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)