Invictus (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / December 11, 2009

“Invictus” is a film your ninth-grade Social Studies teacher would show in class. You know, the kind of movie you wouldn’t watch on your own, but since it was displacing a lecture, you gave it your attention. In other words, it’s not overly entertaining.

Even though this movie’s high-concept premise seems like it would make a good motion picture property, it’s too shallow a concept to yield rich storytelling — not shallow in principle but in narrative depth.

Adapted from the John Carlin book and based on actual events, “Invictus” is about a political leader who seeks to unify his divided country through a sports victory.

That political leader is South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, an anti-Apartheid convict who was freed and became a benevolent president of the people who had imprisoned him for nearly three decades.

According to the film, during the 1990s Mandela stepped into office when South Africa was on the verge of civil war. In an attempt to rally his people together by cultivating national pride, Mandela commissioned Francois Pienaar, the captain of South Africa’s Springboks rugby team, to win the World Cup.

Morgan Freeman gives us a saintly, sagely depiction of Mandela, while Matt Damon muscles through masculine moments as Pienaar, the patriotic rugby captain. Both actors inhabit their characters with formidable screen presence.

“Invictus” is a film comprised of an odd pairing: a sports movie and a political film. Sports movies are often constructed in such a way that their final, big game is always so much more than just a game: Winning constitutes a dual victory in athleticism and whatever predominant theme pervades the movie.

To cite two examples, in “Remember the Titans,” the team’s victory also signifies their capacity to transform racism into tolerance into teamwork and mutual respect. And “We Are Marshall” depicts a team whose success demonstrates its ability to overcome tragedy and grief as an act of commemorating their fallen teammates.

“Invictus” pairs its athletic accomplishment with fusing a nation, which might seem unlikely in reality until you consider the nationalism that the Olympic games stir.

Though he is most commonly celebrated for his acting roles, Clint Eastwood is a fine director whose films unfold with clarity. His “Invictus” is a decently crafted motion picture, to be sure, but as far as its general power to entertain, it’s merely OK, much like his “Flags of Our Fathers.”

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Morgan Freeman / Matt Damon

Drama 134 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for brief strong language)

Brothers (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / December 4, 2009

Art often is a natural reflex to turmoil. The world’s major wars have spawned several cinematic reverberations of artists’ sentiments toward those conflicts. While some films respond specifically to the wars that inspired them, “Brothers” addresses a topic that is relevant to every war: the mentally wounded soldier.

The previews suggest merely a precarious love story: A widow becomes intimately close with her brother-in-law after her husband is reportedly killed at war. But when the not-so-deceased husband returns home many months later, familial complications ensue.

We saw a similar story line in 2001 with Michael Bay’s much lesser movie, “Pearl Harbor.” But the updated version that is “Brothers” is based on a 2004 Danish film called “Brodre.” And if memory serves me, the mistakenly deceased lovers’ triangle conundrum seems faintly Shakespearean. In any case, it’s an old, familiar story that’s reliable for rousing dramatic conflict once again in “Brothers.”

In October 2007 Capt. Sam Cahill, a tough-as-nails Marine, is deployed yet again to fight in Afghanistan. Tobey Maguire is cast as the hometown hero — and believe me — this fierce-eyed actor is no Peter Parker here. He and his wife, Grace (Natalie Portman), are the parents of two young girls. Portman possesses her usual rigidity, but she triumphs at conveying tearful sorrow. Jake Gyllenhaal steals the show as Tommy, the family disappointment and a “Cain” in contrast to his able brother.

There’s more to “Brothers” than just its romantic entanglements, and its primary conflict isn’t what you’d expect. As prefaced above, Cahill returns as only a shell-of-a-man who’s haunted by the demons of war.

I won’t describe his shocking ordeal, but as we watch the film, we know the horrors in his head while the other characters do not. This generates effective suspense.

In addition to being a distressing family drama with the tensest 6-year-old’s birthday party you’ll ever witness, “Brothers” aims to depict how the effects of war can break a person, and how sometimes the biggest battle for troops can be readjusting to civilian life.

This movie’s story seems a peculiar cruelty to me, potentially, in that it could derail a widowed spouse’s grieving process and inspire hope in a hopeless homecoming. On the other hand, some families may have no knowledge of their loved one’s whereabouts and may conversely find “Brothers” to be beneficially hopeful.

Directed by Jim Sheridan

Tobey Maguire / Jake Gyllenhaal / Natalie Portman

Drama 110 min.

MPAA: R (for language and some disturbing violent content)

The Blind Side (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / November 27, 2009

“The Blind Side” is not a football movie or even a sports movie, though it has a sports-related subplot.

Instead it’s primarily a drama about a family that changes the life of an unfortunate young man, and vice versa.

But the movie also strains to be many other things, attempting to have widespread appeal as a sort of cinematic salad bar.

Based on a similarly titled book by Michael Lewis, “The Blind Side” recounts the true-life tale of Michael Oher, a plagued-by-poverty 17-year-old who is taken in by a wealthy family, and along the way, becomes a formidable football player, due to his large stature and “protective instinct.”

So here we have a sentimental story that’s meant to be a heartwarming and inspirational family film about how love and charity “never faileth.” And so it is.

I suppose on the level of casual, escapist entertainment, “The Blind Side” is enjoyable enough.

But if we watch this movie with a discerning eye, we might resent that this savory story is mismanaged by such sloppy directing.

For starters, “The Blind Side” is all over the place. It aims to shoehorn several types of movies into one, so its chameleon tone shifts drastically. What begins as a gently comedic biopic veers into hard drama, and it’s disconcerting.

“The Blind Side” also contains some conspicuous acting deficiencies: Quinton Aaron, who plays Michael, was apparently cast for his physical appearance alone and not for any sort of performance prowess. Though he has a ridiculously underwritten role to contend with, Aaron does little more than peer downward or off in the distance and attempt to look pensive. Portraying pitifulness requires a more subtle approach than simply looking sad.

Sandra Bullock plays Leigh Anne Touhy. Somewhat like a child driving a car, Bullock is able to inhabit the role of Leigh Anne, but she fails to operate the finer functions of the character, which results in her wrecking Touhy’s southern accent.

Lewis’ subject matter is a worthy filmic property, but the film’s failing falls ultimately upon director John Lee Hancock, who also adapted it.

But if you turn a blind eye to its imperfections, “The Blind Side” isn’t a bad experience.

Note: Watch the still photos of the actual individuals during the closing credits. They are poignant — particularly the final image — and they serve to at least compliment the film’s casting.

Directed by John Lee Hancock

Sandra Bullock / Quinton Aaron / Tim McGraw

Drama 128 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for one scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references)

New Moon (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / November 20, 2009

Like professional victims, some gals just fall for one monster after another. Bella Swan is one such damsel who’s distressed by her modern “Beauty and the Beast” tale, except in her case, it’s “beasts” — plural.

Yes, in “New Moon” 18-year-old Bella finds herself entangled in a teenage love triangle: One young man, Edward, isn’t young at all; he’s a 109-year-old vampire. And the other brawny beau is a part-time lycanthrope named Jacob.

Neither sharp-toothed suitor seems suitable, so to quote a phrase from Def Leppard, “Love bites” for Bella.

Stephenie Meyer, the author of the addictive Twilight Series, borrows from various “star-cross’d lovers” from the 16th and 18th centuries, which she blends with the mythos of other tragic creatures, such as vampires and werewolves, into a mystical amalgam of melodrama.

Indeed, one plot line found in this latest movie is inspired by William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” a citation the movie dutifully references.

In “New Moon” Bella becomes preoccupied with aging and expresses her desire to become a vampire. But heartbreak befalls her after Edward decides to vanish from her life, in hopes of protecting her from sharing his soulless existence. In her grief, Bella discovers that reckless behavior will conjure smoky apparitions of a disapproving, disappearing Edward, which only encourages her thrill-seeking further, which leads her deeper into peril. Also, in Edward’s absence, Bella finds a sort of muscle-bound rebound in a shamelessly shirtless Jacob in shorts.

It was exactly a year ago today that the saga’s first installment, “Twilight,” hit theaters nationwide. If you’ve never read the books, viewing the forerunning film prior to seeing “New Moon” is prerequisite. “Twilight” introduces the characters while delivering an intriguing story, but it also has some poorly executed special effects in attempting to depict vampiric powers.

By contrast, “New Moon” lacks the suspense of the first movie, but it improves on its illustrations of super-human physicality. For example, Edward’s “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” tree-scaling in “Twilight” is much less convincing than Jacob’s Jackie Chan-like ascent up the scenery in “New Moon.”

But still, the portrayal of the werewolves is hit and miss, with some acceptable displays and others that look cartoonish, like animals from “The Chronicles of Narnia” movies.

Both “Twilight” and “New Moon” effectively preserve their allegorical allusion to abstinence (a blatant theme that’s no doubt invisible to most teenagers).

Directed by Chris Weitz

Kristen Stewart / Robert Pattinson / Taylor Lautner

Drama 130 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and action)

2012 (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / November 13, 2009

If you’re worried that the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012, you can find worthier ways to spend your remaining time than by watching “2012,” a 158-minute, CGI extravaganza by director Roland Emmerich.

Aside from its special effects, which are usually quite dazzling, “2012” is a disaster of a disaster movie.

You may have heard that some people believe the ancient Mayans predicted the cataclysmic destruction of the Earth and its inhabitants on the winter solstice of 2012. A little research reveals that many scholars of Mayan culture have debunked the doomsday prophecies with rather sunny clarifications. But can we all agree that this is an interesting premise for an action movie? Yes.

“2012” opens with scientists making troubling discoveries. If I got all my movie-science notes correct, there is a spike in unnaturally large solar eruptions, which are shooting mutated neutrinos (whatever those are) to the Earth’s core, thereby heating up its crust, producing increasingly violent anomalies internally and externally around the planet. All this is closely related to the exceptionally rare aligning of the planets in our solar system, which is set to occur on Dec. 21, 2012.

Or something like that. In other words, the Earth and its dwellers will undergo horrendous devastation through earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, floods, etc., and we get to watch.

Emmerich ineffectively tackles his usual challenge of portraying large-scale events while conveying their effects on a diverse ensemble of small-scale victims. His method of alternating the dramatic catastrophes with melodramatic exchanges between characters doesn’t work like it does in, say, Paul Greengrass’ “United 93,” because in this film the tearful conversations and syrupy soundtrack are hollow attempts to elicit our emotional responses.

But despite its trite script, “2012” features a large cast of decent actors like John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, Thandie Newton, and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who all do fine with what they were given.

Emmerich loves to depict destruction. He often makes big, dumb, fun movies like “Independence Day” (1996) and “Godzilla” (1998). “2012” is most comparable to “The Day After Tomorrow” (2004). Both films have the same problem: Special effects are only special when they’re employed to enhance, not replace, the story.

A vast chasm gapes between the filmmakers who design special effects to illustrate their stories and those who contrive stories to deliver their special effects. Unfortunately, Emmerich is mostly the latter.

Directed by Roland Emmerich

John Cusack / Amanda Peet / Woody Harrelson

Thriller 158 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for intense disaster sequences and some language)

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / November 7, 2009

A promising but unembellished shell-of-an-idea, “The Men Who Stare at Goats” is a comedy whose purpose is to deride the Bush administration and U.S. militarism, in general. It has surprisingly sparse “jokes,” or moments intended to be humorous, and the instances meant to have comedic effect barely evoke a smirk.

“Goats,” let’s call it, suggests that during the ’80s, in the spirit of exploring alternative warfare technology, the U.S. Army dabbled in extrasensory weaponry by attempting to develop a top secret unit of “psychic spies” — super-solider warrior monks who can fight with their minds.

We’re informed by the narration of Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor), an aimless reporter for the Ann Arbor Daily Telegram. While trying to become a wartime journalist in Iraq, Wilton learns of “Project Jedi” and the afore described New Earth Army, which is led by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges in another “Dude-like” role).

The movie’s meandering, stream-of-consciousness narrative follows Wilton who follows the faintly clairvoyant Lyn Cassady, played by a zany George Clooney. These two go everywhere while the thin plot goes nowhere. A characteristically nefarious Kevin Spacey also joins the madness.

Sometimes a film unintentionally will have the misfortune of becoming art that imitates life — distastefully. Through no fault of its makers and by sheer coincidence, “Goats” features a scene where a soldier goes berserk and begins shooting at his fellow personnel stationed at his military base, a sequence that immediately echoes the shootings that occurred Thursday in Fort Hood, Texas.

Films facing this kind of sensitive predicament often will postpone their release date, if possible. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Collateral Damage,” which was initially slated for an October 2001 release — only a month after the Sept. 11 attacks, was delayed four months because of its terrorism theme.

But “Goats” was set to flicker in theaters nationwide Friday only about 24 hours after the Fort Hood incident; unfortunately for this film, the goats were already out of the barn, so to speak. Even so, one wonders why any recent film — much less a comedy — would depict a crazed gunman firing into a scattering crowd in this age of scarily frequent school shootings.

In summary, watching “Goats” is probably not nearly as funny — or as entertaining — as actually staring at real goats. Or put another way, if I were psychic, I would have seen “The Box” instead.

Directed by Grant Heslov

George Clooney / Ewan McGregor / Jeff Bridges

Comedy 93 min.

MPAA: R (for language, some drug content and brief nudity)

Michael Jackson’s This Is It (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 30, 2009

Named after what he intended to be his final concert tour, Michael Jackson’s “This Is It” is a behind-the-scenes musical documentary that was filmed between March and June of this year.

Like many documentaries, it has talking-head interviews and archival reel, but the majority of the film is rehearsal footage of the preparation for the never-to-be concert series. Introductory screen titles tell us the film is “for the fans.” Indeed it is. Jackson’s devotees will revere its revealing intimacy.

Although his untimely death precluded the realization of the aptly named concerts, the title “This Is It” ironically suits this filmic remnant better than it could have represented the tour. Since echoes of the concert’s conception are immortalized by the film, fans still get to see what Jackson’s final tour would have been like — and perhaps an even vaster audience will now see these performances.

If I counted correctly, “This Is It” features 16 live performances, which have been seamlessly spliced together from multiple rehearsals for each song. (This is evident from Jackson’s varying attire during each performance.)

Ranging from Jackson 5-era tunes to some of his most recent songs, the film’s set includes “Human Nature,” “Smooth Criminal,” “The Way You Make Me Feel,” “I Want You Back,” “I’ll Be There,” “Thriller,” “Beat It,” “Black or White,” “Earth Song,” “Billie Jean,” and “Man in the Mirror,” just to name a few.

Jackson’s smooth-as-wet-glass vocal quality is reproduced as beautifully as it is heard on his records. And the revolutionary dancer’s movements are as hypnotic to watch as fire, while we wonder how this 50-year-old convulses and contorts just as nimbly as he did when he was half that age.

The best parts of the film are moments when the benevolent singer humbly coaches his cast and crew.

“This Is It” is rated PG. It has some suggestive choreography, provocatively dressed dancers and costumed ghouls that might unnerve younger viewers.

Jackson’s life was unexpectedly and permanently abbreviated on June 25. Like many swooning and brooding artists before him, Jackson was dismissed and relegated to sideshow obscurity until his death exalted his work anew. One cannot help but feel a sense of loss while watching this film, knowing that it is the last we have of this exquisite entertainer. An artistic giant has fallen; a gentle genius has been stilled.

Directed by Kenny Ortega

Michael Jackson

Documentary 112 min.

MPAA: PG (for some suggestive choreography and scary images)

Paranormal Activity (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 23, 2009

Never have I experienced such a buzzing audience as when I left the theater after watching “Paranormal Activity” — a truly scary, must-see horror film that has become something of a cultural phenomenon.

Entirely set at a San Diego home, the startling events depicted in “Paranormal Activity” span a three-week period in the fall of 2006.

Something awful has been terrorizing Katie ever since she was 8 years old. She doesn’t know what it is, but she knows it wishes her harm.

Katie’s plucky boyfriend, Micah, is determined to solve her problem by setting up a camera and filming their everyday routine — including their sleep — in hopes of capturing some footage of the unexplainable occurrences that have been troubling her.

Similar to “The Blair Witch Project” and “Cloverfield,” the movie itself — or what we’re shown onscreen — consists only of the subject matter recorded by Micah’s camera. This intriguing technique draws us into the film as too-close-for-comfort onlookers, placing us in the presence of the characters’ peril.

Also, the film’s documentary-style appearance and its actors’ naturalistic performances lend “Paranormal Activity” a convincing air of reality.

Of course there will be naysayers who won’t think this film is frightening. No doubt some viewers will even be bored by its absence of gore, violence, sexuality, nudity, and yes, plot.

But it is the film’s stark simplicity that provides its power. “Paranormal Activity” taps into universal, deep-seated childhood fears, like “What was that noise?” and “What happens around me while I’m asleep?”

Micah’s constant filming allows us to hear “the things that go ‘bump’ in the night” and see some visual manifestations of paranormal activity. As with M. Night Shyamalan’s “Signs,” “Paranormal Activity” is a movie in which what we hear — and imagine — is much scarier than what we see.

The film ominously informs us from the beginning that the footage we’re watching has been provided by the couple’s families and the police department. It also keeps emphasizing that the unseen force’s malevolent tormenting will continue to escalate in severity — which it does. Knowing the incidents will increasingly get worse inflicts a profound sense of dread upon us.

So, if you only see one movie in theaters this Halloween, see “Paranormal Activity” — but avoid its spoiler-filled trailers. And if you want to rent a good movie for the spooky season, rent Michael Dougherty’s “Trick ’r Treat” (2008).

Directed by Oren Peli

Katie Featherston / Micah Sloat

Horror 86 min.

MPAA: R (for language)

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 16, 2009

Writer-director Spike Jonze has somehow taken the abstract concept of childhood and remarkably projected it onto the silver screen. His new film, “Where the Wild Things Are,” is based on the much loved, 1963 book of the same name, by Maurice Sendak.

Though it will be unpopular, I must note that Sendak’s book is another overrated, under-plotted children’s book, much like “Goodnight Moon,” whose affection among adults likely comes from nostalgia rather than literary impact.

In other words, there’s not much story in the book’s 40-some pages to adapt into a feature-length film. But Jonze and his co-writer, Dave Eggers, have provided an example of a filmic adaption that’s still successful, despite having scarce source material.

As in the book, an unruly kid named Max (Max Records) misbehaves wildly before dinner, which incites a conflict with his mother (Catherine Keener). Max is scolded — and in his estimation — banished. His feelings of alienation lead the feral, wolf-suited boy on an adventure where he sojourns in another land, a place where he fits in, where the wild things are.

It is on this undomesticated island that the film’s magic happens. The characters of Max’s new world are patterned after his everyday relationships, much like “The Wizard of Oz,” where Dorothy’s acquaintances, friend or foe, have counterparts back in Kansas.

These thematic parallels of Max’s life are surprisingly poignant. The film is skillfully subtle in the way it represents the boy’s psyche through the circumstances of his wild kingdom, repeatedly calling to mind the introductory plot line that preceded them. This exceptional storytelling technique imitates the manner in which aspects of our lives sometimes show up in our dreams.

Though “Where the Wild Things Are” is rated PG and is considered a family movie, it’s probably not suitable for young children. My fatherly recommendation would be for ages 8 and up, depending on the child. This film is not always warm and cuddly; in fact, it has violent, menacing sequences and portrays a child with serious behavioral problems.

Perhaps most notably, “Where the Wild Things Are” has a bizarre and affecting undercurrent that I can only describe as a longing, melancholy ache that left me with a remnant of sadness. Maybe what stayed with me was the film’s uncanny ability to peer into the minds of children, illustrating their fears, vulnerability and need for validation.

Directed by Spike Jonze

Max Records / James Gandolfini / Catherine Keener

Fantasy 101 min.

MPAA: PG (for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language)

Couples Retreat (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 9, 2009

Even if you aren’t a film buff, you’re probably already familiar with Peter Billingsley, the debuting director of “Couples Retreat.” He played Ralphie, the boy who wanted a Red Ryder BB gun in “A Christmas Story.” Unfortunately, Billingsley’s first feature-length movie is essentially four bad romantic comedies shoehorned into one.

Dave (Vince Vaughn) and his wife, Ronnie (Malin Akerman), are your typical, busy parents. Their hectic lives and mischievous boys leave them little time for each other. Joey and Lucy (Jon Favreau and Kristin Davis) have been anxiously awaiting their daughter’s departure for college, so they can get a divorce. Shane (Faizon Love) is already divorced but still devastated over losing his wife, so he distracts himself with the companionship of a 20-year-old named Trudy (Kali Hawk).

And Jason and Cynthia (Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell) have had trouble trying to bear a child, which has caused a major rift in their marriage, to the point that they’re also considering a divorce — a plot line that is decidedly not comedic material. When Jason and Cynthia convince their friends to attend an exotic retreat, the eight of them hope for a paradisiacal getaway. But their group vacation has a difficult design of built-in relationship counseling.

It is precisely these counseling sessions (and the reruns of these unpleasant discussions again with their friends) that oddly drag this otherwise brightly colored, picturesque movie into the doldrums of a dull drama. Because “Couples Retreat” is hardly funny — at all — its filmmakers seem to hope that supplying lots of sun-bathed bodies of male and female beauties will sufficiently entertain us.

The movie’s capable cast is an ensemble of generally funny, likable actors who are given little to work with in the way of plot and dialogue. Favreau and Vaughn’s hardships are mostly self-inflicted, however, since they wrote this movie, along with Dana Fox.

Filmmaking requires the hard work of numerous collaborators. I don’t dismiss their efforts lightly. But from a consumer’s standpoint, “Couples Retreat” is an example of apathetic customer service, the cinematic equivalent of a carelessly thrown-together fast food hamburger whose pickles are stacked vertically beneath a bun that’s sliding off in ketchup.

Even though I won’t endorse “Couples Retreat,” there are other movies playing locally that I recommend, such as “Zombieland,” “Surrogates,” “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs,” “All About Steve” and “Whip It.”

Directed by Peter Billingsley

Vince Vaughn / Jason Bateman / Jon Favreau

Comedy 107 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (on appeal for sexual content and language)

The Invention of Lying (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / October 2, 2009

Each movie exists as its own self-contained universe. Some movie worlds are much like our own, while others are fantastical realms, far removed from reality as we know it.

And occasionally we’re shown places — like the one where “The Invention of Lying” is set — that are mostly familiar, except for some sort of unusual twist. For example, this devious romantic comedy takes place in a world where lying doesn’t exist yet. There has never been deceit, flattery, fiction or dishonesty of any kind. No one has ever “said something that wasn’t.”

Ricky Gervais (“The Office”) plays Mark Bellison, a seemingly unexceptional person who endures daily, verbal assaults, thanks to the candor of his acquaintances. Mark works as an unpopular screenwriter at Lecture Films, a production company whose nonfiction movies consist of a person sitting in a chair, recapping historical events.

He goes on an awkwardly straightforward date with a woman he has long admired, but Mark’s charming intelligence isn’t enough to interest Anna (Jennifer Garner), who’s carefully searching for a moneyed mate from a gene pool that can yield physically attractive offspring.

So far, so good. “The Invention of Lying” gets off the ground with this intriguing premise, a concept that’s akin to Jim Carrey’s “Liar Liar” and “Yes Man.”

Initially the movie is uncomfortably insightful in its ability to reveal just how often we can be unintentionally deceitful in everyday situations, such as the common “How are you?” — “I’m fine,” greeting sequence. But for comedic effect, these characters aren’t able to withhold unpleasant remarks; they seem compelled to confess every thought, regardless of its hurtfulness, without flinching.

One day Mark stumbles onto the invention of lying, which he wields to his advantage in a world where everyone believes anything he says.

What I’ve described thus far provides the basis for smart humor (such as blatantly honest advertising campaigns), as well as some distasteful jokes concerning bodily functions and sexual behavior.

But just when “The Invention of Lying” starts to get repetitive with its one trick — namely, terrifying truthfulness — it reveals ulterior skulduggery: This movie is also a pernicious satire on religion, especially Christianity.

Indeed, this film could have had the alternate title, “The Invention of Religion,” because that’s another creation of Mark’s, suggesting that faith is fabricated. Though this mocking theme is set forth in the guise of a satirical comedy, I suspect some religious-conservative moviegoers may not find “The Invention of Lying” one bit funny.

Directed by Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson

Ricky Gervais / Jennifer Garner / Rob Lowe

Comedy 100 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for language including some sexual material and a drug reference)

Surrogates (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / September 25, 2009

Technological advances breed moral dilemmas and anxieties. The keystone of science fiction story arcs is an underlying question: What if our newfound technology turns against us?

This fearful sentiment provides the foundation of “Surrogates,” a thought-provoking film starring Bruce Willis that’s set in a future where humans live via robotic counterparts. Through these “surrogates,” users operate in the real world remotely, without their corporeal selves ever having to leave the safety of their homes.

While “connected” an operator controls his or her excursionist through a “stem chair,” allowing an out-of-body experience whereby the human feels the sensations through the automaton. Reminiscent of the device in “Brainstorm” (1983), surrogates are equipped with a precautionary measure that protects their users from any catastrophic harm that might befall them.

“Surrogates” opens by summarizing the 14 years of scientific developments that precede the film’s events. When the plot begins, most of the world’s population has already embraced surrogacy, which has virtually rectified many global problems, like crime, disease, and discrimination.

Bruce Willis plays FBI agent Tom Greer, another person who employs his surrogate in his daily duties, that is, until he investigates two unusual homicides that threaten the entire purpose for surrogacy: Humans can be killed while connected to their machines.

Viewers should know that the actors’ performances as the surrogates are, well, robotic — which is intentional. But their human performances are quite authentic, by contrast, which complements the surrogates’ stiffness.

This movie is an inferior cousin to “Minority Report” (2002), an incredible film that also posed intricate moral dilemmas but was effectively able to deliver action and suspense — unlike “Surrogates.”

A cinematic think-piece, “Surrogates” is an intelligent film with ethical underpinnings. It’s accurately rated PG-13, though it has been marketed as a smut-laden action flick, which it is not. I suppose in an attempt to draw audiences to consider their film’s lofty themes, the filmmakers saw fit to pull a bait-and-switch campaign.

And I guess that’s permissible since “Surrogates” nobly engages reflective moviegoers like us with an examination of the balance between our connection with real life, and our obsession to be engaged in the virtual world. (Even the cinema indulges our desires for such vicarious escapism.)

In an age when we play tennis on video games instead of on the court, familiar science fiction themes in films like “Surrogates” are becoming less and less fictional.

Directed by Jonathan Mostow

Bruce Willis / James Cromwell / Ving Rhames

Sci-Fi 88 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence, disturbing images, language, sexuality and a drug-related scene)