movie reviews – Page 2 – Pop Culture Nerd

Capsule Movie Reviews: FRANKIE & ALICE, RABBIT HOLE, BLUE VALENTINE, ANOTHER YEAR, SOMEWHERE

I’m leaving town this weekend for the holidays and am hideously behind in everything. Someone reminded me today Christmas is next weekend and I gave her a blank face. Wha…?

Thus, in the interest of saving time so I can go hustle up a present for my first cousin’s second son, I’ll do only mini-reviews of five movies that are getting some awards attention this season. If you’re planning on seeing any of these, consider this your cheat sheet.

Frankie & Alice (out now in Los Angeles)

Based on a true story, this is a nice showcase for Halle Berry playing a woman with multiple personality disorder but overall it feels more like a cable movie. Berry clearly delineates between Frankie’s personalities—a genius child, a racist white Southern woman, and a black stripper—without getting too showy (except for one scene near the end). The movie takes place in the early 1970s when MPD wasn’t widely understood, so the plot consists mostly of Frankie’s psychiatrist, Dr. Oz (a sympathetic Stellan Skarsgard), trying to identify her illness. There’s a small mystery regarding the traumatic event that caused her personality to splinter but the revelation is somewhat anticlimactic. Nerd verdict: More personalities than plot.

Rabbit Hole (opens Dec. 17, limited release)

Nicole Kidman does strong work as a fragile mom grieving for her little boy months after he was killed in an accident. Her pale, thin frame adds to the sense that her character Becca might collapse and never recover if she doesn’t force herself to put one foot in front of the other every day. Dianne Wiest as Becca’s mother is very good and Aaron Eckhart is solid as Becca’s husband though this is Kidman’s movie (she’s one of the producers).

In a post-screening Q&A at the AFI Fest presented by Audi, director John Cameron Mitchell said that this movie is an exploration of the grief he felt after his brother was killed in a war and his family never talked about it. The tone is melancholy, with some bits of humor thrown in, but I was never deeply moved. I could appreciate the artistry of the work, though, and I like the very last line in the movie better than the one in the play (David Lindsay-Abaire wrote both) because it contains a slightly stronger hint of hope. Nerd verdict: Kidman’s good but Hole didn’t go deep enough for me.

Somewhere (Dec. 22, limited)

The only reason I could possibly see for this movie winning the Venice Film Festival’s Golden Lion (its top award) was because it was partly shot in Italy. Otherwise, I’m stumped as to why jurors thought this dull exploration of the life of a movie star deserves such an accolade. Director/writer Sofia Coppola uses pretentious, long shots that call more attention to her technique than help tell the story. I’d understand if there’s something captivating going on to justify a shot lasting forever but there usually isn’t. When not making a movie, Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff)’s life is aimless. He lives in the Chateau Marmont, plays Guitar Hero with his kid (Elle Fanning), suntans by the pool, hires strippers to come to his room. I couldn’t tell who was more bored—him or me (probably me, since I was sitting in a theater instead of by the pool). Johnny eventually recognizes how empty his life is but by that time, I’d already checked out. Nerd verdict: I’d rather be anywhere than Somewhere.

Another Year (Dec. 29)

Mike Leigh’s latest moved so slowly, I almost walked out. I figured I could get snacks, use the restroom, make some phone calls or just leave altogether without missing much. It’s a character study of a content, middle-aged married couple at the center of a group of friends with unraveling lives. I can’t complain about the acting; Lesley Manville completely steals the film, just as her needy character Mary sucks the energy out of every room she’s in. But after umpteenth scenes of people sitting around drinking, smoking, and complaining about their depressing lives without much else happening, I wanted to jab a pen in my eye to distract from the pain in my brain. Nerd verdict: Felt like Year unfolded in real time.

Blue Valentine (opens Dec. 31, limited)

I’m so glad the MPAA recently reversed the rating from NC-17 to R because this movie will now have a chance at a wider audience. It didn’t deserve the NC-17 anyway because the “offensive” scene doesn’t even have nudity, only Williams simulating an orgasm while receiving oral sex. As director/co-writer Dean Cianfrance said in a post-screening discussion, the MPAA was “objecting to a feeling” and penalizing the actors for acting too well.

And that they do—Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams give painfully naked performances as a couple who go from two dewy-eyed people in love to a husband and wife who may not be able to save their crumbling marriage. The movie is depressing as hell but you can’t stop watching them. The actors are often shot in extreme close-ups so there’s no faking any expression or emotion. Williams even gained weight for the latter part of the relationship (she did it during a one-month break in production) after her Cindy becomes a disillusioned wife and mother. The actress remains beautiful throughout but her bright blue eyes seem to lose their sparkle as she realizes her life is not turning out as planned. Nerd verdict: Blue contains red hot performances.

There you have it—my opinions on some titles you’ll hear mentioned during upcoming awards shows. If you haven’t seen them, here are my full reviews of How Do You Know, True Grit, and The Fighter.

This may be my final post for the year, depending on how productive I am in the next couple days and if I have Internet where I’m going. I’d like to wish you all a holiday season filled with joy, love and good health. Thank you for reading and coming along on my nerdy adventures for another year. You have enriched my world and certainly made it more fun.

3 Comments

Movie Review: HOW DO YOU KNOW

The title of James L. Brooks’s latest movie, How Do You Know (opening Dec. 17), refers to when you realize you’ve fallen in love with someone. But the question I asked myself while watching was: How do you know a movie is in trouble? When even charismatic stars like Paul Rudd and Reese Witherspoon can’t save it.

Witherspoon is Lisa, a professional softball player who’s considered over the hill at thirty-one and forced to transition to another career. Rudd plays George, a man who learns he’s under federal investigation for stock fraud but doesn’t know why. The two are set up by a mutual friend and have an awkward dinner, during which both are trying to figure out their next moves and neither is in a friendly mood.

That should’ve been the end of that, especially since Lisa is casually dating a baseball player, Matty (Owen Wilson). But Lisa and George keep running into each other—his father (Jack Nicholson) lives in Matty’s swanky apartment building—and a friendship develops, despite Lisa moving in with Matty and the possibility that George might go to prison. As they try to sort out their lives, they also have to figure out how they truly feel about each other before one of them does something which would destroy their chances of being together.

Witherspoon has said in several interviews Brooks wrote the part for her so it’s odd what a bad fit it is. She makes a lot of exaggerated facial expressions to indicate her emotions without convincing me she was actually feeling them. This is unusual because she’s normally such a natural actress. I never quite bought her as a professional athlete or someone suffering from a lack of direction. There’s something about Witherspoon’s headstrong, go-getter persona (her production company is called Type A Prods.) that doesn’t lend itself well to a character who doesn’t know what to do with her life and sits around drinking and talking about her ennui. The actress looks as disengaged from the role as Lisa is disconnected from her true feelings.

Rudd is charming as usual, even when George is supposed to be a sad sack, the complete opposite of a chick magnet. He has such clear, expressive eyes that you can almost identify the exact moment George realizes he’s in love with Lisa. While she stays cool towards him for most of the movie (granted, she’s with someone), Rudd is the one who sells the growing attraction. Meanwhile, Wilson does his playboy-afflicted-with-stunted-maturity act and Nicholson is Nicholson, doing what you’d expect of him.

Brooks wrote and directed two of my favorite films of all time, Terms of Endearment and Broadcast News, but his more recent work has been so frustratingly uneven. The pacing is off here, with some scenes cutting away too soon and many going on for way too long. Other scenes seem superfluous and should have been deleted and saved for the DVD’s extras. The tone is also uncertain; the movie is billed as a romantic comedy but is more dramatic than funny. Brooks has insightful things to say about relationships but sometimes loses focus, leaving us with scattered thoughts that don’t add up to much.

Nerd verdict: Wish I liked You more

Photos: David James/Columbia Pictures

15 Comments

TRUE GRIT: Review & Comparison Between Both Versions

Last Saturday, I saw the Coen brothers’ remake of True Grit (opening Dec. 22), about a U.S. Marshal who helps a young girl avenge her father’s murder, with my friend Eric Edwards, who had re-watched the original John Wayne version recently. I’ve only seen parts of that movie so I thought we’d have a conversation about the two versions instead of my usual review.

PCN: What did you think of the new version?

Eric Edwards: I think it’s much edgier and grittier.

PCN: So, it lives up to its title more? The characters are literally grittier here. Jeff Bridges’s Rooster Cogburn is much more unkempt than John Wayne’s. I remember Wayne always looked pulled together, with his little bandanna tied neatly around his neck. Bridges looks like he smells.

EE: But I think that’s more realistic.

PCN: How did you like his Cogburn compared to Wayne’s?

EE: I thought Bridges made it his own. He didn’t try to put on any kind of John Wayne swagger. He just played a hard-ass who’s gone to seed and did it believably.

PCN: I thought he chewed scenery in parts and sometimes his performance resembled The Dude more than The Duke. But he eventually won me over and after a while, I stopped thinking about John Wayne in that role.

EE: I was happy to lose both Glen Campbell as La Boeuf and his song on the soundtrack.

PCN: Oh, man, Campbell was pretty hammy. Matt Damon did a much better job as the Texas Ranger.

EE: I thought both Damon and Bridges adopted some kind of speech impediment for their roles. Bridges sounds like he had at least three marbles in his mouth at all times and Damon sounds as though he was wearing a set of false teeth over his regular teeth.

PCN: I didn’t notice that. I just thought they slurred their words because Cogburn was drunk most of the time and La Boeuf had that unfortunate accident with his tongue.

EE: But you could still understand them for the most part, which is no easy feat, considering the old-fashioned type of dialogue.

PCN: The dialogue stayed pretty true to the original’s. I think some of the lines were verbatim from the previous version.

EE: I’d say about fifty percent is verbatim from the old version, and the rest seems to be more authentic to the way people spoke in that time period. In the ’69 movie, the speech was more conversational overall.

PCN: I can’t believe that 14-year-old actress, Hailee Steinfeld, who played Mattie, could handle all that dialogue! Not only was there a lot of it, it wasn’t colloquial at all. That scene when she’s bargaining with Colonel Stonehill seemed like twenty pages but she plowed through it like a champ.

EE: I kind of had a problem with her. I liked her spunk but at no time did I feel she was mourning her dad. I didn’t think she had a full character arc.

**Spoilers**

PCN: That was one thing that bothered me, too. I loved how scrappy and no-nonsense Mattie is but I never saw her affected by all the gritty stuff that was happening around her. She saw a man’s head blown off only a few feet from her, another one stabbed to death, she encountered a corpse still hanging from a tree, and she watched her horse get shot. All that would traumatize anyone, more so a young girl, I’d imagine. I would be freaking out but she remained placid throughout.

**End spoilers**

EE: In the original, there’s this scene I liked where Mattie, played by Kim Darby, had a quiet moment and was allowed to grieve for her father behind closed doors. It shows the heart of the character, that she’s not just plucky for pluck’s sake. She has some vulnerability; she’s just not gonna show it to the men around her. And I appreciated seeing that.

PCN: What did you think of Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney?

EE: I thought he was funny. It was entertaining to watch him play evil and dumb at the same time.

PCN: I’m really enjoying the work he’s doing and where his career is going. He has really matured as an actor. So, do you think this movie needed to be remade?

EE: At first, I thought no, but I really liked what the Coens did here. They made it darker and a little scary. The original had bright colors and scenery and looked Disney-esque at times. Even the night scenes were well lit. Here, everything is in shades of brown and black, there’s snow and rain and you feel the cold coming off the screen.

PCN: What did you think of the framing device of Mattie as an adult and doing voiceover? Did it add anything to the remake?

EE: I thought it made it more powerful because it hammered home the point this was an adventure with real danger and real consequences, not some cute romp through the countryside.

PCN: I didn’t think the original was “cute” but Mattie did come off girlier while this new Mattie is dead serious. And she certainly comes out of it worse for wear. I’m just glad a Coen-brothers movie had an ending. A Serious Man pissed me off.

EE: Yeah, maybe [executive producer] Spielberg had something to say about that. I noticed the brothers still included their trademark weirdness, like that guy in a bear skin.

PCN: But they dialed it way back. This is their most accessible movie in years.

EE: I agree. And it’s rated PG-13 so parents can even take their kids.

Nerd verdicts: PCN & EE—True Grittier

8 Comments

Movie Review: THE FIGHTER

Wahlberg at the AFI premiere

When The Fighter (opening Dec. 10) had its world premiere at the AFI Fest presented by Audi, Mark Wahlberg introduced the film and said if anyone didn’t like it, “I will personally come to your house and give you back the two hours you spent watching it. I’ll cook, clean, move shit!” I don’t think he’ll get too many phone calls from people asking him to do yard work unless they just want an excuse to see him with his shirt off.

The movie, which the actor produced as well as stars in, is based on the true story of underdog boxer “Irish” Micky Ward’s (Wahlberg) unlikely journey towards an eventual world championship. He’s trained by his half-brother, Dickie Eklund (Christian Bale), who once fought Sugar Ray Leonard and knocked him down, which makes Dickie a local celebrity in their hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts. But Dickie has turned into a crackhead and become unreliable, often not showing up for training. He also thinks he’s being filmed for an HBO show about his making a comeback but it’s actually a documentary about crack users.

Micky’s situation isn’t helped by his mother/manager, Alice (Melissa Leo), who seems to only set him up to lose. He starts making smarter decisions after meeting Charlene (Amy Adams), a waitress at a local bar who becomes his girlfriend and encourages him to distance himself from his family if he wants a shot at the title.

While the movie is well-directed by David O. Russell and handled beautifully by the cast, it doesn’t add anything new to the underdog boxing movie sub-genre. It follows the basic structure of so many others, e.g. Cinderella Man or Rocky, though it isn’t as bloody, which I appreciated.

The Fighter does have a couple of knockout performances from Bale and Leo. The former is almost unrecognizable with sunken eyes, bad teeth, and bald spot on a skeletal frame. At first I wasn’t sure whether he was trying too hard by piling on the tics and drastic changes in his appearance, but when a clip of the real Dickie played at the end of the movie, I realized Bale was dead-on.

Leo is like we’ve never seen her, leaving behind the mousy brunettes she usually plays with brassy blond hair that’s bigger than Taylor Swift’s career and a wardrobe cheaper than Walmart specials on Black Friday. Alice has no business managing Micky’s career but Leo doesn’t make her an obvious villain, leaving us to decide instead whether Alice is simply inept or truly greedy and spotlight hungry. Adams is also spunkier than usual as Charlene, showing she’s not all Disney-princess innocent, at one point even getting into a fist fight. The film’s chances at snagging Oscar acting nominations are good but I don’t see it winning the Best Picture title.

Note: To watch the real HBO documentary called High on Crack Street: Lost Lives in Lowell that features Dickie and is mentioned in the movie, click here.

Nerd verdict: Scrappy Fighter but not quite a champion

Mark Wahlberg AFI photo © AFI/The Fighter photos © Paramount Pictures

4 Comments

Movie Review: BLACK SWAN

When awards season rolls around, and even for months beforehand, we’re subjected to a lot of hyperbole, where every picture is breathtakingly touted as “best of the year!” and every performance is called Oscar-worthy. More often than not, this is a lot of hogwash but sometimes it turns out a particular piece of work has warranted the buzz.

One such example is Natalie Portman’s portrayal of a ballerina whose sanity slowly unravels in Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan (opening Friday, Dec. 3). Nina (Portman) gets the coveted lead role in a NYC ballet company’s production of Swan Lake, but pressure from a director (Vincent Cassel) who expresses doubts about her ability to play both the white and black swans, plus the presence of a young passionate dancer (Mila Kunis) who seems to know a little if not All About Eve—causes Nina to become paranoid about being replaced. She goes to extremes to keep the part, to make herself perfect, though she’s really descending into madness.

Portman has done edgy and dark before but has never been this effective. When she shaved her head for V for Vendetta, it seemed like a stunt, a too-jarring attempt to break away from her nice-girl image, and the result was unconvincing. But it’s completely believable for the actress to inhabit Nina, with her natural grace, lithe (though much thinner-than-usual) body and swan-like neck. Her pro-level dancing—Portman did much of it herself—seals the deal.

But then, just as the swan splits into two selves, Portman shows us that the sweet pretty exterior is just a cover-up for Nina’s disturbing inner core. Sure, staying on top in the cutthroat world of professional ballet must be stressful, but Nina goes over the edge and Portman makes her mental deterioration terrifying. Nina’s instability makes the movie quite suspenseful at times, for we never know what she’ll do or how far she’ll go. She can have wild sex one minute and fly into a rage the next. She can be joyful and fall apart at the same time. Much has been said about Annette Bening’s performance in The Kids Are All Right and how it’s her time to finally win an Oscar, but I think Portman’s work is much more complex. I haven’t seen Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine yet (will do so tonight) but I’ve seen all the other contenders and think Portman deserves the best actress gold this year.

Kunis, who seems to only get more captivating the older she gets, keeps us guessing as Lily, Nina’s competitor. Her friendliness and steady gaze give nothing away about her true motives. Sometimes it’s harder (and more interesting) to hide something in a performance than to show too much and Kunis does the former, keeping the conflict in play throughout the film. Barbara Hershey, playing Nina’s mother who is a former ballerina, manages to make Mom sympathetic. As Hershey said in the Q&A session I attended (more on that below), she’s not “a mother from hell but a mother in hell,” one mentally ill person taking care of another mentally ill person.

Aronofsky can get a little carried away with imagery in his movies but here the weirdness works because Nina sees things that aren’t rooted in reality. And the way he shoots the ballet is thrilling and visceral, capturing the pain and sweat and blood of it all along with the beauty.

After the Variety screening, Aronofsky, Portman, Kunis, Cassel and Hershey came out to discuss the movie and answer questions. A few highlights:

Portman hadn’t danced since she was 12 so she started training a year in advance, using her own money to hire a trainer, without even knowing the movie would get financed. She didn’t just do ballet; she cross-trained rigorously. Then the financing came together and fell apart a couple times but she kept training based on her faith in Aronofsky. She even kept it up while shooting another movie [Your Highness, out next year]. She lost about 20 pounds for the role.
Kunis lost about the same amount of weight, which was the hardest thing for her. She trained seven days a week for two months before shooting [her character doesn’t dance as much as Portman’s in the movie].
Because the movie only had a $13 million budget, there was apparently no medic on set at one point. Portman was horrified when she found out because the actors and dancers “were losing a toenail a day” so she told the money people to take away her trailer. “Sure enough,” she said, “the next day, the trailer was gone and the nurse was back.”
Aronofsky made a point to take his camera backstage and onstage with the dancers. He wanted the audience to hear the heavy breathing, see the pain in their feet and experience the effort it takes to create this beauty we usually watch from afar.
No studio wanted to do this movie despite Aronofsky’s success with The Wrestler. He’s made five films and every time, he’s been the only person in the room who wanted to make it. He’s looking forward to his next project, The Wolverine, because everyone in the room wants it made.

Nerd verdict: Dark, beautiful Swan

Photos: Niko Tavernise

14 Comments

THE KING’S SPEECH: Movie Review with Production Notes

When I first heard a while back that Colin Firth had picked this as his next project, I thought, “Ugh.” I’m not a big fan of historical drama and the description sounded so humorless and Oscar-baity. Does a story about a former king of England struggling with a stuttering problem seem exciting to anyone besides members of associations of speech pathologists?

Surprise—The King’s Speech (which I saw at the tribute gala at the AFI Fest presented by Audi) turns out to be witty, moving, entertaining and extremely well-acted. Well, that last part is no surprise and I’d be cheesed-off if this doesn’t get some Oscar love, especially for Firth, who turns in yet another pitch-perfect performance after last year’s A Single Man and for whom I’m rooting to take home the gold.

Right before England goes to war with Germany in WWII, the frail King George V (Michael Gambon) is preparing his second son, Albert (Queen Elizabeth II’s father), for the possibility of taking over the throne since he has little faith in his eldest, David, who’s been gallivanting about with a twice-married American woman named Wallis Simpson. Albert has no interest in being king, however, since he has suffered from a stammering problem most of his life and public speaking terrifies him. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), refers him to a speech therapist, Lionel Logue, who has unconventional methods and isn’t intimidated by royalty, as evidenced by his nickname for the prince: Bertie.

Though skeptical at first, because no other therapist has been able to cure him, Bertie nevertheless subjects himself to Lionel’s unique exercises, including a rant consisting mostly of curse words since Lionel notices that the prince is almost stammer-free when he’s impassioned. Meanwhile, King George V dies and David becomes King Edward VIII, only to abdicate so he can marry Simpson. Bertie is thrust onto the throne and takes the name King George VI to honor his father.

One of his first duties is to deliver a radio address to reassure his people, who are disheartened by news of England declaring war. Thinking the speech will be impossible, Bertie almost gives up his lessons until Lionel makes him see that he must believe in himself as much as the public needs to have faith in their new king.

Hollywood wisdom (oxymoron, I know) goes that if an actor plays a character with a handicap, he/she’s a shoe-in for award nominations. But it would cheapen Firth’s work to say that’s the reason for his nod, which is a sure thing at this point. While some actors think the trick is to play up the affliction, Firth goes the opposite way—he underplays it. It’s not his realistic simulation of stuttering that’s most impressive, it’s what he does when he’s not speaking. Every time King George stares down his enemy the microphone, Firth makes it look as if the king has a gun to his head, so great is his anguish. On the outside, he looks every bit the royal with his perfect posture and sharp jackets, but his eyes give him away as a man terrified he’ll let down his people. As he touchingly says at one point, “They look to me to speak for them but I can’t. I can’t speak.”

Rush matches Firth in every scene as the eccentric Lionel. Instead of playing it all Annie Sullivan-ish, Rush’s Lionel is irreverent and witty yet stern when he needs to be. He sneaks up on the king, and us, in showing how effective a therapist Lionel is.

As Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother), Bonham Carter turns in a warm performance that’s refreshingly low-key for her. You can see the real Queen Mum’s gait and posture in how Bonham Carter carries herself. There’s absolutely no trace of the off-the-charts crazy Bellatrix Lestrange here. (Speaking of Harry Potter characters, it’s also fun to see Dumbledore/Gambon and Timothy “Wormtail” Spall, though he mugs so much as Winston Churchill I feared he’d pull a face muscle.) Jennifer Ehle shows up as Lionel’s wife so for fangirls of BBC’s Pride and Prejudice like me, it’s thrilling to see a brief reunion of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy, Firth’s breakout role.

Firth at AFI Fest presented by Audi

The AFI Fest gala for it was attended by Firth (that man can fill out a suit!), Rush, director Tom Hooper and screenwriter David Seidler. The men introduced the film and shared some interesting tidbits:

Seidler was a little stammering boy in England when he heard the real king’s speech back in 1939. His mom pointed out that if the king could overcome his problem, so could Seidler.
After deciding to write a story about his lifelong inspiration, Seidler’s research unearthed incredible materials including the king’s journals. When he sought permission to make the film, however, the Queen Mother asked him not to make it in her lifetime since her memories of that time were still too painful. No one had any idea the queen would live so long.
Some of the funniest lines from the movie were written by King George VI himself because they were taken straight from his journals.
Rush got involved with the project first when the script was dropped off on his doorstep by the sister of a friend of the producer or something (he couldn’t remember). They bypassed his agent, which Rush liked.
Firth was intimidated by playing the king. One of his biggest concerns was that he’d overdo the stammering since he wasn’t sure what the right amount was. He was interested in portraying a man who just did not want the power given to him.

Nerd verdict: A princely King’s Speech

Movie stills: The Weinstein Company/Firth at AFI: Getty Images

12 Comments

Movie Review: BURLESQUE

After I saw Burlesque (opening Nov. 24) last week, a bunch of my friends asked, “So, was it a train wreck?” I think it’s telling that’s their first question but the answer is: It’s not Showgirls but it’s no Chicago, either.

Christina Aguilera makes her acting debut as Ali, a girl from Iowa whose life is so bleak she has nothing to lose by heading to Los Angeles to pursue her dreams of being a singer. But she can’t even land a gig as a backup vocalist (?!) and, after stumbling upon a burlesque club one night, decides she wants to work there. She starts out as a waitress but her talent cannot be denied as she slowly convinces the club owner, Tess (Cher), that she’s worthy of not only performing in the shows but perhaps even starring in them.

As her star rises at the club, two men vie for Ali’s attention—Jack (Cam Gigandet), the cute bartender/aspiring musician/Ali’s engaged roommate, and Marcus (Eric Dane), a rich real estate developer who has the means and connections to help Ali get ahead. Marcus is also putting pressure on Tess, who faces losing the club due to money problems, to sell it to him so he can demolish it and build a high-rise with a view. Ali finally comes up with a clever way to help Tess and get both women what they want.

Now that you’ve read the synopsis, you can just forget about it because it doesn’t matter much. This is a pretty standard Cinderella story and the movie’s highlights are the musical numbers, not what happens in between them. Director Steven Antin stages them with energy and style and the numbers are fun and sexy without being smutty. Ali seems to lose her clothes altogether during one song but her bits are coyly hidden behind giant feathered fans and the microphone.

Aguilera’s acting is neither atrocious nor great; she has a few unconvincing line readings—to be fair, some of the dialogue is super corny—but she’s perky and pretty to look at. The wig she wears for most of the movie is a bit distracting because it’s obviously fake and I’m not sure why she needs it. Doesn’t she have nice real hair? I also find it unnecessary for her to do that overwrought throat-clearing kind of singing and run every note through twenty-seven octaves. There’s no doubt she has an impressive voice; it’s sometimes much more effective when she uses it softly, letting the emotion behind the words do the heavy lifting.

As for Cher, her presence and spunk are intact but it’s disconcerting when her face remains exactly the same whether Tess is defiant or frustrated or wistful. I’ve liked her acting work in the past but all the plastic surgery is now getting in her way. Stanley Tucci is charming as Tess’s gay confidante and the club’s jack of all trades; he has a way of making even throwaway lines funny. But if you get the feeling you’ve seen his performance before, you have, in The Devil Wears Prada. Gigandet is serviceable as the love interest and Dane doesn’t stray far from his Grey’s Anatomy gig as the suave playboy.

Chances are you’ve already decided whether or not you’ll see this movie but in case you’re still undecided, here’s the final breakdown: If you love Cher, Xtina, musicals and Gigandet (he has a nude scene, showing everything except his, ah, instrument), you’ll have a good time. Not so hot for any of the above? You can probably wait for cable.

Nerd verdict: Fans of Cher & Xtina will want to Burlesque

Photos by Steven Vaughan © Screen Gems

19 Comments

Movie Review: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1

Among my favorite stories of all time are the ones about Winnie the Pooh, Christopher Robin and the rest of Pooh’s friends in the 100 Acre Wood. It never fails to make me cry when we get to the end and Christopher Robin tells Pooh he has to leave to go to another place where he won’t be allowed to “do nothing” anymore.

And so I thought of them as I watched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 because Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are definitely leaving behind their 100 Acre Wood—Hogwarts—as they go on the run from Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and his Death Eaters. They’re also required to do much more than nothing to survive, being thrown from one dangerous situation to the next as suddenly as they’re being thrust into adulthood.

*Spoilers Ahead*

An early scene sets the dark tone of the movie as Voldemort meets with Death Eaters to discuss grabbing Harry when he’s moved from the Dursleys’ home. There’s something literally hanging over them that’s awful to behold. Then Harry sets off with all the polyjuiced Harry doppelgangers as decoys but somehow Voldemort knows their plan and the gang is immediately under attack.

The aerial fight is quite spectacularly shot, with Hagrid’s motorbike and sidecar being one of the coolest movie vehicles ever. It has a hyperdrive button! It spits flames! It gets Harry to safety but alas, can’t help prevent the first fatalities of this installment.

And there’s more heartbreak—I challenge you to be unmoved by Dobby—and danger as Harry, Hermione and Ron struggle to stay ahead of the Death Eaters while tracking down and destroying the rest of the Horcruxes. The movie is mostly filmed in bleak, low-contrast tones, with nary a sunny day for the trio to enjoy, whether literally or metaphorically.

But it isn’t without levity, as flashes of humor make their way into some of the most intense scenes. Screenwriter Steve Kloves also created a very sweet moment of Harry and Hermione wordlessly dancing in their tent to a song on their small radio after Ron has abandoned them. Harry is trying to cheer up Hermione, seeing how despondent she is. It’s not in the book but is a lovely addition to the movie, reminding me of the scene in Witness in which Harrison Ford dances with Kelly McGillis to Sam Cooke’s “(What a) Wonderful World” in the barn. Its resonance comes from our knowledge they won’t get to experience lightness again in the near future.

The dancing scene also makes clear something I felt about the books as well: Hermione has wayyy more chemistry with Harry than with Ron. Not that I want H and H to end up together (I don’t; I like how their friendship remains pure) but I never sensed love bloom between Hermione and Ron either in the novels or this movie. Watson has zero chemistry with Grint, despite his making moony eyes at her. During a scene that’s surprisingly, ah, adult for this PG-13 movie, Ron’s greatest fears are presented before him and he sees H and H naked and making out like mad (it’s not real). He’s mortified, of course, but I thought if I had to, I’d rather watch that than Watson canoodling with Grint.

*End spoilers*

I didn’t love the last movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, so I’m glad director David Yates has returned with a more assured hand, something he showed in Order of the Phoenix, his first outing with the series. I’m happy he’ll be on board to take us home with the final installment next July. After this exciting first part, I don’t know how I’ll be able to wait until then.

Nerd verdict: Darkly exciting Hallows

What did you think? Do you want to see the final part in 3D?

4 Comments

Movie Review: THE NEXT THREE DAYS

A movie that’s opening against Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 had better have the muscle and legs to stand up to it. It probably wouldn’t hurt to also have some magic dust thrown in to help its chances at the box office. The Next Three Days (opening Nov. 19) doesn’t have all those ingredients, but it is a smart if overly long crime drama and it has Russell Crowe.

Adapted from the French film Pour Elle (Anything for Her), Days tells the story of John (Crowe) and Lara Brennan (Elizabeth Banks), an idyllic couple with a cute young son and a nice house in the suburbs. One day, the cops burst in and arrest Lara for the murder of her boss, something she maintains she didn’t do despite damning evidence. For the next three years, every legal channel is explored and every appeal denied. John then decides without Lara’s knowledge that the only solution is to break her out.

He consults with an ex-con who’s escaped from prison several times (Liam Neeson), he searches for security weaknesses, and does shady things to raise cash for fake IDs for them to start over afterward. There are dozens of ways the plan can go wrong, making us wonder if the mild-mannered teacher has what it takes to pull off the great escape.

As with writer/director Paul Haggis’s other movies (Crash, In the Valley of Elah), the script is intelligent but almost indulgently so. Haggis has a lot to say and says it well, but then he keeps saying it instead of moving on. It’s interesting to watch John’s thought process as he plans the prison break but the movie starts to drag as Haggis spends time on every little detail of John’s strategy. I get that he needs to proceed carefully and not rush into a suicide mission, but I also didn’t want the planning phase of the movie to last three days in real time. Once the main event does arrive, Days kicks into hyperdrive and becomes a thrilling ride which includes a gasp-inducing stunt between an SUV and a semi truck.

Crowe’s performance is sturdy but isn’t that stating the obvious? When does this man ever do crappy work? He makes a believable transition from Average Joe to a hard man pushed to desperate measures. Banks continues to show she can move effortlessly between comedy and drama. She gives Lara a convincing steeliness as she spends more time in prison, her future looking bleaker every day. And her hair may be drab and her face devoid of makeup but the actress still looks beautiful.

Lots of strong actors make up the supporting cast but they get to do very little. Olivia Wilde shows up as a mom who kinda digs John after meeting him on the playground with their respective kids. Brian Dennehy plays John’s dad but spoke only five times. Neeson has only one scene, though his character helps John get the whole ball rolling. Haggis seems to want to stuff every good thing he can find into his movies when a stricter editing hand might have been the better plan to follow.

Nerd verdict: Days sags in middle but finishes strong

Photos: Phil Caruso

17 Comments

Movie Review: UNSTOPPABLE

I’ve been busy attending the AFI Festival this past week, where I got to see several Oscar-bait movies like The King’s Speech, Rabbit Hole and The Fighter. Quick reactions? Colin Firth, Christian Bale and Melissa Leo will most likely get nominations. Full reviews will come closer to the film’s respective release dates. For now, I’ll discuss Tony Scott’s Unstoppable, opening Friday, November 12.

This seems to be the season of movies based on true stories. The Fighter is about boxer “Irish” Micky Ward while King’s Speech details King George VI’s stuttering problem, 127 Hours is Aron Ralston’s story, Conviction is about Betty Anne Waters, The Social Network looks at Mark Zuckerberg, and Fair Game retells how Valerie Plame Wilson was outed as a CIA agent by the Bush administration. Unstoppable now joins the ranks, being inspired by the 2001 incident of a runaway train that traveled unmanned for 66 miles through Ohio before it was stopped by a lone trainmaster. (Read a detailed account here.)

In the movie, the crewless train is speeding towards Stanton, PA with toxic chemicals on board and no air brakes. Various dangerous attempts are made—and fail—to stop it so it’s up to Frank Barnes, a veteran railroad engineer (Denzel Washington), and Will Colson (Chris Pine), a rookie conductor on his first day at the job, to pull off one last desperate maneuver or die trying. And that’s pretty much the whole plot.

The movie has a few tense moments, solid acting and some good stunts but the loud unrelenting action eventually becomes redundant. Scott’s motivation seems to be, “Let’s see from how many different angles I can show you this train.” Shots of it coming straight at you are stunning at first but after a while I thought, “I get it—it’s a train.” If only Scott had invested as much time in the human characters’ backstories as he did on his camera techniques. The director’s reunion with Washington following last year’s The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 adds to this movie’s sense of, ahem, deja vu. If you’ve seen any of the previous Scott-Washington collaborations (this is the fifth), you won’t find any surprises here.

Nerd verdict: Not a train wreck but does run out of steam

Photo: Robert Zuckerman

8 Comments

Movie Review: MORNING GLORY

Morning Glory (opening Nov. 10) stars Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton; was written by Aline Brosh McKenna, screenwriter of The Devil Wears Prada; and directed by Roger Michell, who helmed Venus and Notting Hill. One of the producers is J.J. Abrams. It’s a complete mystery to me, then, why a movie this full of talent can be so inferior.

McAdams stars as Becky Fuller, the super ambitious producer of a last-place morning talk show who’s determined to keep it from cancellation by hiring respected newsman Mike Pomeroy (Ford) to co-host with former beauty queen Colleen Peck (Keaton). Trouble is, the two can barely stand each other. Pomeroy doesn’t want to be there—the gig is a contractual obligation—while Colleen resents his arrogance. Becky pulls out all the stops for ratings, including putting her hapless weatherman through death-defying stunts so viewers can laugh at his screams. Meanwhile, another producer (Patrick Wilson) is mooning over her but Becky wonders if she can commit to the relationship and her job, especially since the cranky Pomeroy requires around-the-clock maintenance. It’s the veteran newsman, though, who finally teaches her a few lessons about life and love.

One of the most annoying things about this movie is how poor McAdams, an extremely charismatic actress, has to crank Becky’s neurotic, hyper energy up to eleven in every scene. She’s running, running, running everywhere and talks so fast, it’s exhausting to watch her. It doesn’t really make sense why she runs so much. Becky comes across as a type-A personality, someone who’s detail-oriented and organized, at least in her professional life. And yet the harried running implies she’s always late for appointments (including an important job interview), like a slacker who overslept or an assistant who forgot to fetch the coffee. Maybe the thinking was if McAdams just kept moving, no one would notice the plot holes.

The actress should be given credit, though, for still managing to infuse Becky with charm; it’s impossible to bear her ill will when she flashes her warm eyes and disarming smile. If this role had been played by, say, Katherine Heigl, I would’ve chugged Drano to end my misery.

Less successful than McAdams are Keaton and Ford as the bickering anchors, though it’s hardly their fault. Colleen isn’t developed enough as a character for viewers to care much about (though Keaton does look like she was enjoying herself) while Pomeroy seems to deserve his reputation as “the third worst person in the world.” Ford probably wanted a departure from his dramatic, heroic personas when he agreed to play a jerk in a comedy but ironically, he’s much funnier as Han Solo and Indiana Jones. Though I could sympathize with Pomeroy’s reason for disgruntlement and his disdain for “fluffy” segments after a long career in hard news, the character’s meanness sucked joy out of many scenes, and not in an amusing way like Miranda’s bitchiness in Prada. It’s a little meta that Ford seemed to be doing weighty dramatic acting while everyone else was putting on lighter fare.

Morning Glory doesn’t quite work as a romantic comedy, either. Wilson, a Tony-nominated actor, is reduced to little more than beefcake as Becky’s ultra-patient boyfriend. Their scenes feel contrived and we’re not sure why Adam took a liking to Becky in the first place; their initial encounter involves her having an embarrassing fangirl moment when she runs into Pomeroy in an elevator. In fact, McAdams has more chemistry with Ford, though in a strictly platonic way. We root more for Pomeroy and Becky’s relationship to work out because it has a better chance at making her happy in the long run.

Nerd verdict: Morning not so glorious

Photos: Paramount Pictures

7 Comments

Movie Review: DUE DATE

Due Date left me flummoxed, much like how Robert Downey Jr.’s character, Peter, feels towards Zach Galifianakis’s Ethan in the movie. While I didn’t think it was a complete wreck, I did find it chaotic and not very funny, a small problem for a comedy. It’s more mature—if only slightly—than director and co-writer Todd Phillips’s previous endeavor, The Hangover, but that’s not saying much since I thought that movie was a laughter-free showcase of men behaving like morons.

Peter is an architect trying to make it home from a business trip to his pregnant wife (Michelle Monaghan) who’s about to give birth. After a couple of disruptive encounters with Ethan at the airport, the two end up on the no-fly list so the only option is to drive from Atlanta to Los Angeles together. They encounter all sorts of outrageousness along the way, mostly because of Ethan (surprise!), but in the end come to a better understanding of each other.

Wow, I got bored just now writing that synopsis. It sounds tired because it resembles the basic plot of all the road movies that have come before—much better ones. Though Galifianakis seems to be a favorite of Phillips’s, Date‘s one saving grace is undoubtedly Downey. His Peter is our link to sanity as we travel through the Crazytown in which Ethan lives. Without Downey’s grounding presence, I wouldn’t have been able to tolerate Ethan, who is imbecilic, annoying and strange for strange’s sake. Galifianakis is not a bad actor; he handles Ethan’s few quiet moments well. I’ve just never been amused by the actor’s schlubby shtick. The best comedy is rooted in reality, with an ounce of truth viewers can relate to, but Galifianakis’s characters might as well be aliens considering how weird they are. His act is predictable and he’ll be typed as a one-trick pony if he doesn’t re-invent himself soon.

Elsewhere, Monaghan doesn’t have much to do besides talking to Downey on the phone and Jamie Foxx shows up in a small role as Downey’s friend. Perhaps the movie would have been much more enjoyable if Phillips had given these charismatic actors more screen time instead of spending so much of it on Ethan’s antics.

Nerd verdict: Let’s hope there’s no second Date

Photo: Melinda Sue Gordon

7 Comments

Older Posts

Newer Posts