many of my East Coast family members, for instance, would be nearly as intrigued as I was.
There is another unavoidable but peculiar problem with “Happy Valley.” It examines a number of specific individual cases — which are great — but the actual issue is the secretive nature of Happy Valley’s drug problem. Therefore, one might be tempted to dismiss the relative few examples of the film as isolated cases, since there aren’t countless people lining up to confess their drug addiction to a documentarist.
It helps that Williams includes several statistics, which are somewhat convincing, but even my sister-in-law asked of this film, “Isn’t that movie a little exaggerated?” I suspect a number of local residents will be similarly dismissive, but “Happy Valley” indicates that denial is one of the leading contributors to Utah’s drug problem. Case in point.
It is remarkable as well as commendable how Salt Lake City’s TV personality Danny Allen and his friend “Greg” humbly lay bare their battles with drug addiction. And as we see and hear one mother’s anger and bitterness toward the girl whom she blames for her daughter’s death, we feel that we’re watching something entirely too personal and too painful to be exposed to theater audiences. Overall, “Happy Valley” is worth a look, especially for parents and teens.
Directed by Ron Williams and Dan Barnett
Ron Williams / Danny Allen / Macall Petersen
Documentary 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for drug use, thematic elements and mild profanity)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 279
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
The promotional poster for “Happy Valley” is perfectly deceptive, which complements the film’s overall purpose. It shows a lady (presumably a Mormon) in a pink, polka-dotted outfit holding a plate of green Jell-O. On the surface, the poster seems to be advertising another painfully clichéd, local, LDS filmmaker’s production. But not so.
A closer look at the green Jell-O reveals two prescription bottles and pills. Yes, this documentary about Utah’s so-called “Happy Valley” aims to expose the seeming utopia’s underlying problem with drug abuse and drug addiction (particularly with pain killers). This poster is excellent because it’s a visual representation of the film itself.
Ron Williams, the film’s creator and director, has made an intensely personal movie. He interviews friends and other inhabitants of Happy Valley who have suffered great loss and tragedy due to drug addiction. We, the viewers, are subjected to the woeful words of grieving parents who have lost children to drugs. There are pitiful moments in “Happy Valley” that are unbearably heart-wrenching. Williams also includes his own family’s personal scrapes with addiction.
One of the main points to “Happy Valley” is that the film isn’t solely indicative of Utah County. This film could have been made about Anytown, U.S.A. But, it is worth noting, that the film has much greater appeal to those who actually live (or have lived) in Happy Valley. Indeed, I doubt many of my East Coast family members, for instance, would be nearly as intrigued as I was.
There is another unavoidable but peculiar problem with “Happy Valley.” It examines a number of specific individual cases — which are great — but the actual issue is the secretive nature of Happy Valley’s drug problem. Therefore, one might be tempted to dismiss the relative few examples of the film as isolated cases, since there aren’t countless people lining up to confess their drug addiction to a documentarist.
It helps that Williams includes several statistics, which are somewhat convincing, but even my sister-in-law asked of this film, “Isn’t that movie a little exaggerated?” I suspect a number of local residents will be similarly dismissive, but “Happy Valley” indicates that denial is one of the leading contributors to Utah’s drug problem. Case in point.
It is remarkable as well as commendable how Salt Lake City’s TV personality Danny Allen and his friend “Greg” humbly lay bare their battles with drug addiction. And as we see and hear one mother’s anger and bitterness toward the girl whom she blames for her daughter’s death, we feel that we’re watching something entirely too personal and too painful to be exposed to theater audiences. Overall, “Happy Valley” is worth a look, especially for parents and teens.
Directed by Ron Williams and Dan Barnett
Ron Williams / Danny Allen / Macall Petersen
Documentary 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for drug use, thematic elements and mild profanity)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 279
Run Fatboy Run (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
I had no idea David Schwimmer (“Friends”) had it in him, but he obviously does. He directed “Run Fatboy Run,” and it is excellent — one of my favorite films this year.
As “Run Fatboy Run” opens, we’re shown a quick back story: Dennis Doyle (Simon Pegg) leaves his pregnant fiancée, Libby (Thandie Newton), at the altar. This decision is one he regrets, for he truly loves her and their lovechild son, Jake (Matthew Fenton).
Five years later, Dennis is still trying to reclaim his family but to no avail. His life is still in shambles, jumbled and in disarray, and Libby is still not impressed. In fact, she has begun dating a great new guy named Whit (Hank Azaria, “Friends”). Whit has it together, and he’s a runner, too.
Dennis doesn’t consider himself to be fat, just unfit. He sees the potential danger of Whit’s impending threat to permanently ruin his plan of winning Libby back. So Dennis decides to begin training to run in an upcoming marathon (yes, that’s 26.2 miles), the same marathon that Whit is running in. He inexplicably believes that somehow, finishing the marathon can win Libby back.
As strange as it sounds, “Run Fatboy Run” is much more than a comedy. It is also remarkably inspirational, touching, sad, pensive, moving, and complex. But inasmuch as it is a comedy, it’s funny — for sure — and I’m generally critical of comedies.
“Run Fatboy Run” has an uncommon power. Its protagonist is an everyman, a guy who means well but has regrets, probably like many of us. He is the kind of person (also like many of us) who doesn’t finish what he starts. When Dennis finally decides to change his life, it’s truly wonderful to watch.
Directed by David Schwimmer
Simon Pegg / Thandie Newton / Hank Azaria
Comedy / Drama 100 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some rude and sexual humor, nudity, language and smoking)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 269
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
I had no idea David Schwimmer (“Friends”) had it in him, but he obviously does. He directed “Run Fatboy Run,” and it is excellent — one of my favorite films this year.
As “Run Fatboy Run” opens, we’re shown a quick back story: Dennis Doyle (Simon Pegg) leaves his pregnant fiancée, Libby (Thandie Newton), at the altar. This decision is one he regrets, for he truly loves her and their lovechild son, Jake (Matthew Fenton).
Five years later, Dennis is still trying to reclaim his family but to no avail. His life is still in shambles, jumbled and in disarray, and Libby is still not impressed. In fact, she has begun dating a great new guy named Whit (Hank Azaria, “Friends”). Whit has it together, and he’s a runner, too.
Dennis doesn’t consider himself to be fat, just unfit. He sees the potential danger of Whit’s impending threat to permanently ruin his plan of winning Libby back. So Dennis decides to begin training to run in an upcoming marathon (yes, that’s 26.2 miles), the same marathon that Whit is running in. He inexplicably believes that somehow, finishing the marathon can win Libby back.
As strange as it sounds, “Run Fatboy Run” is much more than a comedy. It is also remarkably inspirational, touching, sad, pensive, moving, and complex. But inasmuch as it is a comedy, it’s funny — for sure — and I’m generally critical of comedies.
“Run Fatboy Run” has an uncommon power. Its protagonist is an everyman, a guy who means well but has regrets, probably like many of us. He is the kind of person (also like many of us) who doesn’t finish what he starts. When Dennis finally decides to change his life, it’s truly wonderful to watch.
Directed by David Schwimmer
Simon Pegg / Thandie Newton / Hank Azaria
Comedy / Drama 100 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some rude and sexual humor, nudity, language and smoking)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 269
Stop-Loss (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
I should recognize up front, before attempting to write about any war-related film (particularly the Iraq War), that I have no military experience whatsoever. This means there’s no way I could possibly know what it must be like to be a combat veteran.
That being stated, I write about “Stop-Loss” from the point of view of its target audience: the general public. My criticism of “Stop-Loss” has to do with its presentation to us, the people it wishes to inform.
A group of men who have fought together in Iraq return to small-town Texas. Some are on leave, and some are finished … or they’re supposed to be. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), who was the dutiful leader of his group, “did his time” and was due to conclude his commitment to serve his country.
But at the last minute he was “stop-lossed,” which means he had to go back and serve another tour of duty in the war zone, a profound sacrifice for a job where one could “die any minute.” (Stop-loss, by the way, is also sometimes called a “back-door draft” by its critics.) King refuses and goes AWOL. While on the run, King tries to find solutions to being excused from the stop-loss. That’s basically the premise, in simplest terms.
There are a couple problems with “Stop-Loss.” First of all, King is a dutiful leader, and his character’s 180-degree change in personality isn’t credible, though I know this distinction was intentional. The point is good soldiers who serve valiantly are wronged by stop-loss. I have no problem with that assertion; I just think King’s volatile best friend, Steve (Channing Tatum), would have been a better choice to go AWOL.
The film’s primary problem is its one-sided tunnel vision. It attempts to draw inductive conclusions: King is supposed to be a microcosm who represents the general whole. But the film’s focus should have been broader. It should have been deductive, focusing on general, widespread occurrences that are illustrated by several specific examples.
“Stop-Loss” is a graphically violent war film, at times, and its battle scenes are alarmingly realistic, as far as I can tell. That portion of “Stop-Loss” is well done. But its bizarre story and character development kill the film’s potential to make the powerful statement the filmmakers’ intended.
Directed by Kimberly Peirce
Ryan Phillippe / Channing Tatum / Abbie Cornish
Drama / War 113 min.
MPAA: R (for graphic violence and pervasive language)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 271
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
I should recognize up front, before attempting to write about any war-related film (particularly the Iraq War), that I have no military experience whatsoever. This means there’s no way I could possibly know what it must be like to be a combat veteran.
That being stated, I write about “Stop-Loss” from the point of view of its target audience: the general public. My criticism of “Stop-Loss” has to do with its presentation to us, the people it wishes to inform.
A group of men who have fought together in Iraq return to small-town Texas. Some are on leave, and some are finished … or they’re supposed to be. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), who was the dutiful leader of his group, “did his time” and was due to conclude his commitment to serve his country.
But at the last minute he was “stop-lossed,” which means he had to go back and serve another tour of duty in the war zone, a profound sacrifice for a job where one could “die any minute.” (Stop-loss, by the way, is also sometimes called a “back-door draft” by its critics.) King refuses and goes AWOL. While on the run, King tries to find solutions to being excused from the stop-loss. That’s basically the premise, in simplest terms.
There are a couple problems with “Stop-Loss.” First of all, King is a dutiful leader, and his character’s 180-degree change in personality isn’t credible, though I know this distinction was intentional. The point is good soldiers who serve valiantly are wronged by stop-loss. I have no problem with that assertion; I just think King’s volatile best friend, Steve (Channing Tatum), would have been a better choice to go AWOL.
The film’s primary problem is its one-sided tunnel vision. It attempts to draw inductive conclusions: King is supposed to be a microcosm who represents the general whole. But the film’s focus should have been broader. It should have been deductive, focusing on general, widespread occurrences that are illustrated by several specific examples.
“Stop-Loss” is a graphically violent war film, at times, and its battle scenes are alarmingly realistic, as far as I can tell. That portion of “Stop-Loss” is well done. But its bizarre story and character development kill the film’s potential to make the powerful statement the filmmakers’ intended.
Directed by Kimberly Peirce
Ryan Phillippe / Channing Tatum / Abbie Cornish
Drama / War 113 min.
MPAA: R (for graphic violence and pervasive language)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 271
Superhero Movie (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
The only reason I gave “Superhero Movie” a rating as high as “mediocrity” was to reward it for not being as unbearable as “Meet the Spartans,” the worst movie of the year thus far. It’s a bizarre discomfort to feel embarrassed for a movie’s filmmakers while shrouded in anonymity in a dark theater.
Even though “Superhero Movie” is a slight improvement from the last installment, we still have more of the same idiocy: Typically, in order to spoof a certain genre, the “insert adjective here” Movie movies select a prominent example for the story’s premise (in this case it was “Spider-Man”) and blends jokes based on other examples of the same genre, as well as several pop-culture references, which are nothing more than product placement masquerading as a jokey commentary on our society.
Just to name a few, “Superhero Movie” nods at Craig’s List, Enron, MySpace, Facebook, Google, YouTube and Britney Spears — always Britney Spears.
In Empire City lives Rick Riker (Drake Bell), a loser who is bitten by a genetically enhanced, super-dragonfly. Much like Spider-Man, this experience gives Riker special powers, similar to those belonging to the biting insect, so he becomes “Dragonfly” and begins comedic attempts (note I didn’t write “humorous”) to fight crime. His arch-nemesis is called the “Hourglass.” And so on and so forth.
The only reason to subject yourself to the mediocrity of “Superhero Movie” is to watch and be amazed by Miles Fisher’s uncanny impersonation of Tom Cruise. Eat your heart out, Frank Caliendo.
Besides its irreverence and tastelessness, a good reason to avoid “Superhero Movie,” should you need one, is its ruthless ridiculing of the genius scientist, Stephen Hawking. It’s awfully brazen for a movie with absolutely no intelligence whatsoever to take swipes at one of the most brilliant men alive today.
Directed by Craig Mazin
Drake Bell / Sara Paxton / Christopher McDonald
Comedy 85 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content, comic violence, drug references and language)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 268
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
The only reason I gave “Superhero Movie” a rating as high as “mediocrity” was to reward it for not being as unbearable as “Meet the Spartans,” the worst movie of the year thus far. It’s a bizarre discomfort to feel embarrassed for a movie’s filmmakers while shrouded in anonymity in a dark theater.
Even though “Superhero Movie” is a slight improvement from the last installment, we still have more of the same idiocy: Typically, in order to spoof a certain genre, the “insert adjective here” Movie movies select a prominent example for the story’s premise (in this case it was “Spider-Man”) and blends jokes based on other examples of the same genre, as well as several pop-culture references, which are nothing more than product placement masquerading as a jokey commentary on our society.
Just to name a few, “Superhero Movie” nods at Craig’s List, Enron, MySpace, Facebook, Google, YouTube and Britney Spears — always Britney Spears.
In Empire City lives Rick Riker (Drake Bell), a loser who is bitten by a genetically enhanced, super-dragonfly. Much like Spider-Man, this experience gives Riker special powers, similar to those belonging to the biting insect, so he becomes “Dragonfly” and begins comedic attempts (note I didn’t write “humorous”) to fight crime. His arch-nemesis is called the “Hourglass.” And so on and so forth.
The only reason to subject yourself to the mediocrity of “Superhero Movie” is to watch and be amazed by Miles Fisher’s uncanny impersonation of Tom Cruise. Eat your heart out, Frank Caliendo.
Besides its irreverence and tastelessness, a good reason to avoid “Superhero Movie,” should you need one, is its ruthless ridiculing of the genius scientist, Stephen Hawking. It’s awfully brazen for a movie with absolutely no intelligence whatsoever to take swipes at one of the most brilliant men alive today.
Directed by Craig Mazin
Drake Bell / Sara Paxton / Christopher McDonald
Comedy 85 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content, comic violence, drug references and language)
U.S. Release Date: March 28, 2008
Copyright 2008: 268
Drillbit Taylor (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
There’s a scene in “Drillbit Taylor” that makes me wince: Best friends Wade (Nate Hartley) and Ryan (Troy Gentile) show up at the bus stop for their first day of high school wearing the same shirt. Even these two semi-nerdy kids immediately realize that this is a no-no.
But for some reason, when I was in high school (10th grade), my best friend, Bill Barnes, and I purposely wore our matching Beach Boys shirts on the same day. That’s right, we wore shirts of a no-longer-popular band intentionally. We prefer not to think about that now, much less discuss it. Neither of us has any satisfactory explanation for such social suicide.
Luckily, we didn’t have the same problem that Wade and Ryan have (though we deserved it), and that problem is bullies. I must mention, at this point, that the bullying in “Drillbit Taylor” is so cruel and over the top that the lead bully should probably bypass the principal’s office and go straight to prison. Yes, the movie is rated PG-13, and yes, it’s aimed at early-teen boys, but some parents might consider having their sons avoid “Drillbit Taylor” altogether. Even the infamously unreliable MPAA noted the movie’s “strong bullying” in its rating explanation.
Enter Drillbit Taylor (Owen Wilson). Basically, he’s nothing more than a bum who wishes to find the cash to relocate to Canada. Coincidentally, the bullied boys place an ad for a bodyguard. Drillbit applies and lands the job. But he doesn’t really care about the kids’, initially, he just wants to use them and case their rich parents’ joints (homes).
“Drillbit Taylor” has a few laugh-out-loud parts. It also pushes its PG-13 rating to the hilt. The profanity in this movie milks every bit of its PG-13 rating. And, as my colleague and fellow critic, Luke Hickman, pointed out, the movie isn’t really about Drillbit, it’s about the kids. Owen Wilson fans will enjoy the actor’s return to that same old familiar character, but they may be disappointed by his relatively limited screen time.
Directed by Steven Brill
Owen Wilson / Troy Gentile / Nate Hartley
Comedy 102 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude sexual reference throughout, strong bullying, language, drug references and partial nudity)
U.S. Release Date: March 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 267
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
There’s a scene in “Drillbit Taylor” that makes me wince: Best friends Wade (Nate Hartley) and Ryan (Troy Gentile) show up at the bus stop for their first day of high school wearing the same shirt. Even these two semi-nerdy kids immediately realize that this is a no-no.
But for some reason, when I was in high school (10th grade), my best friend, Bill Barnes, and I purposely wore our matching Beach Boys shirts on the same day. That’s right, we wore shirts of a no-longer-popular band intentionally. We prefer not to think about that now, much less discuss it. Neither of us has any satisfactory explanation for such social suicide.
Luckily, we didn’t have the same problem that Wade and Ryan have (though we deserved it), and that problem is bullies. I must mention, at this point, that the bullying in “Drillbit Taylor” is so cruel and over the top that the lead bully should probably bypass the principal’s office and go straight to prison. Yes, the movie is rated PG-13, and yes, it’s aimed at early-teen boys, but some parents might consider having their sons avoid “Drillbit Taylor” altogether. Even the infamously unreliable MPAA noted the movie’s “strong bullying” in its rating explanation.
Enter Drillbit Taylor (Owen Wilson). Basically, he’s nothing more than a bum who wishes to find the cash to relocate to Canada. Coincidentally, the bullied boys place an ad for a bodyguard. Drillbit applies and lands the job. But he doesn’t really care about the kids’, initially, he just wants to use them and case their rich parents’ joints (homes).
“Drillbit Taylor” has a few laugh-out-loud parts. It also pushes its PG-13 rating to the hilt. The profanity in this movie milks every bit of its PG-13 rating. And, as my colleague and fellow critic, Luke Hickman, pointed out, the movie isn’t really about Drillbit, it’s about the kids. Owen Wilson fans will enjoy the actor’s return to that same old familiar character, but they may be disappointed by his relatively limited screen time.
Directed by Steven Brill
Owen Wilson / Troy Gentile / Nate Hartley
Comedy 102 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude sexual reference throughout, strong bullying, language, drug references and partial nudity)
U.S. Release Date: March 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 267
Shutter (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
Most of “Shutter” is forgettable and unremarkable, but it has two chilling images at the end that resonate in the mind. They are the kind of scenes that make the spine tingle and the hairs on the back of the neck stand up. Since it’s spooky and pertains to photography, “Shutter” is a decent title.
A newlywed couple from New York moves to Japan. Ben (Joshua Jackson), a genius photographer, got a prestigious job in Tokyo doing photo-shoots for corporate types. His wife, Jane (Rachael Taylor), tags along supportively. But when Jane thinks she hits a mysterious woman in the road while driving late at night, the couple is thereafter haunted by her apparition. And the ghost most often shows up as an unwanted subject in Ben’s photographs.
As the trailer suggests, “Shutter” wishes its premise were “spirit photography,” which is a phenomenon where ghostly images are captured in everyday photographs. We wish that, too. But unfortunately, the movie has little exploration of said phenomenon; instead, “Shutter” resorts to the tired old story of an inexplicably upset ghost who haunts young lovers. Ho hum.
Directed by Masayuki Ochiai
Joshua Jackson / Rachael Taylor / Megumi Okina
Thriller 85 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for terror, disturbing images, sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: March 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 266
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
Most of “Shutter” is forgettable and unremarkable, but it has two chilling images at the end that resonate in the mind. They are the kind of scenes that make the spine tingle and the hairs on the back of the neck stand up. Since it’s spooky and pertains to photography, “Shutter” is a decent title.
A newlywed couple from New York moves to Japan. Ben (Joshua Jackson), a genius photographer, got a prestigious job in Tokyo doing photo-shoots for corporate types. His wife, Jane (Rachael Taylor), tags along supportively. But when Jane thinks she hits a mysterious woman in the road while driving late at night, the couple is thereafter haunted by her apparition. And the ghost most often shows up as an unwanted subject in Ben’s photographs.
As the trailer suggests, “Shutter” wishes its premise were “spirit photography,” which is a phenomenon where ghostly images are captured in everyday photographs. We wish that, too. But unfortunately, the movie has little exploration of said phenomenon; instead, “Shutter” resorts to the tired old story of an inexplicably upset ghost who haunts young lovers. Ho hum.
Directed by Masayuki Ochiai
Joshua Jackson / Rachael Taylor / Megumi Okina
Thriller 85 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for terror, disturbing images, sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: March 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 266
Look (2007)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
Arguably, the greatest aspect of watching films is experiencing them without truly living the harrowing experiences depicted onscreen. “Look” employs an intriguing gimmick that capitalizes on the relative innocence and comfort of our theater-seat perspective: It is filmed to give the illusion that we are watching the actual raw footage from various surveillance cameras. Naturally, the people filmed are committing sexual, illegal, dishonest, mischievous, criminal, and disgusting acts; basically, they are caught doing anything and everything that they wouldn’t want anyone else to see them doing.
Though the film attempts to portray the footage as actual events, it is all fictitious. The rough nature of the movie conveniently disguises its low budget. But two oddities remain: Most of the footage is in color, which is rare for surveillance cameras, and there are an unlikely number of camera angles, enabling a comprehensive capture of the action.
“Look” is a useful film for its valuable cautionary tales. We are shown and therefore understand how easy it is to succumb to the stupidity and pitfalls often associated with human nature. We are voyeurs who get a fly-on-the-wall perspective, peering into the lives of unsuspecting characters as they make the worst mistakes of their lives. “Look” follows several small stories, but the two most impactful story arcs are a high school student’s seduction attempts toward her teacher (Jamie McShane), and a stalking child predator’s patient waiting for the opportune moment for his next victim’s abduction.
Aside from the hit-and-miss acting, the film’s “skits” have an air of realism. But be warned, “Look” deserves its R rating, particularly for its sexual content.
Directed by Adam Rifkin
Jamie McShane / Spencer Redford / Giuseppe Andrews
Drama 98 min.
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, pervasive language, some violence and brief drug use)
U.S. Release Date: December 14, 2007
Copyright 2008: 265
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
Arguably, the greatest aspect of watching films is experiencing them without truly living the harrowing experiences depicted onscreen. “Look” employs an intriguing gimmick that capitalizes on the relative innocence and comfort of our theater-seat perspective: It is filmed to give the illusion that we are watching the actual raw footage from various surveillance cameras. Naturally, the people filmed are committing sexual, illegal, dishonest, mischievous, criminal, and disgusting acts; basically, they are caught doing anything and everything that they wouldn’t want anyone else to see them doing.
Though the film attempts to portray the footage as actual events, it is all fictitious. The rough nature of the movie conveniently disguises its low budget. But two oddities remain: Most of the footage is in color, which is rare for surveillance cameras, and there are an unlikely number of camera angles, enabling a comprehensive capture of the action.
“Look” is a useful film for its valuable cautionary tales. We are shown and therefore understand how easy it is to succumb to the stupidity and pitfalls often associated with human nature. We are voyeurs who get a fly-on-the-wall perspective, peering into the lives of unsuspecting characters as they make the worst mistakes of their lives. “Look” follows several small stories, but the two most impactful story arcs are a high school student’s seduction attempts toward her teacher (Jamie McShane), and a stalking child predator’s patient waiting for the opportune moment for his next victim’s abduction.
Aside from the hit-and-miss acting, the film’s “skits” have an air of realism. But be warned, “Look” deserves its R rating, particularly for its sexual content.
Directed by Adam Rifkin
Jamie McShane / Spencer Redford / Giuseppe Andrews
Drama 98 min.
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, pervasive language, some violence and brief drug use)
U.S. Release Date: December 14, 2007
Copyright 2008: 265
M. Night Shyamalan: Prisoner of Precedent
by Jason Pyles / April 22, 2008
In 1999, director M. Night Shyamalan stunned the world with a neck-breaking twist in “The Sixth Sense,” a film ranked among the top 100 movies of all time on the American Film Institute's 2007 list. Ever since, Shyamalan has been a prisoner of that precedent.
Whether Shyamalan himself insists on straining his stories (“Lady in the Water”) to include unforeseen revelations, or his audience's expectations demand such screenwriting sleights of hand, the undeniably gifted director-writer-producer seems to feel obligated to surprise his viewers.
Unfortunately, this storyteller's hands are often tied by viewers who decide how the story should unfold before hearing how it actually unfolds.
This happened with “The Village” (2004). No doubt, thanks to its misleading advertising campaign, most moviegoers thought they were going to see a monster movie. But it turns out “The Village” is a social-psychological thriller about how innocence can be lost by trying to protect it too fiercely.
“Signs” (2002) is frequently criticized for the late and unremarkable appearance of its aliens. But while scrutinizing the extraterrestrial, did we also note that Shyamalan evoked anxiety within us for most of the movie — not with what we saw — but with what we didn't see? It wouldn't have mattered how scary the alien looked: Nobody else's imagination trumps our own.
Critics abound when it comes to complaining about the unconvincing nature of superheroes and their movies. But when Shyamalan realistically explored what it might be like to be a superhero in “Unbreakable” (2000), the film was labeled by many fans as his worst movie. I wouldn’t go that far, but “Unbreakable” is awfully slow.
Perhaps the best indication of Shyamalan's talent is a trait common among all great storytellers: the ability to incorporate a story within a story. Consider the little girl who supposedly dies of cancer in “The Sixth Sense,” but a videotape reveals evidence to the contrary. Not only is this small story arc a horror story within a horror story, it is also literally a film within a film. Shyamalan has satellite stories, such as this, embedded in all his movies.
If you haven’t seen them in a while, revisit Shyamalan's chilling films. Notice how he carefully designs his stories to intrigue us, the viewers. And while watching “The Happening” this June, don't try to figure out the ending ahead of time or resist Shyamalan's direction; instead, relax and be competently carried in the hands of a modern master filmmaker.
In 1999, director M. Night Shyamalan stunned the world with a neck-breaking twist in “The Sixth Sense,” a film ranked among the top 100 movies of all time on the American Film Institute's 2007 list. Ever since, Shyamalan has been a prisoner of that precedent.
Whether Shyamalan himself insists on straining his stories (“Lady in the Water”) to include unforeseen revelations, or his audience's expectations demand such screenwriting sleights of hand, the undeniably gifted director-writer-producer seems to feel obligated to surprise his viewers.
Unfortunately, this storyteller's hands are often tied by viewers who decide how the story should unfold before hearing how it actually unfolds.
This happened with “The Village” (2004). No doubt, thanks to its misleading advertising campaign, most moviegoers thought they were going to see a monster movie. But it turns out “The Village” is a social-psychological thriller about how innocence can be lost by trying to protect it too fiercely.
“Signs” (2002) is frequently criticized for the late and unremarkable appearance of its aliens. But while scrutinizing the extraterrestrial, did we also note that Shyamalan evoked anxiety within us for most of the movie — not with what we saw — but with what we didn't see? It wouldn't have mattered how scary the alien looked: Nobody else's imagination trumps our own.
Critics abound when it comes to complaining about the unconvincing nature of superheroes and their movies. But when Shyamalan realistically explored what it might be like to be a superhero in “Unbreakable” (2000), the film was labeled by many fans as his worst movie. I wouldn’t go that far, but “Unbreakable” is awfully slow.
Perhaps the best indication of Shyamalan's talent is a trait common among all great storytellers: the ability to incorporate a story within a story. Consider the little girl who supposedly dies of cancer in “The Sixth Sense,” but a videotape reveals evidence to the contrary. Not only is this small story arc a horror story within a horror story, it is also literally a film within a film. Shyamalan has satellite stories, such as this, embedded in all his movies.
If you haven’t seen them in a while, revisit Shyamalan's chilling films. Notice how he carefully designs his stories to intrigue us, the viewers. And while watching “The Happening” this June, don't try to figure out the ending ahead of time or resist Shyamalan's direction; instead, relax and be competently carried in the hands of a modern master filmmaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
