Considering The Cinema

Resuming My Formal Movie Reviews

2010-10-03T02:29:00.002-06:00

I have begun reviewing again, but I'm no longer posting my formal reviews on this site. You can read my new reviews here: http://considercinema.wordpress.com/

Thanks,

Jason

Listen to the Considering the Sequels Podcast

2010-06-25T00:20:00.002-06:00

Movie critic Jason Pyles is now a part of Considering the Sequels, a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. In Episode 1 we consider the "Back to the Future" trilogy.

My fellow film blogger, Andy Howell; my life-long best pal, Bill Barnes; and I, Jason Pyles, host the show. We three and a varying special guest review the individual installments of the franchise in story order to collectively determine whether each sequel is a worthy continuation of the primary film — or if it’s a just another instance of cinematic dead horse beating.

Each episode also features a concept discussion, where we talk about matters pertaining to sequels or the cinema, in general. These discussions are often spawned by listening to excerpts from pre-recorded interviews with various sorts of experts. We also discuss new releases and whatever else we’ve watched recently.

If you were a fan of this site, please give our podcast a try. You can vote on which one of us you tend to agree with most, and you can let us know what state you're listening from. Hope you'll visit us.

Sincerely,

Jason Pyles

www.ctspodcast.com

Considering Other Matters

2010-02-07T17:16:00.005-07:00

In case anyone regularly visits this site, I am laying aside my formal film criticism for a season of indeterminate length, though I have no doubt that I will return to it, sooner or later.

"Invictus," my last review found below, was my final submission to the Wheeling newspapers before leaving West Virginia. I have since moved to Utah, where I have been compelled to pursue other professional pursuits, at least for now.

For what it's worth, I am continuing a rather informal film discussion blog with my good friend, Andy, at this site: http://consideringthecinema.blogspot.com/. Basically, Andy and I watch an unusual film every few weeks or so and write our thoughts about it. These aren't formal reviews, mind you, and they have spoilers, but we enjoy it and hope other readers will, too.

Otherwise, for those who know me personally, I have returned to one of my life's other great passions: music. I have rejoined Dave Eaton's band as his pianist, and I am even considering recording a third album of my own music later this year.

I hope to be able to resume my film criticism again, eventually. In the meantime, for those who visited this site (and my others like it), thank you for reading.

Jason Pyles

Invictus (2009)

2009-12-11T18:05:00.001-07:00

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)

2009-12-04T18:08:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-11-27T17:46:00.001-07:00

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)

2009-11-20T19:44:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-11-13T18:04:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-11-07T00:10:00.001-07:00

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)

2009-10-30T20:18:00.000-06:00

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)

2009-10-23T17:08:00.001-06:00

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)

2009-10-16T19:19:00.000-06:00

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)

2009-10-09T21:00:00.003-06:00

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)

2009-10-02T18:51:00.001-06:00

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)

2009-09-25T21:44:00.000-06:00

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)

The Informant! (2009)

2009-09-18T20:05:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / September 18, 2009

For those who are unfamiliar with the shenanigans of Mark Whitacre, this review is careful not to reveal any surprises surrounding him.

Matt Damon plays this character, who is a real-life person portrayed as an onion-layered enigma who sometimes seems dimwitted — other times brilliant — but always possesses more than we know. He is the exasperating subject of “The Informant!,” Steven Soderbergh’s new crime-comedy adapted from a similarly titled book by Kurt Eichenwald.

“The Informant!” begins by informing us that it’s based on real events, though the characters are composites of multiple people and the dialogue has been dramatized. It is the story of a chatty biochemist who becomes entangled in the corporate misdeeds of his company. Because Whitacre insists that he’s ultimately a good person, he agrees to help the FBI as a semi-effective, semi-bumbling informant. Myriad complications ensue.

Damon demonstrates some depth with this character. During a few scenes Whitacre has to act. It’s always impressive to see a performance within a performance, where an actor convincingly inhabits a character who is simultaneously portraying another persona. (Steve Carell is masterful at this — and Robert Downey Jr. performs actor’s acrobatics in “Tropic Thunder” that are mind-blowing.)

“The Informant!” is comparable to Soderbergh’s other criminal comedies, like “Out of Sight” or “Ocean’s 11,” but it’s not nearly as much fun. It is completely dialogue-driven and probably won’t entertain those who are easily bored by the absence of violence and explosions. Indeed, the film’s R-rating is earned solely for profanity.

To be honest, “The Informant!” is a little boring because it’s a “pay attention and listen closely” movie that’s occasionally amusing but never hilarious.

The saving grace of this film is Damon’s frequent voice-over narration, which exposes his character’s random, tangential thoughts, allowing us to wander around in Whitacre’s wonderings. I was reminded of Saturday Night Live’s “Deep Thoughts — by Jack Handey,” with random commentary about indoor swimming pools, sweaters, butterflies, polar bear noses, etc.

On one hand, “The Informant!” is a timely film, released in a decade littered with corporate scandals and fraudulent financial institutions; on the other hand, after hearing about corruption ad nauseam, a film like this isn’t exactly escapist fare.

Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Matt Damon / Scott Bakula / Tom Papa

Comedy 108 min.

MPAA: R (for language)

9 (2009)

2009-09-11T14:59:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / September 11, 2009

Writer-director Shane Acker’s animated feature, “9,” is a bleak blend of a Tim Burton-looking take on “Toy Story” and this summer’s “Terminator Salvation.” It portrays a grim scenario of dolls versus machines.

Master of macabre, Tim Burton, is one of the producers of “9,” and indeed, his influence is visually apparent. Mere mention of Burton’s name readily calls to mind his familiar style — that morbid brand whose dark threads have woven films like “Beetle Juice,” “Sleepy Hollow,” Corpse Bride” and “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.” This film follows suit.

Accordingly, parents should know that “9” is not suitable for younger children. Its PG-13 rating is about right, as it is a little unsettling, much like this year’s “Coraline,” another animated feature that’s not really a kids’ movie, either.

For starters, “9” has a post-apocalyptic setting where the human race has crossed the self-imposed finish line of extinction, and dead bodies can be seen amid the rubble.

Before his death, an innovative scientist summons life within nine numbered dolls, which become the only living beings left to contend with artificial intelligence run amok. As in “Terminator Salvation,” the characters in “9” inhabit a world where malicious machines scour the ruins for life — only to promptly extinguish it.

The sharp, jagged, mechanical monsters come in various designs, all of them deadly. In contrast, the 8-inch dolls are comparatively soft, fashioned from burlap sacks, looking like a hybrid of gingerbread men (or women) and sock-monkeys.

Resistance seems futile; yet “the resistance” perseveres. Each of the nine dolls has a prominent personality trait that either aids or hinders his or her survival. Because the characters have actual characteristics, these animate dolls display more humanity than the human rebels in “Terminator Salvation.”

These burlap beings are identified according to the ordinal designation found on their backs. No. 9 (voiced by Elijah Wood) is the plucky protagonist whose curiosity and compassion make him a worthy hero.

After 9 is endowed with sentience, we follow his quest to unite a divided 1 through 8 against their common enemies. (Don’t worry: The math is minimal.)

As far as animated films go, “9” spans a wide range of emotions while also providing entertaining and imaginative action sequences. But what makes “9” most intriguing is its conglomeration of many different genres and its heavy-handed commentary on the potential perils of technological advancement among war-prone societies.

Directed by Shane Acker

Elijah Wood / Jennifer Connelly / Christopher Plummer

Animation 79 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for violence and scary images)

All About Steve (2009)

2009-09-04T17:58:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / September 4, 2009

“All About Steve” is better than you’d expect: It’s superior to Sandra Bullock’s “The Proposal,” from earlier this year, and it’s almost as much fun as “Miss Congeniality” (2000). The aforementioned movie and the one under review share themes of individuality and self-worth — both commendable concepts for movies aimed at teenage girls.

Screenwriter Kim Barker’s admirable agenda is carried forth through Bullock’s character, Mary Horowitz, a 30-something who’s still single and temporarily living with her parents again. Mary infamously wears tall, red Wonder Woman-like boots, similar to the sort Lynda Carter wore to play said super-heroine in the late ’70s. But Mary’s fantastical footwear pales next to her vibrant personality. She is excessively chatty, rambunctious and often irritating.

Above all, Mary is an intelligent wielder of words, a trivia buff whose command of synonyms and derivatives can be attributed to her passion for puzzles. (She loves crossword puzzles even more than Stanley Hudson does.) Mary savors her work as a “crossword constructor,” a job that entails creating once-a-week contributions for her local newspaper — which I must confess, made me blush knowingly.

When the lonely bachelorette is set up on a blind date with news cameraman Steve Muller (Bradley Cooper), her overzealous eccentricities scare him away. Steve thinks Mary is crazy — alarmingly so — especially after she misconstrues his polite departure as an invitation to follow him across the country, chasing him as he chases the news.

These two conventional roles are enriched by an unconventional supporting character named Hartman Hughes (Thomas Haden Church), an instigating field reporter determined to get promoted to the anchor desk. And though their roles are small, Ken Jeong (“The Hangover”) and DJ Qualls (“The New Guy”) also complement this ensemble.

Regrettably, Sandra Bullock is usually the Keanu Reeves of actresses, which is to say, she doesn’t have exceptional acting talent, but she occasionally takes little niche roles that work — like this one, or her reluctant, undercover pageant contestant, Gracie Hart. Otherwise, Bullock’s parts are hit or miss. For instance, her performance in “The Proposal” doesn’t work at all, but she’s not bad in “28 Days” (not the zombie movie).

“All About Steve” has a few moments that evoke laughter and some that conjure joy, such as a scene involving a close-call with a tornado, or when she explains why she wears those red boots. It is an enjoyable, feel-good movie that revels in uniqueness.

Directed by Phil Traill

Sandra Bullock / Bradley Cooper / Thomas Haden Church

Comedy 98 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content including innuendos)

The Final Destination (2009)

2009-08-28T18:10:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 28, 2009

There is a rap song that begins, “Six million ways to die — choose one.” In the “Final Destination” movies, there are about six trillion ways to expire, none of them pleasant.

This horror franchise specializes in portraying elaborate, freak-accident deaths, usually befalling young men and women.

“The Final Destination,” which is supposedly the last installment of the series, continues to wring out its bone-dry, bankrupt gimmick. Though the first film was sufficient, here we are with a fourth rehashing where several friends are once again enjoying themselves, until one of them has a premonition depicting an imminent catastrophe.

“The Final Destination” opens at a race track. The visionary leading character, Nick — who’s played by Wheeling-born actor Bobby Campo — foresees a horrendous car crash that will kill him and his friends. After warning his skeptical cohorts and surrounding spectators, they flee the scene whereupon the crash occurs as he had envisioned, except the majority of those who listened to his warning cheat death.

But only for a time.

In these movies death itself is personified as an invisible stalker, preying upon those who should have died. And just like the three previous films, the characters realize what’s happening and try to prevent their fatalities.

When I discussed Campo’s new film with him, he said, “Our object was to see how gruesome and how intricate we could make these deaths.” While it’s true that “The Final Destination” delivers some chain-reaction executions, it spends more time trying to defy audience expectations than it does creating complicated and ghoulish kill scenarios. (The problem with faking out viewers every time is the deception is no longer a surprise.)

“The Final Destination” does deliver one stroke of genius pertaining to its 3-D format: Typically, the fun of 3-D is the alarming perception that something is flying out of the screen toward your face. This movie cleverly exploits this anxiety with a 3-D movie scene within the 3-D movie you’re watching.

But otherwise, most of the blurry 3-D sequences are difficult for your eyes to bring into focus and look artificial — like cartoonish, transparent holograms.

Campo has a charismatic screen presence, and he does fine with this role of looking worried, making ominous predictions and trying to evade death. He told me, “It’s weird to act in a horror movie, because you can’t exactly draw from anything you’ve ever experienced.”

Let’s hope.

Directed by David R. Ellis

Bobby Campo / Shantel VanSanten / Haley Webb

Horror 82 min.

MPAA: R (for strong violent/gruesome accidents, language and a scene of sexuality)

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

2009-08-21T20:38:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 21, 2009

The brazen title of writer-director Quentin Tarantino’s new film, “Inglourious Basterds,” refers to a team of Jewish-American soldiers whose specialty and sole objective is killing Nazis — or as their comedic leader, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) says it, “killin’ ‘Nat-sees.’”

Running 153 minutes, “Inglourious Basterds” unfolds in episodic chapters, some of which play like self-contained short films. In fact, the opening chapter is incredible; its scenario is simple: In 1941 in Nazi-occupied France, German Col. Hans Landa, a so-called “Jew hunter,” visits a dairy farmer who is suspected of harboring Jews.

This first vignette and another later chapter set in a basement tavern are exceptional in the way they build suspense. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace in modern cinema to use quick editing and loud, dissonant music for jarring the audience into feeling tension. But Tarantino has trusted that his spectators will be patient enough to enjoy longer scenes that slowly build genuine suspense.

The trailer gives the impression we’ll be seeing a wall-to-wall war film bathed in blood, but “Inglourious Basterds” is a dialogue-driven drama punctuated only occasionally by explicit violence. Even so, Tarantino fans will be pleased with disturbingly real depictions of strangling, shooting, scalping and a baseball-bat scene that makes the one in “The Untouchables” (1987) seem mild.

“Inglourious Basterds” is an excellent film that is cleverly conceived, smartly written and well executed. It has the all-around craftsmanship of an Academy Award Best Picture contender, though I’m not sure its mid-year release date will afford it the nomination it deserves.

Certain aspects of the film are inspired by actual events and people, but nitpicking historians can take the day off, because much of the movie is fiction.

Those who have an aversion to subtitles should know that you’ll be reading 50 to 60 percent of the dialogue, unless you’re fluent in German, French and Italian.

Understandably, some people have incorrectly assumed that Tarantino’s film is a remake of the 1978 Italian flick called “The Inglorious Bastards,” but this new movie is hardly a retread, despite its nearly identical title. The older film is also set amid World War II, has rogue American soldiers — in France — and some Nazis, but Tarantino’s story is altogether different, not to mention superior.

With “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino delivers another memorable film that’s an odd blend of ferocious, realistic violence and offbeat humor.

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Brad Pitt / Christoph Waltz / Diane Kruger

Drama 153 min.

MPAA: R (for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality)

District 9 (2009)

2009-08-14T16:30:00.002-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 14, 2009

For those who insist that “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” are good movies, I suggest contrasting them with “District 9,” Peter Jackson’s sci-fi action-drama that not only has spectacular special effects, it also has an intriguing story line that’s enhanced by the subtext of its themes. In other words, it’s a blockbuster that’s entertaining visually and intellectually.

“District 9” is presented as a documentary that examines an alien invasion. Starting with archival footage from 1982, the film shows how a gigantic alien aircraft arrives over Johannesburg, South Africa, and looms ominously in mid-air. After three months of silence from the visitors, an organization called Multi-National United (MNU) flies up to the alien ship and cuts its way inside, where it finds bug-like extraterrestrials, struggling and malnourished.

On the ground below the ship, MNU establishes a holding camp called District 9, a slum that becomes home to 1.8 million aliens for the next 20 years after their arrival, during which time, tensions and intolerance between humans and aliens result in escalating unrest.

The costly inconvenience of hosting the invaders has made them a despised nuisance. Humans want the aliens to leave just as much as they want to return home, but their ship is inoperable. Violent and unsettling mayhem ensues.

“District 9” has a bizarre, almost comedic beginning with a pseudo-documentary style similar to a Christopher Guest film, like “Waiting for Guffman.” Then the tone suddenly grows more dire, with footage resembling “Cloverfield” or “Quarantine” — minus the motion sickness.

The aliens themselves are unsightly creatures, seemingly inept delinquents that chew on tires and love cat food more than E.T. loves Reese’s Pieces. Their language is reminiscent of Greedo’s, from “Star Wars,” which means their dialogue is necessarily subtitled.

“District 9” does an excellent job at shaping our initial opinion of the visitors, provoking our contempt and an “us” versus “them” attitude. Then it pulls the rug from beneath us, stirring our compassion and sympathy for the aliens, reversing the target of our disgust to humans.

“District 9” is a blatant, metaphorical commentary on illegal “aliens” and refugee camps, and the moral questions of humanitarianism associated with them. It also addresses sacrificing life in the name of scientific or militaristic progress.

“District 9” is the best film of the summer and perhaps the best film so far this year.

Directed by Neill Blomkamp

Sharlto Copley / Vanessa Haywood / Nathalie Boltt

Sci-Fi 112 min.

MPAA: R (for bloody violence and pervasive language)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

2009-08-07T18:20:00.002-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 7, 2009

The 3- and 3/4-inch G.I. Joe action figures that this movie is based on had a tendency to break in certain places. If “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” were a toy instead of a movie, it would have a broken rubber band, two missing thumbs and no groin.

Apologists will dismiss any criticism of a movie based on a toy line, but after seeing the first “Transformers” brought to the screen with some degree of competence, we know it can be done.

“The Rise of Cobra” is set in the “not-too-distant future” when a weapons manufacturer has developed “nanomites” — fearsome weaponry that can “eat all materials,” including tanks and entire cities.

Naturally, such destructive technology must not fall into the wrong hands, like, say, a budding terrorist organization bent on world conquest. And when that unthinkable scenario occurs, another group of “real American heroes” must counter its attack.

“The Rise of Cobra” gives us some of our favorite characters, such as Storm Shadow, Zartan, a sultry Baroness, and of course, Snake Eyes, whose appearances are quite good. Snake Eyes is played by Ray Park, the incredibly gifted martial artist who also played Darth Maul in “The Phantom Menace” and Toad in “X-Men.”

But unfortunately, many of Park’s combat sequences against Storm Shadow are filmed up close, so we can’t tell what’s happening. That’s how they make older guys like Liam Neeson look fast, but Park doesn’t need close-ups.

As its title suggests, “The Rise of Cobra” is a multi-faceted origins story. We get to learn the origins of Destro, Cobra Commander and the reasons for the bad blood between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. Despite its futuristic, Battle Force 2000 appearance, “The Rise of Cobra” mostly features the earlier characters, which is to say, there is no Serpentor, Crimson Twins, Emesis Enforcer or any other Cobra-La kooks.

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is frequently boring and seldom entertaining. It is little more than a colorful strobe light masquerading as a motion picture. In other words, if you’re not a G.I. Joe fan — circa 1982 to 1986 — don’t even bother with this movie, unless you’re the kind of person who’s easily entertained by blinking Christmas lights.

Note: Readers feeling nostalgic for their Hasbro treasures should visit the invaluable YoJoe.com, and click on the “Toy Archive” link.

Directed by Stephen Sommers

Channing Tatum / Sienna Miller / Marlon Wayans

Action 118 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout)

Funny People (2009)

2009-07-31T18:11:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 31, 2009

Movie previews seem to either reveal too much, or they mislead our expectations. The trailer for “Funny People” does the latter because it suggests a hilarious film fueled by stand-up routines of proven comedians, like Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.

“Funny People” is disappointing, as it is only occasionally humorous — never side-splitting — and overall, just OK.

Now, I realize my lukewarm verdict will amount to blasphemy for some fans, since we’re talking about a film by Judd Apatow, whose cinematic batting average is nearly as consistent as Pixar’s, in terms of viewer appeal. You’ll remember Apatow’s comedic handiwork from “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up.”

“Funny People” sporadically sprinkles mediocre clips of stand-up acts, like we’ve seen on “Seinfeld,” but the film doesn’t revolve around comedy club performers or their scene. In fact, rather than amusement, the predominant tone of “Funny People” is unhappiness.

And why wouldn’t the mood be dismal, since the movie begins with George Simmons (Adam Sandler) getting devastating news that he has a form of leukemia and a grim prognosis. Simmons is a successful comedian-movie star who has earned his clout by paying his dues, trudging up through the ranks of the comedy club circuit.

Sandler’s Simmons character is unmistakably parallel to Sandler himself. Like Sandler, Simmons has starred in a host of moronic movies, where he plays idiotic characters with idiotic voices. (Because “Funny People” features a successful star in an unflattering, autobiographical role, I was reminded of “JCVD,” an uncomfortable film where Jean-Claude Van Damme plays a half-real, compromising version of himself.)

Counterpoint to the Sandler character we have Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), a young and ambitious comedian who, along with his pals, is trying to break into show business. Simmons’ celebrity status requires him to play various publicity events, but he doesn’t feel as funny after learning of his illness, so he hires Wright as his assistant and joke-writer.

The first half of “Funny People” involves the relationship of the two contrasting comedians; the second half seems like a new film altogether, as Simmons tries to right his wrongs and win back his lost love.

Although “Funny People” was written and directed by Apatow, its plot gives the impression that Sandler is symbolically “handing over the reins” to the likes of Rogen, Hill and Apatow. For the past 20 years or so — particularly in the ‘90s — we’ve had Saturday Night Live character movies and Happy Madison productions. Now Sandler and his cronies are passing the torch to a new generation of funny people.

Directed by Judd Apatow

Adam Sandler / Seth Rogen / Jonah Hill

Comedy / Drama 146 min.

MPAA: R (for language and crude sexual humor throughout, and some sexuality)

Orphan (2009)

2009-07-24T21:08:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 24, 2009

In the movies, horror often happens to families that deserve it least. From earlier this year, “The Haunting in Connecticut” depicts a family whose primary haunting victim also suffers from cancer.

“Orphan,” which is also set in Connecticut, afflicts a family already afflicted by the loss of their baby. The characters’ vulnerability evokes our pity for them. Our concern heightens the suspense of watching their peril.

“Orphan” is another “evil child flick,” akin to “The Good Son” (1993), “Godsend” (2004) or “Children of the Corn” (1984). John and Kate Coleman (Peter Sarsgaard and Vera Farmiga) have two children, but after their third child is stillborn, they decide to “give their love to another child who needs it.”

At St. Mariana Home for Girls they find Esther, a 9-year-old orphan from Russia who is well-mannered, intelligent and uncommonly insightful. After quickly deciding that Esther should be a part of their family, the couple adopt her.

But “something is wrong with Esther.” Among other things, she seems to be an evil seed, a cunning master manipulator whose propensity for violence is reminiscent of a Joe Pesci wise guy.

Isabelle Fuhrman plays Esther. In preparation for her role, the young actress learned some sign language and studied Russian to develop an accent, which isn’t always consistent, but it’s an admirable performance for a 12-year-old. Fuhrman’s creepy character demonstrates the power of lighting and makeup: Note the contrast in Esther’s appearance from her introductory scene with her final scene.

This film reminded me of how masterful Alfred Hitchcock was at conjuring terror in broad daylight. It’s genuinely scary when nightmares erupt from typically benign situations or people — such as a child. “Orphan” is disturbing because we wouldn’t expect a child who needs a home to try to destroy it.

Technically, “Orphan” is a thriller and a drama, with moments of horror violence. This film escalates from uneasy to unlikely, to unseemly to unsettling. One of the movie’s greatest strengths is the way it doesn’t rely on supernatural phenomena for its nightmares; instead, it has many cringe-eliciting moments where we think, “Oh no, surely they (the filmmakers) won’t do that” — and sometimes they do.

A note to the sensitive and the squeamish, “Orphan” has several upsetting elements, such as violence involving children, both perpetrated by — and against — children. The stillborn baby subplot could be upsetting for some, as well as a couple of brutal, semi-graphic murders.

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra

Isabelle Fuhrman / Vera Farmiga / Peter Sarsgaard

Thriller / Horror 123 min.

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

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

2009-07-16T20:09:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 16, 2009

Few visions are more entertaining than seeing an old wizard going berserk and unleashing some angry wizardry. “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” delivers one such display.

In fact, each filmic adaptation of author J.K. Rowling’s series has provided numerous imaginative images, giving double meaning to the phrase “movie magic.” “Half-Blood Prince” represents the series well, with intriguing concepts like memory-filled vials, “liquid luck,” unbreakable vows, and of course, the revelation of the half-blood prince’s identity.

Not all the “Harry Potter” movies are equal, but I’m happy to report that “Half-Blood Prince” is one of the better films (along with “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Order of the Phoenix”).

In “Half-Blood Prince,” Dumbledore seeks to convince Horace Slughorn, a professor of potions, to return to Hogwarts because his memory contains a valuable secret that could finally end Harry Potter’s conflict with Voldemort. This new movie also has the creepy Tom Riddle (Voldemort as a young pupil) played by Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, the nephew of actor Ralph Fiennes, who plays the adult Voldemort.

The “Harry Potter” movies hit the big screen in 2001, and the “Half-Blood Prince” is the sixth installment of the saga. The remaining two films (which both will be adapted from the seventh and final book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”) are slated for release in November 2010 and July 2011.

Looking over the eight-year span of the currently released movies, it’s interesting to see how the three principal actors — Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) — have grown up before our eyes.

This cinematic, age-archiving phenomenon reminds me a little of Michael Apted’s incredible “Up” documentaries, which have revisited several individuals every seven years for the past 42 years (so far) to see how closely their lives have unfolded, relative to their plans.

Assigning a one-word verdict to summarize a movie is as inadequate as trying to label a person using the same method. I’m often asked why I rate movies like the “Half-Blood Prince” as merely “good,” instead of “excellent.” Simple. There has to be room for distinguishing even better films — excellent ones like “Fargo,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Unforgiven” and “Monster.”

And rarer still, the controversial “masterpiece” rating is only given to truly extraordinary films like “Goodfellas,” “Hoop Dreams,” “Life Is Beautiful” and the “Up” documentaries mentioned above.

Directed by David Yates

Daniel Radcliffe / Michael Gambon / Alan Rickman

Fantasy 153 min.

MPAA: PG (for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality)

Bruno (2009)

2009-07-10T18:02:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 10, 2009

Not everyone knows what Sacha Baron Cohen’s films are like. Let’s just say they’re challenging to describe — even in general terms — in a family newspaper.

Those who appreciated his 2006 film, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” will probably love “Bruno” even more. For those who haven’t experienced Cohen’s work before, read on before buying your movie ticket.

The word “obscene” has never seemed so feeble. Cohen makes Judd Apatow’s raunchy productions seem timid. “Bruno” is comparable to Tom Green’s disgusting “Freddy Got Fingered” (2001).

Cohen plays Bruno, a 19-year-old homosexual man from Austria whose flamboyance both earned and lost him a job as the host of a fashion show called Funkyzeit. After getting ousted from Fashion Week in Milan, Italy, Bruno moves to Los Angeles to become an “uber-famous celebrity,” a quest that fills the balance of the 83-minute film with his sordid attempts at notoriety.

Cohen must be admired for his unflinching commitment to his comedic art. An unfortunately unforgettable wrestling match during his “Borat” film situated his face in an unthinkable place. But gross-out humor is only part of Cohen’s gig: He is a master instigator and equal-opportunity offender who obviously aims to shock, antagonize and provoke as many viewers as possible.

Cohen’s filmmaking has made him no stranger to litigation. Much like the methods of the TV shows “Candid Camera,” and more recently, “Punk’d,” Cohen’s gimmick is to use his bizarre characters to elicit reactions from unsuspecting “victims.” Under such unusual circumstances, these regular, everyday non-actors respond to the comedian in surprising ways that land them in his films’ final cut — hence the humor and the lawsuits.

For both “Borat” and “Bruno,” some of the scenes are scripted with actors. The latter has cameos from surprisingly “big” celebrities who chose to participate willingly, as well as some who vehemently did not.

Though Cohen succeeds in amusing, shocking, disgusting and offending, I can’t recommend “Bruno” — even a little bit — despite its having several laugh-out-loud moments. This film is vile and somehow, paradoxically, shameful and shameless. “Bruno” is rated R for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language. (Its original rating was NC-17, which it still deserves.)

Less than 30 minutes into the screening I attended, three 20-something guys vocally refused to watch any more and left the theater. Cohen no doubt would be pleased.

Directed by Larry Charles

Sacha Baron Cohen / Gustaf Hammarsten / Clifford Banagale

Comedy 83 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language)

Public Enemies (2009)

2009-07-02T20:36:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 2, 2009

According to The Encyclopedia of American Crime, by Carl Sifakis, the term “public enemies” was coined by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and was meant to identify armed “stickup men” of the 1930s. The notorious John Dillinger was dubbed “Public Enemy No. 1.,” which Sifakis noted, was a status he attained with a criminal career that spanned only 11 months in 1933 and 1934.

Apparently Dillinger was a somewhat chivalrous bank robber and incredible prison-escape artist whose loyalty to his cohorts even promoted some honor among thieves. Despite his designation as a public enemy, Dillinger was actually widely admired during the Great Depression era as a kind of Robin Hood for insisting that bank patrons keep their money, while assuring them that he only wanted to steal from the bank.

These and many other tidbits from Dillinger’s life are portrayed in Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies,” a convincing period film that features Johnny Depp as Dillinger, Christian Bale playing his pursuer, and Marion Cotillard as his love interest. Mann’s movie is authentically set in many of the historical locations where Dillinger briefly dwelled, including the Biograph Theater in Chicago.

The subtle master stroke of “Public Enemies” is when we see Dillinger watching the film “Manhattan Melodrama” in the theater mentioned above. Mann pulls a clever trick whereby he places us, the viewers, in the same theater with Dillinger, as the images on the movie screen he’s watching eventually fill the screen we’re watching. It’s been done before, but not this well.

For better or for worse, the film’s episodic plot is merely a cycle of bank robberies, gun battles, arrests and jailbreaks — over and over again. Though it is refreshing to see Depp step out of his typically bizarre, macabre roles to play a relatively normal person, overall, “Public Enemies” isn’t overly intriguing. Gangster film fans will know what I mean when I say this movie is more a “Road to Perdition” than a “Goodfellas.”

Certainly Dillinger couldn’t have been worse a menace to society than Albert Fish, one of his criminal contemporaries who was executed in 1936. Fish was a convicted child killer and cannibal who thrilled at the prospect of getting to experience the electric chair. (I bet he was shocked by his disappointment.)

Movies have the peculiar effect of glamorizing war and crime. So does the media. Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” (1994) demonstrates both glamorizers in action by satirizing the way the media tends to sensationalize criminals, which of course, is depicted cinematically with stylistic flair. In the 1930s, Dillinger also captivated the media, and therefore, the nation. Indeed, here we are 75 years after his death, and Dillinger’s name is still appearing in newsprint.

Directed by Michael Mann

Johnny Depp / Christian Bale / Marion Cotillard

Crime 140 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for gangster violence and some language)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

2009-06-24T22:58:00.006-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 24, 2009

Director Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” movie from 2007 is excellent, as far as shameless action entertainment goes. In fact — though it didn’t win — “Transformers” was nominated for three Academy Awards for visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” still provides stunning sound and visual effects (hence my “OK” rating), but its atrocious story is utterly ridiculous, even for Michael Bay — and that’s really saying something. Remember “Armageddon?”

Bay is one of those directors whose movies you enjoy, but you’re a little embarrassed to admit it. In planning “Revenge of the Fallen,” it’s as if the three screenwriters jotted down all their ideas during a brainstorming session and Bay decided to use them all.

The first “Transformers” is about an alien race of two feuding robotic clans that seek to obtain a mysterious cube in order to protect or exploit its power, depending on their heroic or villainous dispositions. A fast-talking teenager named Sam Witwicky gets caught in the middle of the transformers’ battle, thanks to one of his ancestors. Sam is played by the hilarious Shia LaBeouf, whose character in “Holes” (2003) also has forbears whose misadventures implicate him.

As for this sequel, “Revenge of the Fallen” begins two years after the first movie, when the malevolent Decepticons want revenge by attempting to destroy the benevolent Autobots, as well as the human inhabitants of the Earth — oh, and also the sun. Yes, this movie is so dire, the villains aren’t satisfied with merely conquering the Earth, they want to destroy the sun, too. The Decepticons’ destructive objectives are all designed to ensure their posterity and redeem “The Fallen.”

It’s no surprise that “Revenge of the Fallen” is nothing more than a summer-blockbuster-popcorn movie aimed at 14-year-old boys, which is fine — especially if you’re a 14-year-old boy. If you’re looking for plenty of pyrotechnics and Megan Fox wearing cut-off jean shorts, a la Catherine Bach, then this your movie. But if you’re looking for a coherent story, you’ll have better luck with “Armageddon.” Again, that’s saying something.

Variety’s film critic Joe Leydon wrote a book called “Guide to Essential Movies You Must See,” in which he suggests that filmmaking pioneer Edwin S. Porter demonstrated how “spectacle is not enough; movies also have to tell compelling stories.” Indeed. Somebody needs to tell Michael Bay that.

Directed by Michael Bay

Shia LaBeouf / Megan Fox / John Turturro

Sci-fi / Action 150 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material)

Year One (2009)

2009-06-19T17:14:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 19, 2009

For many years now, the American cinema has been suffering from a disease I call the genre parody. Cringe-worthy movies like “Meet the Spartans” and “Dance Flick” spoof other films, such as “300” and “Step Up 2: The Streets,” respectively.

Following suit, “Year One” borrows a great deal from “10,000 BC” and “Apocalypto,” but it’s better than the comedies mentioned above, because it’s not so grossly exaggerated — though it is gross.

Michael Cera plays Oh, the smartest member of his caveman tribe, and Jack Black is Zed, the village idiot. Oh is a gatherer and Zed thinks he’s a hunter. When the odd outcasts are banished from their community, they begin to wander (along with the plot), encountering biblical people and places, such as Cain and Abel and Sodom — of Sodom and Gomorrah fame.

And it comes to pass, verily, that these unlikely heroes are given the opportunity to prove their worth to themselves and those who had doubted them.

Pairing Jack Black and Michael Cera together as a comedic duo was a stroke of casting genius. Clashing Black’s overstated overconfidence with Cera’s understated timidity is funnier than a tickle fight at your fourth-grade teacher’s house. In fact, the first 10 minutes of “Year One” feels like the two actors are trading punch lines during a stand-up comedy skit.

“Year One” is not necessarily a family film. Its PG-13 rating includes “crude and sexual content throughout” and some so-called “comic violence” that’s closer to Scorsese than the three stooges. Because of the biblical humor and vaguely philosophical dialogue, some viewers might sense a mean-spirited undertone of contempt for religion.

Even though “Year One” rates above mediocrity, by all means, go to the movies this weekend and consider seeing “The Proposal” instead. And if you’re determined to watch a prehistoric comedy, I’d recommend “Caveman” (1981), starring Ringo Starr and Dennis Quaid. It has one of the best musical sequences in all moviedom.

Directed by Harold Ramis

Jack Black / Michael Cera / Olivia Wilde

Comedy 100 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content throughout, brief strong language and comic violence)

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

2009-06-12T17:17:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 12, 2009

Two-thirds of “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” ticks away in approximate real time, which means the time it takes for the events to unfold onscreen equals the time they would take in reality. (The cinema typically condenses time, which is how we’re able to watch stories that span days or years in only a couple of hours.)

Notably, this movie’s real-time portion isn’t depicted through long, unbroken takes, as in Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” (1948); instead, the plot is delivered as it is in “High Noon” (1952), with several cuts painstakingly aligned to correspond with the minute-hand of your trusty wristwatch — which amounts to impressive, labor-intensive filmmaking.

Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber, a train dispatcher who works at a rail control center in New York City. He happens to be on duty when a madman who calls himself Ryder (John Travolta) launches a hostage-ransom plot by commandeering Pelham 1 2 3, a subway train filled with passengers. If the city of New York doesn’t deliver $10 million within an hour, Ryder threatens to shoot one passenger for each minute the ransom is late.

Travolta portrays this villain as intelligent and unstable — a loose cannon with the volatility of a Quentin Tarantino henchman. Other actors of note include John Turturro as a would-be hostage negotiator, and James Gandolfini (aka Tony Soprano) as an unpopular New York City mayor.

“Pelham 1 2 3” is a remake of a 1974 movie by the same name. Both films are based John Godey’s novel. Unlike many summer blockbusters, “Pelham 1 2 3” is more than just a big, loud action flick: In one scene, Garber’s worried wife instructs him that he must return home safely, because he needs to buy milk. Another moving moment involves an act of pure heroism by a minor character.

Credible little touches like these engage us in a movie that has many scenes that are merely two actors talking to each other over a radio. But the film’s highlight is Washington’s nuanced performance as a flawed hero and good man. I was reminded of another Washington film — perhaps his best — called “John Q” (2002), where he plays a hostage captor.

By the way, real-time enthusiasts should consider seeing “Timecode” (2000), if only for its quartered screen that reveals four, simultaneously unfolding stories that are uninterrupted by editing. And if you’re fond of hostage movies, I recommend “Hostage” (2005), with Bruce Willis. Remarkably, it’s a hostage film within a hostage film.

Directed by Tony Scott

Denzel Washington / John Travolta / John Turturro

Crime 106 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for violence and pervasive language)

The Hangover (2009)

2009-06-05T03:21:00.002-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 5, 2009

Recounting tales of drunkenness or mentioning the expression, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” always seems to make people laugh — why? I can’t explain their perpetual humorousness, but these two comedic concepts are the foundation for “The Hangover,” and sure enough, they’re still funny in this movie.

Along with being a comedy, “The Hangover” is also a mystery whose plot duration is three days. It begins with a jittery bride receiving the bad news on her wedding day that her groom has gone missing amid the revelry of his Las Vegas bachelor party.

To build the intrigue behind the groom’s whereabouts, “The Hangover” flashes back two days earlier and shows the four friends taking a road trip from Los Angeles to Sin City. As their wild night begins, the film jumps ahead to “the morning after,” where our curiosity is piqued further as we’re shown the bizarre aftermath of their all-night antics.

The previews reveal that the guys somehow acquire a chicken, a police car, a tiger and a baby — all mysteries because none of them remembers what happened. The true fun of “The Hangover” is learning how all this weirdness transpired, as the trio pieces the evening back together throughout the movie, while searching for the groom.

The director, Todd Phillips, is known for other party movies like “Road Trip” (2000) and “Old School” (2003). Justin Bartha plays the groom, but it’s the other three actors who carry this caper: Bradley Cooper is a restless school teacher and good-times instigator; Zach Galifianakis plays the hilarious yet alarming future brother-in-law; and Ed Helms basically reprises his Andy Bernard persona from “The Office.”

Despite its successes, “The Hangover” has one black eye, so to speak, that’s truly tasteless and borderline illegal filmmaking: In this appalling scene, a baby — yes, a baby — is compelled to make sex-related gestures. Multiple children were used to film the baby’s role, so one must wonder how many parents agreed to allow their child to be exploited this way, and how exactly were those babies persuaded to cry hysterically on cue?

Aside from this lapse in judgment, “The Hangover” is entertaining and reminiscent of Peter Berg’s “Very Bad Things” (1998). More than any other movie I can recall, this vulgar film has a surefire method for persuading its viewers stay for the credits. It’s impossible to leave — no matter how much you’ve had to drink.

Directed by Todd Phillips

Bradley Cooper / Zach Galifianakis / Ed Helms

Comedy / Mystery 100 min.

MPAA: R (for pervasive language, sexual content including nudity, and some drug material)

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

2009-06-01T20:44:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 1, 2009

Movies like “Drag Me to Hell” are irrefutable justification for movie critics, as is the misrepresented marketing of such films. This is the kind of movie where spectators leave before it ends (which happened during my screening) and demand refunds. Unless you’re a special kind of movie-lover, I recommend avoiding “Drag Me to Hell,” but probably not for the reasons you suspect.

Sam Raimi directed this movie, and he also co-wrote it with his brother, Ivan. Now, I should note that both Raimis are fairly competent filmmakers. “Spider-Man 3” (2007), which wasn’t as good as its predecessors, was directed by Sam and both brothers were screenwriters. Noting their abilities lends support to what follows.

The problem with “Drag Me to Hell” is its marketing. It has been portrayed as a serious attempt at horror, but actually, it’s a hybrid of horror and comedy-horror, a la “The Evil Dead” (1981) and “Army of Darkness” (1992) — both Raimi products. Are you starting to get the picture?

Yes, “Drag Me to Hell” is obviously meant to achieve two purposes: to get cheap, jumpy scares and to slip a new, laughably bad cult favorite in on unsuspecting moviegoers. Indeed, if this film’s previews had represented it accurately, its box office numbers would be drastically lower. This is not a pay-good-money to see kind of movie. Remember “Blood Diner” (1987)? It’s not quite that bad, but it comes close at times.

Ironically, Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) — the young woman at risk of being dragged to hell — is a good person. As the movie begins, everything in her life is coming into alignment. She’s dating a great guy, and she’s in the running for a position as the assistant bank manager at a California bank.

But while trying to prove that she can make the tough calls, she denies a grotesque gypsy woman an extension on her loan, which means the old lady will be left homeless. The elderly woman begs, causing a scene, and is removed from the premises. To make a long story short, the creepy woman places a curse on Christine that will result in her being terrorized by a demon for three days, after which she’ll literally be dragged to hell to suffer for eternity ... unless she can find a way to escape the curse.

It wouldn’t be right for me to describe the comical ridiculousness that unfolds (in case anyone still plans to see this movie), but let me just say this: “Drag Me to Hell” could have easily been titled “Scary Movie 5.” And if there ever is a “Scary Movie 5,” even though “Drag Me” seems like a good candidate for parodying, it probably wouldn’t work because the source material is already so farcical.

The point is, this film is made just fine for what its devious creators were trying to accomplish — which is horror-movie kitsch. Judging it in those terms (which are lenient), “Drag Me to Hell” isn’t that bad. But judging it against serious horror movies that really try to be scary, such as “The Haunting in Connecticut,” it’s barely mediocrity.

Ultimately, I’ve panned “Drag Me to Hell” because it betrays what the previews have led people to expect. Don’t forget to hug your local movie critic today.

Directed by Sam Raimi

Alison Lohman / Lorna Raver / Justin Long

Horror 99 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of horror violence, terror, disturbing images and language)

Up (2009)

2009-05-29T18:22:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 29, 2009

Much like an escaped helium balloon, “Up” climbs quickly, but it only ascends so high before it is blown around by the required winds of action sequences. Even so, Disney-Pixar’s new animated film begins like a masterpiece.

First of all, we meet a boy whose eyeglasses resemble the 3-D glasses we’re wearing as spectators, and we see him sitting in a movie theater, making us immediately identify with his character. We like him because he’s like us.

Next this boy whose name is Carl meets a girl named Ellie. They both want to be adventurer-explorers like their hero, Charles Muntz, whose travels take him to Paradise Falls in South America. From the couple’s childhood meeting, “Up” proceeds with a bittersweet and beautiful passage-of-time montage that highlights their lives together.

The most successful animated films are those that offer something for each member of the family. The less ambitious movies rely on the distasteful practice of including sexual innuendo or suggestive symbolism to keep the adults’ attention, but “Up” provides a touching love story with a potency rarely summoned by animation.

As the movie’s previews reveal, Carl (Ed Asner) is the elderly man who ties hundreds of helium-filled balloons to his house, enabling it to float away with him inside of it. Carl is leaving because he has an old promise to keep. But the aged traveler also has a stowaway onboard his airborne abode — young Russell (Jordan Nagai), a Wilderness Explorer endeavoring to earn his “Assisting the Elderly” badge.

The boy’s unintentional annoyance to the old man who secretly regards the kid fondly calls to mind the strained relationship between “Dennis the Menace” and Mr. Wilson. The discordant duo’s adventures usher in the action scenes and the animals.

Notably, many animated films give animals the ability to speak, usually without explanation. But “Up” gives a reason for granting dogs the gift of tongues. Surely the hilarious canine dialogue is what dogs would say if they were articulate. Having human beings amid a society of talking dogs is reminiscent of “Planet of the Apes.”

As is the Pixar tradition, “Up” is preceded by an exceptional, animated short film titled “Partly Cloudy.” Oh, and there are a few 3-D trailers for upcoming movies, including the teaser for “Toy Story 3,” which is slated for release in 2010.

By the way, moms and dads should note that “Up” is rated PG — not G. The film has some mild violence, including two instances of actual bloodshed and some dog attacks, that might give parents pause.

Directed by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson

Ed Asner / Jordan Nagai / Christopher Plummer

Animation 96 min.

MPAA Rating: PG (for some peril and action)

Terminator Salvation (2009)

2009-05-21T21:58:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 21, 2009

Throughout the “Terminator” movies, our perception of the present is relative, due to the series’ shifting focus on various dates in time. The first three “Terminator” films are mostly set in the past (pre-Judgment Day), with brief glimpses of a nightmarish future, circa 2029. But “Terminator Salvation” primarily takes place in a war-torn 2018, after Judgment Day has occurred and the remnant of humanity is raging against the machines.

John Connor (Christian Bale) is ascending to become the leader of the worldwide resistance, as he carefully listens to his mother’s instructional cassette tapes and prepares for the day when he’ll dispatch Kyle Reese back to 1984. Meanwhile, the machines and the resistance unleash devastating plots in hopes of checkmating their enemies.

Above all, “Terminator Salvation” is a war movie whose dingy, industrial production design echoes Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” (1927), an early sci-fi film that’s also a futuristic portrayal of human misery borne from technological advancement gone awry.

Those who say “Salvation” is an orphan among its predecessors haven’t seen the trilogy recently. Revisiting the preceding movies will enhance your understanding and appreciation of this new film. Still, some fans will no doubt be disappointed with the new installment, since it’s not a hunt-and-chase movie like the others.

James Cameron — the director of “Aliens,” “The Abyss” and “Titanic” — co-wrote and directed “The Terminator” (1984) and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991). Without question, those first two films are the best of the series, which attests to Cameron’s filmmaking prowess.

The 1984 film is excellent because a human chases a cyborg 45 years back in time to protect another human. The 1991 film is great because a familiar cyborg follows a more advanced robotic assassin back in time to protect a human.

The third movie is a kitschy rerun of the second film, with two monstrous machines battling over the lives of mortals. “Salvation” is both refreshing and intriguing because we get to see the post-nuclear-war time period, various other terminator models in action, and the unfolding of events we heard about in the previous movies.

The ending is a little unsatisfying, but it’s obvious that “Salvation” is the beginning of another trilogy. (Indeed, a fifth “Terminator” movie is already in development.)

Because of these films’ sparse release dates, they provide a fascinating record of the evolution of special effects, particularly when observing the disparity between the dated, 1984 film and the dazzling CGI of “T2.” With an average of about eight years between films, we might need to time-travel to 2029 to see how this series ends.

Directed by McG

Christian Bale / Sam Worthington / Anton Yelchin

Sci-fi / War 130 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language)

Angels & Demons (2009)

2009-05-15T20:08:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 15, 2009

Unless you’ve already read Dan Brown’s novel “Angels & Demons,” watching the movie is like playing a new card game — it’s a little confusing, sometimes boring, and it seems like the rules are being made up as it goes along.

Though “Angels & Demons” preceded “The Da Vinci Code” (2006), it is set as a sequel. But the chronology is more or less irrelevant, since Brown unfolds more adventures of symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), rather than rehashing his hero’s previous scavenger hunts.

In “Angels & Demons” the pope has died, and it’s time to select a successor. But four cardinals — all prospective papal contenders — have been abducted from the Vatican. When the church discovers that the abductor(s) might be a centuries-old secret society called the Illuminati, it seeks Langdon’s sleuthing expertise.

The professor must do his thing and frantically find clues around Rome before each cardinal is publicly (and thematically) executed an hour apart from one another, until the final hour when a technological terror will be detonated somewhere in Rome.

The misleading trailers for “Angels & Demons” appear to suggest that it will contain encounters with supernatural creatures, but the only angels or demons in this movie are statues and human beings. This is not a horror movie; it’s a “diet” thriller — at best.

Hollywood is sometimes unkind to the Catholic Church or specialty groups like Opus Dei, which associate themselves with the church, or the Illuminati, who openly despise it. With its implications that suggest that the church is politically corrupt and even murderous, some Catholic viewers might be put off by this film.

And at the same time, “Angels & Demons” is also likely to alienate its non-Catholic viewers who might find themselves marooned in the sea of church jargon, some of which is in Italian or Latin.

When judging a film adapted from a book, we commonly say “the book was better,” because we prefer our vision of things over someone else’s conceptualization. Plus, the number of pages between book covers is more generous than the number of minutes between movie credits. Screenwriters are compelled to preserve the original source material while transforming the story from written words to filmic images. Books tell; films show.

But the question is not whether “Angels & Demons” is as good as the novel; the question is, does this adaptation stand on its own? The answer is — it’s OK — but it limps like a monk wearing a cilice.

Directed by Ron Howard

Tom Hanks / Ewan McGregor / Ayelet Zurer

Mystery 138 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of violence, disturbing images and thematic material).

Obsessed (2009)

2009-05-13T15:50:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 13, 2009

If nothing else, “Obsessed” is ambitious — or is the right word “brave”? To make a PG-13 movie about this subject matter must have been difficult. Lazier filmmakers would have gone with R-rated content, allowing their project to slip into slinky sleaziness. But “Obsessed” doesn’t take the low road, and as a result, it’s a little more noble, despite the way it appears in its sultry marketing.

In other words, if you’re looking for sex and nudity, this ain’t your movie (and shame on you). If you strive to avoid such explicit content, “Obsessed” is fairly “clean.” Indeed, the PG-13 rating primarily comes from the ideas of lust, temptation and adultery — not the actual depiction of those themes.

Derek (Idris Elba) and Sharon (Beyoncé Knowles) are happily married with one little son, Kyle, who always seems sedated. All is well, but when a new temp (Ali Larter) starts trying to tempt Derek at work, the couple’s idyllic lifestyle crumbles. Lisa, the would-be home-wrecker, is not only attractive and driven, she’s also obsessed with Derek. Her predatory preoccupation with him reveals a darker and darker character whose relentless tactics escalate from appalling to unforgivable.

“Obsessed” is intriguing for two reasons: The first reason is because it inspires us, the viewers, to have different questions throughout the movie. Initially, we are very curious to know whether Derek will succumb to Lisa’s advances. Later in the movie, we have more questions that we’re just as eager to have answered. The other reason “Obsessed” is somewhat fascinating is because we simultaneously cringe and look forward to seeing what the crazy chick will do next.

Unfortunately, the movie grows tiresome, because it’s one of those frustrating plots where everything could be resolved if the victimized protagonist would simply communicate with those around him.

But the movie’s biggest black eye is its descent into utter ridiculousness, when the inevitable physical confrontation occurs: What is meant to feel like vindication seems more like some Wrestlemania-type brawl between the Fabulous Moolah and Wendy Richter. Though it’s not meant to be funny, it is laughable.

Some people might consider “Obsessed” to be a love story or a drama — or maybe even an action flick (but that’s pushing it). Actually, “Obsessed” is intended to be a thriller, which is immediately evident from its peculiar horror-flick piano on the soundtrack. In fact, the music throughout the film is odd: During the beginning scenes with the blissfully happy couple, we hear that uneasy piano score; then at the end, after we’ve witnessed much unpleasantness, we hear happy music, as if years of therapy won’t be requisite.

I’ve thought about “Obsessed” for a considerable amount of time, and I just can’t pinpoint what it is about the film that relegates it to a rating of merely OK. I keep returning to something The New York Times film critic, Vincent Canby, once wrote in a preface to a “worst movies” list:

“Actually, most movies, like most anything else, are neither very, very bad nor very, very good. They tend to fall into that vast middle ground of forgettableness ... ”

Yes, I can say that although “Obsessed” is moderately entertaining, it is unremarkable enough to be easily forgettable.

Directed by Steve Shill

Idris Elba / Beyoncé Knowles / Ali Larter

Thriller 108 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sexual material, including some suggestive dialogue, some violence and thematic content).

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

2009-05-10T22:18:00.001-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 10, 2009

Now that the blockbuster season is under way, let’s just call a spade a spade: “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was designed to draw big box office sales and aimed to entertain boys and young men via lots of special effects and superhero action — that’s it. Mission accomplished.

We all know what to expect from the previews, so why do critics and some moviegoers complain when the movie is composed of bumper-to-bumper action that’s riddled with implausibility?

Nothing revolutionary is revealed about the cinematic medium or the human condition, but here’s the key: The filmmakers never pursued any such ambitions. To judge fairly, shouldn’t we take into consideration what the filmmakers’ were trying to accomplish? I think so.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is thoroughly entertaining. It rarely slows down. I nearly rated it “Excellent,” but it’s just falls short of the stature of “Iron Man.” Instead, “Wolverine” is “Good” like “The Incredible Hulk,” and probably not quite as good as the “X-Men” trilogy.

The movie opens in 1845, when we see a brief but tragic episode that results in two unusual brothers’ permanent flight from their family. The siblings grow up together, battling back to back in multiple wars throughout the decades. They are mutants whose remarkable gifts lend them incredible resilience against aging, injuries and death. But due to the divergence of their natures, Logan (Hugh Jackman) and Victor (Liev Schreiber) part ways and become fierce enemies.

The plot summary above is quite simplistic and doesn’t begin to span the myriad developments in the movie. However, if you’re schooled in Wolverine’s comic-book history, you won’t need a lengthy explanation, and if you’re altogether ignorant of his story, then it’s better that you’re surprised during the movie.

Typically, origin stories (which are often supplied in a superhero’s first movie) are tiresome. Sure, if a person didn’t have super powers but then obtained them, he or she would have to fumble around with those new abilities for a while. A good example of this is “Spider-Man” (2002). But I’m often irritated by having to sit through the “learning curve,” which is usually intended to be funny and never is. And though Wolverine was born with his “powers,” there is a brief scene of this fumbling sort involving his atomantium (not positive about that spelling) claws.

Film often reflects the anxieties of the day. The sci-fi genre is a good example of this — especially during the 1950s when two of the primary fears were nuclear armageddon (atom bomb) and alien invasion (the Red Scare and McCarthyism). And with respect to all of the dismissive comments I made at the beginning of this review, perhaps there lies beneath “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” a sub-conscious fear of genetic engineering and experimentation. But probably not. It’s probably just action for action’s sake.

Lastly, there is a very small and insignificant morsel at the very end of this film for those who wait until the end-credits are finished rolling. But as my filmmaker friend Joshua Ligairi pointed out to me after reading my “Star Trek” review, those little “Easter eggs” aren’t the only reason to watch the credits.

Directed by Gavin Hood

Hugh Jackman / Liev Schreiber / Remy LeBeau

Action 107 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity).

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009)

2009-05-10T20:40:00.000-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 10, 2009

“Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” is not as good as you think it’s going to be. It looks like it has real potential — and why wouldn’t it, since its premise borrows heavily from Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”?

The problem is an all-too-common one: The characters aren’t overly likable — particularly the protagonist, played by Matthew McConaughey. Yes, Ebenezer Scrooge is undeniably crotchety, but I’d argue that he’s still likable, because his despicableness is obviously who he really is and we tend to respect that; whereas, McConaughey’s Scrooge-like character openly flaunts his choice to be obnoxious.

Connor Mead (McConaughey) is an edgy and in-demand photographer whose specialty is making sexy women look even sexier by arraying them in photogenic lingerie. Then he sleeps with them. Yes, we learn quickly that Mead is an unscrupulous dog: For instance, he breaks up with three women simultaneously on a conference call while the fourth watches and waits for him in bed.

Scrooge is pig-headed and Mead is simply a pig. You get the idea. Consequently, the photographer is visited by three ghosts who enlighten him with their escapades to watch episodes from his past, present and future. And naturally, since this is a romantic comedy, Mead isn’t being taught the true meaning of Christmas — or even that women aren’t objects; instead, there was always one special gal in his life, Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner), whom Mead should have settled down with years ago.

While watching the film, I apologetically kept thinking that the concept is a great idea, then I’d remember that it was actually Dickens’ tale, and not the screenwriters’ of “Girlfriends Past.” The movie follows the usual pattern of a romantic comedy, and it’s built around a wedding (which is a secret weapon of the genre), but even the priceless actor Michael Douglas isn’t able to save this sinking ship.

Contrast this flick with two feel-good winners from 2005, “Hitch” and “Fever Pitch.” When I left the theater after those two movies, I was borderline gleeful. When I watched “Girlfriends Past,” I felt a a little dreary inside and not too optimistic about the happily ever after.

All in all, “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” is OK, but it doesn’t stand out among the blue million others like it in this genre.

P.S. By the way, the hands-down best film adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” is the 1984 TV version that was directed by Clive Donner and stars the great George C. Scott.

Directed by Mark Waters

Matthew McConaughey / Jennifer Garner / Michael Douglas

Romantic Comedy 100 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sexual content throughout, some language and a drug reference).

Star Trek (2009)

2009-05-08T16:53:00.004-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 8, 2009

Writing about a universal phenomenon like “Star Trek” can incur the wrath of Khan, the Gorn captain and trekkies across the galaxy. Luckily, the kind of people who wear pointy ears to conventions and movie theaters typically aren’t that intimidating, so I’ll risk it.

Such dedicated fan-boys and fan-girls will likely have split opinions in the extreme, either loving or hating this new film, depending on whether they’re among the camp that has an unconditional love for anything related to Starfleet, or the half that gripes about every little incongruent detail that they perceive as inauthentic.

In actuality, J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” lies somewhere in between. Sure, the critic within us all can always have qualms, but this blockbuster succeeds in capturing the spirit of the series and entertaining with flashy, loud, sci-fi action.

“Star Trek” begins with a poignant curtain raiser, where we witness the valor of George Kirk — James T. Kirk’s father — as he makes an unbearable sacrifice. The conflict surrounding this opening incident sends ripples throughout the movie.

Technically, this “Star Trek” installment could loosely be called a prequel — and though Kirk and Spock aren’t generally considered to be superheroes — it’s also an origin story, of sorts. The primary plot depicts the young Enterprise crew trying to deal with a Romulan aggressor (played by a nearly unrecognizable Eric Bana), and his dismal designs which involve drilling into planet cores.

Naturally, “Star Trek” has mind-melding, Vulcan neck-gripping, a She-Hulk look-alike, and of course, some “colorful metaphors.”

Since the series began in 1966, “Star Trek” has had an uncanny way of conjuring uneasiness within its viewers: Typically, some deadly dilemma is presented to the crew of the Enterprise, and time is given for that danger to ruminate with us before we see it play out. To its credit, this movie is able to reproduce that same tension.

“Star Trek” is fairly well cast, but there are always unavoidable discrepancies when altogether different actors take on the roles of familiar characters. The appearance of one of the original cast members, however, surely lends more validity to the film. But in order to accommodate the actor’s aged appearance, the screenplay incorporates a time-travel plot line, which leads to discussion of alternate realities, which leads to our doubting whether this prequel actually is the real story or just one possible reality.

As with any good action flick, “Star Trek” also has its share of humor, including in-jokes for the faithful, but even the simpletons who call it “Star ‘Track’” and expect to see swordplay with “life savers” will get some laughs.

Oh, and there aren’t any surprises after the end credits finish rolling, so don’t bother waiting around.

Directed by J.J. Abrams

Chris Pine / Zachary Quinto / Eric Bana

Sci-fi 126 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content).

Crank: High Voltage (2009)

2009-05-02T08:15:00.004-06:00

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 2, 2009

The first movie, "Crank" (2006), took the intriguing plot device used in "Speed" (1994) and gave it a biological twist: In "Speed," Sandra Bullock's character is trapped driving a bus rigged to explode if its speed falls below 50 mph. In "Crank," Jason Statham's Chev Chelios is injected with a poison that will kill him if he doesn't keep his heart rate up and adrenaline pumping.

Now we have "Crank 2: High Voltage," which is just as preposterous as its predecessor, and just as alienating to its viewers. Yes, these "Crank" movies are apparently made only for a select type of moviegoer, an audience of outliers. The typical spectator would likely be put off by these movies or simply regard them with contempt. In short, "Crank 2: High Voltage" is guilty pleasure escapists' fare: mindless, vulgar action, a movie requires a hefty suspension of disbelief — not for realists.

The movie opens with Chelios being dropped out of a helicopter. After his spill, Chelios’ heart is stolen from his chest, and he's graciously given an artificial one in its place. (The organ harvesters evidently aren't as heartless as Chelios.) So basically, he spends the remainder of the movie trying to recover his real heart — a pursuit that he undertakes with real heart — but there's a catch: His loaner is only designed for temporary, non-strenuous use. Oh, and it frequently needs to be charged, because once it runs out of juice, his heart will stop beating.

That leads to the movie’s sole gimmick, a plot device that is basically a game for the screenwriters who have to come up with myriad ways for Chelios to recharge. These methods typically involve electricity, but “friction” is one method, and I’ll give you three guesses how that is achieved: Yes, there’s a scene at a horse race that is nothing short of pornographic.

Chelios’ real heart essentially serves as what Alfred Hitchcock referred to as a “MacGuffin,” which is an object whose purpose is truly irrelevant, except for its utility as a plot device to motivate the characters to action, moving the story along. For instance, whatever was in the mysterious briefcase in “Pulp Fiction” (1994) is a good example of a MacGuffin. It doesn’t matter what it is, it only matters that it provides the engine to drive the plot forward.

It may seems strange, but “Crank 2: High Voltage” made me reflect on one of the significant events in film history: According to film historians Louis Giannetti and Scott Eyman, in 1872 the governor of California insisted that a horse has all four feet off the ground during a full-stride run. The governor had skeptics who doubted his assertion, so he hired a photographer (and murderer) from San Francisco named Eadward Muybridge to prove his theory.

To make a long story shorter, Muybridge set up a line of cameras that photographed a running horse and proved that a horse does, in fact, have all four feet off the ground during a full-stride run. Well, there’s a shot in “Crank 2” that suggests another little-known fact about the whereabouts of a horse’s anatomy while running. Enlightening indeed.

Directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor

Jason Statham / Amy Smart / Dwight Yoakam

Action 96 min.

MPAA: R (for frenetic strong bloody violence throughout, crude and graphic sexual content, nudity and pervasive language).

Winners of the 81st Academy Awards

2009-02-23T08:05:00.002-07:00

Best Motion Picture of the Year
“Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight)

Achievement in Directing
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Danny Boyle

Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Kate Winslet in “The Reader”

Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Sean Penn in “Milk” (Focus Features)

Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Penélope Cruz in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”

Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
“Departures” (Japan)

Best Documentary Feature
“Man on Wire” - James Marsh and Simon Chinn

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
“WALL-E”

Original Screenplay
“Milk” - Written by Dustin Lance Black

Adapted Screenplay
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Screenplay by Simon Beaufoy

Achievement in Cinematography
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Anthony Dod Mantle

Achievement in Film Editing
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Chris Dickens

Achievement in Sound Editing
“The Dark Knight” - Richard King

Achievement in Sound Mixing
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke and Resul Pookutty

Achievement in Visual Effects
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton and Craig Barron

Achievement in Art Direction
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Art Direction: Donald Graham Burt, Set Decoration: Victor J. Zolfo

Achievement in Costume Design
“The Duchess” - Michael O’Connor

Achievement in Makeup
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Greg Cannom

Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original score)
“Slumdog Millionaire” - A.R. Rahman

Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original song)
“Jai Ho” from “Slumdog Millionaire,” Music by A.R. Rahman, Lyric by Gulzar

Best Live Action Short Film
“Spielzeugland (Toyland)” - Jochen Alexander Freydank

Best Documentary Short Subject
“Smile Pinki” - Megan Mylan

Best Animated Short Film
“La Maison en Petits Cubes” - Kunio Kato

Milk (2008)

2009-01-31T13:05:00.000-07:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 31, 2009

It is remarkable how the cinema can empower us to see through another person’s eyes — not merely a physical point of view — but an ideological perspective that may altogether differ from our own beliefs. Film can so effectively draw us into a character’s story, we begin to see where he or she is coming from. Some motion pictures wield the power to exploit our common ground of humanity. Gus Van Sant’s “Milk” has this ability.

Sean Penn seems to have become Harvey Milk — the Martin Luther King Jr. of the Gay Rights Movement. At the risk of redundancy, and for clarity’s sake, King is to the Civil Rights Movement what Milk is to the Gay Rights Movement, according to the film’s portrayal of him. (Perhaps there have been other significant figures in gay rights history, but I admit my ignorance of the subject.)

“Milk” is set in the 1970s. It begins with black-and-white images that inform us of the violent clashing between homosexuals and the police. Next we see Harvey Milk, accomplished politician and gay activist, sitting at a table, speaking into a tape recorder. He is keenly aware that his crusade could have him killed, so Milk is telling his tale, leaving his testament.

The film is structured with flashbacks that continue to intercut, from time to time, with Penn’s narration. The flashbacks show us Milk’s life beginning on his 40th birthday, when he meets the love of his life, Scott Smith (James Franco). We see some of the difficult circumstances that gay men face, and these persuade him to pursue a political career, where, in hoping to make a difference, Milk incites a whole revolution. And we follow the resultant turmoil, which is punctuated with victories and defeats.

At its core, “Milk” is more than a film about a gay rights activist — more than historical highlights of a political movement — it’s a bold statement that proclaims that living a homosexual lifestyle (or simply being homosexual) is a basic human right, and perfectly normal. Of course, with this agenda, “Milk” favors the cause of homosexuals and demonizes traditional conservatives. OK, maybe I shouldn’t go so far as to say it “demonizes” conservatives, but the film’s depiction of Milk’s opponents paints them as not much more than small-minded bigots. (Naturally, as a religious, traditional conservative myself, I don’t perceive myself to be a small-minded bigot, but I’m sure there are those who would disagree, especially upon reading the rest of this review.)

Though it is a well made, entertaining drama, “Milk” probably isn’t a film for everyone (but I bet those same people mentioned above would argue that it should be). In fact, when I watched “Milk,” there was only a heterosexual couple with me in the theater. But after about 10 minutes into the film, they left. I don’t know why, but perhaps it was one of the passionate kissing scenes between Sean Penn and James Franco that drove them away.

In any case, if you have an aversion to seeing gay men being affectionate, you’ll probably want to skip this movie. (It’s not my cup of tea, either, but my film criticism subjects me to a number of images I don’t particularly enjoy watching, or personally approve of.)

And for those of you who object to such depictions of homosexuality in the mainstream cinema, you should be aware that Ang Lee’s “Brokeback Mountain” (2005) and “Milk” have paved the way for many more films of this nature. Just the other day, my mom called and told me about “Prayers for Bobby,” a made-for-TV movie about a kid whose parents’ religious intolerance of his homosexuality leads him to suicide.

The times, they are a changin’, and I bet Harvey Milk would be pleased.

Directed by Gus Van Sant
Sean Penn / Emile Hirsch / Josh Brolin
Biography / Drama 128 min.
MPAA: R (for language, some sexual content and brief violence)

U.S. Release Date: November 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 334

Henry Poole Is Here (2008)

2009-01-28T19:21:00.001-07:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 28, 2009

Do you ever remember feeling irrationally agitated in school upon noticing that the teacher didn’t completely erase all the lines on the chalkboard? Well, somehow, “Henry Poole Is Here” manages to evoke those same feelings.

But with the wisdom that comes with time, we realize that the teacher’s instruction was of far greater importance than our trivial annoyances.

And so it is with “Henry Poole Is Here,” a film that has a higher purpose for pulling the rug out from under us. The movie questions the merits of faith, pitting believers against nonbelievers. And we take the bait — take sides — and are willingly drawn in to the debate.

Yet the so-called lines on the chalkboard are some intentional contradictions that, at first blush, seem to have been designed to create ambiguity. Upon further thought, we suspect the filmmakers (director Mark Pellington and screenwriter Albert Torres) have succumbed to a bit of filmmaking cowardice, or fear of ultimately choosing a side.

But I’m convinced now that neither suspicion is true. As I’ve considered the film, I’ve concluded that the filmmakers were reaching for an effective way to depict how people will always find ways to reinforce themselves in their own beliefs. The filmmakers’ method of demonstrating this human tendency is subtle enough that I think most viewers will miss the point altogether, and leave their classroom only noticing the lines on the chalkboard, and not the lesson. Indeed, that very thing nearly happened to me.

Though this underscored principle of humans recognizing only the evidence that supports their way of thinking is a worthy theme, “Henry Poole Is Here” isn’t overly entertaining or satisfying.

The film’s name is a miscalculation: After encountering the phrase “Henry Poole Was Here” written several times during the movie, we already know from the title that the verb is going to change tenses, which robs the film of one of its few, potentially fulfilling moments.

When we meet Henry Poole (Luke Wilson), he is buying a house. He’s sold right away (even though it’s not the home he wanted). We can plainly see that Poole is apathetic and listless, and above all, he seems to be irreversibly unhappy.

From the start, Poole becomes an intriguing character, as does his neighbor, Millie (Morgan Lily), a six-year-old who secretly tape-records other people’s conversations and plays them back immediately. The movie draws us in by making us wonder why Poole is so sad and why Millie is so strange.

Less interesting is the side of Poole’s stucco house: A neighbor and busybody, Esperanza (Adriana Barraza), says she can see the face of Christ and calls it a miracle, while Henry only sees a water spot and calls it religious fanaticism. This back-and-forth dialogue goes on and on. Esperanza recruits many other believers from the neighborhood, and Henry — who obviously needs a miracle — only gets more irritated. If I wasn’t imagining things, I started to be able to make out a face on the wall the longer the movie went on. My wife agreed.

So having worked out my feelings for this movie through pondering it at length, I rate “Henry Poole Is Here” as OK, since it’s lacking in entertainment value. But I’ll give the movie credit for being one of the few PG-rated movies that’s intelligent enough to watch.

Directed by Mark Pellington
Luke Wilson / Radha Mitchell / Adriana Barraza
Drama / Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG (for thematic elements and some language)

U.S. Release Date: August 15, 2008
Copyright 2008: 333

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

2009-01-24T13:08:00.004-07:00

O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 24, 2009

What if all the worst days of your life added up to give you exactly what you needed to experience the best day of your life?

We hear this equation frequently, especially in theology. In the Old Testament, for example, we read that “the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning.” Also, “(God) shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain,” or “all things work together for good to them that love God.”

Though it isn’t overtly religious, the brilliance that is “Slumdog Millionaire” is designed after this principle of life’s bitterest lemons rendering sweet lemonade. The film’s trailer reveals that Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) is a triumphant winner on India’s version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”

The big question is how does an uneducated “slumdog” know the answers to all those questions? Did he cheat? No. He knows the answers because life cheated him. The film is built upon flashbacks between each game-show question that reveal how Jamal’s knowledge of these random answers happens to come from their being burned into his memory through several unbearable experiences. Essentially, Jamal knows the answers because they’re scars on his soul.

I am convinced that an element of great storytelling gives us little satellite stories within the primary story. I’m not referring to relevant subplots that obliquely tie into the principal plot, but instead, fanciful wanderings off the beaten path that help us know something more about the characters.

I’ll never forget the horrid mini tale told in “Gremlins” — from 1984 — when Kate, the character played by Phoebe Cates, explains why she doesn’t like Christmas. (Remember? — because her dad got stuck in the chimney while trying to play Santa Claus for her family, and they didn’t discover him until days later when they started to smell a terrible odor.)

Another more recent example would be in “The Dark Knight,” when Michael Caine tells how he and his cohorts had to deal with an infamous jewel thief in the jungles of Burma. Well, “Slumdog Millionaire” is filled with several of these sad but chilling mini tales, and that’s what makes the film so spectacular.

It has already received widespread critical acclaim: At the 66th Annual Golden Globes, “Slumdog” won four awards, including Best Motion Picture Drama and Best Director for its captain, Danny Boyle. And two days ago we heard the nominees for the 81st Academy Awards. “Slumdog” has 10 nominations, including Best Motion Picture. I suspect it will be a titanic winner.

“Slumdog” is filmed mostly in English, though it’s about 40 percent subtitled. Above all, it is meant to be a love story, but “Slumdog’s” theme, which I mentioned already, is so consuming, it unintentionally eclipses the romance.

Dev Patel’s performance as Jamal should be admired: He’s a serious and sober young man whose confidence comes from his unflinching resilience to fear. Jamal is unafraid, and therefore, unstoppable. How can you intimidate or hurt someone whose life is comprised of so many unthinkable tragedies that pain has become normalcy. And really, Jamal doesn’t care one bit about the money — all he wants is his destiny, his true love, Latika (Freida Pinto). Patel effectively conveys all of the above.

“Slumdog” and its makers have been receiving a lot of heat from India, because it serves as an exposé of the country’s profound poverty. But the film doesn’t blatantly critique India; it frankly shows us the deplorable conditions of its people peripherally, as a conspicuous backdrop to the story.

And yet, even with all its power, “Slumdog” is a throwback to the conventions of Hollywood, even classical cinema — minus the star power — where we have a narrative form, conflict and resolution. But here we are dazzled with familiar elements of formulaic storytelling that have been delivered and executed with excellence.

Directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan
Dev Patel / Freida Pinto / Madhur Mittal
Drama / Romance 120 min.
MPAA: R (for some violence, disturbing images and language)

U.S. Release Date: November 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 332

The Nominees for the 81st Academy Awards

2009-01-22T20:26:00.003-07:00

Nominations for the 81st Academy Awards were announced this morning by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis and Oscar winner Forest Whitaker. The Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2008 will be presented on Sunday, February 22, 2009 on ABC. (Jason Notes: Yes, “The Dark Knight” was slighted for at least being nominated for Best Picture, and Clint Eastwood was regrettably snubbed with “Gran Torino” for Best Picture and Directing. I predict “Slumdog Millionaire” will win Best Picture, with “Milk” a close second.)

Best Motion Picture of the Year
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
“Frost/Nixon” (Universal)
“Milk” (Focus Features)
“The Reader” (The Weinstein Company)
“Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight)

Achievement in Directing
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - David Fincher
“Frost/Nixon” - Ron Howard
“Milk” - Gus Van Sant
“The Reader” - Stephen Daldry
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Danny Boyle

Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Anne Hathaway in “Rachel Getting Married”
Angelina Jolie in “Changeling”
Melissa Leo in “Frozen River”
Meryl Streep in “Doubt”
Kate Winslet in “The Reader”

Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Richard Jenkins in “The Visitor”
Frank Langella in “Frost/Nixon”
Sean Penn in “Milk” (Focus Features)
Brad Pitt in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler”

Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Amy Adams in “Doubt”
Penélope Cruz in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
Viola Davis in “Doubt”
Taraji P. Henson in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler”

Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Josh Brolin in “Milk”
Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder”
Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt”
Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”
Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road”

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
“The Baader Meinhof Complex” (Germany)
“The Class” (France)
“Departures” (Japan)
“Revanche” (Austria)
“Waltz with Bashir” (Israel)

Best Documentary Feature
“The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)” - Ellen Kuras and Thavisouk Phrasavath
“Encounters at the End of the World” - Werner Herzog and Henry Kaiser
“The Garden” - Scott Hamilton Kennedy
“Man on Wire” - James Marsh and Simon Chinn
“Trouble the Water” - Tia Lessin and Carl Deal

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
“Bolt”
“Kung Fu Panda”
“WALL-E”

Original Screenplay
“Frozen River” - Written by Courtney Hunt
“Happy-Go-Lucky” - Written by Mike Leigh
“In Bruges” - Written by Martin McDonagh
“Milk” - Written by Dustin Lance Black
“WALL-E” - Screenplay by Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Original story by Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter

Adapted Screenplay
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Screenplay by Eric Roth, Screen story by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord
“Doubt” - Written by John Patrick Shanley
“Frost/Nixon” - Screenplay by Peter Morgan
“The Reader” - Screenplay by David Hare
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Screenplay by Simon Beaufoy

Achievement in Cinematography
“Changeling” - Tom Stern
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Claudio Miranda
“The Dark Knight” - Wally Pfister
“The Reader” - Chris Menges and Roger Deakins
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Anthony Dod Mantle

Achievement in Film Editing
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
“The Dark Knight” - Lee Smith
“Frost/Nixon” - Mike Hill and Dan Hanley
“Milk” - Elliot Graham
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Chris Dickens

Achievement in Sound Editing
“The Dark Knight” - Richard King
“Iron Man” - Frank Eulner and Christopher Boyes
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Tom Sayers
“WALL-E” - Ben Burtt and Matthew Wood
“Wanted” - Wylie Stateman

Achievement in Sound Mixing
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Mark Weingarten
“The Dark Knight” - Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo and Ed Novick
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke and Resul Pookutty
“WALL-E” - Tom Myers, Michael Semanick and Ben Burtt
“Wanted” - Chris Jenkins, Frank A. Montaño and Petr Forejt

Achievement in Visual Effects
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton and Craig Barron
“The Dark Knight” - Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber and Paul Franklin
“Iron Man” - John Nelson, Ben Snow, Dan Sudick and Shane Mahan

Achievement in Art Direction
“Changeling” - Art Direction: James J. Murakami, Set Decoration: Gary Fettis
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Art Direction: Donald Graham Burt, Set Decoration: Victor J. Zolfo
“The Dark Knight” - Art Direction: Nathan Crowley, Set Decoration: Peter Lando
“The Duchess” - Art Direction: Michael Carlin, Set Decoration: Rebecca Alleway
“Revolutionary Road” - Art Direction: Kristi Zea, Set Decoration: Debra Schutt

Achievement in Costume Design
“Australia” - Catherine Martin
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Jacqueline West
“The Duchess” - Michael O’Connor
“Milk” - Danny Glicker
“Revolutionary Road” - Albert Wolsky

Achievement in Makeup
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Greg Cannom
“The Dark Knight” - John Caglione, Jr. and Conor O’Sullivan
“Hellboy II: The Golden Army” - Mike Elizalde and Thom Floutz

Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original score)
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Alexandre Desplat
“Defiance” - James Newton Howard
“Milk” - Danny Elfman
“Slumdog Millionaire” - A.R. Rahman
“WALL-E” - Thomas Newman

Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original song)
“Down to Earth” from “WALL-E,” Music by Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman, Lyric by Peter Gabriel
“Jai Ho” from “Slumdog Millionaire,” Music by A.R. Rahman, Lyric by Gulzar
“O Saya” from “Slumdog Millionaire,” Music and Lyric by A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam

Best Live Action Short Film
“Auf der Strecke (On the Line)” - Reto Caffi
“Manon on the Asphalt” - Elizabeth Marre and Olivier Pont
“New Boy” - Steph Green and Tamara Anghie
“The Pig” - Tivi Magnusson and Dorte Høgh
“Spielzeugland (Toyland)” - Jochen Alexander Freydank

Best Documentary Short Subject
“The Conscience of Nhem En” - Steven Okazaki
“The Final Inch” - Irene Taylor Brodsky and Tom Grant
“Smile Pinki” - Megan Mylan
“The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306” - Adam Pertofsky and Margaret Hyde

Best Animated Short Film
“La Maison en Petits Cubes” - Kunio Kato
“Lavatory - Lovestory” - Konstantin Bronzit
“Oktapodi” - Emud Mokhberi and Thierry Marchand
“Presto” - Doug Sweetland
“This Way Up” - Alan Smith and Adam Foulkes

Nights in Rodanthe (2008)

2009-01-20T18:53:00.000-07:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 20, 2009

Rodanthe is a community in North Carolina that’s ambiguously situated amid Cape Hatteras and the Outer Banks. In 2002 American author Nicholas Sparks published a novel titled “Nights in Rodanthe,” which this movie is adapted from. In 2006 I released a CD whose first track featured a song I wrote titled “Rodanthe,” which is based on a monumental vacation that my family spent there in 1988. So how does this obscure place become the muse for writers’ artistic creations? It’s hard to explain unless you’ve been there.

I haven’t read Sparks’ book, but the film gives us Richard Gere playing Paul Flanner, a visibly agitated doctor who has an uncomfortably unpleasant matter to attend to in Rodanthe. Diane Lane is cast as Adrienne Willis, a divorced (or perhaps separated) mother of two who sneaks away for a few days to think about her ex’s intense pleas to get back together, and to oversee her friend Jean’s (Viola Davis) beachfront bed-and-breakfast — also in Rodanthe. The two burdened singletons meet, and though they are distracted by their respective problems, they are not so preoccupied as to fail to notice how appealing middle-aged counterparts can be.

I’m told that the movie follows the book fairly closely, so I’ll aim my critique at Sparks for the movie’s “imminent storm” scenario, which is a heavy-handed metaphor meant to parallel inevitable conflicts … a storm, I should mention, that leads to an illogical cause-and-effect sequence: The storm hits; the two are frightened; so they have sex.

Screenwriters (and authors) love the “set-up and pay-off” plot frill, where something addressed earlier in the story is “Paul Harvey-ed,” later revealing “the rest of the story.” “Nights in Rodanthe” strains a bit with an equestrian set-up and pay-off.

And perhaps the lowest point of the movie is a pantry-cleaning scene — surely that isn’t in the book! (Watching it is mildly tolerable, but I can’t imagine reading about it.) On the other hand, the highlight of “Nights in Rodanthe” is the doctor’s discussion with Robert Torrelson (Scott Glenn), with whom Paul has the inciting-incident conflict.

Some couples work well together on screen. Gere and Lane are two such people. If you like what you see here, they were also cast together in Coppola’s “The Cotton Club” (1984) and “Unfaithful” in 2002 (but Olivier Martinez tends to get in the way a little of the latter).

In summary, since it is so steeped in melodrama and manipulating emotional cues, “Nights in Rodanthe” is basically a visual manifestation of a country song committed to film.

P.S. This concluding tidbit has nothing to do with “Nights in Rodanthe” or the cinema, for that matter, but I note here — if only for posterity — that today, Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama became the first black president of the United States. Obama is the 44th U.S. president.

Directed by George C. Wolfe
Richard Gere / Diane Lane / Scott Glenn
Romance 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sensuality)

U.S. Release Date: September 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 316

Quarantine (2008)

2009-01-18T21:37:00.002-07:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 18, 2009

Exactly a year ago today I saw “Cloverfield” upon its theater release, and I loved it. In fact, I ranked “Cloverfield” the third best film of 2008 (acknowledging that I only saw a limited number of critically acclaimed films last year).

“Quarantine,” a much lesser movie, seems to be modeled after “Cloverfield’s” entertaining subjective point-of-view gimmick: I call it “spectator casting,” which is where we, the viewers, are figuratively dragged out of our seats and directly involved in the film. In both “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine,” we essentially become the cameramen.

The spectator always identifies with the camera, because it is the universe-bridging eye that enables us to peer into the world portrayed within the film. Indeed, the exploitation of this association is not new to film or television. There have been variations on this technique for quite some time.

Alfred Hitchcock pulled us into his pictures by trapping us into owning some of his characters’ guilt: We become co-voyeurs in “Rear Window” (1954), as well as in “Psycho” (1960); the latter even has us sympathizing with Norman Bates, a murderer, edging us creepily close to becoming his co-conspirators.

Then on TV, “M*A*S*H” had an episode titled “Point of View” (1978) [Season 7, Episode 10], where our subjective point of view made us the patient, as the cast of the show spoke directly to us (the camera).

And of course, I don’t cite these examples as the first instances of employing this spectator casting device. Unfortunately, I can’t readily reference the first example (perhaps it was the last shot of Porter’s “The Great Train Robbery” (1903), when that six-shooter is unloaded at us).

All this unnecessary prelude is noted for its cinematic interest and merely to state that “Quarantine” isn’t overly novel, though it’s somewhat unusual.

Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) works the evening shift as a news reporter for a local TV station in Los Angeles. She and her faithful cameraman, Scott (Steve Harris), are doing a feature story where they follow L.A.’s finest (the fire department) on some 911 calls.

It turns out that they receive a medical call about some old lady who’s screaming abnormally. This is the portion you’ve probably seen on the previews. The lady has some alarming problems, and bloodshed ensues, all while the camera keeps rolling. But “Quarantine” isn’t about this one lady, as the previews would lead you to believe. Basically, it’s another zombie movie that begins unsettlingly well and progressively transgresses toward mediocrity as it proceeds all the way overboard.

Both “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine” have been criticized for making their viewers experience motion sickness with their shaky, handheld cinematography. “Cloverfield” was tolerable, but the photography in “Quarantine” is irritatingly erratic, which was probably intended to heighten the horror, but alas, it diminishes the overall production.

“Quarantine” does do something original that I don’t think I’ve seen in any other movie: At one point the cameraman uses his camera to pummel “something” to death. Since we identify with the camera, this act makes us the killer — a perverse but brilliant twist on Hitchcockian transference of guilt.

Directed by John Erick Dowdle
Jennifer Carpenter / Steve Harris / Jay Hernandez
Thriller / Horror 89 min.
MPAA: R (for bloody violent and disturbing content, terror and language)

U.S. Release Date: October 10, 2008
Copyright 2008: 318

Appaloosa (2008)

2009-01-17T21:59:00.000-07:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 17, 2009

In addition to “Appaloosa,” actor-director Ed Harris also directed and starred in “Pollock” (2000), a biography about abstract painter Jackson Pollock. I haven’t seen it, so I have no verdict on that one.

But I can tell you that “Appaloosa” aspires to the believable tone of better, more successful westerns like “Unforgiven” (1992) and the recent remake of “3:10 to Yuma” (2007). Of the three, “Appaloosa” is the third-place horse, but it still runs a respectable, 101-minute race.

The year is 1882 and the place is Appaloosa, a dusty town situated in the New Mexico Territory. A group of ruffians led by Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) has begun plaguing the community with violence and lawlessness.

So Appaloosa hires the eminent Virgil Cole (Ed Harris) and his right-hand man, Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen) to keep the peace by any means necessary. Indeed, the duo has a reputation for being proficient at such tasks.

That’s the premise of “Appaloosa.” In many ways, it follows the usual conventions associated with this familiar plot, but “Appaloosa” also defies our expectations, here and there, which is refreshing.

And though it’s good, from the looks of it, “Appaloosa” seems like it would be an exceptional western. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen paired as town cleaner-uppers — how could it possibly miss? I don’t know. It’s difficult to articulate. I guess in its attempt to aspire to be a realistic western, “Appaloosa” isn’t as engaging as other films that more closely typify the genre.

Perhaps more disappointing, Harris and Mortensen just aren’t as good as you’d expect them to be … for that, you’d need to refer to “A History of Violence” (2005).

Directed by Ed Harris
Ed Harris / Viggo Mortensen / Jeremy Irons
Western 101 min.
MPAA: R (for some violence and language)

U.S. Release Date: October 3, 2008
Copyright 2008: 319

Doubt (2008)

2009-01-16T19:51:00.000-07:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 16, 2009

Where I grew up our sixth grade classes went camping for a week. On one of the nights, we were divided into groups and encouraged to write skits; our only requirement was to design a tale that explained how the “mongoose” got its name.

I wrote my group’s script. Inevitably, since I had no idea what a mongoose was, our skit ended with a gaggle of baby geese following their mother, with one lagging behind, calling, “Mom-goose! Mom-goose!” … Exeunt. The end. I know, profoundly dumb, but I was in sixth grade.

“Doubt,” which is based on a stage play by John Patrick Shanley (who also wrote the screenplay and directed), more or less ends his motion picture like my sixth-grade play. Up to that point, it’s a wonderful film.

Set in December of 1964, “Doubt” magnifies the conflict between three people who have completely committed themselves to God, thereby embracing faith and typically eschewing doubt.

Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius Beauvier, a disciplinarian nun who surely frightens even the devil. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Father Brendan Flynn, an insightful priest who perceives imperfections within himself just as easily as he can in others. And Amy Adams plays Sister James, whose bright-eyed innocence almost makes the other nuns seems scandalous.

In short, Sister Beauvier suspects that Father Flynn is molesting one of the altar boys, a new student at their private Catholic school, St. Nicholas. Sister James is dragged into the ensuing fray. Conflict. More conflicts. Exeunt. The end.

“Doubt” is almost all dialogue — very clean — and could have possibly been rated PG. It is worth seeing for its acting alone: Streep, Hoffman, Adams — bravo all. But looking at its principals, we knew “Doubt” would give us worthy performances.

What we did not know, however (but I suspected it), is how “Doubt” would be riddled with ambiguity, subjecting us to tangibly taste of the same internal struggle that is suggested by its title. The film (and no doubt the play) engages in this game with us where we teeter back and forth with our own doubts, which follow suit with the characters’ suspicions. Brilliant.

And yet, all along we come to desperately depend on an eventual, definitive resolution — the long-awaited answers to our burning questions. Unfortunately, “Doubt’s” precarious dance with dubiety is its ultimate undoing.

Directed by John Patrick Shanley
Meryl Streep / Philip Seymour Hoffman / Amy Adams
Drama 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for thematic material)

U.S. Release Date: December 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 331

Pride and Glory (2008)

2009-01-13T06:01:00.000-07:00

O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 13, 2009

Evidently the cop movie genre is endlessly fascinating, which is not to say that all cop movies are individually interesting, but collectively they have intrigued the movie-going public for decades. Interestingly, similar to those “Othello” game chips which are white on one side — black on the other, police films are also simultaneously criminal films. So what is it about this genre that we find so captivating? The cops, or the robbers? Through which group are we vicariously living?

Well, more often than not, it’s not black and white, like Othello. We have myriad films about corrupt cops, and a few with antihero criminals. Usually movies have a good dose of villainy on both sides of the jail cell. “Pride and Glory” poses this kind of uneasy predicament, a shameful “Serpico” (1973) scenario, where the good guy has to deal with bad guys on the streets, as well as in his department.

Yes, “Pride and Glory” has its treachery, and it’s an unpleasantly gritty affair. There’s a particularly awful scene in this movie where some dude’s baby is used for leverage, to make him talk. And though I’m sure “no babies were harmed in the making of this film,” had it gone on five seconds longer, (I’d like to think) I would have left the theater. No doubt much of today’s desensitized audience wouldn’t flinch, but I can’t remember another film that pushes that same dismal circumstance to such limits.

I should admit that my relatively newfound fatherhood (one year today!) has made me a little soft, but I couldn’t help but think the filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this appalling scene. Then again, using precariously placed babies to harrow viewers is nothing new to the cinema: Even the infamous Odessa steps sequence in Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” — from 1925! — employs a pitifully helpless infant in a doomed baby carriage.

As for the story, I’m reluctant to describe much because of its intended secrets. Essentially, there’s a father (Jon Voight) and his two sons (Edward Norton and Colin Farrell) who are all veterans of the NYPD in Brooklyn. When four officers get killed in the line of duty, the family becomes closely entangled in the investigation.

Edward Norton is a fine actor; "Primal Fear" (1996) establishes that fact. And we saw in "The Italian Job" (2003) that Norton can pull off “downright despicable” easily enough. He even handles himself well in "The Incredible Hulk" (2008), which would have been surprisingly tricky to negotiate. Think about it: If somebody makes you angry enough, you turn into a monster … that gig is a red-carpet invitation, beggin' for you to over-act. See Ben Stiller in “Mystery Men” (1999).

In spite of his proven abilities, Norton's tough-as-nails cop persona doesn't sell me. In one scene Norton’s character chases down (and roughs-up) an informant — who's obviously afraid of him — and it just doesn't work. I don’t believe it.

Otherwise, “Pride and Glory” is a pretty good (albeit violent) movie. And though it’s awfully reminiscent of the previous year’s “We Own the Night,” and about a million other cop movies, “Pride and Glory” is a satisfying fix for the hero — or villain — in you.

Directed by Gavin O’Connor
Edward Norton / Colin Farrell / Jon Voight
Crime 130 min.
MPAA: R (for strong violence, pervasive language and brief drug content)

U.S. Release Date: October 24, 2008
Copyright 2008: 320

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2008)

2009-01-11T18:12:00.000-07:00

O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / January 11, 2009

Without question, “4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days” has the saddest scene I have ever witnessed in the cinema. The sadness is so profound during this moment, it disquiets the soul. If you’ve seen this film, you’ll know exactly what I’m referring to. I dare say it’s unforgettable — I know I’ll never forget it.

“4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days” tells a simple story (with complex implications), but it’s a horrifying one. Not horrifying in the same way as some slasher flick or a supernatural monster movie, but this film is alarming for its stark plausibility. It could happen; it has happened; it does happen.

Somewhat like Lars von Trier’s “Dogville” (2003), “4 Months…” is troubling for what it purports about the unscrupulousness of at least some of those around us. None of the native residents in “Dogville” was a serial killer — and no one in “4 Months…” is a serial killer (though I guess that’s debatable, technically speaking), but both films provoke our worrisome speculation about what your next-door neighbor might be capable of within the privacy of his or her own home.

Set in Romania in 1987, “4 Months…” is a film about a young woman named Gabriela (Laura Vasiliu) who wants to get an abortion, but at that time in Romania, abortions were illegal. (Roger Ebert noted in his review that Romania was under the rule of Nicolae Ceausescu, who forbade abortions not for moral reasons but because he “wanted more subjects to rule.”)

The expecting “Gabita,” as she is called, is determined to undergo the procedure, so she and her friend, Otilia (Anamaria Marinca), seek out the services of a black-market abortionist (Vlad Ivanov). And we follow along and watch the two girls’ perilous events.

Notably, it’s difficult to take a definitive stance on whether “4 Months…” is pro- or anti-abortion. To me, the film paints such bleakness on both sides of the fence, it seems to purposely state the opposing cases (abortion equals murder — versus — desperate times call for unsafe measures) to remove itself from the fray that it may be free to tell its story.

I wouldn’t call this film entertaining; in fact, it’s decidedly unpleasant to watch. But regardless of your feelings — whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice — I think every adult should see this film.

“4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” has the capacity to truly be a life-changing film for advocates of either moral position.

Directed by Cristian Mungiu
Anamaria Marinca / Laura Vasiliu / Vlad Ivanov
Drama 113 min.
MPAA: Not Rated (but R)

U.S. Release Date: January 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 321