SEX AND THE CITY 2 (2010) / Comedy

April 27th

This is a satire. This has to be a satire. I mean, really, seriously this has just got to be the most subversive, most scathing, most indescribably disturbing satire ever filmed. Ever. In the entire history of the medium. Had Robert Altman lived to see this, he would have been scared for his own life. Had Paddy Chayefsky lived to see this, he would have straight killed himself. If this had been shown to George Orwell, he would have literally disintegrated. It has that kind of ungodly, repulsive power. This was not nor could it have been made by a person whose primary intentions did not include brutally satirizing the lives of the rich and glamorous, whose lives are so dripping with copious amounts of unbelievable wealth that they find room to complain about having not one but two Manhattan skyrise apartments; that they get mad – so mad that they cry – at their kids for leaving handprints on their new silk blah-dy blahs and then pontificate about the burdens of being a mother; that, because they are so oblivious to how the real world functions, feel as though they can actually relate to the poverty-stricken townspeople of Abu Dahbi because they share similar marriage problems. This is a satire, and if somehow it isn’t, if somehow the people who made this actually thought that they were making a genuinely funny, cutesy comedy, then this is the greatest horror film I have ever seen: a massive, abysmal chasm of soul-sucking blackness into which all things good – morally, ethically, intellectually good – have disappeared. This is a consumerist’s wet dream, i.e. my nightmare, and one of the most bloated, reprehensible things I’ve encountered in my lifetime, and if there is a single, living, breathing person out there who enjoyed it on its own terms, for its own merits, for the way in which it was made, for the god damned message, then weep. Weep for civilization. Weep for mankind. Weep for two hundred and fifty years of progressing as a society. If we are capable of creating something this poisonous, this offensive, this completely unaware of its own insurmountable terribleness, then surely the end is near. We are all responsible.

Don’t ask me why or how or when or where or with whom, but I watched this. This is something that I watched, willingly. I have only myself to blame.

Final rating: 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

© 2014 Stephen Earnest

THE DESCENDANTS (2011) / Comedy-Drama

Running Length: 115 minutes
MPAA Classification: R for language including some sexual references.

Cast: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Nick Krause, Amara Miller, Judy Greer, Beau Bridges, Robert Forster, Matthew Lillard
Director: Alexander Payne
Producers: Alexander Payne, Jim Burke, Jim Taylor
Screenplay: Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor, Nat Faxon (based upon the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings)

The Descendants is director Alexander Payne’s first work since Sideways in 2004. However, unlike Sideways or, say, Election, The Descendants takes a more dramatic approach in resolving its issues, showing us a side of the director that Sideways only briefly touched on. That’s not saying that it doesn’t have a sense of humor – it does, but only enough of one to provide us with a few momentary laughs. Payne does not sidetrack us for too long with a funny joke; he gets right to the point.

The Descendants is undoubtedly his most personal work yet, so to speak. Set in Honolulu, the story focuses on Matt King (George Clooney), a lawyer, father, and somewhat-devoted husband whose thrill-seeking wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) is rendered comatose as the result of a boating accident. Because of this, Matt is forced to step in as full-time parent; something he has never had to do before. Work has always been his primary obligation. It was Elizabeth that was in charge of running the household, so Matt’s relationship with his two daughters, Scottie (Amara Miller) and Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), has slowly deteriorated over time. Now, he’s forced to confront both them and their problems, and he’s entirely unprepared for either.

All of this happens in the midst of closing an important land deal. Matt is a descendant of one of the first white land-owning families on the island and is in charge of deciding whether or not to turn a large tract of undeveloped land into a vacation spot. Up until now, he’s been all for it, but with the added weight of personal crisis on his shoulders, he’s forced to rethink his options. Pressure to close the deal and take care of his family steadily mounts, and that’s not to mention the fact that he finds out that his wife was cheating on him.

At first, The Descendants seems exactly like what you’d expect: a film designed specifically to win its lead actor an Academy Award. (I gathered that just by glancing at the film’s poster.) Granted, Clooney’s name alone will attract most of the film’s audience, but his performance his not the only reason to see the film. There’s a fine cast of actors and actresses alongside him (most notably Shailene Woodley and Matthew Lillard) and while their performances don’t quite parallel his, they’re still just as important.

George Clooney has long since mastered the ability to create understated, intelligent characters. Matt King is the same old Clooney that we’ve seen in previous films like Up in the Air, The American, and Michael Clayton. He’s as sleek, dark, and handsome as ever, but ultimately, he was miscast. Sure, the performance that he gives is solid and one that deserves a fair amount of praise, but another actor would have been far better suited in his position. His demeanor just doesn’t fit the bill and on occasion, he’ll fall flat with his line readings. Understand that I’m not criticizing his performance; I just wasn’t entirely convinced by it.

The most promising aspect is Woodley, who many will know as the star of the ABC Family series “The Secret Life of the American Teenager.” But while she delivers arguably the best supporting performance, it won’t be her that most audiences will find their attention directed at. No, that would be Nick Krause as the film’s comic relief. He plays Sid, Alexandra’s stoner boyfriend whose own cluelessness often gets the better of him. Other standouts include veteran actor Robert Forster, Beau Bridges, and a brief appearance from Matthew Lillard.

Oddly enough, the weakest link is the script, which, despite some decent plot turns, is disappointingly average. Payne utilizes standard clichés to get him from one end to another and never really incorporates anything of his own, so what could have been great and original ends up being only serviceable. But overall, The Descendants is a pleasant outing at the movie theater. There are individual areas that need working on, but as a whole, the film and its message are entirely effective.

Final rating: ★★★ (out of ★★★★)

© 2012 Stephen Earnest

THE INDEPENDENT (2000) / Comedy

Running Length: 80 minutes
MPAA Classification: R for language, some violence, and sexuality.

Cast: Jerry Stiller, Janeane Garofalo, Max Perlich, Fred Williamson, Nick Cassavetes, Ron Howard, Peter Bogdanovich, Ted Demme, Karen Black, Roger Corman
Director: Stephen Kessler
Producer: United Lotus Group
Screenplay: Stephen Kessler

There’s no doubt that Jerry Stiller has made a career for himself as one of the most prolific and recognizable character actors out there. His personality for each character is usually the same – bellicose, boisterous, and brash – and because of this, he’s immediately identifiable. While he has appeared in quite a number of films, Stiller is more known for his television work and will undoubtedly be remembered as either the misguided Arthur Spooner of “King of Queens” or the ornery Frank Costanza of “Seinfeld.”

Here is The Independent, a look at the life of eccentric independent film maker Morty Fineman (Stiller) as his career slowly and steadily spirals downwards, and he becomes the focus of a two-man documentary crew. Fineman is the definition of a true independent filmmaker; a man whose own blind ambition is far greater than his talent. His films are those same trashy, low budget exploitation flicks the likes of Larry Cohen and John Waters made. They’re not bad on purpose; they’re made with the intent of being good, which makes them all the more awful.

Upon experiencing his final bouts of bankruptcy, Fineman calls in his estranged and relied-upon daughter Paloma (Janeane Garofalo) for council. He has his assistant Ivan (Max Perlich) searching for a film festival that’s willing to showcase his oeuvre. A comeback is what he needs to get back on top, but luck rarely comes his way. And to make matters worse, he’s operating out of a fleabag motel.

Like This Is Spinal Tap and Zelig, The Independent mainly benefits from its own authenticity. The film’s story is intercut with stock footage from cheap grindhouse flicks and interviews with real-life film makers and actors, making everything seem more factual. It hits pretty close to home, accurately depicting the troubles of independent film making and doing so in a comic vein. Of course, since the film is shot in a half-mockumentary, half-narrative style, we don’t actually ever “believe” in any of it, but this doesn’t at all detract from the viewing experience, even though some might find it a bit irritating.

Stiller is a riot as Fineman, the director oblivious to his own ineptitude. He gives a superb comedic performance (including the deadpan reaction he gives when having his work brutally criticized) and hits all the right notes. His persona and celebrity status make him perfect for this role and bring more depth to his character, the aging legend trying to make one final comeback. Such could be said about Stiller and this film. In all of the areas that it sags, he pulls through, consistently drawing laughs whether it be through action or dialogue. Sometimes he just yells and it works. I tell you I could laugh at this guy just by him standing there alone eating an ice cream cone.

But that’s not saying there isn’t any room for improvement. The director, Stephen Kessler, goes so over the top in a couple of instances that he loses any credibility. Satire is best done in a subtle manner and comes off as silly when taken too literally. The entire impact as dimmed. That being said, the premise does hold up — for the most part – and The Independent delivers both in smarts and laughs, and goes to show how truly good a film on such a low budget can be.

Final rating: ★★★ (out of ★★★★)

© 2012 Stephen Earnest

GO (1999) / Crime-Comedy

Running Length: 103 minutes
MPAA Classification: R for strong drug content, sexuality, language, and violence.

Cast: Sarah Polley, Katie Holmes, Jay Mohr, Scott Wolf, William Fichtner, Desmond Askew, Timothy Olyphant, Taye Diggs, Breckin Meyer
Director: Doug Liman
Producers: Matt Freeman, Paul Rosenberg, Mickey Liddell
Screenplay: John August

After finding almost immediate success with his smash hit Swingers, director Doug Liman went on to make the ambitious Go, in which he tried yet again to appeal to the indie crowd. Sure, Go is hip, stylish, kinetic, cool, crazy, wild. The camerawork is handheld and frenetic, dashing in between different characters and places with an almost documentary-like feel. The dialogue is snappy, clever, and sardonic, and spoken by characters that seem to always be in a rush. Trouble escalates as the film progresses. Things get out of hand. Characters are thrust into situations that they would rather not be in. But as fast-paced and funny as their misadventures sometimes are, Go is never quite as impressive or involving as it wants or tries to be. It packs the punch that Swingers had, but lacks the heart.

Like a junior Pulp Fiction, the storyline of Gois divided into segments, each one focusing on a different set of characters and their perspectives on the night of a botched drug deal. In the first segment, Ronna (Sarah Polley) is a grocery store clerk in need of some quick cash, otherwise she’s facing eviction. Her chance to score comes when she’s approached by a couple of actors looking for Simon (Desmond Askew), a small-time drug dealer that’s out of town. They need drugs and she needs money, so she decides to fill in for Simon and get the drugs herself from Todd (Timothy Olyphant), Simon’s supplier. Unfortunately, Ronna’s a hundred bucks short and has to leave her friend Claire (Katie Holmes) behind as collateral while she goes off to collect the rest of the money. Problems arise when the deal turns out to be a set-up and Ronna’s forced to flush the drugs down the toilet.

The setting then moves to Las Vegas for the film’s second segment, where we focus on Simon and his friend Marcus (Taye Diggs) as they engage in various escapades across the city. After losing most of their money to gambling, the two steal a car and travel to a strip club, where they order a private room. But after Simon ignores the rules and “touches” the merchandise, he and Marcus are forced to flee the premises with the bad guys on their tail.

The tone of Go changes with its third and final chapter. It deals with the actors from the first segment, Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zack (Jay Mohr), who turn out to be only involved in the sting operation so that their own drug charges are dropped. After the deal goes south, their night continues, but gets weirder. They are invited to dinner by a cop (William Fichtner) and his wife (Jane Krakowski), who turn out to be advocates of a retail company. They manage to escape, but are quickly confronted with the implications of a hit-and-run.

The main successes of Go can be found in the film’s first episode, where the stars shine the brightest and the direction is the keenest. From there, the plot unravels and gradually loses steam. The transition from the first segment to the second is drastic. (In fact, it almost seems as if the two were written by entirely different people.) The dialogue feels forced and the characters are unlikable. It resorts to low-brow humor in order to garner laughs and doesn’t deliver quite as much as the first half-hour does. Consider a scene where Simon is forced to run through the hotel fully naked after the room he was having sex in bursts into flames. These are the kinds of antics that are overused to the point of being predictable and unfunny, and they simply do not belong in a film like Go.

Now, I would like to say that the third act gets better, but it doesn’t. It basically mirrors the events of the first two episodes, but does it with less excitement. It’s uniform and repetitive and still sub-par when compared with the first half-hour. In terms of resolution, it works. It manages to adequately connect the pieces and end the movie on a lighter note. But is ending the movie on a lighter note what we want? Is an upbeat ending what a film like this should have? It feels phony and put-on and doesn’t fit the mood. Look, I’m all for catharsis, but I’d rather have an ending that’s straightforward and depressing rather than one that I don’t believe.

Sarah Polley and Katie Holmes have the two best performances. (Their characters are the two that most obviously represent the Generation X crowd that Go appeals to.) They bring the most enthusiasm and likability to their characters, and it’s disappointing that they have so little screen time. As for the rest of the cast, Taye Diggs and Timothy Olyphant (who I’ve found to be a pretty reliable actor) both do a pretty good job. Desmond Askew is serviceable, despite my disdain for his accent, and Scott Wolf and Jay Mohr are intolerable for the most part. Their characters are arguably the most uninteresting of the bunch. (I cite them as the one of the major downfalls of the third act as well.)

The worst part yet is how much I wanted to like Go. From the opening shot, I was hooked. I thought I was getting into something really good. Doug Liman is such a gifted and well-equipped director, and even though his career choices of late have been a bit poor, Go certainly exudes a fair amount of style. Even though it may borrow a lot of itself from Pulp Fiction, it stays original for the most part, especially in the visual aspect, and there are some qualities about it that are likable.

Final rating: ★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

© 2012 Stephen Earnest

THE STATION AGENT (2003) / Comedy-Drama

Running Length: 88 minutes
MPAA Classification: R for language and some drug content.

Cast: Peter Dinklage, Patricia Clarkson, Bobby Cannavale, Michelle Williams, Paul Benjamin, Raven Goodwin
Director: Thomas McCarthy
Producers: Robert May, Mary Jane Skalski, Kathryn Tucker
Screenplay: Thomas McCarthy

“It’s funny how people see and treat me, since I’m really just a simple, boring person.”

Thomas McCarthy’s debut The Station Agent is a film of unprecedented power and emotion, given the fact that it seems so small on the outside. The cast is comprised of actors and actresses whose names were not very well-known at the time of its release in 2003, and the budget with which it was financed is relatively small. At first glance, one would expect for The Station Agent to be another one of those sappy, light-hearted films that independent cinema is becoming all too familiar with; but really, it’s not. It’s something much more than that, and I won’t deny that it was designed to make those who watch it feel good, it’s more of a chance for its cast and writer/director to showcase their talents.

Peter Dinklage stars as Finbar McBride, a quiet dwarf who lives alone in Hoboken, New Jersey. Making new friends is not an easy task, as he always expects for people to ridicule him for his dwarfism, so he lives withdrawn from the rest of the world. He keeps to himself most of the time and runs a small model train shop with his friend Henry (Paul Benjamin), a man who shares the same quiet personality. Fin loves trains – watching trains, building trains, listening to trains. It’s where he finds his refuge, and since the public doesn’t accept him for his size, it’s what most of his time revolves around. However, Henry dies of an unexpected heart attack and the shop is closed, but Fin learns that he has inherited a small piece of land that happens to have an abandoned train station on it. The property is out of the way in a rural part of New Jersey, making it an ideal place for him to start his new home. Of course, when he arrives, his move does attract the attention of the locals, such as Joe (Bobby Cannavale) and Olivia (Patricia Clarkson).

As stated before, the strengths of The Station Agent come from its acting and writing. (Thomas McCarthy won the BAFTA award for Best Original Screenplay.) McCarthy’s script is clever, original, honest, inspirational, and often very funny, and while The Station Agent does work as a comedy, it works as a drama as well. The tone is upbeat and the message is worthwhile, but the strongest element that McCarthy employs in his script is heart – pure, genuine heart.

Peter Dinklage excels as his character simply due to the fact that the character of Fin was made for him. I believe that The Station Agent is the first film to actually show the life of a dwarf as an everyday person. (To quote Dinklage from 1995’s Living in Oblivion, “Why does my character have to be dwarf? Is that the only way you can make this a dream? To put a dwarf in it?”) Dinklage has always been a fine actor, but because Fin is a character that is so close to home for him, he does an even better job than usual. This is his chance to shine, and shine he does.

Now, while Dinklage does deliver a strong central performance, the best performance – in my opinion, of course – comes from Bobby Cannavale, an actor whose work I am entirely unfamiliar with. Cannavale plays the outgoing, talkative character of Joe that befriends Fin in the early stages of the film. He sees past Fin’s size when others don’t and sticks up for him. Cannavale adds so much charm to his already likable character, bringing such positivity to the screen. To complete the trio, Patricia Clarkson plays Olivia, an artist dealing with a divorce and the death of the son. There are other supporting characters as well, such as Michelle Williams, John Slattery, and Raven Goodwin, although their screen time is limited.

McCarthy has found success in other films since his debut, but The Station Agent remains to be his greatest, most well-meaning and earnest piece of work. Like any good film, it takes more than one viewing to fully grasp – not because it is too confusing to comprehend, but because it takes multiple viewings to realize how truly powerful it actually is.

Final rating: ★★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

© 2012 Stephen Earnest

HORRIBLE BOSSES (2011) / Comedy

Running Length: 98 minutes
MPAA Classification: R for crude and sexual content, pervasive language and some drug material.

Cast: Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day, Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Jamie Foxx, Colin Ferrell, Lindsay Sloane, Donald Sutherland
Director: Seth Gordon
Producers: Brett Ratner, Jay Stern
Screenplay: Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley, Jonathan Goldstein

Work sucks, especially when you have bosses like the characters in Horrible Bosses do. These are some of the most wretched, most foul, most unforgiving people ever to be encountered by mankind, and to give them control of a company is like handing the other employees a death sentence. Prepare for the rest of your days at this building to be a living hell.

The story focuses on Nick (Bateman, Hancock), Dale (Day, TV’s “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”), and Kurt (Sudeikis from “SNL”), three buddies whose day jobs are getting the better of them. Nick is a borderline workaholic who has high hopes that his hard work will result in a promotion that his manipulative boss Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey, American Beauty) never plans on giving him. Dale’s boss, Dr. Julia Harris (a brunette Jennifer Aniston), frequently subjects him to sexual harassment. Kurt has the best job of all until his beloved boss (Donald Sutherland) dies and he’s stuck with his insensitive and drug-addicted son, Bobby (Colin Farrell). So, upon the realization that their lives will only continue to get worse if they allow themselves to be treated this way, the three plot to finally get rid of the bosses once and for all, and it doesn’t go exactly as planned.

Sure, there are moments in Horrible Bosses where I felt dirty for laughing. The humor is coarse and the jokes are vulgar, but compared to the other raunchy comedies of yesteryear, it’s relatively tame. There are no lines that are crosses, no bounds that are overstepped. The material here is suitable for a modern audience, and that’s refreshing for a comedy in this day and age. Previous efforts like The Hangover Part II or The Change-Up tested the limits of offensiveness and ended up being less funny. On the other hand, Horrible Bosses is not nearly as crude or graphic and had me laughing from start to finish.

The acting is one of the brightest aspects. Jason Bateman employs his usual deadpan comedic style and works well alongside Charlie day, who remains energetic and frenetic throughout most of the movie. Jason Sudeikis delivers a calm and well-modulated performance and adds balance to the trio. Plus, his comedic timing is impeccable. The writers (Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley, and Jonathan Goldstein) equip their script with a fair amount of one-liners that come in handy when the boys go out on their various reconnaissance missions, even though a lot of it seems improvised.

Like his character in Swimming with Sharks, Spacey is rude, sarcastic, and a real wise-ass. An actor of his age and status is perfect for this role. He incorporates years and years of playing the bad guy into one very memorable performance and frankly, it’s one of his funniest. As for Aniston, the success of her performance comes from the fact that the character she’s playing is so atypical for her. It’s shocking to hear her say some of the things that she says, but it’s never not funny. Colin Farrell rounds out as the last of the bosses and while he doesn’t have much screen time, he’s just as evil and crude as Spacey. My only problem is that he was underused.

PG-13 comedies are being churned out less and less these days. (In fact, I can’t remember the last time that I heard of one coming out in theaters.) So much more room is given with the R rating. The kind of humor changes and darker things are allowed to be said and done, and Horrible Bosses doesn’t exactly exploit its rating, it certainly takes full advantage of it. It’s by far one of the funniest comedies of last year.

Final rating: ★★★ (out of ★★★★)

© 2012 Stephen Earnest

ZOMBIELAND (2009) / Horror-Comedy

Running Length: 88 minutes
MPAA Classification: R for horror violence/gore and language.

Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Woody Harrelson, Abigail Breslin, Bill Murray
Director: Ruben Fleischer
Producer: Gavin Polone
Screenplay: Paul Wernick, Rhett Reese

I get Zombieland. I get where it’s coming from. Nowadays, most of the horror films that come out are just no good. They’re not scary enough, plain and simple. They rely on the standard clichés of the horror films of the past and in this day and age, those clichés are so overused that they’re no longer effective. That’s where Zombieland comes in. Granted, it can be scary at times, but ultimately, Zombieland is not a horror film, nor does it ever really try to be. It’s a comedy with horror elements, and I’ll admit that most of the time it works.

The zombie comedy genre experienced a revival upon the release of the critically-acclaimed Shaun of the Dead, which I still feel is a bit overrated. (Nonetheless, I found it somewhat enjoyable and occasionally funny in the mildest sense.) Like Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland is a zombie comedy as well and for some odd reason the two are often compared, even though they are different in almost every aspect aside from the fact that they both deal with zombies in a humorous manner. That’s the absolute extent of their similarity. Of course, this is irrelevant and doesn’t really matter, but I just find the entire ordeal annoying.

Anyway, the story of Zombieland transpires in a post-apocalyptic America, where most of the nation has been “zombie-fied” due to a mutated strain of mad cow disease. Unlike other zombie films of the past, this is an entirely plausible and logical epidemic, which is something I have rarely seen. Our hero is “Columbus” (Jesse Eisenberg), a college student whose name is derived from the town in Ohio that he is traveling to. He’s on his way home. Along the way, he encounters “Tallahassee” (Woody Harrelson), a redneck and certified zombie-killer on his way to Florida, and the two take up as traveling companions. Eventually, they come across “Wichita” (Emma Stone) and her little sister “Little Rock” (Abigail Breslin).

From here, Zombieland becomes little more than your average road movie. The gang finds themselves headed towards Pacific Playland, a zombie-free amusement park on the West Coast. Now, how the park remains so free of the undead is a mystery to me; a mystery that logic will undoubtedly spoil. But that is neither here nor there because while I found particular moments of Zombieland not to my liking, I enjoyed the film as a whole.

My fondest performance came from Woody Harrelson, and it’s definitely one of the best that he’s had in years. (Who knew that it would be in a movie like this?) He can switch from being funny to being emotional to just kicking ass and not once does his acting ever falter. Jesse Eisenberg does a good job as the lead, creating a likable and reasonable character, and Abigail Breslin is her usual self, but I had a hard time with Emma Stone. I suspect that it’s mainly because I find her to be such a cold actress, even though I liked her in Superbad. Here, she’s monotonous and delivers her lines without emotion.

Acting isn’t something that should be relied upon in a movie like Zombieland. It’s more about style and the millions of ways that zombies can be killed and it does a good job in both areas. Ruben Fleischer, the director, is a man unknown to me and I know none of his earlier work, but he contributes a good sense of direction here, especially for a first-timer. Now, while most of the humor and events are premeditated, there are certain elements that are original, both visually and in the script, and let’s not forget — let’s not forget — that hilarious cameo. I can guarantee that that scene will generate the most laughs.

It does end the way that you expected it to, but there is enough room left open for a possible sequel, which would be a definite delight. Zombieland is fun, harmless entertainment, but certainly not for the weak of stomach.

Final rating: ★★★ (out of ★★★★)

© 2012 Stephen Earnest

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (2011) / Comedy-Fantasy

Running Length: 94 minutes
MPAA Classification: PG-13 for some sexual references and smoking.

Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody, Carla Bruni, Michael Sheen, Corey Stoll, Kurt Fuller, Mimi Kennedy, Tom Hiddleston
Director: Woody Allen
Producer: Lefty Aronson, Stephen Tenebaum, Jaume Roures
Screenplay: Woody Allen

As the summer fast approaches, the movie theaters of America begin to become crowded. Blockbuster season is within reach. Students released from school prepare to flood the beaches of both the east and west coast. At night, they take to the local cinema, in search of both a good movie and a way to spend their hard-earned money. Substance is irrelevant. The star-studded action vehicles and the loud explosionfests and the special effects extravaganzas are what they really want to see, and who can blame them? Kids will be kids.

Well about that same time of year, Midnight in Paris was released to mainstream audiences. Immediately, it found both critical and commercial success, and for good reason, too. Unfortunately, I didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to see it then. See, my expectations for the movies of late are never high. So much cinematic crap has circulated from theater to theater over the past year or so that I simply don’t have any trust in any of them at all. Call me what you want, but I’ve wasted a good amount of money this year on movies that have put me to sleep and I don’t intend on doing it anymore.

Needless to say, when I finally did watch Midnight in Paris last night, I was pleasantly surprised. Not too surprised, as I am well-aware of Woody Allen and I take a liking to most of his work, but more surprised than I thought that I would be. Here is a film that has enough humor in it to make it a comedy, enough romance in it to make it romantic, enough heart in it to make it heartfelt, and enough charm in it to gross 150 million dollars at the box office.

The premise for Midnight in Paris is a familiar one, but not an overused one. We center on Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) and his wife, Inez (Rachel McAdams), as they are vacationing in Paris with Inez’s parents, played by Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy. Gil is a nice guy. He’s affable and easygoing. His wife, on the other hand, isn’t. She’s uptight and slightly intolerant of him, and more concerned with the wealthier side of Paris, while Gil would rather just explore the city and admire the culture and historical significance.

One night, Gil decides to wander the streets of Paris by himself, drunk. When the clock strikes midnight, he is approached by an antique car and invited inside. He is dubious, but drunk, so he gets in. Eventually, they arrive at a bar and Gil realizes that he has transported back to the 1920’s. He talks to the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, who offers to show Gil’s unfinished novel to classic to Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), but when Gil leaves the bar to go and get it, he discovers that he is back in present time.

As the film progresses, Gil begins to develop an attraction for the mistress of Pablo Picasso, Adriana (Marion Cotillard.) He becomes more distant from his wife and she and her parents become suspicious of his late-night wanderings, leading to her father even hiring a private investigator.

Midnight in Paris is Woody Allen’s 46th feature film, and it seems strangely different from the rest of his work. It’s as if we’re getting a different side of the man, a brighter side. There is none of that cynical humor that is so prevalent in most of his films. The lead character, Gil, is lighthearted and is not so beset on pointing out all of the faults of mankind. He’s genial. Now, I’m not saying that I don’t like the leads in other Allen films like Whatever Works and Annie Hall; I’m just saying that it’s nice to have a change.

Of course, this “change” might have something to do with the casting of comedic actor Owen Wilson as Gil. Wilson brings a large amount of charm and charisma and likability to his character, which is something that is hard to find in a Woody Allen film, and his performance really helps contribute to the overall mood. Surprisingly enough, he makes for a great lead. (Hopefully, it will help get Wilson back on his feet, for he’s been out of work lately.) But there are other great performances besides Wilson’s, and almost all of them are brief. Adrien Brody is only present for one scene, in which he plays Salvador Dali, and Michael Sheen plays Paul Bates, the intellectual friend of Inez who seems to know very little of what he’s actually talking about. I found the film’s best supporting performance to come from Corey Stoll, a relatively unknown actor who plays the character of Ernestt Hemingway with such subtlety. If it wasn’t for his small amount of screen time, I’d bet on an Oscar nomination.

The general look of the film is attractive as well and visually stimulating. Each shot looks like a postcard; all of the bright and luminescent colors show Allen’s love for the city of Paris. He captures the fairy tale aspect of it beautifully. This is by far his best-looking film and I’m sure that many others will agree.

Simply put, I enjoyed myself. I had a great time. Sure, Midnight in Paris isn’t magnificent or a masterpiece, but it does have a certain quality about it that isn’t found in most other films. It’s undemanding and requires not a whole lot of thought. It’s funny, low-key, and an escape from all of the darkness and dreariness out there in the world, and in the end, that’s really all that you can ask for.

Final rating: ★★★ (out of ★★★★)

© 2012 Stephen Earnest

Review: YOU KILL ME (R)

Ben Kingsley and Tea Leoni.

U.S. Release Date: June 22, 2007

Running Time: 93 minutes

MPAA Classification: R (Language, violence)

Cast: Ben Kingsley, Tea Leoni, Dennis Farina, Luke Wilson, Bill Pullman, Philip Baker Hall, Marcus Thomas

Director: John Dahl

Producer: Tea Leoni, Howard Rosenman

Screenplay: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely

 

By STEPHEN EARNEST / January 5, 2012

The hitman comedy is easily one of the most identifiable kinds of  movies, simply because there’s always a certain amount of oddballness in them. The story always stays decidedly formulaic, but the characters are only normal to an extent, and their normality is only used to make them seem more human.

While John Dahl seems to have gotten most of it right, You Kill Me is not quite up to par with the likes of Grosse Pointe Blank and The Matador. It is not even really the same kind of movie as the other two, even though it certainly tries to be. There is a sense of humor at its core, but only of the mildest kind. I can’t guarantee that you’ll laugh more than twice, although you will certainly smirk a lot.

The film’s center is Frank Falenczyk (Ben Kingsley), a disorderly hitman with an incessant drinking problem. Now, I won’t necessarily call Frank the hero because he really isn’t. He’s just there. Sure, we’re supposed to be rooting for him when he goes up against the bad guys, but it doesn’t really ever work that way. He’s simply not likable enough. Kingsley usually plays such strong characters, but Frank just doesn’t have any depth at all. He wanders from scene to scene with the same expression of lethargy, always looking completely unhappy. Words come out of his mouth at such a low volume that I had to lean forward a couple of times to try and decipher what it was that he was saying. Now, while I’m not blaming Kingsley’s acting, in a way I sort of am. This is a role that requires no real emotion and Kingsley brings nothing to it, which is what it calls for, but I found myself detached and uncaring about the future of the lead character. If that’s what Dahl was aiming for, and it seems like he was, then mission accomplished.

The real story of You Kill Me involves Frank botching a critical mission and being sent to San Francisco to get himself together. While there, he has to take up a job at a mortuary and attend several sessions of AA. But while he’s away from home, another mob begins to threaten the one that he works for. Sounds good, right? Well, it’s the perfect premise for a hitman comedy. So much could be made of it. I sat there in my chair thinking of everything that could happen; waiting for something to appear on that screen and make me grin. I was getting my own hopes up.

Dahl squanders everything. He lets everything roll downhill in a wave of predictability, turning the last half-hour into a sort of romantic comedy. I sat there waiting for it to be over, the grin rapidly dissolving from my face.

I take it that maybe I’m on the few that doesn’t like You Kill Me. It’s too subtle and quiet for my taste. It doesn’t begin or end with a bang. In fact, there’s not even a real bang anywhere throughout the entire movie. Everything remains disappointingly low key. Yes, this is a hitman comedy, but only technically. It doesn’t hold a candle to the rest. There is a small amount of humor to appreciate, but none of it is ever dark. There is never a mood that fits. Nothing ever seems to fit quite right with anything else. That’s mainly where You Kill Me fails. It’s awkward and slow-paced.

RATING: 2/4 

Review: THE TRIP (NR)

Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon in "The Trip."

U.S. Release Date: June 10, 2011

Running Time: 107 minutes

MPAA Classification: NR (Language)

Cast: Steve Coogan, Rob Brydon, Margo Stilley, Claire Keelan

Director: Michael Winterbottom

Producers: Andrew Eaton, Melissa Parmenter, Henry Normal, Michael Winterbottom

By STEPHEN EARNEST / December 27, 2011

At first look, The Trip may not seem like much, but once you get into it, it becomes something much more than you first expected. Now, by saying this, am I implying that a twist of fate occurs among the characters? That the plot takes a turn and becomes something different and more complex than the IMDb synopsis entails? Quite the contrary, actually.

For those of you that have read a plot synopsis on The Trip, you will know what I am talking about. For those of you that haven’t, allow me to explain.

Actor Steve Coogan (played by actor Steve Coogan) is assigned by the Observer newspaper to write an article on the cuisine of Northern England.  Unfortunately, his girlfriend can’t make it, so he invites an old friend, Rob Brydon (played by Rob Brydon) , to come along with him. From here, the plot does not deviate. Coogan and Brydon eat and converse with one another. That’s it. All of this is filmed in documentary fashion, so we get a sense that we’re just watching the lives of two actors. There are no hidden gimmicks or fight sequences or sex scenes. We watch two men go from place to place eating food. Simple enough.

This sounds boring, right? Well, it’s not. It’s actually quite entertaining, mainly because the two actors are such talented impressionists. Brydon (most certainly the funnier of the two) is constantly switching from voice to voice, mimicking a wide variety of famous actors, almost never using his own. In one hilarious instance, he and Coogan argue over who has the better Michael Caine impression, debating over whether or not his voice cracks when he gets emotional.

But while there moments of utter hilarity, there is a fair amount of emotional depth. We learn more about the Coogan character; about the underlying jealousy that exists between him and Brydon. We get a sense that there is some sort of rivalry going on between the two, because even though Coogan believes that he is the better and more well-known actor, Brydon is the one that gets stopped on the streets and asked for autographs.

There are various moments of truth here, such as when Coogan and Brydon decide to explore nature. Coogan spends the entire time explaining the cultural and historical significance of certain parts of the park, while Brydon is more interested in just observing it for himself. He doesn’t need to be told about something to enjoy it. Later on, Coogan is approached by a man who does the exact same thing to him (explaining how the rocks formed that way…) and he realizes how much of a pain it really is.

Ultimately, when we think that all of this character development is going somewhere, The Trip ends, without really resolving anything between Coogan and Brydon. Was it just a way to showcase the mimicking abilities of the two lead actors? That question plagues my mind so, but I think that the half-ambiguous ending makes it seem all the more like a documentary. It’s not a Hollywood movie with a happy ending; it’s real life.

In terms of direction, Michael Winterbottom doesn’t really have that hard of a job. Most of what appears on the screen is routinely executed. There are shots of the English landscape, shots of Coogan and Brydon talking in the car, shots of them eating and talking together, shots of the food being prepared, and shots of Coogan himself exploring the countryside, searching for cell phone reception. But to be fair, when has a documentary ever been that complex of a thing?

RATING: 3.5/4