Starring: John Cusack, Clark Duke, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry & Crispin Glover
Directed By Steve Pink
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892769/
Imagine a pack of drunken man-boys remaking "Back to the Future" -- only instead of the characters time-traveling to 1955, they end up on the set of an R-rated straight-to-video ski-slope comedy from the '80s.
That sort of sums up the filthy, ramshackle vibe of the coarse-funny "Hot Tub Time Machine." It's about three friends (John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry) getting a do-over on their life-changing teenage mistakes at a ski resort in 1986, thanks to the patently ridiculous titular time-hopping device. Along for the ride are Cusack's mortified 20-year-old nephew (Clark Duke), who can't imagine a world without a Wide Web, and a mysterious mechanic (Chevy Chase) who gives advice so cryptic it's absolutely useless.
It's pretty fantastic to see Cusack return to raunchy comedy -- he hasn't been this fun to watch since his "High Fidelity"/"Grosse Pointe Blank" days -- and Robinson, Duke and especially Corddry make the most of their chance to show off after years of solid supporting work. (Also nice: The snarky '80s references and cameos, including appearances by a surly one-armed Crispin Glover and a gun-toting William "Karate Kid" Zabka.)
The movie's as casual as its lead characters' approach to changing history; it's also lewdly and frequently laugh-out-loud hilarious -- especially if you wasted any of your youth watching a certain brand of '80s comedy schlock on HBO at 2 a.m.
-Mr. What?-
Saturday, March 27, 2010
How To Train Your Dragon ( 2010 )
Starring the voices of: Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson & America Ferrera
Directed By Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892769/
"How to Train Your Dragon" is yet another animated movie taking its cues from the "Star Wars"/"Harry Potter" story frame -- you know, "motherless boy finds his special destiny during a hero's quest full of fantastic creatures and sassy tomboys."
The big difference between "Dragon" and so many other mainstream family movies plotted along those lines is that "Dragon" also happens to be terrific. It's charming, funny, exceedingly well-made and features enough comically thrilling flying-lizard mayhem to cause your child's head to lightly explode.
Set in a Viking village infested with sporadic Scottish accents and livestock-stealing dragons, the movie follows the education of Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) -- a whelp who questions his desire to become a dragonslayer after he secretly befriends a fire-breathing lizard he wounded.
The filmmakers have clearly digested their "Potter" and their "E.T.," but they've digested it rather well. The animation is sharply staged. The voice talent (which includes America Ferrera, Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson) does more than simply regurgitate pop-culture references (and given that this is a Dreamworks joint, that's a minor miracle). The sheer variety of dragon creature designs is a riot, and Hiccup's vaguely Pokémon-looking dragon pal ends up being subtly expressive to the degree that the boy-dragon relationship becomes a little moving. That's a nice surprise, given the preponderance of bug-eyed cartoon Norsemen of varying accents.
Take your kids and start saving up for the DVD, because I suspect they'll be asking you to buy it as soon as they leave the theater.
-Mr. What?-
Directed By Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892769/
"How to Train Your Dragon" is yet another animated movie taking its cues from the "Star Wars"/"Harry Potter" story frame -- you know, "motherless boy finds his special destiny during a hero's quest full of fantastic creatures and sassy tomboys."
The big difference between "Dragon" and so many other mainstream family movies plotted along those lines is that "Dragon" also happens to be terrific. It's charming, funny, exceedingly well-made and features enough comically thrilling flying-lizard mayhem to cause your child's head to lightly explode.
Set in a Viking village infested with sporadic Scottish accents and livestock-stealing dragons, the movie follows the education of Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) -- a whelp who questions his desire to become a dragonslayer after he secretly befriends a fire-breathing lizard he wounded.
The filmmakers have clearly digested their "Potter" and their "E.T.," but they've digested it rather well. The animation is sharply staged. The voice talent (which includes America Ferrera, Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson) does more than simply regurgitate pop-culture references (and given that this is a Dreamworks joint, that's a minor miracle). The sheer variety of dragon creature designs is a riot, and Hiccup's vaguely Pokémon-looking dragon pal ends up being subtly expressive to the degree that the boy-dragon relationship becomes a little moving. That's a nice surprise, given the preponderance of bug-eyed cartoon Norsemen of varying accents.
Take your kids and start saving up for the DVD, because I suspect they'll be asking you to buy it as soon as they leave the theater.
-Mr. What?-
Friday, March 12, 2010
She's Out Of My League ( 2010 )
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Alice Eve, T.J. Miller, Mike Vogel, & Nate Torrence
Directed By Jim Field Smith
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815236/
"She's Out of My League" is a comedy filled with lies.
If this weaksauce ripoff of "There's Something About Mary" had actually managed to be funny, I'd forgive its many falsehoods. But as with the recent rom-coms "I Love You, Beth Cooper" and "Splinterheads," the filmmaker's flop-sweat is the audience's water torture. So let's focus on the deceit.
But first: The movie introduces us to a no-ambition weenie in Pittsburgh named Kirk (played by Jay Baruchel, a good actor who's done vastly better variations on this character in projects inlcuding Judd Apatow's "Undeclared"). Kirk works security at the least-secure airport in movie history. Everyone tells him he's "funny," but the evidence onscreen suggests he's actually "dithering."
Then, for reasons barely explained (a fetish for the unactualized, perhaps?), a blandly hot event planner (Alice Eve) starts asking Kirk on dates.
Cue wacky free-swearing best friends, based on the wacky free-swearing best friends in better movies (including the wacky free-swearing best friend played by Baruchel in "Knocked Up"). Cue endless discussions of what it means when a "five" hooks up with a "ten" that play like the screenwriters have experienced the company of women largely in theory. Cue sexual mortification, endless whining, grand gestures and nutty climactic chases -- all of it generating an almost overpowering audience urge to reach into the screen, smack Kirk about the pate and yell, "For the love of God, you sad-sack, do something worthy of this woman's interest for ten blessed seconds!"
Now: Contained within this scenario are the following untruths, which (again) would be somewhat pardonable if they were explored in a way that made me laugh:
1. Blandly hot women will see "who you really are inside" -- even if you make no effort to exhibit appeal or personality.
2. Blandly hot women exist as projections of your personal ideals and should be placed on pedestals for worship. (Except when you get angry, at which point they should be knocked off.) Also, these women will blithely ignore every offensive, unfunny thing said around them if it doesn't serve the narrative.
3. All relationship problems can be solved with a single big speech or grand gesture by the dweeb -- especially if it's bookended by a crazy chase through, say, an airport.
4. Sex is primarily a vehicle for fear and embarrassment.
5. Your friends will happily shave you anywhere.
6. Audiences don't need to see the actual conversations that build relationships and make them vaguely comprehensible. These conversations are difficult to write, and are best dispensed of in wordless montages.
All that said, T. J. Miller and Krysten Ritter are somewhat amusing in their underwritten roles as Diet Jason Lee and Diet Zooey Deschanel. Otherwise, the movie stinks. Its gormless, assertion-free protagonist offends as a role model for idiot youths, and, even worse, offends as drama. Instead, I'd suggest renting the original "There's Something About Mary" or -- even better -- renting "(500) Days of Summer," which gleefully shoves a few dynamite sticks under the very myths "Out of My League" embraces.
( * * )
Mr. What?
Directed By Jim Field Smith
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815236/
"She's Out of My League" is a comedy filled with lies.
If this weaksauce ripoff of "There's Something About Mary" had actually managed to be funny, I'd forgive its many falsehoods. But as with the recent rom-coms "I Love You, Beth Cooper" and "Splinterheads," the filmmaker's flop-sweat is the audience's water torture. So let's focus on the deceit.
But first: The movie introduces us to a no-ambition weenie in Pittsburgh named Kirk (played by Jay Baruchel, a good actor who's done vastly better variations on this character in projects inlcuding Judd Apatow's "Undeclared"). Kirk works security at the least-secure airport in movie history. Everyone tells him he's "funny," but the evidence onscreen suggests he's actually "dithering."
Then, for reasons barely explained (a fetish for the unactualized, perhaps?), a blandly hot event planner (Alice Eve) starts asking Kirk on dates.
Cue wacky free-swearing best friends, based on the wacky free-swearing best friends in better movies (including the wacky free-swearing best friend played by Baruchel in "Knocked Up"). Cue endless discussions of what it means when a "five" hooks up with a "ten" that play like the screenwriters have experienced the company of women largely in theory. Cue sexual mortification, endless whining, grand gestures and nutty climactic chases -- all of it generating an almost overpowering audience urge to reach into the screen, smack Kirk about the pate and yell, "For the love of God, you sad-sack, do something worthy of this woman's interest for ten blessed seconds!"
Now: Contained within this scenario are the following untruths, which (again) would be somewhat pardonable if they were explored in a way that made me laugh:
1. Blandly hot women will see "who you really are inside" -- even if you make no effort to exhibit appeal or personality.
2. Blandly hot women exist as projections of your personal ideals and should be placed on pedestals for worship. (Except when you get angry, at which point they should be knocked off.) Also, these women will blithely ignore every offensive, unfunny thing said around them if it doesn't serve the narrative.
3. All relationship problems can be solved with a single big speech or grand gesture by the dweeb -- especially if it's bookended by a crazy chase through, say, an airport.
4. Sex is primarily a vehicle for fear and embarrassment.
5. Your friends will happily shave you anywhere.
6. Audiences don't need to see the actual conversations that build relationships and make them vaguely comprehensible. These conversations are difficult to write, and are best dispensed of in wordless montages.
All that said, T. J. Miller and Krysten Ritter are somewhat amusing in their underwritten roles as Diet Jason Lee and Diet Zooey Deschanel. Otherwise, the movie stinks. Its gormless, assertion-free protagonist offends as a role model for idiot youths, and, even worse, offends as drama. Instead, I'd suggest renting the original "There's Something About Mary" or -- even better -- renting "(500) Days of Summer," which gleefully shoves a few dynamite sticks under the very myths "Out of My League" embraces.
( * * )
Mr. What?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Alice In Wonderland 3-D ( 2010 )
Starring: Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Helen Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, & Matt Lucas
Directed By Tim Burton
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/
For all its visual panache, its clamorous storytelling, and its toy chest full of bizarre textures, Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” is a strangely passive film, dutifully ladling out its bits of filmic wizardry and expanding Lewis Carroll’s fantastical mythos in a promising new direction without any palpable sense of glee or verve.
It’s pure Burton, from the cluttered frames and grotesque characters and fiendish music to such thematic elements as an absent daddy and a golden-tressed heroine; clearly there’s a harmony of director and source material. But there’s also a sense that Burton has come to the film reluctantly and kept himself occupied with razzle-dazzle with none of the passion he brought to “Edward Scissorhands” or “Ed Wood” or “Big Fish” or even “Sweeney Todd,” all of which seemed to engage him more deeply.
“Alice” is, effectively, an updating of Carroll’s classic tale of mind-expanding journey into an alternative reality governed by strange laws of logic, grammar, play and peril. Its heroine is not a little girl but a young London woman of 19 years (Mia Wasikowska) being courted by a dim-brained but wealthy young man whose marriage proposal causes her to flee -- all the way, in fact, to the rabbit hole down which she tumbled as a child during adventures she recollects now only in haunting dreams.
Once in Wonderland -- or, more properly, as she learns, Underland -- she finds that the bloody-minded Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has imposed a reign of terror, abetted by a court of sycophants, the vicious Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) and a pair of homicidal beasties: the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky.
An underground cadre of loyalists seek to restore the rule of the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) -- including the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Tweedles, -dee and -dum (Matt Lucas) and the animated White Rabbit, Cheshire Cat and Blue Caterpillar (the voices of Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman, respectively). But they all live in mortal fear of the Red Queen’s forces and wait for Alice to return and slay the Jabberwocky, an event that has been foretold in an oracular manuscript. Alice, though, assures them that she is no killer. Besides, it’s all a dream, isn’t it?
This story, inspired by Carroll and credited to screenwriter Linda Woolverton, recalls Steven Spielberg’s contemplation of a grown-up Peter Pan in “Hook,” which seemed at least partially the director’s effort to reconcile his own youthful enthusiasms with grown-up responsibilities. Here, though, Burton seems absent, unless you count Depp’s goggle-eyed, psychologically skittish Hatter as his stand-in (it wouldn’t be the first time for those two, of course). Indeed, Alice’s story as told here rather closely resembles the story of Wendy Darling in the original “Peter Pan,” another heroine who hoped to avoid maturation by flying into fantasy. In that light, there’s little wonder that Burton, now in his 50s, with children of his own, can’t find a way to make the story ring emotionally.
He does, however, make it into something of a razzle-dazzle movie, at least intermittently. Clearly Burton’s visual aplomb and ease with special effects mesh with Carroll’s imagination. The gardens of Underland, with their horseflies and dragonflies and chatty flowers, the now-he’s-here-now-he’s-not Cheshire Cat, the arrayed armies of playing cards and chess pieces, the neurotic energy of the Hatter’s speech and behavior: it’s all delightful and
exactly what we want from Burton. Among the performers, the director’s stalwarts Depp and Bonham Carter dig into their roles with such infectious relish that not even the hammy Glover can equal them.
(A word on the film’s use of 3-D seems apropos here: There are moments of imaginative use of the technology scattered throughout “Alice,” but you never once have the sensation of complete immersion that “Avatar” provided almost constantly. It feels like it will be years -- decades, even -- before anyone else catches up to what James Cameron and company achieved.)
Absent a sense that Burton is connected at a personal level to the material, much of what’s good about this “Alice” feels like window dressing or ambient clatter. “Alice in Wonderland” is one of the most filmed and staged stories of all time, and you could feel genuine excitement in imagining Tim Burton bringing new life to the material. Strangely, and unfortunately, among those who seem not to have shared that sense of anticipation was Tim Burton himself. He’s present in this film, sure, but he never feels truly invested.
Overall Rating: ( * * * 1/2 )
Mr. What?
Directed By Tim Burton
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/
For all its visual panache, its clamorous storytelling, and its toy chest full of bizarre textures, Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” is a strangely passive film, dutifully ladling out its bits of filmic wizardry and expanding Lewis Carroll’s fantastical mythos in a promising new direction without any palpable sense of glee or verve.
It’s pure Burton, from the cluttered frames and grotesque characters and fiendish music to such thematic elements as an absent daddy and a golden-tressed heroine; clearly there’s a harmony of director and source material. But there’s also a sense that Burton has come to the film reluctantly and kept himself occupied with razzle-dazzle with none of the passion he brought to “Edward Scissorhands” or “Ed Wood” or “Big Fish” or even “Sweeney Todd,” all of which seemed to engage him more deeply.
“Alice” is, effectively, an updating of Carroll’s classic tale of mind-expanding journey into an alternative reality governed by strange laws of logic, grammar, play and peril. Its heroine is not a little girl but a young London woman of 19 years (Mia Wasikowska) being courted by a dim-brained but wealthy young man whose marriage proposal causes her to flee -- all the way, in fact, to the rabbit hole down which she tumbled as a child during adventures she recollects now only in haunting dreams.
Once in Wonderland -- or, more properly, as she learns, Underland -- she finds that the bloody-minded Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has imposed a reign of terror, abetted by a court of sycophants, the vicious Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) and a pair of homicidal beasties: the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky.
An underground cadre of loyalists seek to restore the rule of the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) -- including the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Tweedles, -dee and -dum (Matt Lucas) and the animated White Rabbit, Cheshire Cat and Blue Caterpillar (the voices of Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman, respectively). But they all live in mortal fear of the Red Queen’s forces and wait for Alice to return and slay the Jabberwocky, an event that has been foretold in an oracular manuscript. Alice, though, assures them that she is no killer. Besides, it’s all a dream, isn’t it?
This story, inspired by Carroll and credited to screenwriter Linda Woolverton, recalls Steven Spielberg’s contemplation of a grown-up Peter Pan in “Hook,” which seemed at least partially the director’s effort to reconcile his own youthful enthusiasms with grown-up responsibilities. Here, though, Burton seems absent, unless you count Depp’s goggle-eyed, psychologically skittish Hatter as his stand-in (it wouldn’t be the first time for those two, of course). Indeed, Alice’s story as told here rather closely resembles the story of Wendy Darling in the original “Peter Pan,” another heroine who hoped to avoid maturation by flying into fantasy. In that light, there’s little wonder that Burton, now in his 50s, with children of his own, can’t find a way to make the story ring emotionally.
He does, however, make it into something of a razzle-dazzle movie, at least intermittently. Clearly Burton’s visual aplomb and ease with special effects mesh with Carroll’s imagination. The gardens of Underland, with their horseflies and dragonflies and chatty flowers, the now-he’s-here-now-he’s-not Cheshire Cat, the arrayed armies of playing cards and chess pieces, the neurotic energy of the Hatter’s speech and behavior: it’s all delightful and
exactly what we want from Burton. Among the performers, the director’s stalwarts Depp and Bonham Carter dig into their roles with such infectious relish that not even the hammy Glover can equal them.
(A word on the film’s use of 3-D seems apropos here: There are moments of imaginative use of the technology scattered throughout “Alice,” but you never once have the sensation of complete immersion that “Avatar” provided almost constantly. It feels like it will be years -- decades, even -- before anyone else catches up to what James Cameron and company achieved.)
Absent a sense that Burton is connected at a personal level to the material, much of what’s good about this “Alice” feels like window dressing or ambient clatter. “Alice in Wonderland” is one of the most filmed and staged stories of all time, and you could feel genuine excitement in imagining Tim Burton bringing new life to the material. Strangely, and unfortunately, among those who seem not to have shared that sense of anticipation was Tim Burton himself. He’s present in this film, sure, but he never feels truly invested.
Overall Rating: ( * * * 1/2 )
Mr. What?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Crazies (2010)
Director: Breck Eisner
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455407/
The Crazies is yet another horror remake. Something that has been sub-par, un-interesting and a complete waste of time. I haven't bothered to walk into most of them lately because of that. "So, why'd you go to this one?", you ask. Because this time they were re-making the master George A. Romero. I grew up on Crazies, originally released in 1973 and written and directed by Romero. So, needless to say, I wasn't too pleased when this was announced. But all in all, it wasn't bad. I'll tell ya a bit on that in a minute.
The story goes like so... The government is playing around with some biological warfare. They "accidentally" release it on a small town and see how it works. People start flipping thier shit, acting nutty and taking each other out. That simple... yet still fucking amazing!
George Romero was Executive Producer on this new one, and it isn't half bad. It keeps you entertained, it's got enough gore and shocks. You actually like the characters, which is a big plus. And most importantly, the ending does not crap out to regular Hollywood standards... it could go either way... but I'll let you go and see what I mean for yourself.
Verdict: * * * 1/2
- Xtoph
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455407/
The Crazies is yet another horror remake. Something that has been sub-par, un-interesting and a complete waste of time. I haven't bothered to walk into most of them lately because of that. "So, why'd you go to this one?", you ask. Because this time they were re-making the master George A. Romero. I grew up on Crazies, originally released in 1973 and written and directed by Romero. So, needless to say, I wasn't too pleased when this was announced. But all in all, it wasn't bad. I'll tell ya a bit on that in a minute.
The story goes like so... The government is playing around with some biological warfare. They "accidentally" release it on a small town and see how it works. People start flipping thier shit, acting nutty and taking each other out. That simple... yet still fucking amazing!
George Romero was Executive Producer on this new one, and it isn't half bad. It keeps you entertained, it's got enough gore and shocks. You actually like the characters, which is a big plus. And most importantly, the ending does not crap out to regular Hollywood standards... it could go either way... but I'll let you go and see what I mean for yourself.
Verdict: * * * 1/2
- Xtoph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
