bdgill12 Reviews

Snitch (I) (2013)

The Rock's Best Performance Yet

[7/10 · 3 March 2013]

I have never been a fan of The Rock. I understand his appeal, mind you, but he's never been a key force in my movie viewing life and I typically shy away from his films. I have yet to enjoy him in a comedic setting, I find the allure of professional wrestling to be baffling, and I have long taken the stand that I would not refer to The Rock as any other name until he proved that he could actually act. Well, the day has come, for while Snitch may not be anything to write home about, Mr. Dwayne The Rock Johnson gives what I would consider to be his finest (and perhaps first) example of real acting. Congratulations on your new title, Mr. Johnson. Please don't beat me up.

John Matthews (Johnson) is a hardworking construction company owner who has become estranged from his teenage son, Jason (Rafi Gavron). Jason gets caught up in a federal sting operation when he accepts a package of pills from a friend and since he has no knowledge to parlay, he finds himself facing 10 years in prison. Desperate to help his son, John convinces Daniel (Jon Bernthal), an ex-con who works in the construction yard, to put him in touch with a local drug dealer. Through this association, John is able to broker a deal with the district attorney to get his son's release upon the arrest of a major player in the drug game. But while he proves proficient at his job, John winds up getting closer than he ever expected to the cartel's leadership, a move that puts everyone in his family in great peril.

Snitch is the antithesis of the typical movie you would expect to find Johnson involved in. It has a slow pace, there is very little explosive action until the final sequence, and while the writing isn't particularly special (more on this in a minute), the story is definitely the driving force behind the film as opposed to any other element you typically get in a Johnson movie. Somehow, however, Johnson finds a groove within the world of Snitch that I really don't think he's hit in the past. He isn't trying to be humorous at all (always a plus in my opinion) but much more importantly, he's actually playing a character. Johnson's filmography is filled with examples of characters who are just The Rock in a different costume. The Rock as a cop, The Rock as a bodybuilder, The Rock as a hockey player turned fairy tale entity (*cringe*). In Snitch, however, I actually felt like I was seeing a real person on screen rather than another roided-out persona. John Matthews is a dad, a blue-collar worker, and most of all, a man, and I don't believe I've ever seen that from Johnson before. Moreover, he's a man who is severely out of his depth in a world he doesn't understand or fit in and that comes through quite clearly. In short, there's very little of The Rock being The Rock and beating the snot out of bad guys because he's The Rock. And I quite like that change.

Now, much of the rest of Snitch is mediocre at best. As hard as the film works to push its story as the main course rather than a paltry side dish, it is weak and sometimes horribly heavy-handed. Most of the supporting characters are painted with some extremely tired colors and the actors who play them do little to shed those clichéd and exhausted skins. Sarandon in particularly comes across as bored and uninspired; she can't have spent more than five days filming her part. The aforementioned slow pacing isn't necessarily a bad thing but it was unexpected and I found myself checking the time and wishing things would gear up. In addition, too many of the important events happen in quick bursts when a sustained build would have suited the film much better. John's family could have been developed rather than explained (a pet peeve of mine in a story-centric action film like this one is trying to be) and I could have used way more of Barry Pepper's undercover cop. Note to Hollywood: Barry Pepper makes everything better (except Battlefield: Earth). Give this man some screen time already.

As it stands, Snitch is something like a half-finished project with some strong moments brought to life by Johnson that are surrounded by some incomplete thoughts that could have and should have been refined. Even still, it's a fine performance by Johnson and that alone makes it worth a viewing, a sentence I never thought I'd have occasion to write.

Please stop by and check out my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Pretty Much a Masterpiece with the Best Performance of the Year

[10/10 · 6 January 2013]

NOTE: I do not care about the historical accuracy of this film nor the supposed stance it takes on torture. It's a movie and its job is to tell A story, not necessarily THE story. Bear that in mind. Making a movie about the tracking and killing of Osama bin Laden could have been a rather easy endeavor. Just about anyone could have made that movie and turned it into a blockbuster sort of film that would have brought people to the theater even if the quality was low. Turning that movie into an award-winning, dramatic spectacle, though, was quite a tall order. When virtually the entire audience knows the ins and outs of your story right on up to its conclusion, it can be very difficult to create drama and intrigue that doesn't seem false. Katheryn Bigelow's ability to do just that takes Zero Dark Thirty over the top and propels it into the discussion for best of the year. Zero Dark Thirty begins two years after the bombing of the World Trade Center with the brutal torture of an al-Qaeda prisoner at the hands of CIA interrogation expert Dan (Jason Clarke) and a young special agent named Maya (Jessica Chastain). The information gathered through the interrogation leads Maya on an eight year quest with only one goal in mind: the location and apprehension, by whatever means necessary, of Osama bin Laden. This process proves more difficult than finding the proverbial needle in a haystack and costs Maya a great deal throughout her time on the case but the effort is finally justified on May 2, 2011 when SEAL Team 6 is sent in to take down America's number one adversary. Zero Dark Thirty opens with a black screen backed by a 911 call from the World Trade Center on 9/11, a choice that sets the tone for what is to follow in no uncertain terms. To call this movie "intense" would require a new definition for the word. It's more like "mega-intense" or "my- blood-pressure-will-never-recover-intense." Bigelow throws the audience into the torture sequence that made me squirm not for its gratuitous depiction but for its realism. The man being interrogated is BROKEN and that hits home fast and hard. From there, the pace slows at times but the tense urgency of that opening scene never wanes, leaving you on the edge of your seat even when there's virtually nothing happening. And if you do make the mistake of putting your guard down, Bigelow is quick to comeback with an action sequence that reminds you of this film's stakes. Perhaps the finest moment is in the final scene in which SEAL Team 6 invade bin Laden's compound. The sequence takes over 27 minutes to unfold and even though I knew exactly what was going to happen, Bigelow still drove the moment home with a quiet yet furious injection of natural adrenaline that kept my pulse up throughout. What really sets Zero Dark Thirty apart, however, is the performance of its lead. I don't know who discovered Jessica Chastain and gave her the big break she needed but that person should be given a large sum of money and some sort of medal. To think that Chastain could go from completely unknown to the woman who gave the year's best performance (which is what I would call this portrayal) in less than 18 months is a true Hollywood success story if ever there was one. Maya is an awesome and complex character to begin with (a credit to Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal) but Chastain takes that character and runs with it, creating a persona that serves as the driving force behind the entire movie. Chastain shows Maya to be a brash, single-minded personality and in the wrong hands the character could have EASILY become abrasive and obnoxious. Instead, Maya is truly dynamic and begs to be embraced by the audience. It goes much further than this, though; it isn't enough for Maya to be strong and likable. Bigelow puts the entire film on the shoulders of Maya and Chastain by making her the in-movie representation of the audience and moreover, the American people. Chastain is our window into the hunt for bin Laden and the emotions that she goes through are, I believe, symbolic of the ones the audience has gone through over the last decade. Zero Dark Thirty is built with remarkably strong beams in the form of terrific writing, an engrossing and familiar story, and outstanding supporting work from a strong cast of actors (most particularly Jason Clarke who should receive award attention for his role), not to mention a host of technical attributes that serve to heighten the experience. But Chastain is the load-bearing beam of the film and even a great performance might have left the film wanting. Well, it isn't great but instead a powerhouse portrayal that reverberates with far more emotion than I expected to find going in. The relief that Chastain exhibits in the closing moments washes over the audience in a way that can only be described as surreal and, for me, it is this final shot that solidifies Chastain's performance as the best of the year and Zero Dark Thirty as one of the more iconic films of the last decade.

Ruby Sparks (2012)

Harmless, Quirky, Enjoyable

[7/10 · 13 December 2012]

Calvin Weir-Fields (Paul Dano) is your stereotypical brilliant-but- troubled writer. His first (and only) novel became an American sensation when he was only 19 years old and that success has haunted him ever since. Friendless and lonely, Calvin spends almost all of his time with his brother Harry (Chris Messina) or in the office of his shrink (Elliot Gould) who also happens to be his father. His chronic writer's block begins to clear, however, after a dream and he spends one glorious and productive night riding a story about a manic pixie dream girl named Ruby Sparks (Zoe Kazan). But just when his story begins to get good, he awakens to find Ruby in his kitchen, a manifestation of his mind that walks, talks, breaths, etc. like any other human. Calvin and Ruby embark upon what seems like a wonderful journey together, made complicated by the fact that Calvin can control Ruby's emotions, actions, and behaviors simply by typing them out.

For the most part, Ruby Sparks is a harmless, fun, and quirky tale that comes equipped with some quality performances. It's an interesting concept that certainly borrows at times from other films and stories but still manages to come across as fresh. It is often playful and it takes its subject matter lightly which in turn makes Ruby Sparks enjoyable if not particularly noteworthy. The conclusion ventures into significantly darker territory and to be honest with you I'm still not entirely sure if that works for it or not. It is a definite departure from just about everything else the film brands itself as throughout the first two and a half acts. At the same time, Calvin's melancholy nature does lend itself to the character having an edgier side and that certainly comes out as the film draws to a close. Part of me would have liked to have seen Ruby Sparks take a more dramatic, darker approach to its subject throughout its runtime rather that coming to that place in a rather abrupt manner but then this would have been a decidedly different film and much of its charm would have been lost.

The cast of Ruby Sparks does an excellent job of adding depth and value to characters that are fairly thin on paper. They are all made up of stereotypes and generic traits but Dano, Messina, and Kazan all bring some weight to their roles that make the film much more substantially than it would have been otherwise. Dano is superb, hitting the "troubled loner" nail right on the head. He personifies the right balance between successful and fear of further success, as well as a desperate need for attention, love, companionship, etc. Calvin is much the same as his character from Being Flynn in many ways but his performance here is much stronger. Messina, whose career is absolutely taking off between The Newsroom, The Mindy Project, and his small role in Argo, gives his character a slight air of seediness without becoming the overdone, "Just use this for sex!!!" guy that I kind of expected. For me the best scene in the movie is of Messina's reaction to realizing the implications of Ruby's existence. It's funny and perfectly measured. Kazan, who also wrote the film, is cute and charming and touches on each of the emotions Ruby goes through appropriately. I very much look forward to seeing what she has in store for us in the future, both on screen and behind the camera.

Overall, Ruby Sparks does what it sets out to do and brings together an interesting and quirky narrative nicely. It's nothing that I would consider particularly special or far-reaching in its aspirations but it is a nice little film that should go over well with most viewers.

Please check out my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Flight (I) (2012)

Zemeckis is a Bit Rusty

[6/10 · 7 November 2012]

It's been a while since Robert Zemeckis has been on the set of a life- action film. After 2000's Cast Away, Zemeckis dedicated himself to the art of motion capture animation, a bumpy road that brought about three relatively unsuccessful films (The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol) and the shuttering of his studio. With that in mind, I think it's only fair to give Zemeckis, the creator of such beloved films as Back to the Future and Forrest Gump, the benefit of the doubt if Flight, his first foray back into the realm of live-action cinema, shows a few signs of rust.

When his commercial aircraft experiences a massive mechanical malfunction, Captain Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) goes above and beyond to save the lives of his crew and passengers, taking evasive maneuvers that perhaps no other pilot could have managed. He awakens in a hospital room as a hero, having lost only six of 102 souls on board in spite of tremendously long odds and a harrowing crash landing. His story takes a turn, however, when it becomes known that Whitaker has a serious issue with alcohol and drug addiction and was in fact drunk at the time of the crash. As investigators close in on his condition and the heaping pile of lies he's told to cover it up, Whitaker's drinking problems reach a whole new level, alienating his only allies, heroin addict Nicole (Kelly Reilly) and company lawyer Hugh (Don Cheadle), and bringing himself closer and closer to a breaking point.

There are moments of sheer brilliance in Flight that reminded me of just how good Zemeckis can be when he's on his game, especially in the early going. The man is a special effects whiz and whereas someone like Michael Bay uses effects in a, "Look how shiny!" sort of way, Zemeckis has always used his visuals to add drama, tension, and/or intensity to his films. (Example: the plane crash and subsequent struggle for shore in Cast Away.) The sequence of events that take place on the plane in Flight, which takes up about the first 20 minutes of the film, are extremely tense and very well put together. It's both exciting and terrifying and in these moments you get to see Captain Whitaker at his very best, perhaps a look at what the man would have been without the backbreaking influence of chemical dependency. Following this opening sequence, however, the brilliant moments come along less frequently and before long I found myself getting bogged down in the narrative, lost somewhere between apathy and outright disdain for the protagonist.

Addiction is not an easy thing to portray in a film. If you go too soft, you end up with an unrealistic story that doesn't resonate. Go too far in the other direction, however, and you're likely to end up with a character that begins to grate on the nerves of the audience. Christian Bale's performance in The Fighter I think stands out as the prime example of how to bridge the gap between the two. That character is completely realistic down to the very last detail and yet he plays it in such a way that you truly do feel sorry for the character even when he is doing horrible things. Whip Whitaker doesn't quite fit that bill for me. Zemeckis takes the narrative of Flight so far and does so much to show him to be a miserable human being that Whitaker becomes a wholly unsympathetic character. I guess the object of all of this would be to drag Whitaker down to his lowest point so that his redemption will seem all the more fulfilling but instead, I reached a point nearing the film's climatic conclusion in which I said to myself, "This guy sucks and I hope he either dies or goes to jail." At that point, there's really no coming back; Whitaker could have gone on to find a cure for cancer in the film's final scene and I still would have harbored some dislike for him.

As part of this process of breaking down the lead, Flight asks much of Washington while simultaneously putting him in a hole that he has a tough time digging out of. Like everyone else with a pulse, I love Denzel Washington and consider him to be one of the very best Hollywood has to offer. But whereas Flight requires a great performance in order to make the movie work, Washington's is only a good one that holds some real strength but doesn't measure up against the man's better works. It is unfair to demand an Oscar-caliber performance out of anyone, even someone as accomplished as Washington is, but I think that's the sort of portrayal Flight requires in order to hit its mark and as a result, both parts of that equation come up short. The supporting cast, including Cheadle, Bruce Greenwood, and American Treasure John Goodman, also struggle to excel and at times come off a bit uneven. I found only Reilly and James Badge Dale, in a short but excellent appearance, to be particularly strong performers. This is disappointing as, given the names attached to this film, Zemeckis could have done considerably more with his cast than he did.

Flight represents a good effort from all parties, though perhaps a little too far-reaching for its own good. Its better moments shine quite bright but they are too often blotted out by a hard-driving narrative and an uneven tone that struggles to strike the right chord at the right time. And in the end, I was left with the feeling that Flight could have been much better than it ended up being.

Please check out my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Perfect Mix of Disney and Pixar

[9/10 · 5 November 2012]

In 2006, when Disney bought Pixar and put John Lasseter in charge of its entire animation division, most of us expected great things. After 60- odd years of complete domination in the animated movie world, Disney had lost the magic, if you will, of Sleeping Beauty and The Lion King in the midst of a heap of mediocre features that just didn't measure up to the legacy the studio had created for itself. With Lasseter on board, though, multiple generations of Disney fans who had grown up on the virtues of Robin Hood and the like hoped that the man who had redefined the genre with Pixar would return the studio to its previous glory. In essence, we were hoping for Wreck-It Ralph.

All Ralph (John C. Reilly) wants in life is to be appreciated. As the villain in an 80s arcade game known as "Fix it Felix Jr.", Ralph's job (which he does quite well) is to inflict damage upon the Niceland apartment building so that Felix (Jack McBrayer) can fix the damage. For thirty years, the end of each night, when the arcade the game resides in closes up shop, sees Felix returning to the thankful residents of Niceland while Ralph is relegated to the dump. Eager for a change, Ralph sets off into the various realms of the other games in the arcade in search of a Hero's Medal which would, he believes, change his lot back home. But when he stumbled into the racing game "Sugar Rush", he is waylaid by an obnoxious misfit known as The Glitch (Sarah Silverman), and when their paths become tied through a series of wild events, Ralph begrudgingly agrees to assist The Glitch, though he has no idea what he's getting himself into.

I have seen Wreck-It Ralph described as, "Toy Story for video games" and I believe that statement rings absolutely true. In a year in which Pixar's own feature (Brave) felt much more like a Disney movie than one that fit the standard Pixar model, it is fitting that the Disney film should have a decisive Pixarian feel to it. From the early moments, which include a gloriously scripted voice-over that would make Morgan Freeman jealous, Wreck-It Ralph establishes a link to the best of the Pixar universe and it never looks back. The concept itself is ingenious and deliciously outside the box, a truly original idea that opens up a thousand doorways through which to take the film. I imagine that, when advance notice of Wreck-It Ralph began circulating in Hollywood, many studio executives spent some time banging their respective heads against a wall or two, wondering why they didn't think of this. And yet the core value at the film's heart, the universal desire for acceptance, is incredibly simple and stands out as one of the reasons why the film excels. One of the keys to success in the Pixar universe is emotional relevance; they take common themes, struggles, and desires and illustrate them through lavish and meticulously crafted mediums, be they talking toys or a lonely robot. That quality courses through the veins of Wreck-It Ralph, creating a bond between the audience and a giant, buffoonish video game character, and making his journey seem all the more real in spite of the fact that it takes place within the code of an arcade game.

The quality of Wreck-It Ralph, however, goes far beyond the original concept, something I was concerned about going in. It would have been easy for director Rich Moore and his creative team to focus too much on the overlying idea and forget to build the rest of the film up to the appropriate standard. Instead, it is clear that every detail of Wreck-It Ralph was given the proper attention. For one thing, it is a very intelligent film. Sure, you have the requisite "duty" jokes that will keep the kids (and possibly the adults sitting next to me who shall remain nameless) laughing but overall, many of the bits are geared toward an adult audience (though none of it crossed the line to become inappropriate for younger viewers, a quality I appreciated). There are also a ton of little details (you might even consider them Easter Eggs of a sort) that are geared specifically to the gaming population, all of which brought great approval from the audience. The voice work, too, is spectacular. Reilly is the perfect actor to bring Ralph to life and he brings a real sharpness to his role. In addition, Silverman, McBrayer, Jane Lynch, and Alan Tudyk do an excellent job in their respective roles and all of them blend together with their characters. This is a quality I greatly appreciate as I feel that too many animated films utilize their voice actors only to create familiarity with the audience instead of having them actually act. As in, "Hey! That's Adam Sandler talking! Now I like this movie!" I find this very distracting and annoying. Here, though, the actors lend both their voices and their talents to the cast and I think Wreck-It Ralph is much the better for this. I was especially impressed by Tudyk, whose voice was completely unrecognizable to me until the final credits rolled.

Perhaps the most impressive feat Wreck-It Ralph pulls off comes in the form of keeping its narrative integrity and momentum together despite undergoing a fairly significant scene shift. Ralph's stay in "Sugar Rush" takes up a solid half (or more) of the film and that world is dramatically different from the film's initial setup. I was a bit concerned that this would result in a drop-off in interest/quality but instead the film just keeps on rolling. Wreck-It Ralph is a wonderfully fun, smart film that should keep a wide-ranging audience happy and instantly takes up residence amongst my favorite Disney films of all- time.

Please check out my other reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012)

Not Bad but Can't Imagine Kids Sitting Through It

[6/10 · 19 September 2012]

The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) wants more than anything to be respected in the pirate community. A consistent underdog, the Captain once again enters the race for the Pirate of the Year award before being blown away by the stout competition. Determined to change his fortune, the Captain and his crew set out on a series of misadventures that fail to bring home the booty they had expected. Desperate and downtrodden, the crew comes across a lonely scientist who turns out to be none other than Charles Darwin (David Tennant). Darwin informs the Captain that his parrot, Polly, is actually the last remaining dodo bird. Sensing an opportunity to make his fortune, the Captain enters Polly in a scientific contest, unwitting opening himself up to the ire of Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton).

Admittedly I am not in the target audience for The Pirates! Band of Misfits. I am not a child nor do I have children and more importantly, I've never been a big fan of the previous Peter Lord and Jeff Newitt collaborations. While I respect the Wallace and Gromit films and Chicken Run, I haven't found a reason to fully buy into any of these movies and I've certainly never held much excitement for them. The style of animation is cool in a retro, simple sort of way but quite honestly, I've found all of the Lord-Newitt films to be boring and unfunny. Frankly, I'd given up on these collaborations entirely before The Pirates. The trailer piqued my interest though and I ended up being genuinely intrigued by the time I got around the seeing it.

As is the case far too often, however, almost all of the parts I really enjoyed about The Pirates found its way into the blasted trailer and therefore fell flat in the context of the film. There are a few more laughs here and there but for the most part, if you saw the trailer (and how could you avoid it, honestly, given how fervently the studio pushed it) then you've already cashed in most of the movie's bigger chips. The monkey who communicates through humorous cards, the misguided pirating shenanigans, the sea monster bit, etc. all of the funnier bits can be found in the three minute preview. On the flip side, much of the film's plot is completely unexpected and the tone is significantly different than what I imagined going in. The Darwin component caught me off guard and the twist that he initially brings to the table is great. But those plot points are almost always swallowed up by the lack of interest that began brewing within me from very beginning.

The Pirates definitely has a British sensibility at its core and that comes in to play in terms of the unhurried, meticulous way in which Lord and Newitt take the audience through the narrative. I love British films and television shows and I thoroughly appreciate the detailed way that British filmmakers tend to tell their story. But good grief, that style just doesn't work at all in a kid's film. I cannot imagine any of the kids I work with even sitting through The Pirates let alone coming away impressed. I laughed a few times and I enjoyed the handful of obligatory adult-themed bits, but I had to work to get through this film more than I ever should when watching an 88 minute kid's movie.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Searching for Sugar Man (2012)

A Truly Unbelievable True Story

[9/10 · 27 August 2012]

In 1971, folk-rock musician Sixto Rodriguez released his second and final American album on Essex Records out of Detroit. Upon selling literally no copies of the record, Rodriguez was dropped from his label and began a short existence as a struggling artist in the bar scene, a role that didn't suit him, and subsequently led to his on-stage suicide. A complete failure on American soil, somehow Rodriguez's debut album, "Cold Fact", found its way to South Africa and became a huge sensation to a country deeply divided by the apartheid. Before long, Rodriguez's songs became an anthem of sorts for the lower class of South Africa and the middle class who supported the end of the apartheid but lacked a rallying cry. The Rodriguez albums became more and more popular, making him bigger than Elvis or The Beatles in South Africa though almost nothing was known about the man. In the late 90s, a pair of Rodriguez fans, Stephen Segerman and Craig Bartholomew-Strydom, sought to find out more about their hero and what led to his untimely demise. Through a string of strange events and many months of searching for information, the pair finally broke their story wide open when they were put in touch with Rodriguez, alive and well, making a living as a construction worker in Detroit.

The story told in Searching for Sugar Man is one that would be deemed completely unrealistic if it were presented in a scripted drama. Stuff like this just doesn't happen, even if many of the events took place before the Internet boom. First of all, when you hear the songs Rodriguez penned for his two albums (spliced in continually through the course of the film), you find yourself completely shocked that the guy didn't make it here. Every record producer or former collaborator dug up by director Malik Bendjelloul goes above and beyond in praise of Rodriguez, all of them vexed as to why he never made an impact on the American charts. His songs are reminiscent of the best of Bob Dylan, a soulful bluesy brand of folk that pulls no punches in the writing and is backed by a rich, unique voice. Second, the myth of what became of Rodriguez and his on-stage death was so widely believed as to become written into the history books as fact. Everyone beyond the handful of people actually connected to the man knew him to be dead. And third, the way in which this one man, of all the bands and musicians from the era, became such an enduring sensation in a foreign country, completely unbeknownst to him or really any of his inner circle, is nearly beyond belief. Again, stuff like this just doesn't happen.

The back half of the film centers on the rediscovery of Rodriguez and his return to the stage in 1998. Footage from his six night concert series in South Africa shows Rodriguez to be a proficient, comfortable performer who was in no way intimidated by the throng of adoring fans that flocked to the arenas. Even if Searching for Sugar Man was a complete miss in every department, it would still be worth the price of admission if only to see the reaction of the fans in the packed house when their hero, long believed to be dead, took the stage for the first time. It compares to Beatlemania, Bieber Fever, or any other music- related madness that has gripped a nation. Inserted in amongst the concert footage and the interviews with adoring fans and collaborators are moments with Rodriguez and his three daughters, all of whom paint the same picture of their father as a simple man who never needed the spotlight but nevertheless graciously accepts it and thrives in it. At the time of filming, Rodriguez was still working in the construction industry despite having to take occasional leaves of absence to play sold out shows across the ocean. It is an almost unbelievably surreal life that Rodriguez lives and yet it seems entirely reasonable to the man and his kin.

From a filmmaking standpoint, Searching for Sugar Man isn't flawless. Much of the post-production value seems a bit dated or perhaps cheap and the built-in drama of what became of Rodriguez didn't completely work for me, though it did for others in my party. Nevertheless, the story is such an engrossing one as to make up for a multitude of sins and Bendjelloul does a masterful job of mixing the interviews with his subjects in order to make Rodriguez's tale a cohesive, multi-faceted one complete with humor, tears, and a sense of sheer wonderment. This is a triumphant film that deserves the award attention it is sure to get and one that I hope many of you will seek out.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Casa de mi Padre (2012)

Bold Move for Ferrell Pays Off

[6/10 · 27 August 2012]

The son of a wealthy Mexican landowner, Armando Alvarez (Will Ferrell) is a simple man who is only entrusted with small tasks around the ranch. When his brother Raul (Diego Luna) returns home with a plan to bring in more money, Armando is initially excited about the proposition despite his jealousy over Raul's new fiancé, Sonia (Genesis Rodriguez). Soon, however, it becomes apparent that Raul's plan involves the drug trade, drawing unwanted interest from both the local cartel leader Onza (Gael Garcia Bernal) and a corrupt DEA agent (Nick Offerman). With the family's legacy in danger and his own life on the land, Armando must become the man neither he nor his father thought he could ever be.

Told entirely in Spanish, Casa de mi Padre plays out exactly the way it is intended, as a mix of Spanish telenovela melodrama and Will Ferrell's manchild foolishness. There are few surprises here and at times this film becomes tiresome but then again, there's something to be said for committing to a bit and sticking with it religiously, and in this way Casa is a success. I half expected Casa to turn into a Scary Movie-like parody but instead Ferrell and the rest take great pains to approach the subject matter with a seriousness that it really doesn't deserve. In doing so, Ferrell sells the movie enough to make one buy in, at least enough to stay relatively interested in a low budget, low expectation movie. If Casa were a car and Ferrell the dealer, you wouldn't buy it as a brand new, turbo charged Mustang but you could grab onto it as a used Camry with reasonable mileage. And really, that's all one should expect from a $6 million indie film built around the idea of Will Ferrell speaking Spanish, no?

The actors surrounding Ferrell are adequate in their roles, though none are asked to do much of anything. Rodriguez fits the bill as the beautiful but troubled love interest and she, better than anyone else in the cast, seems to roll with Ferrell's antics. A scene in which Armando and Sonia become, shall we say, romantically entwined, the lead-up to and execution of which is so absurd as to bring about laughter even though I should know better. Here Rodriguez is an excellent muse for Ferrell. At the end of the day, though, Casa is virtually a one man show, a platform for Ferrell to do something different while still staying in a comfortable place. In comparison to his other films (of which I am a great and lifelong fan), Casa is fairly weak but if nothing else Ferrell should get credit for thinking outside the box and doing something a bit risky. There's more to like here than I anticipated, included the blatantly fake backdrops and at least one scene that is ripped from the pages of a Monty Python sketch, making Casa a modest success in my book.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Total Recall (I) (2012)

Adequate and That is All

[5/10 · 9 August 2012]

Allow me a moment to break down my review writing process.

1. See a movie; 2. Discuss that movie with whoever I saw said movie with or, if I saw said movie alone, engage in a Gollum-like solo discussion; 3. Spend one to two days decompressing to allow myself to fully grasp the film and settle in on an opinion; 4. Write the review.

It is the third portion of this equation that can cause me problems. I'm an opinionated guy and sometimes breaking those opinions down into a well-reasoned statement. On the other hand, this section of the writing process proves equally challenging when a movie like Total Recall comes along and leaves me almost entirely devoid of opinion whatsoever, prompting me to give the very vague summary of, "Well, it certainly was a movie."

In the future, the world has been ravaged by the inevitable nuclear war. As a result, only two countries remain: The United Federation of Britain which consists of a chunk of Western Europe and The Colony, formerly known as Australia. Each day, lower income workers from The Colony travel through the earth's core in a super subway known as The Fall to work in the UFB. Like many of his contemporaries, Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell) is unhappy with the life he shares with his wife, Lori (Kate Beckinsale). On a whim, Doug pays a visit to Rekall, a company that inserts memories into the brain, giving one the feeling of having done something fun, adventurous, or dangerous at a fraction of the cost. But when Doug is strapped into a chair, his real memories are accessed and a host of UFB troops besiege him, claiming that he is a spy. His reflexes take over and he quickly dispatches the troops in a manner that he would have never dreamed possible. Forced to go on the run to discover the truth about his identity, Doug comes in contact with Melina (Jessica Biel), an old friend who insists that he plays a vital role in the fight between the UFB's Chancellor Cohaggen (Bryan Cranston) and the rebels from the colony.

"Adequate" is the word that comes to mind most often when trying to describe Total Recall. A remake of the 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger "classic" (depending on your use of that word), this version was intended to come closer to the original book written by Phillip K. Dick. Instead, it sort of bridges the gap between the two while attempting to balance the need to remain similar to the 1990 film while still finding ways to strike out on its own. I actually liked the abandonment of the Mars storyline that was central to the 1990 version and the concept of The Fall and the way in which that giant piece of machinery symbolized the struggle between the classes. Other changes, however, didn't make as much sense and in the end, the helpless need for director Len Wiseman and his crew to pay homage to the original became distracting and at times disjointed. There are at least a handful of scenes within this Total Recall that would leave the viewer very perplexed if he/she had never seen the first one. The storyline, too, doesn't measure up to the film's concept and though it isn't a bad narrative, it is certainly bland.

From an acting standpoint, Total Recall is marginally above average. Farrell throws himself into his character and does his best to flesh out his feelings and emotions even if there's not much there to work with. You could make the case that his performance is better than Schwarzenegger's was but the character lacks the magnetism, as it were, that Arnie's version had. Biel and Cranston, as well as Bokeem Woodbine, John Cho, and Bill Nighy are neither asked to do much nor given much to do and as such, they serve their respective mediocre, not-good-but-not- bad purposes. Without question, the star of the film is Beckinsale who has a keen knack for bringing life and glorious power to relatively meaningless characters and films. The Underworld films, for example, are all fairly awful but Beckinsale's fierce charisma makes them worth watching. This role in the original was the jumping off point for Sharon Stone's career but took to the screen for only a few brief moments. Here, Beckinsale chases Farrell from place to place, providing both our lead character and the audience with a tangible adversary while Quaid deals with all the unseen questions about his life. I hope that someday Beckinsale is given an opportunity to play a meaningful role in an actual good film but for the time being, she's pretty great at what she does.

All of this makes Total Recall a decent but thoroughly underwhelming action movie that leans heavily on the action but falls short of making any sort of impact. Had Wiseman gone for a more mysterious, ambiguous conclusion, it could have reached higher but then it might have been too risky in terms of reaching the average summer blockbuster viewer. I can't pick out a single element that is inherently wrong with Total Recall but then again, I can't pick out something that is supremely right, either. It is, at its best, cheap, decent, borderline meaningless entertainment that should probably be reserved for a sick day on the couch rather than a trip to the theater.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Being Flynn (2012)

De Niro's Best Performance in 15 Years, Film Doesn't Quite Live Up

[5/10 · 2 August 2012]

Like many men of his generation, Nick Flynn (Paul Dano) is defined by his relationship, or lack thereof, with his father, Jonathan (Robert De Niro). Jonathan is a racist, a homophobe, and a drunk and he abandoned Nick and his mother (Julianne Moore) when Nick was only a small boy, communicating with his son only through letters. The only bonds these two share are blood and a preoccupation with writing. But despite his disgust for the man, Nick never can quite shake the need to live up to his father's image, even if that image is completely fabricated. After nearly twenty years of silence, Jonathan reaches out to Nick in need of a favor and almost out of curiosity more than anything else, Nick lends a hand and suddenly finds himself interacting with a man he both hardly knows and knows all too well. Before long, Jonathan has been forced to take up residence in the homeless in which Nick works, forcing the younger Flynn to take a long and painful trip down the path to internal peace with both his father and himself.

Being Flynn is based on the memoir of the real-life Nick Flynn, who worked as a social worker in a Boston homeless shelter in the late '80s where he ended up under the same roof as his father. The tale of the Flynns is a complex one to say the least and it is presented here in a style that pulls no punches. Indeed, Being Flynn is much more difficult to watch that I expected going in. Jonathan Flynn is, for lack of a better, family-friendly term, a miserable old coot, a holdover from a different time who has never adjusted to the world around him. On top of his vocal racism and homophobia, he is thoroughly arrogant in the worst way possible: he's never accomplished anything with his life and yet he expects others to treat him as if he has. In Jonathan's mind, there have only been three great American writers and he is one of them, despite never having had a work published. Worse yet, a life of poor choices and weighty entitlement have only aided in the speed with which his brain is deteriorating, leading Jonathan to lash out violently in both word and action. In short, he is an impossible character to love and even to feel pity for him proves difficult. In the midst of this stands Nick, torn between the childhood need for a father and the adult reason that tells him to kick the man to the curb. He simultaneously hates his father and desires his approval. This dynamic creates a tense, painful atmosphere that made it a challenge for me to sit still without squirming. To be honest with you, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

On the one hand, it could be argued that director Paul Weitz's goal is to stick the viewer squarely in the middle of the awkward and terse central relationship and force the audience to engage. In this way, Being Flynn is a great success. But on the other hand, being this close to the fray, so to speak, also forces the viewer to react to Jonathan in a personal nature. For me, this led to the overwhelming feeling that Jonathan would deserve whatever fate befell him and stripped me of any emotional attachment I might have had to his plight. Being Flynn should be relatable to anyone who has ever struggled with his or her relationship with a parent but instead I found myself sympathizing some for Nick and feeling nothing beyond "good riddance" for Jonathan.

That's a shame, too, because this is without question the most significant role De Niro has taken on in well over a decade. This might be his best performance since 1996's Sleepers and it is a fantastic, hopeful sight to see him go back to something worthwhile. Despite nearly 15 years of utter mediocrity, I am still of the opinion that when given a reason to invest, De Niro is one of the five best actors in the industry, only he keeps taking awful role after awful role. He does an excellent job of fully committing to Jonathan, creating a memorable character, even if it is memorable for being a wretched human. Likewise, Dano is very good in his role and brings a lot of realism to the part. In the hands of another director (not necessarily better hands, just different), Being Flynn might have turned into a showcase piece for Dano, for which I could see a world in which he would garner award attention. As it is, however, De Niro overshadows him and perhaps this keeps Dano (and Nick) from reaching his full potential. Being Flynn is an interesting film and one that is almost as tough to grade as it is to watch. At times it makes a push to point itself toward "great" but more often than not I felt it floundered despite the best efforts of cast and crew.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Get the Gringo (2012)

One of Gibson's Best Performances

[7/10 · 27 July 2012]

After stealing a sizeable amount of money from Frank (Peter Stromare), a notorious gangster, Driver (Mel Gibson) and his soon-to-be-deceased partner make a mad dash for the Mexican border, only to be apprehended by the Federales. The crooked cops take the money and ship Driver off to a prison unlike anything he's ever encountered in the States. Instead of cells and guards, the prison, known as El Pueblito, is essentially a third world bazaar run by the inmates, a place where a man can buy anything he wants except freedom. While attempting to gain his bearings and keep himself alive, Driver becomes fast friends with Kid (Kevin Hernandez), a child with an odd connection to El Pueblito's unofficial leader Javi (Daniel Gimenez Cacho). With tension running high and members of both Frank's crew and the prison's gang closing in on him, Driver makes a play to save not only his own life but also the life of Kid.

Produced on a decent sized budget ($20 million), Get the Gringo wound up being passed over almost entirely by most theater chains after Gibson's most recent meltdown cut its legs out from under it. That's somewhat of a shame because in all honesty, this film is pretty stinking good and much better than I expected. It's a blend of hard, stylized action and violence highlighted by an air of dark comedy that suits the storyline. First time director Adrian Grunberg sets the stage like a seasoned professional and manages to take a set of very serious subjects and infuse them with a genuine sense of fun that caught me off guard. He keeps everything simple and contained, a strong choice given that this film could have spun out of control into the realm of utter absurdity if not watched closely. Tone wise, Gringo resembled 2001's The Mexican a bit but whereas that film floundered, the atmosphere works well here. The script (written by Grunberg and Gibson) plays to the strength of the setting which is pretty interesting in and of itself (even if it does resemble the foreign jail in Prison Break). Moreover, Driver is written in such a way as to seem like a real guy. Of course he gets away with some outrageous things that could only happen in a movie but rather than endowing him with Jack Bauer-like abilities, Driver is set up to be a normal-ish guy, a grizzled, veteran criminal who thinks on his feet out of necessity. I thought that difference was important as it puts Gibson in his element and allows him a level of comfort that I don't think he's had on the big screen in many, many years.

I feel like every review I'll ever write about a Mel Gibson film will feature a sentence similar to the one I'm about to type but here goes. Say what you will about Mel Gibson's personal life, the man knows how to act. His previous two films, Edge of Darkness and The Beaver, were both mediocre (at best) but both put Gibson on display as a reminder of what a force he truly can be. In each of those films, however, I got the impression that Gibson was trying too hard; trying to make the world forget his drunken rants, trying to reestablish his career, and trying to prove to himself that he still had something to give. Gringo, on the other hand, works because Gibson seems to be completely comfortable in his role. Driver is smart mouthed, quick thinking, and even keel, a mix that has worked wonderfully for Gibson in the past and one that he settles into again from the outset. There's an edge of cool to Driver that makes him a charismatic personality despite his numerous flaws and keeps the viewer locked in. It isn't so much that you root for Driver; it's that he's so interesting and unpredictable that you just want to see what will happen next. I can't remember the last time Gibson was this good and this focused but I think it's safe to say that Driver holds up well against most of his best performances. Gringo isn't perfect but Gibson gives it life when it begins to drag and his presence alone makes this a solid, enjoyable experience.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

Charming, Quirky, and Exceedingly Likable

[8/10 · 21 July 2012]

The combination of high concept sci-fi and romance in film is nothing new. The Adjustment Bureau is the most recent example that comes to mind but there are countless entries into the mashed-up genre over the years, despite the seeming clash in ideas. As a sci-fi nerd, however, I find that more often than not this combination fails to impress or turns out downright awful, usually because the two elements fight for attention and end up smothering each other in the process. Safety Not Guaranteed, then, represents a real achievement, entering into a fraternity of select films that tell a worthwhile romantic story while displaying a healthy respect for the science fiction that brings the pair together.

The classified ad read, "WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before." When her co-worker Jeff (Jake M. Johnson) pitches the ad's creator as a potential story for their magazine, Darius (Aubrey Plaza), an apathetic intern who has yet to find her passion, volunteers to come along for the ride. After arriving in the small town from which the ad originated, they soon track down Kenneth (Mark Duplass), the eccentric but harmless man who claims to have built a machine capable of taking people back in time. Posing as an interested partner, Darius inserts herself into Kenneth's life, working with him to prepare for the journey while simultaneously gathering information for the magazine expose, all the while believing that Kenneth is crazy. But as the date of their trip draws near, Darius finds herself smitten by Kenneth and is forced to decide once and for all whether she believes in his reality or not.

Safety Not Guaranteed has a definitive quirky streak that runs through every aspect of the film and it could certainly find a place among Wes Anderson's stable of films. It is not, however, defined by its quirkiness the way many Anderson films (and their copycats) are. Instead, Safety uses the quirkiness to set the table for its assorted story lines and then proceeds onward with a fairly straightforward set of narratives. In essence, director Colin Trevorrow and screenwriter Derek Connolly use a taste of weirdness to lure the viewer in to the romantic relationships of each of the main characters as well as the sci-fi undercurrent. I can see how this could turn some viewers off but it worked for me, partly because the setup is excellent and partly because of the strength of the characters and the actors who play them.

There are very few movies of late that feature characters with such high level of likability as what you'll find in Safety Not Guaranteed. Darius exhibits a gloriously apathetic approach to life that goes hand in hand with the dry, sarcastic sense of humor that Plaza specializes in. But from the outset it is apparent that she is capable of more if only she could find something to liven her up. This spark in her eye, as it were, makes her transition all the more satisfying and gives a little weight to Plaza's performance (for which she has already won an award or two). Duplass, on the other hand, is exceedingly earnest in the best way possible. Above all else, regardless of whether or not he turns out to be crazy, Kenneth is a believer and that quality is brought to life wonderfully. His wounds from the past drive the sci-fi portion of the film but it is presented in such a genuine, even simple way that I couldn't help but root for him. It is an odd dynamic that exists between Plaza and Duplass but that sort of mismatched weirdness works well within this film. Even Johnson's character, who is more than a little scuzzy, exhibits a vulnerable honesty that makes him much more likable than I expected in the early going.

As the film progresses and the various side plots thicken, the sci-fi element of Safety Not Guaranteed becomes less visible but is never put aside entirely. For some sci-fi films it is important to believe in the science at its core in order to accept the film but Safety Not Guaranteed is structured in such a way that allows the viewer to appreciate the sci-fi without becoming overly burdened by reality. In this way, the question of whether or not the science for time travel will come through plays almost like a will-they-or-won't they from a sitcom, a facet of this film that I quite liked. All told, this is a charming, somewhat unique little film that I absolutely fell in love with.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Exquisite Film Featuring a Mesmerizing Child Actor

[8/10 · 19 July 2012]

Generally speaking, my opinion of a movie is usually at its highest point immediately following my viewing. By the time I get down to writing my review, I've usually talked myself down a bit and have explored the film's flaws, even if they aren't that significant. It is the rare film, however, that has the reverse effect. If I'm not completely sold on a film by the time I walk out of a theater, I usually won't come around on its merits a day or two later. Beasts of the Southern Wild, then, is an exception to the rule, a film I found to be good while watching but may in fact be great given time to gestate.

Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis) and her father, Wink (Dwight Henry), live in The Bathtub, a small Louisiana village on the wrong side of the levee. When a massive hurricane rolls through and devastates The Bathtub and its surrounding area, Hushpuppy, Wink, and a rag-tag group of fellow survivors band together not only to survive but also to preserve their way of life. But while conditions in their own world worsen, Wink himself begins to succumb to the side effects of his hidden disease, leaving Hushpuppy to learn how to take care of herself.

I'm going to be straightforward with you dear reader(s). Beasts of the Southern Wild is not a film that can be easily processed and explained in under a thousand words. If ever there was a film that needed to be experienced firsthand, this is it. There is a distinct Malickian feel to every aspect of Beasts. In fact, it bears a striking resemblance to Tree of Life, a comparison I'm sure every film critic will make but one that needs to be mentioned nevertheless. Unlike Tree of Life, however, Beasts puts together a cohesive, linear storyline for its central figure and as such, it is a much more relatable film and one that can be appreciated by the average moviergoer, whereas I felt like a pretentious snob for expressing my great admiration for Tree of Life knowing that most of my readers would not like it.

On the surface, Beasts is a touching story about a brave young girl battling against all the long odds the world has to throw at her but there is much more at play here than just one girl's journey. At its very core, Beasts is about life itself and the way in which the universe works. Hushpuppy and her band of merry misfits are simply the medium through which director Benh Zeitlin chooses to tell his story and he does so with great elegance. It is far too common to see this sort of far-reaching, broad spectrum film misuse the central figure, almost as a pawn sacrificed for the greater good, and thereby stripping the protagonist of his/her value. (For the record, I think this was the biggest issue with Tree of Life and what kept it from resonating with most viewers.) But here, Hushpuppy stands not only as a triumphant hero in the face of certain destruction but also a symbol for the film's true meaning. As Hushpuppy goes, so goes the world, as it were.

Perhaps none of this would hit home, however, without an exquisite performance by Wallis. A remarkable young talent who has never appeared on camera before, Wallis is an absolute force on the screen, commanding the viewer's attention at every turn with a stunning mix of power, vulnerability, and sincerity. Many of her lines come in the form of narration, a risky proposition that is used brilliantly in Beasts. Hushpuppy has a difficult life and Wallis, along with the pitch-perfect staging by Zeitlin, embodies the toughness one would have to develop in order to survive while still maintaining an air of childlikeness, an all-important characteristic that not only gives the film its realism but also allows for actual character and plot development. Beasts doesn't wallow in the harshness of Hushpuppy's life and it also doesn't jump directly into the pool of sympathy for her character the way many films like this do. Instead, Hushpuppy grows through her various situations and as a result, the viewer becomes attached to her not to her circumstances. That's a very important difference in my book and it stands as this film's master stroke.

Wallis' mesmerizing and soulful performance is highlighted by the technical proficiency of those behind the camera. The cinematography is lavish and beautiful, the special effects are effective, and even the sound is pitch-perfect. All of these elements continually combine to set a fantastical stage on which Wallis and her supporters can work. Beasts is at times quite difficult to watch and is by no means a comfortable experience. More than once I found myself squirming like I was watching a horror movie simply because of the honesty with which the film handles its subject matter. I will also be the first to admit that I didn't fully understand all of its symbolism, much of which centers on a pack of prehistoric aurochs. (Then again, as my high school English teachers would attest, I never was one for symbolism.) Nevertheless, Beasts is a remarkable film and one that I would encourage everyone to head out to see themselves.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Into the Abyss (2011)

Well Made But Lacks Punch

[7/10 · 3 June 2012]

In Conroe, Texas, 2001, Michael Perry and Jason Burkett broke into the home of an acquaintance, Jason Stotler, in the hopes of stealing a new car. When their plan began to unravel, Perry shot and killed Stotler's mother. After dumping the body, they then killed Stotler and another friend in order to regain access to the house inside of a gated community they had been locked out of. Shortly thereafter, the duo was arrested after a haphazard shootout and brought to justice. Perry was sentenced to death, Burkett to life in prison. With Perry's execution right around the corner, filmmaker Werner Herzog journeyed to the maximum security prison in Huntsville, Texas in order to interview the culprits, get the details of the case, and have a look at the concept of the death penalty.

Perhaps the preeminent voice in documentary filmmaking, Herzog has spent the majority of his illustrious career crafting his approach and that shines through once again here. What I love about Herzog's documentaries is that there's never any question as to how he feels about his subject matter and yet you never feel as if he's forcing it down his throat. At the outset of Into the Abyss he states (off-camera) that he is against the death penalty and at times you can tell that his film is sliding toward his side of the argument. A very compelling portion of the film involves Herzog's discussions with a man who spent his entire career strapping the condemned to a gurney until a series of events led him to jump to the other side of the argument. Still, however, Herzog allows the audience to judge for themselves, choosing to let the camera roll while laying out the facts. My impression is that Herzog would like to start a dialogue concerning the matter rather than shame proponents of the death penalty into submission.

At the same time, Into the Abyss pulls no punches in its portrayal of both Perry and Burkett. While both profess their innocence, Herzog quietly points out the holes in their respective stories and makes it clear that there is virtually no evidence to support their claims. These two were morons with a history of bad and violent behavior who finally escalated their actions. Perhaps their greatest mistake was being so stupid as to believe they could get away with their crimes when clearly neither one of them had the mental capacity to outsmart a brain damaged dog, let alone a team of police detectives. The film uses splices of the videos investigators shot at the crime scene and accentuates the footage with interviews with the detective in charge of the case and the family members of the victims. It is a dark light that is shed on Perry and Burkett and Herzog makes no attempt to turn them into the martyrs they would have you believe they are.

The only real issue I had with Into the Abyss is that it simultaneously tries to cover too much ground and doesn't reach quite far enough. Herzog takes the time to highlight a fairly extensive interview with Burkett's father, himself in prison, in an effort to illuminate Burkett's difficult childhood but then doesn't do anything with this information. It seems as if the film goes halfway toward building a bit of sympathy for at least Burkett, if not Perry, and then abandons the idea. There are also a handful of interviews that don't seem to serve much of a purpose. At the same time, because of the nature of how Herzog shot the film, his "turn on the cameras and see what happens" style, there are times when Into the Abyss seems a bit purposeless. There's no great statement made and again, while I appreciate that he didn't take to the heavy-handed preaching tactic used too often in these documentaries, this leaves the film devoid of a lasting impression. It's a good film and one that is certainly worth watching if for no other reason than the conversation it could lead to but it lacks the punch that I would have expected it to display.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Men in Black³ (2012)

Fun and Worthy Sequel to the Original, Filled with Surprisingly Great Acting

[7/10 · 28 May 2012]

There are a number of issues and questions that pop up when you set out to make a sequel or prequel to a franchise that hasn't seen a new entry in a while. Do you reintroduce the characters to those who haven't seen the previous films or do you dive in and pretend everyone in the audience understands the narrative? Do you jump the timeline forward a few years or start from where the last film left off? Do you mature your characters and plot points to reflect the years gone by or do you continue to harp on the same strings that worked so well before? Men in Black 3 wrestles with each of these questions and manages to come out relatively unscathed on the other end.

It has been 14 years since Agent J (Will Smith) joined up with Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) as a member of the Men in Black, a covert agency that serves as both an embassy for alien visitors and protection from extra- terrestrial attacks. The dynamic between the two is much the same as it always has been: J still plays the part of the wise-cracking young upstart while K serves as the crotchety old-timer. Things take a turn, however, when an old enemy of K's, Boris the Animal (Jermaine Clement), escapes from a prison on the moon and jumps back in time to kill K, an event which in turn leads to the destruction of earth. As the only person who remembers K in the present, J has to jump back to 1969 and re-team with a younger K (Josh Brolin) in order to track down Boris before he can accomplish his mission.

The early scenes of MIB3, in which the audience is reintroduced to the characters, are at best misguided and at worst painful. This reintroduction is a necessary endeavor given that the first Men in Black debuted 15 years ago and everyone likes to pretend the sequel never happened since it is BRUTALLY bad but the execution in this phase is poorly written to say the least. There's a distinct disconnect between Smith and Jones and whether that was done purposely to show the distance between the characters or not, it doesn't work. At times during the first 15 minutes, it feels as if Barry Sonnenfeld and the numerous writers who worked on this project couldn't decide whether to set the film years after the original or as more of a direct sequel taking place shortly after the '97 film. As a result, the two main characters treat each other as if they've only been partners for a few months while the narrative is clear concerning the timeframe. I had a hard time getting past this disjointedness and began bracing myself for a disastrous 103 minutes.

Thankfully, however, MIB3 finds its groove when J jumps back to 1969 and from that point on it's a fun ride. Throwing J into a drastically different environment brings about some interesting plot points and the film gets plenty of laughs based simply on the difference in technologies and attitudes. The hand-held Neuralizer (the "flashy thing") that J is used to in the present is actually a giant MRI-type machine in the early days of the Men in Black and of course J immediately gets himself into a spot of trouble pertaining to his race in a not-so liberated time period. The plot isn't always the brightest spot of the film but it does do an admirable job of managing its own time travel mythology, a task which often proves too difficult for many films that revolve around the concept.

But as fun as the storyline and general hijinks of MIB3 are, the real value of the movie can be found in the cast. Sonnenfeld lets Will Smith be Will Smith and that boisterous enthusiasm that has marked his career plays well within this setting. At the outset, Smith almost seems rusty, though perhaps that's just my subconscious taking over given how long it's been since we've seen him on screen. As the film finds its groove, so too does Smith and before long he's giving off the old vibes that have made him such a treat to watch over the last 15 years. But with all due respect to Smith, he is thoroughly overshadowed by his surrounding cast. Brolin is, simply, put, incredibly awesome in this role. His impersonation of Tommy Lee Jones is flawless but through a few plot points, he is able to make the character his own in ways that I didn't expect. He demonstrates great chemistry with Smith that is wonderfully reminiscent of the original film. There are spots within MIB3 in which the novelty of Brolin being Jones working with Smith takes precedence over the plot but I found myself more than willing to accept this dynamic. Beyond Brolin, though, MIB3 is littered with strong supporting work from Will Arnett (brief but great), Bill Hader (whose appearance marks a strong turning point for the film), and most importantly Michael Stuhlbarg who steals every single scene in which he participates. Given his work here and his small role in last year's Hugo (one of my ten favorite performances of the year), Stuhlbarg is becoming one of my very favorite character actors in Hollywood today.

It isn't always the smoothest ride and some of the jokes fall flat (though perhaps that's more a sign of my matured sensibilities) but the blend of action, comedy, and surprisingly good sci-fi makes MIB3 a solid, worthwhile film. Add in a thoroughly unexpected touching moment of genuine heart and it's even enough to make on forget Men in Black 2 ever happened, a sentiment I think we can all get behind.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Exporting Raymond (2010)

Nothing Special But a Worthwhile Documentary with an Interesting Subject

[7/10 · 2 May 2012]

In 2005, Everybody Loves Raymond wrapped up its ninth and final season, taking its leave after 2010 episodes which led it to become one of the more beloved shows of the era. It was a show that highlighted the ups and downs of every day, married life, a topic which obviously the general public related to. Seven years later, you can probably turn your television on right now and find a syndicated episode of Raymond somewhere. Shortly after the finale, show creator Phil Rosenthal was approached by a SONY representative and asked to help the Russian television network create a native version of Raymond. Rosenthal brought along a film crew to document the events, revealing that comedy isn't quite as universal as we might expect.

I'm not sure exactly what Rosenthal expected from his trip abroad but it becomes quite clear early on that he wasn't prepared for this undertaking. He is thrown for a loop when he discovers that he has to invest in Kidnapping and Rescue Insurance, an issue he is assured never comes up; he astutely points out that if it "never" came up, there would be no need for the insurance. Upon arriving, he meets up with his private security guard/driver and their exchange soars right past the "awkward" stage and borders on becoming "tense." He is undoubtedly a stranger in a strange land and it only gets worse from there.

Later, Rosenthal is brought to the studio (which literally looks like every depressing, dilapidated building you've ever seen in a Hollywood version of Russia) and introduced to the crack team of writers and crew he will be working with. They show him clips from American shows that have previously been remade and he is given a glimpse into what Russians find funny. In my opinion, this was the best part of the entire documentary. Rosenthal is shown a clip from the Russian version of The Nanny, one of the most successful programs ever, which was truly atrocious. If, like me, you believe there is no lower form of "comedy" than Fran Dresher and The Nanny, then allow me to burst your bubble: judging from the 30 seconds shown in Exporting Raymond, I would say the Russian version is approximately 37 times worse. That exact sentiment is written in bold across Rosenthal's face as he looks around the room at his laughing coworkers and realizes he's bitten off far more than he could possibly chew. It is moment that is both hilarious and a little bit heartbreaking.

As Exporting Raymond progresses, we see more and more conflicts unfold for Rosenthal. The casting process alone turns out to be a major hassle as the actor Rosenthal wants to play the Raymond character is unable to get leave from his theater company and he is replaced with an actor who appears to be the Russian equivalent of Paul Walker in terms of acting ability. To top it all off, Rosenthal doesn't get along with the director of the pilot episode, who seems to regard him as a nuisance and refuses to listen to his advice, which is, of course, the only reason he was brought in.

The greatest strength of Exporting Raymond is its ability to point out the dramatic differences between the Russian culture and our own with a simple, understated style. This is a, "Let the camera roll and see what happens" sort of documentary and there's very little in the way or post- production or narration; rather, for the most part, the audience sees what Rosenthal sees and his reactions which are generally priceless. There are times when the film loses focus and becomes somewhat dull and even at its best, there's nothing excessively funny or definitively special about Exporting Raymond. But it still serves as a quirky, fun, and moderately insightful piece of work that is worth a viewing if for no other reason than to experience Rosenthal's dumbfounded facial expressions for yourself.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

The Five-Year Engagement (2012)

Could Stand to be Edited But Still a Quality Film

[7/10 · 30 April 2012]

The world of comedic film changed in 2005 with the premier of Judd Apatow's The 40 Year Old Virgin. Since that time, the R-rated comedy has become a mainstay of the industry and Apatow's production company has become the premiere destination for filmmakers looking to work within that realm. Apatow has a distinct style, both as a director and a producer, that can be counted upon to a tee and for better or for worse, The Five-Year Engagement falls right in line with the Apatow Stable of Films.

Our journey begins when Tom Solomon (Jason Segel), an up-and-coming chef in the vaunted San Francisco food scene, proposes to Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt), a PhD student in psychology. What starts off as a beautiful love story takes a turn when Violet is offered and accepts a position at the University of Michigan which results in a difficult move for Tom. The two put their wedding on hold until Violet's time in the program ends, an indefinite date they continue to push further and further away. As Violet becomes more and more successful, Tom sinks deeper into his funk, putting a strain on the couple's already contentious relationship. As the years pass, Tom and Violet are forced to question whether or not they should be getting married and if they were ever compatible in the first place.

I know that summary makes Engagement sound decidedly dramatic but I promise, it really is a comedy. This is a far cry from Blue Valentine or even 500 Days of Summer which was much more serious (if lightheartedly serious) than Engagement ever sets out to be. But it wouldn't be an Apatowian adventure without a hearty dose of reality mixed in with all the crude words and raunchy jokes and this film definitely fits the bill when it comes to fleshing out true emotion and real drama. Engagement actually hits the mark as well if not better than any of the films in this category, featuring an excellent balance between heart and jokes. Its weakness, though, is the same weakness that virtually every Apatow production before it has had: the runtime-to-content ratio. 124 minutes is a perfectly acceptable runtime for a romantic comedy IF it keeps up its own pace throughout the entire (or the majority of) the 124 minutes. But like its predecessors (see: Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, et al), Engagement stalls out in the second act, leading to a sense of drag through about 15 minutes that don't quite fit with the mold designed for the rest of the film. In essence, if this film had received just a bit more editing, it probably winds up being a much more impressive entry into the genre.

Again, however, I could say that about almost every movie that has come through Apatow's house since 2005. You can always find 10 or 15 minutes here or there that either doesn't work, doesn't fit, or doesn't live up to the standard set throughout the rest of the film which should have been left on the cutting room floor. The flip side of this argument is that Apatow allows his filmmakers (in this case Nicholas Stoller, whose films I truly enjoy) to make the movie that they want to make. I greatly admire this quality in a producer but at the same time, I'd also like to be able to really go overboard in my praise of one of his films and the lack of editing usually prevents that.

That said the unbalanced runtime-to-content ratio within Engagement didn't keep me from enjoying the ride (though it definitely hampered the overall experience). This movie is chock full of noteworthy acting performances, particularly that of Segel. Tom runs a gamut of emotions throughout the five years depicted and Segel handles each of them wonderfully. He is at times downright hilarious and at others a genuine sympathetic figure. Box office totals notwithstanding, Segel has transformed himself into a bankable star in the dramatic comedy field. His co-star Blunt has moments in which she seems a bit out of her element but overall, she is delightful and holds her own within a role that isn't as easy as it might appear. In less capable hands, Violet could become an unlikeable shrew but Blunt (and, I assume, the creative team behind the movie) keeps the audience on board with her endless charm and by exhibiting a genuine internal conflict within her character. It should also be noted that while Segel and Blunt have some natural chemistry, there's also a slight amount of strain between their characters which makes their relationship come off as all the more real. The surrounding cast, too, is outstanding and they routinely steal the show. Chris Pratt and Alison Brie grab the majority of the attention (and rightly so as they are superb) but Mindy Kaling, Brian Posehn, and Chris Parnell all have stellar moments. Even Kevin Hart comes across as funny here, a feat I had previously thought he was incapable of.

These performances come together in a well-written and appealing narrative (again, outside of the extra scenes which need to be cut) that dwells in a surprisingly realistic atmosphere. In fact, there is a distinct lack of gags within Engagement as compared to past Apatow endeavors and I for one feel that the film is better for that as it really gives the audience a chance to buy into Tom and Violet's relationship. There's nothing especially unique or special about Engagement but I still found it to be quality, enjoyable film.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

The Other Dream Team (2012)

Triumphs Both On and Off The Court

[9/10 · 27 April 2012]

It's fair to say that my two biggest passions in life (at least when it comes to pop culture, hobbies, etc.) are movies and sports. I'm a big fan of music, books, and eating large amounts of fatty foods, too, but they don't quite compare to the level of affection I hold for movies and sports, particularly basketball. The combinations of those two passions often feels like someone in the world is secretly reading my hypothetical diary at night and creating programming just for me. Such is the case with The Other Dream Team, a powerful and insightful documentary that I imagine will stick with me for quite some time.

For many basketball fans, the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain are considered special, maybe even sacred, as the team assembled to represent the US Men's Olympic basketball team was unquestionably the greatest collection of talent in the history of the sport. Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and eight other legendary players (plus Christian Laettner!) came together to form the Dream Team, annihilating every opponent that stood in the way of earning the gold medal and spreading the gospel of basketball to the world along the way. But while the Dream Team captivated a worldwide audience, there was a much more dramatic and significant story unfolding in the background. A group of players representing the small country of Lithuania which had only recently regained its independence in the fall of the USSR worked their way into the third place game and faced off with the Unified Team, the remnants of the squad they had been forced to compete with during the Communist reign. Weaving together the happenings on the basketball court with the rebirth of a small nation, The Other Dream Team expertly displays the importance of sport and the ways it can be used to inspire.

Going into this film, I had a basic understanding of what took place on the basketball court throughout this story. Like many other men my age, as a kid I was fascinated by the Dream Team. We'd never seen anything like that team and we never will again; they were literally that good. The Lithuanian team, though, always stuck out to me partly because they appeared to actually be good at basketball (whereas some of our other opponents looked like a bunch of middle school girls) and partly because their top two players, Arvydas Sabonis and Sarunas Marciulionis, were tremendous talents. In this summer's Olympics, virtually every team that qualifies to play will have at least one or two NBA-caliber players but in '92, that wasn't the case. Sabonis and Marciulionis, along with Croatia's Drazen Petrovic, were undoubtedly the best players in the tournament who weren't on the Dream Team.

I did not know, however, the tumultuous background from which these players came from. At the time of the Olympic Games, Lithuania had only been an independent nation for two short years, two years which were trying to say the least. Amazingly enough, it's tough to get a new country off the ground when you've spent 46 years under Communist reign (shocking, I know). The Other Dream Team heartbreakingly digs into the deeper elements of this fight for independence and paints a dark (and truthful) picture of what it was like to live through this period, both before and after Lithuania received its freedom from the Soviets. There are some truly devastating visuals and descriptions at play here and the film pulls no punches in ensuring that the audience understands not only what the players were going through but what every citizen of the country was going through. As such, the Lithuanian basketball team is simply the medium in which the filmmakers work to bring their story together.

By showing us the awful conditions which the players (and by proxy, their countrymen) lived through while under Soviet control and the immense struggle that was the fight for independence, director Marius A. Markevicius sets us up for a dramatic and deeply satisfying third act. Defeating the Russians to win the bronze medal was nothing compared to the hope their triumph gave a young nation and this is illustrated exquisitely through a mix of tear-inducing behind-the-scenes footage and touching interviews with both players and spectators. This is one of the more genuine sports documentaries I can remember and one that seems to really understand the significance of the subject matter it concerns itself with. It is a touching, at times quite funny, and beautiful example of the power of sport that will absolutely hit home for sports fans and non-fans alike.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Lockout (2012)

Worth It For Pearce

[5/10 · 25 April 2012]

The similarities between Lockout and 2008's Taken are so abundant that it almost seems lazy to make the comparison (notice, however, how that will not stop me). Both come from the Luc Besson School of Filmmaking, both feature Maggie Grace in desperate need of some life savin', and both center around tough guys who can kill you with a neck chop just as easily as with a machine gun. In theory, these two films are so close, in fact, that I've been referring to Lockout as Taken 1.5 or Taken in Space for several months. Really, besides the outer space setting, the one real difference between these films is that Taken is good and Lockout is not.

Snow (Guy Pearce) is the prototypical anti-hero. He's a bit of a loose cannon who plays by his own rules and he still smokes so you know he's cool. After he is framed for the murder of his CIA superior, Snow is sentenced to a prison term on MS One, a prison that resides in orbit around the earth and houses the world's worst criminals. But before Snow can be transferred to his new residence, an uprising begins on MS One and soon the prisoners have control of the space station. To make matters worse, the president's daughter, Emilie (Maggie Grace), just happens to be aboard the station and is being held hostage along with a host of less important civilians. Given an opportunity to earn his freedom, Snow agrees to take on the rescue mission, though he has a much more important agenda for getting on board the station.

What you have to love about Lockout is its brazenness. There's no pretense involved with this movie; if you ever saw one of the trailers, you know exactly what you're getting. Much like its counterpart Taken, Lockout doesn't take itself seriously whatsoever and as such, it invites the viewer to step into a world of complete absurdity in which we'll have a few laughs while watching things explode. More often than not, that's an invitation I can't resist. And for its part, Lockout does its best to live up to the low-quality, high-fun standard it set for itself.

The problem is that that brazenness (which was Taken's second greatest strength behind Liam Neeson) becomes this movie's downfall. Lockout is rife with bad shots, overdone supporting characters, and abysmal special effects. All of this is presented in a, "Yeah, this is terrible, so what?" sort of way that bothered me. I didn't expect a Nolan-esque approach to action but there's a limit to what I should be asked to accept from a film in the way of corner-cutting. The effects in particular were a tremendous letdown. With this sort of film I anticipate bad dialogue and paper thin characters but that those issues will be at least partially covered up with spectacular action sequences. The graphics within Lockout are some of the worst I've ever seen in a mainstream movie. And by mainstream, I mean anything higher in quality than the straight-to-DVD knock offs that find their way onto Netflix Instant a week after a big action flick debuts (see: Transmorphers). While Lockout wouldn't work if directors James Mather and Stephen St. Leger had attempted to turn in a more significant, hardcore action piece, much of this movie comes across as if the filmmakers didn't care about turning in a decent product.

That's a real shame because Guy Pearce is an absolute riot in the lead role. Snow is irreverent, overly confident, and brash and completely unapologetic which, of course, makes him exceedingly appealing. Pearce hits every mark perfectly and he gives the character a lighter edge that works well in this setting and keeps Lockout from becoming too one- dimensional. I expected Snow to be Pearce's interpretation of Liam Neeson and while that might not have been a bad thing, what we're really treated to is a character that is part Neeson (in any action movie) and part Captain Jack Sparrow. He's got a Sparrow-like flowiness to him and while you can't exactly call his one-liners witty, they are delivered with a pinpoint precision that drives the jokes home expertly. It's unfortunate that this performance comes in a movie that doesn't really deliver much else in the way of value but it is still a fun turn for a great actor and one that keeps Lockout from becoming a total loss.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.com

Goon (2011)

Better Than I Expected

[7/10 · 19 April 2012]

Doug Glatt (Seann William Scott) is the real-life personification of the term, "Black Sheep." Coming from a family of well-respected doctors, Doug is a less-than-cerebral tough guy who works as a bouncer specifically called upon to rough up unruly customers. His luck begins to change, however, when his friend Ryan (Jay Baruchel) takes him to a minor league hockey game during which he lays a beating on an opposing player. This catches the eye of the team's coach and soon Doug has suited up and become a local celebrity. Even more remarkable, Doug is soon called up to a real minor league team and tasked with protecting Xavier Laflamme (Marc-Andre Grondin), a young hotshot who has lost his way since a violent on-ice hit from longtime enforcer Ross Rhea (Liev Schreiber). While Doug initially struggles with his role as a goon who isn't valued as a hockey player, he and his teammates come together with a playoff berth on the line, setting up a dramatic confrontation between the old veteran (Rhea) and the young upstart (Doug).

There isn't just a whole lot that can be said about Goon other than this: it is fun. Not an excessive, "I can't wait to see that again" amount of fun but a reasonable, "This just popped up on HBO and I have 90 minutes to kill" amount of fun. The movie doesn't have much of an agenda and there isn't much of a plot to speak of, but it sets out to cover the life of a minor league hockey enforcer and it does that quite well. I've never been much of a hockey guy so I have no idea where this movie ends up on the "realistic" scale but it is at least as believable as The Mighty Ducks which is, I think we can all agree, the gold standard for hockey movies. (I'm half kidding there.) Goon is predictable and overtly paint-by-numbers but it is not without charm and it handles its subject matter with a light-hearted affection.

What is not predictable about this movie is the strength of the performances provided by the leads. Scott is, in my opinion, one of the more underrated comedic actors of his generation. He'll never be taken all that seriously because his most widely-known character (Stifler from American Pie) is an over-the-top, offensive buffoon but I've always been impressed with his timing and his ability to make a movie or scene funny when it really shouldn't be. (Case in point: Cop Out.) Here he turns Doug into a likable and appealing hero, a very important aspect in an underdog sports movie. Baruchel's hockey fanatic with a Wayne's World- like cable access TV show is ridiculous and absurd but he is nonetheless an entertaining and dare I say essential part of the film's equation. And Schreiber, truly one of the great character actors of our time, contributes a solid and believably menacing performance that provides the genial Doug with a much meaner counterpart. I'm not arguing that Scott, Baruchel, or Schreiber should be given consideration during award season but the truth of the matter is low-rent comedies like this one are often rife with mailed-in, half-hearted performances. Instead, Goon offers stars that seem invested in the material and the film benefits substantially from their interest.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.blogspot.com

Young Adult (2011)

Not Reitman's Best But Still Quite Good

[7/10 · 19 April 2012]

Once upon a time, Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) had everything. She was the most popular girl in her small-town high school, she had she was dating school heartthrob Buddy (Patrick Wilson), and she was "going places." But when Young Adult picks up, we find that Mavis' life didn't quite turn out the way she wanted. Having lost Buddy sometime after high school, she is now a recent divorcée, a raging alcoholic, and the nearly uncredited writer of a soon-to-be-finishing teen fiction series. In short, her life is going nowhere and despite her outward protestations to the contrary, she seems to know it. After learning that Buddy has recently become a father, Mavis spontaneously packs her bags and heads back home to Mercury, Minnesota with an eye on breaking up Buddy's seemingly happy marriage. As her plan unravels, however, she finds an unlikely friend in Matt (Patton Oswalt) and begins to question her life choices.

Young Adult represents the reunion of director Jason Reitman and screenwriter Diablo Cody, both of whom burst onto the Hollywood scene with 2007's Juno (a personal favorite of mine). You can see hints of Juno sprinkled through this collaboration, though its charm is decidedly different than the pair's previous effort. Whereas Juno took a serious situation and brought a light, quirky interpretation to the table, Young Adult takes a less significant subject matter (that being everyday life) and runs it through a humorous but much darker wash. It's an interesting mix that doesn't always work but also never really flounders. In essence, Young Adult finds a center groove and it stays there throughout the runtime, coming together for a quality film that perhaps does not reach its potential. I could make the case that this is the worst of Reitman's four films but that's really more a testament to the strength of his other than it is a mark against this piece. Perhaps its greatest failure is that it lacks the inspiration of Juno or Up in the Air and becomes mostly just a well-told story.

The greatest difference between Young Adult and Juno is, of course, the protagonist. Mavis' embittered, cold nature is the polar opposite of Juno's upbeat, hipster mentality and yet she is no less likable. (Okay, maybe a little less likable. I've got quite a soft spot for good ol' Juno.) Theron pulls no punches in creating an immature and somewhat dark character but she always displays a twinge of insecurity even in her most diabolical moments. She isn't exactly a sympathetic figure but the lack of self-worth which shines through in every scene makes her human and allows the audience to stick with her throughout the film. You may not necessarily root for Mavis but you also don't root against her. This is what makes Young Adult a worthwhile experience when compared to, say, Bad Teacher, another 2011 film that featured an unflinchingly miserable leading lady. I openly rooted against Cameron Diaz's morally reprehensible teacher in that film while Mavis seems to have a chance at becoming a good person, even if she never really attains redemption, which creates a bit of appeal. It's a great performance from Theron and it shows off the incredible range she truly has. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention how great Oswalt is in his role as a poor unfortunate soul who's never gotten the attention he deserves. Not only is he hilarious but his almost poignant portrayal is what brings Mavis' humanity to the surface. It's an understated but nonetheless powerful role and Oswalt absolutely nails it while providing the perfect contrast for Theron to work off of.

In the end, Young Adult comes out as a good, perhaps even very good, dramedy that doesn't quite have the aspirations that I might have expected. It is entertaining and well-acted but ultimately forgettable, the kind of film that you enjoy once through but don't seek out again in the future.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.blogspot.com

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Suffers From an Identity Crisis That I Couldn't Fight Through

[5/10 · 15 April 2012]

I've never been one to follow with the crowd. In fact, if something it popular, it's far more likely that I will oppose it rather than join in the love fest just out of principle. At the same time, however, I hate it when I don't like a film that all of my colleagues seem to adore. When this happens (which isn't very often), I always feel like I'm missing something or that I didn't understand the film which, in turn, makes me feel like a moron. In these situations, it takes everything in me to stand by my initial reaction and deny the peer pressure that would have me reverse course and join in the love fest. So let's get it out of the way up front: I did not care for The Cabin in the Woods.

Needing some rest and relaxation, Dana (Kristen Connolly), her best friend Jules (Anna Hutchison), and Jules' boyfriend Curt (Chris Hemsworth), retreat to a remote cabin recently purchased by Curt's cousin. The trio is joined by stoner-buddy Marty (Fran Kranz) and scholarly Holden (Jesse Williams), a friend of Curt's who Jules would like to set up with Dana. The cabin, while a bit on the rustic side, seems to be the ideal spot for the group to chill out and let loose. But before long, a hidden cellar full of creepy and mysterious artifacts is discovered and when Dana reads from an old journal, she unwittingly unleashes a terror upon the cabin that comes straight out of a nightmare that perhaps none of them will survive.

To write a completely spoiler-free review of Cabin seems borderline impossible but I will try my best to stay away from the important facts. The behind-the-scenes concept of what is really taking place at the cabin is one of the cooler ideas I've seen in a film like this in quite some time. Someone or something pulling the strings in the background is not entirely unique within this genre but writers Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard (also the director) bring a fresh take to the idea and make it their own beautifully early on. The happenings which take place away from the cabin (the spoiler-rific portions I shan't get into here) were BY FAR my favorite parts of the film and really left me wanting more when it was all said and done. By cutting back and forth between the events taking place at the cabin and those going on unbeknownst to our protagonists, Goddard creates a fun contrast through the first half of the film and gives dials up a sense of self-awareness that I almost loved for a while.

But before long, I found that Cabin had no sense of true identity. I think the point of the film is to both poke fun at the horror genre while at the same time creating enough gore to satisfy genre enthusiasts. At times, Goddard and Whedon succeed in this but over the course of the film, I felt that instead of mocking the typical hallmarks of a horror film in hopes of creating a laugh in the midst of the scares (see: Scream), the duo only succeeded in laying the ground work for their own demise. That is to say, the film goes out of its way to point out the generic pratfalls that you could to expect from a slasher film and then deliberately falls directly into those traps over and over again. In essence, the film ends up becoming exactly what it sets out to make fun of in the early going. As a result, almost all of the jump-out- of-your-seat moments have been hamstrung by the Goddard telegraphing what was about to happen for the sake of the self-aware jokes. At the same time, I didn't find the film to be consistently funny enough to play as a real comedy (see: Shaun of the Dead). To be clear: there are some truly brilliant, witty moments and more than a few laugh-out-loud pieces of dialogue but not enough to keep the comedic ball rolling for 90 minutes. I think Cabin wants to be both a capable slasher film and a hilarious R-rated comedy but for me, the mix comes off almost as a half- hearted spoof.

I think that all of that would have resulted in a three star, "totally acceptable entertainment"-type review from me had it not been for the fact that the vaunted twist which has had so many critics and viewers in a titter is really not that big of a deal. Again, I won't spoil anything but you can guess the basics of the twist within the first 15 minutes of the movie. (I promise I'm not one of those people who says, "I could totally see the twist coming" or, "I knew Bruce Willis was dead the whole time"; this is just a onetime thing.) I kept waiting and waiting for a real turn to catch me off guard and not only did it never come, that waiting took away from my enjoyment of the back half of the film. So while the whole, "Don't tell anyone the secret!" marketing campaign got me into the theater for a movie I probably wouldn't have seen otherwise, it also caused me to come out feeling extremely dissatisfied with the finished product.

Believe me when I say, I wanted to love Cabin in the Woods. I wanted to write about Joss Whedon had reinvigorated the horror genre. And maybe more importantly, I wanted to see what all of my colleagues saw in a movie that almost everyone seems to love. But while the concept is fantastic and there are some definite and delicious Whedon-isms that play out through the course of the film, I cannot get on board for a film which suffers from such a tremendous identity crisis.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.blogspot.com

Immortals (2011)

Boring with Weak Effects. Pointless.

[3/10 · 31 March 2012]

Long after the famed battle between the gods and the titans, a new terror threatens to rip the world of ancient Greece apart. The mad King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) will stop at nothing in his search for the Epirus Bow, a weapon of great power, and as such, he sails from place to place, killing and enslaving the people and ransacking the land. In the midst of this stands Theseus (Henry Cavill), a peasant from a fishing village, who catches the eye of Zeus (Luke Evans). Theseus sets out on a suicide mission to bring down King Hyperion and keep the world from being overrun by the blood-thirsty titans.

There are three things I wanted from Immortals, a film for which I held very limited expectations:

1.) I wanted to see Henry Cavill show me what he's capable of in an action capacity leading into next year's Superman film, in which he will play the title character; 2.) I wanted a fun, entertaining film that I could watch while working and enjoy myself; 3.) I wanted some outstanding visuals to counter balance the inevitable plot holes and weak dialogue I expected from a film of this ilk.

Unfortunately, this film fails on all three counts (and virtually every other measure that you might judge a quality film by). I'm willing to extend a pass to Cavill in this situation. Though he doesn't do anything overly impressive here, I don't think he was given much of anything to work with. This is a throw-away role in a movie that won't be remembered in five years if Cavill's career takes off. On the other hand, 300 (which I believe Immortals aspires to be) gave a Gerard Butler a very similar role which he seized by the horns and rode to industry notoriety with great charisma. Cavill displays no such charisma nor does he fully embody the action-centric role the way I might have hoped. I admit, at this point I'm quite nervous about his turn as Superman but time will tell.

I'm less willing to extend to director Tarsem Singh the courtesy than I've given Cavill. Michael Bay has built a ridiculously luxurious career out of creating shallow-but-pretty blockbusters that bring nothing to the table except stylish effects and somewhat enjoyable. It's easy to rail against Bay and his contemporaries but at least he has the decency to make his movies entertaining, even if it is low-level entertainment. Immortals can't even do that. It is neither fun nor entertaining, engrossing nor in any way, shape, or form enjoyable. The visuals, marketed, quite frankly, as the film's greatest strength, are mostly unappealing and sometimes downright shabby. Perhaps it would have made a difference to see the print in a theater but many of the film's bigger action sequences were almost unwatchable due to a horrendous color balance mixed with mediocre-at-best effects. I don't expect every film to have awards-caliber post-production elements but let's be honest here: the only reason anyone went to see Immortals was because of the action. If the action sucks in an overtly action-oriented movie, then what are we left with? In this case, we're left with a boring, dark, and jumbled mess highlighted by color-by-numbers acting and generic plot points. Do yourself a favor and skip this one entirely.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.blogspot.com

The Lorax (2012)

Decent Enough for Kids, Not That Great for Adults

[6/10 · 23 March 2012]

I think it's fair to say that we have yet to see a full length film based upon the work of Dr. Suess that measured up to the value of the written versions. Ron Howard's How the Grinch Stole Christmas came the closest to hitting the mark but I think most Suess fans would agree that they'd just assume watch the old cartoon classic Grinch over the Jim Carrey interpretation. The Lorax falls closely in line with its Suessian brothers, providing a decent piece of family fare that doesn't live up to the charisma of the book.

Like many young teenagers, Ted (Zac Efron) has a crush on a slightly older girl, a neighbor named Audrey (Taylor Swift). When Audrey reveals that the one thing she wants the most is to see a real life tree, Ted sets out on a quest to find the Once-ler (Ed Helms), a hermit who has some knowledge of trees. Ted gets more than he bargains for, though, as the Once-ler draws him into the vivid tale of how he met the fabled Lorax (Danny Devito) and ultimately became responsible for the extinction the trees. And when all is said and done, Ted is tasked with reviving the growth of trees in the town of Thneedville.

The hatred being spewed by (overly angry) viewers in the direction of The Lorax is more than a little shocking. If you were to browse through the user reviews on IMDb, you'd think you'd stumbled upon a right-wing message board, not a collection of thoughts on a kid's movie. The reason for all the venom is the environmental message at the core of The Lorax which apparently angers, like, a LOT of people. Here's where I stand on the whole thing and then we'll move on to the actual film. I'm far from a classic environmentalist. I enjoy hunting and fishing, support the expansion of oil drilling operations, and think Styrofoam cups are just the best. But is it really all that bad to maybe suggest that we give a passing thought to not chopping down every tree on the planet? I really don't think that's asking too much of anyone. At times the message of The Lorax becomes heavy handed and overwhelms the, "I'm just here to watch a cartoon" vibes but personally I didn't find it to be inappropriately preachy. Then again, this was always one of my favorite Suess books and I was fully aware of the deeper message going in.

Now that I've set myself up for sniper fire from the people who hate trees (I kid, I kid), let's move on to the non-controversial portions of The Lorax which is a fairly mixed bag. There are moments and scenes within this film that elicited genuine laughter from me but these bright spots are swallowed up by a fairly ho-hum narrative that never aspires to me much more than adequate. The lively, beautifully colored animation is contrasted, and ultimately equaled, by the boringness of the main characters and the uninspired script. The musical numbers come about far too infrequently, leaving me to wonder why they had any musical scenes in the first place. In addition, while the cast is strong, only DeVito shines consistently, though Helms does a quality job when he is actually called upon to do something. It's not that there's necessarily anything wrong with the path taken by The Lorax but I would have liked to see it turn a corner in the early going and strive for excellence rather than settle for alright-ness.

All of this makes The Lorax just another in a long string of Suess adaptations that fail to live up to the source material. It is cute and not entirely worthless but it lacks the charm that it needs to truly excel. If nothing else, a larger portion of Suessian verse within the dialogue would have made it more memorable and reduced the blandness. As is, The Lorax is an acceptable children's movie that shouldn't be too difficult for most non-tree hating adults to sit through.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.blogspot.com

21 Jump Street (2012)

Hilarious and Jam-Packed with Shenanigans

[7/10 · 18 March 2012]

To say that I am surprised, dear readers, by my full-on, unabashed enthusiasm for 21 Jump Street would be the understatement of the year. When the project was announced, I thought it sounded terrible and the first time I saw the trailer, I thought the same thing. That trailer, though, grew on me with each and every viewing and by the time I got to the theater this weekend, I was primed for a darn good time, and that's exactly what the movie delivers.

Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) are unlikely pals. In high school, Schmidt was a loser whom Jenko routinely humiliated. But when they both join the police force, they develop a mutually beneficial friendship and eventually become partners on the beat. After a poorly executed drug bust, they are transferred under the command of Captain Dickson (Ice Cube), who runs an undercover unit out of a church on 21 Jump Street. The pair is sent in to a local high school and tasked with infiltrating and bringing down a drug ring that threatens to spread its new product to the surrounding city. But with their roles reversed and the abilities put to the test, can these two misfits get the job done before the entire operation is shut down?

One of the things that gave me pause concerning 21 Jump Street is the headliners. I appreciate Hill's talent both as a comedian and an actual actor (as displayed in Moneyball) but his isn't a name that gets me excited. For every Get Him to the Greek (which I love), there's a film like The Sitter (which appeared to be horrendous). I have no such conflict over Tatum's involvement with this project. Aside from his acceptable work in She's the Man (a film I have an odd affection for), I've never seen a movie involving Tatum that I did not leave with a little vomit in my mouth and a little hate in my heart. I've long thought that he might be the worst actor in Hollywood. Surprisingly, not only do Hill and Tatum turn out to be a perfect match for this sort of raucous action-comedy, Tatum is actually the best part. He plays the dumb jock well, a role he is well suited for, but he also displays an excellent comedic timing I wouldn't have thought he had. I'm not saying this will completely change my opinion of the man but it certainly won't hurt. Hill, meanwhile, brings an element of authenticity to his role; he's a nerd at heart who jumps on the chance to finally become cool. It's an antiquated trick that Jump Street pulls but Hill makes it work. Together these two show great chemistry and they work off of each other quite well, giving the feeling of a natural partnership that doesn't always come off with this sort of mismatched pairing.

The first act of 21 Jump Street is one of the funniest openers in recent memory. It is an absolute laugh riot, jam-packed with the juvenile-but- well-thought-out humor that is expected from an R-rated comedy in a post-Hangover world. No time is wasted on the set-up as the set of circumstances Schmidt and Jenko find themselves in are established within the first ten minutes and the film's plot is set into motion. I felt the second act, which brings into play the inevitable conflicts between the two buddies, wanes a bit and becomes slightly bogged down, though the fun never stops entirely. Perhaps the worst I could say about this middle portion is that it stretches on a few minutes too long. But before long, the pace again quickens and Schmidt and Jenko get back to the shenanigans that make the first act such a blast.

What directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) have crafted with Jump Street is an homage to the buddy cop movie with a hint of delicious self-awareness that seems appropriate given its '80s roots. They also surround their leads with an outstanding surrounding cast, including the aforementioned Ice Cube (perfect casting), a slightly underused Dave Franco, and the always funny Rob Riggle. Most importantly, the actors are provided with a hilarious script filled with a non-stop stream of jokes that never allows the audience to catch on to the abject stupidity of the characters' actions.

Please see my reviews at thesoapboxoffice.blogspot.com