Stranger Than Fiction

As sweet as it is thought-provoking, Stranger Than Fiction is the sleeper hit of the year.

There have been plenty of movies like this before, sure. One could even look at Stranger Than Fiction as being a mix of many of the "big question" art-house romantic comedies that have been invariably making their respective marks for the past five years straight. However, what none of these films were able to accomplish, and perhaps this is most a credit to the cast (or, at least the writer Zach Helm), is the ability to take these complexities and package them in such a way that they're not dumbed down, per se, but rather perfectly abbreviated to the point that no filler remains. Will Ferrell hardly overpowers the screen, his notoriously aloof character has been reined back to the point that he is almost dwarfed on occasions by Maggie Gyllenhaal's presence. Ferrell has already shown once that he can be a formidable actor (he single-handedly saved Woody Allen's Melinda & Melinda), and he's leaps and bounds better here. Similarly, Gyllenhaal, Emma Thompson, and Dustin Hoffman all put out their best efforts as they seemingly embrace their respective characters despite not being the main character of the film. With added chemistry amongst the cast to boot, in addition to the stellar writing, the movie immediately clicks. That being said, and what probably works best about the movie, is how, as Crick's sense of self is tested and fate questioned, the film makes note of the same exact questions that are always asked by us in our own daily lives-- are each of our acts pre-destined or do we get to choose our own fate? These questions coincide with the film suturing the audience into the world of Crick. Seeing these ideologies unraveled in front of our very eyes as written through Emma Thompson's character (writer Kay Eiffel), constantly plays with our emotions and fantastically puts those fears of who and what we are in life on display and toys with the very fabric of those insecurities. Will Ferrell might be the first comedian in some time that comfortably pulls off the transition to serious acting (Jim Carrey notwithstanding), and if nothing else, to see him play this role is well worth the price of admission. If you're up for it though, there is so much more than that to enjoy, and that's what makes Stranger Than Fiction all the better.

Overall Rating: 95

"High Five!" Borat shocks it's way to #1!

Borat has nothing to fear this week, his movie is #1 in all the US & A.

Yes, there is justice in the world of Hollywood on occasions. Despite showing on only a fourth as many screens as The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause, Borat still beat out the final installment of the kiddie trilogy by a solid $6.4M margin. Posting a mightily impressive $31,511 per-screen average, it'll be intersting to see how the movie does as it begins to be released in more theatres and also gains the ever-valuable word of mouth publicity. As if that isn't enough, Sascha Baron Cohen's brainchild film has made it's way to #167 on IMDB's top 250 movies already. As Borat would say, "NICE!"

Full weekend results posted below:

Movie             Revenue   Screens  Wks  Average/  Pct     Total
             (Millions)                 Screen    Chg      Mln
1. Borat          $26.4     837      1   $31,511    --      $26.4
2. Santa Clause 3  20.0     3,458    1     5,784    --       20.0
3. Flushed Away    19.1     3,707    1     5,152    --       19.1
4. Saw III         15.5     3,167    2     4,894    -54      60.1
5. The Departed     8.0     2,785    5     2,873    -19     102.3
6. The Prestige     7.8     2,305    3     3,377    -19      39.4
7. Flags/Father     4.5     2,375    3     1,895    -29      26.6
8. Man Of The Year  3.8     2,388    4     1,600    -19      34.0
9. Open Season      3.1     2,458    6     1,261    -47      81.4
10. The Queen       3.0     387      6     7,778     58      10.1

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Easily the funniest movie of the year, and quite possibly the smartest comedy made this decade.

Is it offensive? You bet, but not in the way that everyone is making it out to be. Beyond being the most hilarious recently-made mockumentary that wasn't made by Christopher Guest, Borat is also a biting political satire. What really makes this film so truly brilliant is that Cohen and director Larry Charles managed to create a film that is accessible to all, despite these underlying political messages and general damnation of consequence. Sure, it happens frequently in the world of television, most notoriously within the world of South Park, but to have a non-animated 90-minute film dedicated to following a faux-Kazakhi as he experiences the often-hidden and dark underbelly that we all know exists in America, but would never admit it, is an incredible feat. When the film isn't making political statements, it's just as funny though, and there are many scenes in particular-- including an absolutely ridiculous wrestling scene-- that are so hysterical that I only stopped laughing because my body was too tired to go on laughing, not to mention I couldn't breathe. Lastly, and possibly most importantly, Borat is a film with a heart of gold, and that's truly the selling point of the film. It's easy to pull off a silly and crude comedy that exists for the sheer pleasure of being silly and crude, but when you're sutured into the life of an outsider that is trying to live out his own (albeit strange) version of the "American Dream," you genuinely care about the guy, and see him not as the cookie-cutter caricature that attackers of the film make him out to be, but rather a relatively sympathetic character. While this film surely isn't for everyone, it is bound to offend just about everyone in some way, but if you get beyond the surface of things, you'll understand why this is such a landmark film. Congratulations Sascha Baron Cohen, beyond being the only person in recent memory to single-handedly piss off an entire nation based on a stage character, you've also managed to create a landmark film-- who's been able to say that about a movie based on sketch character recently?

Overall Rating: 100

Idlewild Review

Yes, it's a beautiful movie. Outside of that, there isn't much to go wild about.

Going from the small screen to the big screen is never easy. While there are guys like (most recently) Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry that'd be more than happy to disprove that, they had mastermind Charlie Kaufman to rely on for an outstanding starting point. With Idlewild, everything is up to the collaborative thoughts of Outkast and music video director Bryan Barber. Smell trouble yet? Let me put it this way, you've got a guy that hasn't had to worry about keeping an audiences attention for more than five minutes and two (granted, vastly talented, but still) rappers making a two hour movie. That being said, the movie is all style over substance in all the wrong ways. All of the atypical musical spectacle scenes are pretty much destroyed thanks to either poor editing, bad mixing or, in many cases, both. Even if you didn't like the film Chicago, you can at least admit that it had a flair about it that Idlewild often wishes it had. To make matters worse, the plotlines surrounding Big Boi and Andre 3000 never fully intersect. So what's left is a jumbled mess of a movie that doesn't even come close to living up to what it should be. On the positive side, there are some absolutely beautiful shots in this film, to the point where Barber seemed to spend more time in finding "the perfect shot" rather than developing any form of a storyline or plot. This movie is pretty much the blueprint of what can happen when a good idea goes terribly wrong and there's no one around to right the ship. What we're left with is a maddening mosh-posh of five minute interludes that hardly constitute as a movie. It may not the worst movie of the year, but it's certainly the most disappointing.

Overall Rating: 55

Powered by Qumana

Movie Roundup: Talladega Nights, Little Miss Sunshine, and Snakes on a Plane

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

While certainly not as funny as Anchorman, the combination of Will Ferrell, Gary Cole, and John C. Reilly make for a very fun hour and a half.

Talladega Nights can attribute its success to its supporting cast, a statement that can't be as easily made about Anchorman. While Ferrell's antics (most notably the unfortunately overexposed scene in which his character, Ricky Bobby, thinks he's on fire), can and do mark great highlights in the film, it's the timely comedic acting of Gary Cole (as the father Reese Bobby), John C. Reilly (as friend Cal Noughton Jr.), and others that made the film as enjoyable as it was. Also a plus, all of the racing sequences were shot incredibly well, giving a surprising shot of adrenaline to the film. While the film suffers from a few slow points, it is quickly revived by the last half of the movie, which focuses on a much older Reese working with his son once again to regain his confidence in the only way he knows how (which leads to a few scenes of very humorous situational comedy) and, finally, the interaction between Ferrell and his rival within the film played by Sascha Baron Cohen. Oddly enough, this would have to be the most normal role to date for Cohen (of Da Ali G Show and Borat fame) as frenchman Terry Cheveaux. That's not to say he's tame, as he pushes the French stereotypes about as far as possible, but he's hardly an outlandish character. All in all, the unneveness slightly hurt what was an otherwise fun but semi-forgettable film, which is something that can't be said about any other Will Ferrell movie that I can think of. That being said, it's probably the most interesting a NASCAR-themed mainstream film can get.

Overall Rating: 81

Little Miss Sunshine

In a summer season where even decent films were hard to come by, Little Miss Sunshine finally gives us the great summer indie film we were hoping for.

Perfect from beginning to end, Little Miss Sunshine is the kind of movie that only comes along once every few years. The film features a perfect mix of acting and writing, along with stellar performances from the entire cast, most notably Greg Kinnear, Toni Collette and Steve Carell. While the movie surrounds the story of Olive, played wonderfully by Abigail Breslin, the road movie shows an uncompromising depth in that it allows for each of the family members a great amount of freedom to individually grow and avoid the many pitfalls that most ensemble comedies fall into-- most notably one-dimensionalism. Instead, the backstories for the most part are well-developed and while the family originally comes off as being one more bad seed away from a possible Springer show guest appearance, their heart and own individual warmth that they shared (especially at the end) really speaks volumes about not only the ensemble casting but also the outstanding writing job by Michael Arndt. Top it off with a couple of completely unexpected turns and you've got by far the best film of the summer, and possibly the best of the year so far. Highly recommended.

Overall Rating: 100

Snakes on a Plane

For better or worse, I can pretty much guarantee that-- barring a severe case of amnesia-- Snakes on a Plane is a movie experience I will never forget. While the box office numbers may not show it, Snakes on a Plane will probably go down as one of the most noteworthy cult films in recent history.

I walked in knowing what to expect: snakes on a plane, Samuel L. Jackson yelling ("No I can't stop yelling, 'cause that's how I talk!" As the joke goes) and kicking ass, bad acting, worse dialogue, and, of course, a rowdy crowd. What I didn't expect, however, is just how much I would actually enjoy the movie, not to mention how much of an intense gross-out fest it would be. While I color myself surprised, I'd like to check whatever credibility I may have and say that Snakes on a Plane represents what should be at the core of every blockbuster movie, and once upon a time, was at the core of every blockbuster-- and that is the simple fact that Snakes is a fantastically fun movie. The movie doesn't make any sense at all, and has plot holes the size of many large countries, and of course the acting is bad, but just like Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill series, all of these "mistakes" are so obviously intentional given the large number of self-referential material (how many movies add lines and scenes based on comical blog responses?) that as long as you check your brain at the door, you'll enjoy every waking minute of the movie. That's not to say that it's all fun and games with Snakes on a Plane as it does carry a bit of (no pun intended) bite as well, and does hold its own as a horror/thriller movie in the crudest form. The snakes are definitely cool, and the death scenes are about as painful and/or gross as possible, which adds to the perpetual tension that continues throughout. As icing on the cake, it's obvious that Samuel L. Jackson is loving every single minute of being in this movie, and you have fun being a part of the magic with him. The supporting cast adds enough flare through their ridiculous quirks that the movie is just about as entertaining and ridiculous as it can get on all sides. I can't shake the feeling that this movie is going to be something that's talked about for a very long time, for better or worse. Between its absolutely genius marketing and unforgettable moviegoing experience, Snakes on a Plane, at the very least, will be known as the first great cult classic of this decade.

Overall Rating: 90

Powered by Qumana

The Peter Jackson School of Film: A Look at a Disturbing Trend in Blockbusters

Shortly after the release of King Kong, looking at the trailers for the then upcoming summer blockbusters, I thought to myself "Could this finally mark the year that spectacle returns to film?" It turns out I was right, and it seems as if a film that I thoroughly enjoyed can easily be made out to be the scapegoat of a recent disturbing trend in Hollywood films: The overuse of "suspension of disbelief." Now, I'm well aware that calculated blockbusters have been around forever, chief among them 1997's Titanic, but this trend that I'm speaking of seems to have only risen within the past few years, most notably with Jackson's King Kong. The issue is that on top of the jam-packed action that's all but guaranteed out of our summer blockbusters, we've also been getting a lot of what I refer to as fluff action-- fantastical action sequences so out of place that they verge on becoming tedious. Peter Jackson has long been king of this, and one needs to look no further than the Lord of The Rings trilogy (which felt more like a pentalogy if you go by running time), making films that are as all-encompassing as humanly possible. He brought this same framework to King Kong, a movie whose budget rose from roughly $175 to a mind-boggling $207 million, all because of Jackson's efforts to push the envelope in eye candy. Where did that extra $32 mil go? Your guess is as good as mine, but I have a hunch that a good chunk of that went to the senseless marathon battle between King Kong and a T-Rex. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed that whole bit (as well as the rest of the film), as it answered every young kid's (well boy's anyway) question-- especially if you grew up at the same time as Jurassic Park-- of what dominating beast would win, a brute like Kong or the also feared T-Rex. The downside of action sequences like these is twofold. First, it's becoming standard now that you have to deal with CGI which is a real shame because as advanced as computers today are, there's no replacing reality, and even quality CGI (of which there's been very few-- even George Lucas' last two Star Wars looked incredibly tacky and he's been in the forefront of special effects) will look outdated in five to ten years. The second downside is that in an already overcrowded and competitive atmosphere, there comes a point where pushing the envelope for the sake of wowing the crowd becomes pushing the envelope for the sake of pushing the envelope.

That brings us to the now, where there have been continual flops from seemingly sure-fire blockbusters and I'm beginning to wonder if this could be the reason why. Could it be that everyone is trying to outdo their counterpart so they feel the need to insert the aforementioned "fluff action" to try to grab brownie points from the audience?

Well, today I finally saw Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and that is both the point of as well as the basis of my rant. Like the second Matrix, Dead Man's Chest is 95% action and 5% of (very poor) dialogue. Unlike the second Matrix, Dead Man's Chest feels about one hundredth as creative as the original.

While the cast of characters are still in tact (much to the delight of any Pirates fan), you won't get much chance to enjoy any of them-- if it weren't for Johnny Depp's astounding presence as an actor, he too would've come off like a one bit actor wasting what could've been useful time and space. Keira Knightley's character goes from playful and innocent to full on tease, while Tom Hollander (who plays the "bad guy" Cutler Beckett) is such an unfathomable bore that he appears incapable of creating such conflict. Even Orlando Bloom, a man who I would hardly say is blessed with much acting talent, should be offended as the role of Will has been reduced to either being pouty or indifferent.

The actual action sequences themselves were at times enjoyable but when the running time approached an hour it began to feel tedious. From tedious it went to tiring, and then by the end of the movie, you wondered what the hell they possibly could've left out to need a third film outside of a Keith Richards cameo. They threw everything including the kitchen sink into the action of this film, and it served no purpose whatsoever. While some scenes, such as when the imprisoned men of Captain Jack's crew were forced to swing back and forth from their hanging cage, evoked the clever playfulness that made the first film so enjoyable, there were too many moments where you would expect something as strange as Dr. Phil getting in a food fight with a puffin (with Mills Lane refereeing of course) on the moon just for the sake of doing it (and being the first ones to do it). The whole three-way fight between Jack, Will, and Norrington was pointless-- their supposed motivations were about as deep as a bird bath-- and took far too long (I'm almost certain it was thirty minutes long), ending with Will and Norrington fighting fiercely on a... giant... wheel. Apparently no T-Rexes were available to make Will and Norrington run that much faster, but the point of the matter is that these films' increase in length and increased complaints in weariness stems from this very real problem-- there's simply too much fluff. That's what plagued Pirates 2 (and if it weren't for the fact that this movie were a sequel I can guarantee that it wouldn't have done half as well at the box office), Superman, and will plague every following film until someone realizes that they need to actually insert a story somewhere to keep the audience awake for the whole three hours.

Oh, and by the way, my rating for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is a paltry 52. You should save your money and wait to join Jack Sparrow and company on a Blockbuster night (no pun intended).

Powered by Qumana