Reviews

The Secret World of Arrietty

2012-02-17T05:01:01Z

Studio Ghibli is the Pixar of Japan. Like Pixar (at least until Cars 2), they never put out a bad movie. Everything they release is full of incredible imagination, wit and heart. From My Neighbor Totoro to Spirited Away to 2008’s wondrous Ponyo, Studio Ghibli produces some of the best animated feature films to ever be released. If you haven’t seen any of their movies, there’s no better time to start then now with this week’s new release, The Secret World of Arrietty. While it doesn’t quite reach the brilliance of those aforementioned films, it lags not far behind. Young or old, The Secret World of Arrietty is magical and is not to be missed.

The film follows a sick young boy named Shawn (voiced by David Henrie) who is spending a week in the house his mother grew up in to rest before his upcoming heart operation. He used to hear stories of miniature people living under that house, but as most people would, he thought of them as nothing more than feel good tales, but his disbelief quickly vanishes when he arrives and spots Arrietty (voiced by Bridgit Mendler) jumping from leaf to leaf in a nearby bush. Arrietty is what you would call a “borrower” and she, along with her father, Pod (voiced by Will Arnett) and mother, Homily (voiced by Amy Poehler), lives off the resources of the human beings living above her. Their existence is secret and they only sneak up when the coast is clear so they can grab what is essential to live. Past incidents have shown them that human beings aren’t to be trusted, but Shawn is different and Arrietty strikes up a friendship with him against her parents’ wishes.

There’s a lot to be said for computer animation. Computers can create images that hand drawings can’t. They can build realistic three dimensional worlds that are as detailed as if you went out with a camera and physically shot something yourself. But when every animated movie uses this format, it becomes stale. That’s one of the many reasons why Studio Ghibli is so great; their movies are hand drawn. Sure, some things are spruced up a bit with three dimensional renderings (most notably in Princess Mononoke), but their animation technique is one not seen much these days. The Secret World of Arrietty continues in the studio’s tradition of hand drawn animation and it’s arguably their most gorgeous one yet. With visuals reminiscent of a watercolor painting, it’s like watching an artist’s still canvas come to life. They’ve crafted a world that feels real, defying your adult brain that should know it’s not, and that’s a testament to the many talented people who have lovingly put this together. It’s a vivid world that will capture your imagination even if the story doesn’t.

Luckily, the chances of that happening are slim to none. It would be easy to brush The Secret World of Arrietty off as a children’s film, but nothing could be further from the truth. Although it’s accessible to children, it also takes a surprising look at mortality and the value of life, no matter how small. As previously mentioned, Shawn is deathly sick. His heart is not strong and he’s facing the harsh truth that, if his operation isn’t successful, he may only have a few days left to live. While certainly not an emotionally weak child, his eventual companionship with Arrietty makes him stronger and gives him optimism that the world will go on after his operation and he’ll still be there to partake in its pleasures.

Conversely, Shawn teaches Arrietty a thing or two. Because of her size and the impending danger that lurks around every corner, including a hungry bird and cat, Arrietty knows little about the outside world. She has never met another borrower, much less an actual full sized person, and she has been taught her entire life that humans are evil and to fear them. It’s all she knows, but when she meets Shawn, the kind and gentle soul he is, she learns that her fear is unwarranted. There may be some bad people out there, but Shawn isn’t one of them and gives her a new perspective on life.

It may seem crazy that a G-rated animated family film could be as deep and contemplative as this, but that’s the strength of Studio Ghibli (and Pixar for that matter). Their movies always have a tremendous amount of heart and brains. The Secret World of Arrietty is bright and colorful, yes, but it’s also awe inspiring and spiritual. It’s a wonderful adventure.

The Secret World of Arrietty receives 4.5/5

Coriolanus

2012-02-17T05:01:01Z

How do you review a movie that is of top notch production values, features a handful of amazing performances, tells a gripping story and gets nearly everything right, but you just can’t recommend? I wish someone would tell me because Coriolanus is one of those movies. There’s so much good, so many things to admire and rave about, but there is one giant problem with the film and it pervades its entirety. Watching the movie is like eating a gourmet meal where the main course is only slightly overcooked. It shouldn’t ruin the whole thing, but it kind of does. I want to do nothing more than tell you to watch Coriolanus, but my dismay at one of the most ill-advised decisions I’ve seen in a film in quite a long time is keeping me from doing it.

The film is based on the William Shakespeare play from the early 17th century and it stars Ralph Fiennes as Roman general Caius Martius Coriolanus who, after years of duty to his country, is banished and decides to take revenge on Rome with a man who used to be his enemy, Volscian army general, Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler). It’s a tried and true story, one that is wrought with tension, suspense, drama and meaning that can be tied to modern times in our treatment of soldiers during and after wartime. There is nothing inherently wrong with this story, but the way it’s adapted is a pity.

What Coriolanus does is take an old play that was written over 400 years ago and modernizes it, setting it in the present day and in the current political and societal climates. However, it retains the old Shakespearean dialogue from the early 1600’s and, plain and simple, it doesn’t work. It’s beyond silly to watch a group of soldiers run through the streets with their AKs shooting each other up followed by those same soldiers speaking archaic rhetoric that doesn’t fit the modern time period. Although this decision does allow for some intense monologues, most notably from the terrific Fiennes, these moments only work by themselves and not when analyzed within the overall picture.

Coriolanus is an odd mash-up of two different time periods that don’t work well together and it drags the entire film down because it’s not just one tiny aspect of its production. It’s a major narrative decision, a persistent problem that runs throughout its entire 2 hour length. If writer John Logan wanted to retain that old language, he should have set the film in the appropriate time period. Nobody these days talks like this, about how “thou art lost” and how someone doesn’t hate you, but instead hates “thee.” It’s an artistic decision that is nothing more than laughable.

It’s such a shame because in his directorial debut, Fiennes crafts a beautifully shot film with a handful of outstanding performances that could have made for a powerful experience. He has a distinct visual eye and shoots each scene appropriately within the context of where the story is at that point and he, perhaps because this is an obvious passion project for him, gives what may be his single greatest performance. He’s a sight to behold in this film and the fact that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar this year is a crying shame.

It’s rare that one bad decision can sour an otherwise solid production, but there you have it. It’s far too hard to blend two different time periods together, your eyes showing you one thing while your ears tell you another, which is most notable in a scene where political pundits argue on the television. Their debate comes off more like gossip between guests at a costume party in 1607 than actual political discourse. Moments like that are indicative of the entire film. Even when you’re watching scenes with breathtaking performances (of which there are many), you can never fully shake how ridiculous the whole affair is. Set this in 17th century Rome and you may be onto something, but as is, Coriolanus is an anomaly: a movie that gets 95% of its content correct and still fails.

Coriolanus receives 2/5

This Means War

2012-02-17T05:01:00Z

Originally set to be released on Valentine’s Day, This Means War was pushed back to the Friday after to avoid competing with the demographically well received Nicholas Sparks-esque romance, The Vow. It’s probably a smart move—I imagine most people would want to see a straight up love film than a silly screwball comedy like this on Valentine’s Day—but if we’re lucky, nobody will want to see it at all and we can stop future movies like this from coming out. This Means War is hopelessly derivative, unfunny and far more boring than an espionage comedy should be.

This film stars Chris Pine and Tom Hardy as FDR and Tuck, two best friends and secret agents at the CIA. FDR is a playboy, seemingly more interested in picking up women than he is in completing his missions, and Tuck is a romantic. He has a kid and an ex-wife, but he rarely sees them and he’s lonely. He wants to fall in love. After seeing an ad on television for an online dating service, Tuck posts his profile and gets a hit from Lauren, played by Reese Witherspoon, who was forced into it by her best friend, Trish, played by Chelsea Handler. After they have a nice meeting, Tuck finds himself smitten, but immediately after, Lauren runs into FDR who woos her as well, unaware that it’s the girl Tuck had just seen. When they find out they’re both after the same girl, the competition is on and they’ll do anything to win, utilizing every spy technique in the book to sabotage each other.

This Means War has a great cast. Aside from the over-the-top and grating Chelsea Handler, the three main stars are all charming, good looking and talented. The poster alone should sell this movie. However, not all talent is created equally. Witherspoon is still as lovely as ever and Chris Pine, who showcased some great comedic talent amidst all the sci-fi shenanigans in 2009’s Star Trek, is as funny as he can possibly be with what he’s given here, but Tom Hardy is miscast. Although he has proven himself as a wonderful dramatic actor in films like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and the criminally overlooked Warrior, he is simply not funny. He isn’t a comedian and doesn’t know how to deliver comedic lines. When working with mediocre material such as this, his inexperience comes through even more noticeably.

Most films can overcome such a flaw, however, if their characters are fun to be around—jokes don’t always need to land when we’re spending time with people we like—but This Means War’s two main characters, the two battling it out for Lauren’s affection, are daft, selfish, shallow and manipulative. They spy on Lauren using advanced government technology (which would lead to all kinds of offensive invasions of privacy if this were anything other than a vacuous romantic comedy caper) and they use it to gain the upper hand. When they learn what Lauren doesn’t like about them, for instance, they change those aspects of themselves to fool her into thinking they’re someone they’re not. Their dishonesty is off-putting and by the end, you’ll hope she picks neither of them and moves on with her life.

You’d think that’s exactly what she’d do too after discovering that her feelings were the center of a crude and infantile competition, but she doesn’t and makes her choice. While I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to spoil who she picks, her decision is boneheaded for a number of reasons and doesn’t feel authentic. It feels like the choice was made only because, through an early contrived set-up, it allowed for a gushy happy ending for all the characters, even the one she toys with, doesn't choose and leaves heartbroken.

The pretentiously named McG, whose best movie is probably the first Charlie’s Angels (which certainly isn’t saying much), directed This Means War and it feels exactly like one of his films: stylish, but overblown; sometimes serious, but obnoxiously childish; fast paced, yet still amazingly boring. He has so many things to improve on, it’s hard to know where to begin in listing them. Even when compared to his previous failures, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle and Terminator Salvation, This Means War fares only slightly better, if only because it’s shorter and a bit breezier, but for every one thing it does okay, it botches five.

This Means War receives 1.5/5

Safe House

2012-02-10T20:54:28Z

It’s always a pleasure to watch Denzel Washington, even when he’s in a movie that fails to live up to his screen presence. If anything, his mediocre films, like Unstoppable, The Taking of Pelham 123 and The Book of Eli, only strengthen that argument. He’s so good in all of them that he makes them better than they deserve to be. Still, one can’t help but long for his glory days of starring in bona fide winners, like Man on Fire and Training Day. His latest, entitled Safe House, isn’t a return to form, but it’s a step in the right direction, easily a notch above his last few efforts, but far below the quality of film he deserves to be in.

Washington plays Tobin Frost, an ex-CIA traitor who has been leaking important government information to a number of various parties for years. He has just been caught and transported to a government safe house in South Africa, which is cared for by an up and coming agent named Matt Weston, played by Ryan Reynolds. However, the safe house is quickly breached by an unknown party and Matt soon finds himself in possession of Tobin and tasked with bringing him in.

Safe House has a pretty simple story, though it tries to cover it with talk of government espionage, encrypted files and the like. It’s little more than an action movie where the characters have to move from Point A to Point B while dodging gunfire and participating in car chases. There aren’t any surprises to be found, including an eventual revelation that someone inside the CIA may be corrupt, but it moves forward at a brisk pace, occasionally stopping for some expositional dialogue, and always manages to entertain.

This lack of story development may be frustrating for some, but in this case, its simplicity is its gain. Many films with government conspiracies and espionage get bogged down in their own confusing narrative, but Safe House doesn’t, instead focusing more on what the characters are doing rather than why they are doing it. With two impressive performances from its leads, including Reynolds who has come a long way since his goofy comedy days, this focus works. Reynolds and Washington manage to keep the audience gripped, even after they’ve lost interest in the overall goal of the film.

Where it suffers is where many action films these days do: its persistent use of shaky cam. When things get hectic in Safe House, so does the camera, which leads to disorientation and the occasional inability to tell what’s going on. Ever since the Bourne movies, this technique has been a go-to for many filmmakers, but it rarely works. Although it may give more of a sense of actually being there, which is a benefit for some movies (most notably “found footage” films like Cloverfield), it prohibits the audience from achieving maximum enjoyment. In Safe House, it’s a hindrance.

With an untested director behind the camera, this ill-advised decision isn’t surprising (though cinematographer Oliver Wood, who also framed the aforementioned Bourne movies, does what he can to make it work). With his insistence on the technique and off-putting lighting filled with dark, dank hues, it’s difficult to say whether Daniel Espinosa has the chops to be a big time filmmaker, but at least he chose the right movie to make his American debut. It’s nothing so special to be out of his talent range, but nothing so dumb that he will be written off. Safe House rests squarely in between. It’s not the smartest movie of the year, nor the most exciting, but given its February release, it’s enough.

Safe House receives 3.5/5

The Vow

2012-02-10T08:11:04Z

The Vow plays just like a Nicholas Sparks book adaptation. Two characters fall in love, but are then torn apart by a terrible event. That idyllic love is shattered and needs to be rebuilt, but there are numerous factors prohibiting that from happening. Even the ending, albeit in a less manipulative way, seems like something a sap like him would dream up. The only thing it’s missing is an actual Nicholas Sparks writing credit. It’s not surprising then that early word of mouth has been good among fans of movies like The Notebook. The stories are identical—a man tries to help the woman he loves reclaim her memory so she will love him again—and it features the same passion that this demographic loves. It’s not quite as good as The Notebook, but it’s better than every other Sparks adaptation (if that means anything at this point). It’s no prize winner, but The Vow is a serviceable romance for the upcoming Valentine’s Day crowd.

Leo (Channing Tatum) is married to Paige (Rachel McAdams). They love each other dearly, but one night, a truck rear ends them and Paige is thrown through the windshield. After waking up from a weeks long coma, Paige doesn’t remember anything in her recent life, including Leo. Her parents (Sam Neill and Jessica Lange) show up to comfort her, hoping to reclaim her love after years of separation for unknown reasons, but Leo insists Paige stay with him. He needs to remind her how much she loves him because he simply can’t live without her.

Yes, it’s true that The Vow is yet another sappy, ridiculous romance movie that occasionally manipulates viewer emotions with contrivances and silly screenplay love talk, but it has its heart in the right place and it doesn’t pound you over the head with prophetic nonsense about the value of love and how it can save a life, ad nauseam. It’s simply about a man who loves his wife unconditionally and will do anything to get her back. It’s a respectable road to take in a cinematic world where love is unrealistically portrayed with impulsive exaggeration, creating a false view of it for females everywhere.

But where The Vow shines is in the chemistry of the two leads, which comes as a surprise given Channing Tatum’s poor track record in romance films (or any other films, for that matter), but he’s good here and creates a sympathetic character. Any man in the audience need only think how awful it would be to be in his shoes to understand his feelings, even if we’ve never personally felt them before. A lot of this is, of course, due to Rachel McAdams who is once again radiant. She’s so lovely and warm that it would seem insane for Leo to not go to the great lengths he does to win her over again. Her amiable screen presence lends credibility to the tale at hand and does more than enough to make up for the film’s flaws, of which there are many.

Despite likable leads and a love story that doesn’t get too gushy, it’s hard not to criticize just how dumb this movie can be. The characters, though played well, aren’t the brightest people in the world and you’ll stare in amazement as they ignore important information and end up in preposterous situations. Take for instance when Paige first wakes up. The doctor is hopeful that she’ll regain her memory, but doing that means getting back into her daily routine. The sooner she gets back to her normal life the better, but Leo doesn’t help her do that. He simply takes her home and finds it to be sufficient. Sure, he explains that the first thing she does in the morning is make coffee and check her emails, but that’s hardly an effort at all on his part. Instead, he heads off to work while she’s stuck in a place she doesn’t remember and feels uncomfortable in.

Once at this point, the screenplay starts to treat Paige like she lost her intelligence rather than just her memory. Despite not remembering anything, including where she is, she ventures outside (without a cell phone), turns a few corners and gets herself lost. It’s a scene that exists solely so she can call her mother to pick her up, beginning a string of events that couldn’t be more manufactured if you tried to make them so. The writers seem to have profound disrespect for the characters they’re writing about, but the performances pull it through.

The Vow doesn't reinvent the romance genre, but it at least tries, which is more than can be said for most other romances these days. I’m sure some guys will bicker and pout to their girlfriends in an attempt to get something in return after being forced to sit through it this Valentine’s Day, probably to decent success, but what the ladies won’t realize is that the guys secretly liked it.

The Vow receives 2.5/5

Chronicle

2012-02-03T05:02:01Z

Chronicle came out of the blue. Trailers weren’t interesting, it starred no one of interest, it was coming from a first time film director and there was little buzz leading up to its release. Then it started getting positive reviews from early screenings. It sat at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes for a while and still holds an impressive score as the reviews flood in. Some are giving it perfect, or near perfect, scores and heralding it as a wholly unique take on the found footage/superhero genres. I wouldn’t go that far—there’s nothing here you haven’t seen before—but it’s nevertheless a polished film with the occasional insight into real world problems, even if they’re never properly explored.

The film begins with Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan), a high school teenager who deals with verbal and physical abuse from both his father at home and his fellow students at school. He lives under harsh conditions, has no friends, aside from his cousin, Matt (Alex Russell), and his mother is dying from a crippling illness. Presumably due to these factors (but left somewhat vague, as most found footage movies tend to do), Andrew decides to film everything in his life. One night, after being forced to go to a party he doesn’t want to go to, he, Matt and popular kid Steve (Michael B. Jordan) find a hole in the ground. In the hole, they find a mysterious artifact that gives them superpowers. These powers are initially weak, but as they use them more and more, they grow and become stronger. They use them innocently enough at first, but things soon spiral out of control and Andrew begins to take matters into his own hands.

Chronicle’s strongest aspect is its portrayal of the three teenagers after they’ve discovered their powers because they do exactly as you would expect. They don’t just acknowledge the fact that they have these incredible abilities; they’re genuinely fascinated by them. They try to outdo each other in the spirit of male competition that all men seem to have wired into their DNA. They run around and use their powers to pull harmless pranks on people, laughing it up as they do. Andrew even uses them to gain some popularity in school by passing it off as magic and performing in front of the student body at the talent show. Popularity is still important to them and having stupid fun is at the top of their priority list. Despite the powers, these are teenagers through and through.

The problem is that no movie, especially one such as this, is going to maintain audience interest without some action and the road to that point is poorly developed. Those early moments set the stage for an angry, depressed teenager that is likely to snap, but that’s all they are: moments. At a short runtime of 84 minutes, Chronicle speeds through all that to get to its next stage and Andrew’s life makes a turnaround. He finally has friends, a sense of camaraderie he has longed for. Students genuinely like him and girls seem to be interested in him for the first time ever. An embarrassing event acts as the tipping point for his eventual evil ways, but the fact remains that you see more good things happen to him than bad. Chronicle acts as a commentary on parental abuse and school bullying, but it’s a meager offering at best and doesn’t go nearly in-depth enough.

If there’s one thing Chronicle does that’s different, it’s in its use of the found footage genre. It still succumbs to the usual pratfalls of the genre where characters needlessly grab the camera before doing anything and every important story point just so happens to be caught on film, but due to the characters’ ability to levitate objects, the main protagonist isn’t always stuck off-screen, heard only as a voice and rarely seen. Instead, he can position the camera to film him as he goes about his business. No cameraman necessary. This also allows for smoother camera movements, doing away with the nauseating shaky cam that constantly plagues these movies. It loses points near the big action climax where things are shown despite there not being a physical camera present, but on the whole, it does what it does and it does it well.

Chronicle is not great. It’s not the next blockbuster and, despite its cleverness, there are too many amateurish flaws to exclaim that new talent has arrived. It thinks it’s a lot deeper than it is and it loses its found footage illusion by the end, but it still works. There is a sense of realism in the personalities and behaviors of the characters, even if it tries to force in anger and conflict through contrivances. Some critics are overemphasizing this film’s quality, but one thing we can agree on is that it’s still worth seeing.

Chronicle receives 3.5/5

The Woman in Black

2012-02-03T05:00:57Z

Sometimes I wonder how I’d react if I saw a ghost. Mind you, I don’t plan on seeing one any time soon. It’s just that characters in movies always seem to approach a paranormal encounter with curiosity. When they hear a strange noise or see a shadowy figure standing in the hall, they walk towards it with intent to decipher whatever mystery is behind the apparition’s presence rather than book it the hell out of there. Their intense interest is always a bit hard to swallow—I’d be willing to bet the majority of people would choose the latter option over the former—but The Woman in Black takes that disbelief to a whole new level. If the interest of characters in other movies is a bit hard to swallow, watching The Woman in Black is like having a giant jawbreaker stuck in your throat. There’s nothing in particular keeping the protagonist of the film in the old, decrepit haunted house, just some paperwork he could easily pack up and take with him, but he stays there nonetheless and even dares to return after leaving. There are some chills to be had in The Woman in Black, enough that I have no problem recommending it, but its contrivances and liberal borrowing from the book of horror movie clichés will undoubtedly keep it from producing too many nightmares.

The film stars Daniel Radcliffe as Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer who is sent off to a remote village in London to settle the legal affairs of a recently deceased woman. However, when he arrives, he learns the legend of the Woman in Black, a vengeful spirit who takes the life of a child whenever she is seen in retaliation for the death of her own son years ago. Odd things begin to happen, turning skeptics into believers, and Arthur decides it’s his duty to stop her from striking again.

Like many ghost movies, The Woman in Black hasn’t an original thought in its head. If you’ve seen a good amount of similar films, you’ve seen this one. There’s fog, creepy looking dolls, ghostly reflections, gothic architecture, eerie paintings, cobwebs, creaky floorboards, random birds flying out of nowhere, ominous footsteps from the upstairs hallway and, of course, jittery townspeople who know more than they are letting on. And that’s only the beginning of a list that would undoubtedly bleed over into multiple pages if someone were to take up the daunting task of tallying them off. However, The Woman in Black uses them well. It combines them to an effective degree and the early moments, where it’s more about quick glimpses and what you don’t see rather than what you do, will make the hair on the back of your neck stand on end.

Those early moments remind very much of classic chillers like 1961’s The Innocents or the George C. Scott film, The Changeling. It’s minimalism at its finest, using very little to achieve a maximum effect. Unfortunately, The Woman in Black is one of those movies that gets progressively worse as it goes on. It gets far too showy for a picture that initially relied so heavily on the unseen. Those quick, far off glimpses eventually turn into detailed, close-up stares and though the design of the apparition is top notch and frightening, you can never shake the feeling that the film lost faith in itself and decided to amp up the spectacle in fear of losing its audience.

A feeling of disappointment lingers on after the credits roll, but those early images will be stuck in your head for days, and that’s precisely why The Woman in Black is worth seeing. It doesn’t live up to its full potential and it certainly doesn’t redefine the genre, but it will make you glance over your shoulder the next time you’re walking down the hallway and, as far as horror movies go at least, that’s an impressive accomplishment.

The Woman in Black receives 3/5

Man on a Ledge

2012-01-27T07:55:30Z

Man on a Ledge is a misleading title. Unlike Snakes on a Plane or Zombie Strippers, whose titles reflected everything they had to offer, Man on a Ledge tries to be more. It starts, sure enough, with a man on a ledge, but its story isn’t confined to that man or that location. Its seemingly succinct title is just a glimpse of what the movie has to offer. Unfortunately, what it offers doesn’t amount to much more than the occasional mild thrill. It’s not the worst movie to ever come out in the dump month of January, but it’s a good example of why this time of year is the worst for moviegoers. Even movies with interesting premises and plenty of potential fail to live up to quality standards.

The film stars as Sam Worthington as Nick Cassidy, the titular man on the ledge. He has just escaped from prison after being convicted of stealing a $40 million diamond from a real estate mogul named David Englander, played by Ed Harris, a crime he claims he didn’t commit. Now he wants to clear his name, but to do so would mean finding the diamond in Englander’s possession and showing to the world that he was set up. So as he talks with a police psychologist, played by Elizabeth Banks, about his intentions, a massive heist run by Nick’s brother and his brother’s girlfriend, played by Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez, begins only a building over.

That’s a great premise if there ever was one. Sure, the trailers ruined it beforehand, but if you walked blindly into Man on a Ledge, it would look like a simple tale of a desperate man contemplating the unthinkable. The story twist would throw you for a loop, but that twist’s inherent intrigue never pans out into anything meaningful. Your interest grows weary as the story loses traction, becoming even more outlandish as each minute ticks by. For instance, after you learn that it took a year to plan the heist, you can’t help but role your eyes over the team’s approach, which involves such ridiculousness as taking a picture of a room with a digital camera and then dangling the picture in front of a security camera, slyly fooling the guard who just so happened to look away as they hung it up. Such a trite course of action surely couldn’t have taken more than a few minutes to figure out, much less a year.

Though small in nature, quibbles like that eventually lead the viewer to a realization. How did the team know the layout of the building anyway, including the vents? How did they know what vault they would be up against once inside? How did they know anything at all? You’re supposed to just go with the fact that they planned for a year and already looked into everything, but I wasn’t buying it. The writing leaves too many questions unanswered and uses plot conveniences to get the characters where they need to be. Nothing is explained and the final twist, which will remain unspoiled, is a real head slapper. This thing needed at least an extra hour at its front to help lead into what you eventually see.

The thing is that if the heist was fun, these questions wouldn’t matter so much and would be easy to look past, but it’s relatively small in scale (at least compared to other heist movies) and the cutesy, flirty dialogue between the two pulling off the heist is beyond annoying. The over-the-top and comically insane heist pulled off in last year’s Tower Heist is more interesting (and believable) than this.

The men behind Nick’s set up are obvious from the get-go, Banks is miscast (in perhaps the worst actress-to-profession casting since Tara Reid as an anthropologist in Uwe Boll’s misfire, Alone in the Dark) and Worthington’s eventual transition into an action hero cross between James Bond and Spider-Man is sudden and insane, but it’s not all bad. Ed Harris is great as the evil mogul, which gives at least a little bit of a reason to care for the good guys to prevail and a couple of late movie stunts are fun to watch, but there comes a time when you want it to get to the point. The problem is that there is no point and its thrills are insubstantial, certainly not good enough to carry a 102 minute movie. It simply doesn’t have enough to sustain itself through what eventually becomes another lame, predictable action flop. Like I said earlier, Man on a Ledge may not be the worst movie to ever come out in January, but that in no way means it’s good.

Man on a Ledge receives 2/5

The Grey

2012-01-27T05:01:02Z

These days, movie marketing seems to always do one of two things. It either shows far too much of the movie, spoiling any type of surprises it would have had in store for the audience, or it makes one out to be something it’s not. The trailers for director Joe Carnahan’s new film, The Grey, does both. The final shot of the entire film is actually in the commercials and it’s a shot that promises action, but The Grey is not an action movie. There are some thrills to be had, but this is a tale of survival, not constant gunfire and massive explosions. It’s going to disappoint some who go in with preconceived notions of what it should be in their head, but I plead you to keep an open mind instead. In a month normally designated for films the studio’s have no faith in, The Grey is a suspenseful, visceral, well made film that is absolutely worth a look.

Liam Neeson plays Ottway, an animal and weapons specialist who has been hired by an oil company to protect their drilling team from the numerous wild animals in Alaska. However, they never make it to the drilling site. On their way to their destination, their plane crashes and only a handful of them survive. The harsh weather conditions are enough to put them down for good, but unfortunately for them, there’s also a pack of wolves hunting them down. The plane has crashed somewhere near their den and the humans are seen as intruders.

The Grey doesn’t feature any aliens, robots, or even a human enemy. It’s merely about a group of men trying to survive the blistering cold and a pack of wolves and it’s as gripping as they come. It’s more suspenseful, interesting and, yes, frightening than most other movies in recent memory. Aside from a few unnecessary jump scenes, the creepiness derives from some excellent camerawork that frames the wolves in low lighting or emerging from a distance. The film also uses sound to a great degree to ratchet up the suspense, like one terrific scene where the guys are surrounded in the woods by the howling wolves, yet none are to be seen.

The delectable camerawork translates all through the movie, including the early plane crash scene where the camera pulls back through the entire cabin as the breath of the passengers waft through the air. Although due credit goes to cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi, the same man who filmed one of last year’s best films, Warrior, director Joe Carnahan deserves the most accolades. Director of 2010’s over-the-top, but still fun The A-Team and 2002’s largely forgotten, but nevertheless fantastic Narc, Carnahan brings a steady direction to what could have otherwise been a hectic, Hollywood-ized tale. He doesn’t ratchet up the pace or bring in any distracting or unnecessary filmic techniques (aside from the aforementioned jump scenes). He crafts a movie that is about people and their will to survive even when the odds weigh heavily against them.

In that sense, it’s something that viewers will be able to connect to, even though they most likely haven’t been in a similar situation. Still, The Grey isn’t perfect. There are some humorous references to other films, the most effective being Werner Herzog’s documentary Grizzly Man, but it’s a wink and a nod that doesn’t need to be there and although it will go over most people’s heads, those who have seen it will be pulled out of the movie. There are also some scenes that work great when isolated, but don’t work when in the context of the larger picture, like an early death scene after the plane crash where Ottway stands over one of the passengers and calms him down as he slowly dies. This moment is written and acted well, but we don’t even know who this guy is. The emotion isn’t there despite the technically effective production of the scene. I’m not too sure about the iffy ending either, given the dreamlike moments leading up to it where Ottway’s wife tells him to not be afraid. It seems to go through a sudden change, behaviorally and thematically, though to go into further detail would be ruining too much.

So there are some notable blunders, but whereas most movies would be dragged down tremendously for such mistakes, The Grey stands strong. Scenes that would be full of meandering dialogue in other movies serve to enhance character personalities and motivations here, so when something does happen to one of them, it hits you hard. The first couple months of every year usually bring some rotten movies to theaters, but if what follows can live up to the unexpected quality of The Grey, we’re in for a pleasant movie going year.

The Grey receives 4/5

The Iron Lady

2012-01-13T05:00:25Z

There isn’t a movie buff out there who would argue that Meryl Streep is a bad actress. There probably isn’t even one who would argue she’s only good. The fact is she’s great. She always has been and she continues to impress year after year. Her yearly nominations in awards shows of all types are all wholly deserved. The same can be said for her performance in The Iron Lady. She is phenomenal and I wouldn’t be surprised to see her clutching an Oscar a couple months from now. That said, the movie is awful. It’s so bad on so many different levels, it boggles the mind. It may very well be the worst movie I’ve ever seen with a truly phenomenal, applaud worthy performance. Meryl Streep is fantastic. Everything else is rubbish.

Streep plays Margaret Thatcher, the first Prime Minister of England. The film, in the loosest and strangest way possible, traces the steps through her life, from a young adult with dreams of political grandeur to the old maid she became. Though a biopic in nature, The Iron Lady tries to be more. Director Phyllida Lloyd, whose only other notable feature is Mamma Mia!, doesn’t trust in the inherent intrigue of such a life and tries to spice up Thatcher’s story with premonitions of her dead husband and child, panicked zooms, slow motion, extremely out-of-place canted camera angles that serve no metaphorical or narrative purpose and pretty much every other over-stylized technique in the book, including an awkward shot where Thatcher floats down the hall while a crowd of people walk behind her. The pizzazz is misplaced. Add some scary music and half of this movie could play as horror.

What The Iron Lady really boils down to is a brilliant performer at the top of her game in front of the camera and a pretentious director behind it. The movie is over-stylized nonsense, a visual mess. But its problems exist in every other facet too, including the terrible editing where it would be too much of a compliment to say it doesn’t have a good flow (that would imply it has a flow at all). There are multiple cuts between past and present, some of which give no indication the switch was even made, and there are multiple moments where a time lapse happens, but the audio stays the same. Take, for instance, an early scene where young Thatcher’s point of view (and thus, position in the room) changes while her father’s words continue uninterrupted. These are rookie mistakes and they pervade the entire film.

To see those mistakes, however, you’d first to have to get past the writing, which is heavy laden with unbelievable and grating dialogue. Thatcher, a powerful figure and intelligent (though controversial) woman, comes off as a joke in the film, always speaking in “speech,” as if she’s addressing a crowd or nation. Even when she goes to the doctor’s office for a check-up, she goes off on an unnecessary rant made all the more laughable given that she’s in a patient’s robe. By the time, you get to the end, you’ve already stopped caring (if you ever did at all), but the movie still manages to amaze by offering a silly, stupid, inane conclusion to the premonition plot thread.

The Iron Lady is dry, bland, slow, boring, pretentious, over-stylized, grating, amateurish and pretty much every other negative adjective in between with one shining star in the middle. As much as she deserves it, Streep’s shoe-in awards nominations will only give the film more exposure and lead more people to watching it, wasting precious hours in their short lives. Perhaps, just this once, we should ignore the power of Streep and let her movie fade into oblivion. We'll be doing the world a favor.

The Iron Lady receives 1/5