Every now and then, you come across a movie that turns out to be a gem and it feels so good to be able to enjoy such a movie among the overwhelming numbers of mediocre to average movies that are forgotten as soon as they are over. Lars and The Real Girl, directed by Craig Gillespie, is one of those movies that you expect very little off and end up being blown away.
Set in a small Minnesota town, this is the story of Lars (Ryan Gosling), a socially inept but likable young man who chose to live in the barely furnished garage behind the house he and his brother Gus (Paul Schneider) inherited after their father’s death. Having suffered a terribly lonely childhood, Lars keeps to himself as much as he can and has extreme difficulties interacting with people. One day, he announces to Gus and his wife (Emily Mortimer) that he has a girlfriend named Bianca. To their utter shock, they soon realize that Bianca is a life-sized doll Lars bought off the internet. Unsure of what to do, they manage to take Lars and Bianca to the family doctor (Patricia Clarkson) who convinces them to treat Bianca as a real person to help with Lars’ therapy. Hilarity ensues…
Who would have thought a story about a delusional man in love with a plastic doll would be so affecting? Don’t let the strange synopsis or off-beat trailer put you off this movie, this is an outrageously hilarious and flawlessly executed flick with a big focus on kindness, acceptance and compassion. There is a lot of potential for cheap laughs and perverted gags and thankfully, the screenplay never ever ventures into these territories. Sure, it may not be credible that an entire small town would agree to treat Bianca as if she was real but it made for a really touching and funny story with a hopeful twist. Using a doll as a replacement for a real relationship may not be as absurd as one may believe. Think about it, in a relationship we are all projecting internal expectations and hopes onto the other person much like Lars is doing with the doll. Ultimately, this is a study of the impact of kindness, how and why we love, the line between healthy and unhealthy fantasy and what it means to be grown-up.
Canadian actor Ryan Gosling has been scarily impressive on the indie scene with an outstanding Oscar-nominated performance in 2006 Half-Nelson and he has proven to be one of the most talented and low key actors in the industry. Here, he is mesmerizing as the socially awkward Lars and he captures both the darkly funny aspect of his character and the poignant and sad background of Lars. Gosling is truly genuine, believing that Bianca is real and there isn’t a single moment where we question that fact. The supporting cast is equally impressive with terrific performances from Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider and the consistently excellent Patricia Clarkson. It cannot be emphasized enough that the superb cast really kept the film grounded and pitch-perfect.
Elevated by an incredible performance from Ryan Gosling, Lars and The Real Girl is an hilarious and poignant off-beat comedy and one of those little gems that one is so glad to uncover every now and then.
A-
Notes: Rated PG-13 for some sex-related content. 106 minutes
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
A Serious Man, directed by the Coens brothers, is a semi-autobiographical dark comedy that runs the usual dysfunctional family theme with a Jewish twist. The Coens, originally from Minnesota, shot the movie in Bloomington, MN after an extensive search for the perfect location around the Twin Cities.
Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is a Jewish college professor of physics in Minneapolis, MN. His life gradually disintegrates as the movie unfolds. His wife (Sari Lennick) kicks him out of his own house to marry a “serious man”, family friend Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). His socially inept brother is squatting his house, his son secretly smokes marijuana while his daughter might be stealing money from him to get a nose job. As if it wasn’t enough, one of his student blackmails him to have his failing grade changed and defamatory letters are being sent to the school as he is vying for tenure. Facing the deluge of bad luck befalling him, the weak-willed Larry seeks advice from several rabbis.
A Serious Man is a very dark comedy and I absolutely loved the ominous open ending which really reinforced the fatalistic nature of the plot. The movie, albeit not laugh-out-loud funny, is amusing thanks to its collection of eccentric characters and not so random coincidences. It’s also refreshing to see that there is a lot of substance and ambiguity that would favor repeat viewings in an era where Hollywood director feel like they have to spell out everything to the dumb masses. The relatively unknown Michael Stuhlbarg gives a very good performance as Larry but his character is mostly a one-note weak-willed man. Sari Lennick is outstanding as the delectably hateful wife while the rest of the cast acquits itself solidly as well.
One of the main problem of the film is that the main character doesn’t drive the plot but the other way around. All kind of incongruous accidents befall Larry and he does absolutely nothing about his situation except complain to some religious figures. Basically put, Larry is just laying down in the face of adversity and waiting to die. This makes it more difficult to empathize with the main character and the movie is a bit lacking in terms of emotional heart as the rest of the characters are nothing short of unlikable. Did Larry ever notice his wife unhappiness in the past? Her relationship with Abe? His son erratic behavior? His daughter’s sole concern of how her nose looks? It’s extremely unlikely that he woke up one day and suddenly, all hell broke loose. What does that tells us about this man? What kind of man would comply to move to a motel without a fight while his wife immediately replaces him with a family friend? Additionally, the movie is full of Jewish esoteric which makes it a bit heavy-handed for non-believers and I was at times lost as to what the characters were talking about. Finally, the opening sequence seems completely extraneous and all the questions raised by the film are left unanswered.
A fatalistic and ambiguous dark comedy elevated by solid performances from the cast, A Serious Man is saddled by weak, unlikable and stagnant characters who are like little ants waiting to be blown away by the wind.
B-
Notes: Rated R for language, some sexuality/nudity and brief violence. 106 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Joel (Jason Bateman) is the successful owner of a food flavoring plant. He is about to sell the factory to General Mill for a nice chunk of money and all he needs to do is keep the company running smoothly while the transaction goes down. Unfortunately, his occasionally incompetent employees provoke an accident that causes a worker (Clifton Collins Jr.) to lose one of his testicles. Joel has to deal with the fallout of this situation while having to deal with an obnoxious neighbor (David Koechner), a frigid and potentially unfaithful wife (Kristin Wiig) and the urge of starting an affair with the intriguing new temp (Mila Kunis).
Directed by Mike Judge, Extract is an amusing comedy set in a mundane workplace much like Judge’s previous movie Office Space (1999). Instead of seeing the movie from the perspective of the employees, Extract takes the perspective of the guys upstairs. Although the movie has some forgettable moments, it also has enough cleverly hilarious patches to make a solid comedy and satire of the modern workplace. Some of the characters appear as caricatures but the movie always stays firmly grounded, honest and satirical. When her purse is stolen, Mary (Beth Grant) immediately accuses the poor Hector, a hard-working and soft-spoken Mexican even though he has done nothing wrong and she has no proof. That’s what I love about this movie, it doesn’t cater to Hollywood’s tradition of over-the-top idiotic comedy just for the sake of easy laughs. Everything flows rather naturally and the closest we ever come to cheap comedy is the hilarious pot-smoking scene.
The movie is entirely carried by the affable Jason Bateman who is, in my opinion, the best straight comedian in show business and he quietly puts together another great performance which is alone worth watching. Joe makes all kind of bad decisions such as hiring a not-so-bright gigolo to seduce his wife, or being too much of a nice guy with his obnoxious neighbor Nathan but he has very much of a well-meaning everyman quality that makes him so easy to sympathize with and laugh at.
SNL’s wonderful Kristin Wigg is terrific as Joe’s wife and I wish she would have gotten a little more screen time to develop her character more. David Koechner gives a great tidbit performance as the incredibly talkative neighbor while Ben Affleck has some fun playing Joel’s dopey best friend. On a downside, Mila Kunis is pretty to look at, which is pretty much all she did in the movie as her character is uninteresting and flat. It would have helped if her character was more likable (as it is hinted to toward the end) but Kunis doesn’t have the ability to make this apparent.
Despite a rather unfocused script, Extract is an unpretentious and understated feel-good comedy, elevated by a very likable cast. Extract may not be the best comedy ever made but it’s an agreeable and funny ride nonetheless and it would not be surprising if it became another cult classic a few years from now.
B
Notes: Rated R for language, sexual references and some drug use. 92 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Amélie (FR: Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain) is a French romantic comedy directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet that has developed a strong following worldwide since its release (#43 on IMDb Top 250).
Amélie Poulain’s (Audrey Tautou) childhood was spent isolated from other children and even her parents which lead her to develop an unusually imaginative and acute mind. As a young woman, she is now a golden-hearted Parisian waitress dedicating her life to the simple pleasures of life such as dipping her hands into sacks of grain or daydreaming all day long. Her adventure starts when she learns of Princess Diana’s death in the summer of 1997 which causes her to find an old metal box of childhood memorabilia behind a loose tile. She sets up to find the person to whom it belongs, vowing to herself that if she finds him and makes him happy, she will devote her life to improve lives of people around her. Guess what? She finds him and we have a movie! Using her endless imagination, she devises the most intricate and hilarious stratagems to help people around her without their knowledge.
Among numerous quests, she sets out to arrange romantic matches for her coworkers, brings out videos of the outside world for a sickly man confined to his house, and kidnaps her father’s beloved garden gnome to encourage him to travel around the world. One day, she realizes that she can do the same thing for her own happiness. There is strong elements of fate and inevitability in the movie. The way Amélie’s mother dies (a suicidal woman jump off the roof of a church and lands on her lol) should clue you in right at the beginning but Jeunet also wants the viewer to realize that happiness comes from enjoying all the little things in life that most people consider as inconsequential. Kindness, compassion, imagination, playfulness, things that Amélie embodies from head to toe.
The exquisite Audrey Tautou is essentially on every frame and deservedly so. She infuses her character with an innocence, witty intelligence and mischievous charm that is completely irresistible. Her highly expressive big brown eyes and her delightful smile make Amélie so easy to like (or adore) and Tautou gives the performance of a lifetime. She uses those eyes to look into the camera and give the viewer the feeling of being an accomplice of her misdeeds. The supporting cast is excellent with Rufus the highlight as Amélie’s father. He is stunned to receive picture of his garden gnome traveling around the world (sent by Amélie of course) and sets out to travel in pursuit of the gnome. Mathieu Kassovitz is excellent as Nino, Amélie’s equally quirky love interest who collects discarded photo booth pictures.
Let’s face it, the plot of the movie isn’t anything all that special and could have been part of any run-of-the-mill romantic comedy. The truly unique aspect of this movie is Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s unique vision of a witty and deliriously imaginative film. He stylishly creates a joyous fantasy on every level from the larger-than-life characters to the masterful photography. The relentless opening sequence of the movie is simply pure genius and helps tremendously in immersing the viewer in the fantasy world of the film. The city of Paris, where the movie takes place, has a dreamy touch of fantasy and romanticism giving it a surreal feeling of a romantic Wonderland, full of quirky and colorful characters as well as talking animals. These oddly interesting characters never feel like archetypal caricatures. Clocking in slightly over two hours, the movie could have benefited from losing 15 to 20 minutes of run time as it tends to sag down about two third of the way in but in all, this movie is very hard to resist.
An utterly delicious and playful movie full of joie de vivre and optimism, Amélie is a celebration of life and kindness.
A-
Notes: Rated R for sexual content. 122 minutes. Seen in French, subtitled English.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Directed by Richard Curtis, Love Actually is a British romantic comedy that follows the lives of eight different couples during the weeks leading to Christmas in London, England. I’m not going to attempt to give a synopsis but let’s just say the movie is a collection of loosely inter-related vignettes of the eight couples and their respective love story. The movie stars the likes of Liam Neeson, Hugh Grant, Colin Firth, Keira Knightley, and Laura Linney. Yes, just look at the movie poster on the left, so many names they could not all fit on it!
Imagine if you were dropped in a giant tub of corn syrup and then rolled around in a big bowl of powdered sugar, that’s how sugary and syrupy this movie is from the very first instant which begins with no less than a voice over. Unlike some, I am not a cynic and I have nothing against cheesy, corny or sugary but this is OVERKILL. Love Actually makes you believe that everyone has love on their mind 24/7 and although that’s obviously not true, I don’t even fault the movie for this. There is nothing glaringly wrong about this movie, it just goes to reinforce all the stereotypes about romantic comedies: overly sugar-coated and cliched premises and characters, fake and unauthentic dialogue and situations, and shallow completely uni-dimensional characters.Running at 135 minutes, Love Actually would benefit from not having as many characters so we can actually stick with each couple longer, especially given the fact that several of the story lines seem completely extraneous (the two porn actors, the dude who goes to Wisconsin for example). The acting is fairly solid but the actors have little time to establish themselves and their characters are all skin-deep stereotypes. Oh the music, the movie is basically a pop song montage after another, talk about overkill!
A charming but ultimately overly glossy, syrupy and implausible celebration of love. Where are the real movies?
C+
Notes: Rated R for sexuality, nudity and language. 135 minutes
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Directed by Phil Traill, All About Steve is a “romantic comedy” starring Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper. Bullock plays Mary, a stuck up and socially awkward crossword puzzle constructor, who instantly becomes smitten with Steve (Cooper) and immediately jumps him at a blind date. Being a cameraman for a news team, he assumes that he won’t see her again and tells her that he will be out of town and that she should join him, just to get rid of her after a disastrous first date. To his utter dismay, he soon realizes that she is stalking him all over the country.
This movie is exactly what I was referring to when I ranted about the quality of rom-coms going downhill. From the first minute on, the movie accumulates all the ingredients of a recipe for disaster. Meet Mary, she is a completely dysfunctional woman: she is stuck up, still lives with her parents and is socially awkward. No, no… she is not shy and soft-spoken, actually quite the opposite: she simply can’t shut the hell up. In essence, she is your usual rom-com heroine, attractive, intelligent but completely clueless without a man by her side. There is absolutely nothing about the characters or the plot that feels authentic or realistic. The characters are shallow and one-dimensional. Mary is an unlikable obsessive nerd who becomes smitten with Steve at first sight (what a surprise). Steve and Hartman basically treat her like shit and yet, she takes it all in stride because she can’t take a hint or twenty. The film is basically a collection of vignettes as she follows the news team on different news stories. She doesn’t really make any decision, she only sticks around because of her annoyingly obsessive and clueless character. That’s not what I call driving a plot.
The acting is nothing to complain about even though the film is atrocious. One still has to commend Sandra Bullock for submitting herself to this kind of humiliation, doing her best to carry this horrible flick. The biggest problem is that she is either seeking to make those horrible movies or she has no idea how to choose her work. This may well be Bullock’s lowest point of her career and you have to ask yourself how she could win an Oscar in the same year. Bradley Cooper is… Bradley Cooper, he is a decent supporting actor but he hasn’t shown me anything that tells me he will last as a leading man. In the movie, well he doesn’t get to do anything at all but play a hunky dude. Thomas Haden Church manages to extract a few chuckles as the egotistical TV reporter.
Most of the blame should go to the superficial and completely unrealistic screenplay written by Kim Barker. You will see a tornado drop out of nowhere, a group of deaf children falling into a mine shaft after the ground they were running in suddenly opens beneath their feet (ahahah I’m laughing!!!), and a sub-plot about a three-legged baby (so funny right?) The characters are stereotyped simpletons that are nearly impossible to relate to and the story is as implausible as it gets. Simply put, there is nothing romantic about this film and the comedy is either unbearable or almost nonexistent.
A dreadful, absolutely horrendous “romantic comedy” that never feels authentic, and is only remotely funny. Just another unintelligent romantic comedy that have become trademark of the genre. Not an F because of a few laughs toward the end, I might have been delirious by then, I don’t remember.
D-
Notes: Rated PG-13 for sexual content including innuendos. 99 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Whip It, directed by Drew Barrymore, is a comedy starring Ellen Page in a role that sees her expand her acting range outside her all-knowing Juno MacGruff-type character. Bliss Cavendar (Page) is a frustrated 17-yr old girl yearning for a more exciting life (aren’t we all?) than reliving her mother’s dream of being a beauty pageant queen in a small town in the middle of Texas. One day, she sneaks out to a game of roller-derby inside an old warehouse in nearby Austin. Bliss is immediately captivated by the game as well as its interesting characters, a bunch of tattooed, trash-talking tough women. She decides to try for the team and pretends to be 22 because she knows her parents would never approve of her new venture.
Whip It is unpretentious and Barrymore doesn’t try to do too much in her debut as the helm of a film. The movie is simply a feel-good story of following one’s heart and breaking free from whatever cage one might be trapped in. Whip It does push the limits of credibility but the movie is so easy to like that we are willing to ignore a few unanswered questions. The mother-daughter relationship between Bliss and her mother (Marcia Gay Harden) is the heart of the film and a war cry for all teen girls to pursue their dream despite what their parents may say. The two actresses have excellent chemistry and their rapport feels very honest and credible. One may wonder how the diminutive and delicate Ellen Page can go and exchange elbows with women seemingly much bigger than her but Barrymore makes her the little speedster who shies away from contact while her brawny teammates take care of the physical contact.
Ellen Page is adorable and demonstrates she can carry a movie all by herself. The 22-yr old Canadian actress, best known for her roles in Hard Candy (2005) and Juno (2007), finally distances herself away from that sassy, overly witty character she played in those movies and shows that she can also be understated and convey a great deal of inner emotions without having to be a snappy chatterbox.
The supporting cast seems like they had a lot of fun roller-blading and it shows in the movie. Sporting nicknames such as Maggie Mayhem (the fantastic Kristen Wiig), Bloody Holly (Zoe Bell), or Smashley Simpson (Barrymore), they are a raucous, free-spirited band of tough women. The talented Juliette Lewis plays “Iron Maven”, the crazy leader of the best team in the league. Andrew Wilson (yes, the older brother of Owen and Luke) provides most of the comic relief as the oddball coach of the team while Daniel Stern, who plays Bliss’ father, is sympathetic and likable.
A celebration of feminine empowerment, Whip It is a charming albeit unfocused movie held together by Page’s strong performance and Barrymore’s free-spirited directing.
B
Notes: Rated PG-13 for sexual content including crude dialogue, language and drug material. 111 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
This rant has been long in the works. Like many, I have grown completely exasperated with the state of romantic comedies. Aside from last year’s delightful (500) Days of Summer, the genre has been dying a slow rotting death punctuated by the likes of absolutely putrid movies like The Ugly Truth, Four Christmases, Leap Year (WTF Amy Adams!??! You did not need that!), Couples Retreat, Love Happens, or the upcoming When In Rome which should be the epitome of atrocious. All of those movies have it all: glamorous leads, big budgets, nice fancy sets and locations. Everything but the most important aspect of any movie: a good story and multidimensional characters! Worst of all, there is actually people flocking to these horrendous piece of garbage!
What exactly is wrong with these movies? It’s not that they are predictable because it comes with the territory. No, the problem is that those movies almost always have utterly ridiculous and unrealistic premises. Let’s start with uni-dimensional main characters which can usually be defined by one or two adjectives: ambitious, neurotic, bubbly, gloomy, mean-spirited and what not. Those superficial characters also tend to serve the plot instead of driving it. You see all kind of incongruous situation appear out of nowhere to impact the character as if he or she is a victim of external events. Additionally, movie-makers and writers think that they have to go out of their way to make the audience laugh, affixing implausible plot devices, situations and cringe-worthy cliches out of nowhere to extract some cheap laughs or tears from the viewer. A good story doesn’t need to do that, everything is coiled together tightly and everything just fits, resulting in an unforced and natural flow of emotions.
Great characters are multi-layered, complex, and drive the story: They are in control of their life, not victims of fate. They are memorable because of what they do, not what they “appear” to be like. The movie doesn’t need to rely on premises of cheap, raunchy and cringe-worthy comedy to tell the story. No dear reader! Once upon a time, the characters of the movie would tell the story by their actions and most of the laughs would come from authentic dialogues and genuine situations. I’m not talking about babies throwing up on one’s face, jokes about one’s penis size, or having the main character wear vibrating panties (seriously???). No!
A week ago, I read a surprisingly good script called Executive Search, for a romantic drama/comedy that would make for a breath of fresh air in the right hands. This script was actually bought for $2 million by 20th Century Fox in 1999 and has been collecting dust on a shelf ever since. ScriptShadow has an excellent review of the script that I highly recommend for reading. It sums up everything I want to say about Executive Search so I am not going to reinvent the wheel here but this script goes to show you that it’s not a lack of material that is behind the dearth of quality romantic comedies. That script got me wondering why we are not seeing more gritty, honest-to-goodness romantic comedies made instead of the usual pretentious, glitzy and superficial crap regurgitated by Hollywood every few months. ScriptShadow says it best:
That’s why I love this script. It’s that rare screenplay puzzle where every single piece fits. You can feel the care that went into this, particularly after being exposed to a decade of rom-coms that stink of being slapped together over a couple of Saturday afternoons. I liked this so much that I’m putting it in my Top 25. And I’m asking whoever owns it (I think 20th Century Fox?) to pull this one out of the vault and give it another shot. Give us a romantic comedy with depth again. Revive the genre. And don’t use any shitty rewrites either. Use the spec draft. It only needs a couple of technology updates and you’re set. Seriously, why the fuck are you wasting money on all this shit when you have something that’s actually good? I don’t care about the politics of this ridiculous business. Make a great movie and watch the money and accolades role in.
Why is a movie not made off a very promising script whose rights have already been acquired? Reading the script, I knew it had no chance of being made in today’s environment. Even if by luck, it was to get to the pre-production phase, the script would probably lose most of its charm through numerous re-write to “accommodate” the target audience. The problem is somewhere farther down the pipeline and lies with movie studios who are dumbing down America and the world. They favor all the heinous movies we have seen over the years over intelligent and more genuine stories. Fortunately for you dear reader, Anomalous Material was able to secure an exclusive interview with a studio exec over this pressing matter and here is the transcript of our meeting:
Castor: You bought a script called “Executive Search” for $2 million ten years ago, is there any plans to make it into a movie?
Studio Exec: No, the script would not make for a marketable and successful movie at this time. Did you guys see Wedding Planner with Jennifer Lopez? Now that was a fantastic script and a movie that the mass loves!
Red: uh???
Castor: Ok… uh would you be able to elaborate on why it would not make a successful movie. I read the script and think it has a lot of potential and would not require major modifications.
Studio Exec: Well I will tell you what’s wrong with it. Chase Banner, an independent, strong spirited, successful 35-yr old women CEO? That’s laughable and unrealistic, there is no such thing in real life! Between us, we all know that women are completely dependent on men and are worthless all by themselves. Our target audience would have a hard time relating to an older heroine like Chase who is still single at 35. Look at the script, she slowly warms up to an even older man in his forties, that doesn’t make sense. People are supposed to fall in love at first sight, preferably in their teens or early twenties. Now picture this, a wealthy and attractive 19-yr old daddy’s girl who is clumsy and stuck up until she suddenly meets the guy of her dreams and instantly become smitten at the first encounter. Now that’s a character people can relate to!
Castor: I’m not sure I follow your logic. You are joking right?
Studio Exec: Speaking of jokes. The script is not laugh-out-loud funny! Where are the funny situations like the vibrating panties in The Ugly Truth. I personally “recommended” the director to add this scene into the movie. Now that was great comedy and made for fundamentally sound movie making! Don’t you think? People don’t want to think too much about their movies, they just want to see a guy trip over a banana peel and grab a breast, now that’s really funny! Let me jot this one down. Anyone can speak to a friend and naturally get a laugh out of each other, that’s so common in real life. Who wants that in movies?
Castor: (facepalm)
Red: Speaking hypothetically, assuming you would make a movie off Executive Search. What actresses do you think would be able to play the lead character? I would definitely love to see Marion Cottilard in that role!
Studio Exec: Ah great question Red! I can definitely see hot young up-and-coming talent with great acting chops like Megan Fox, Kristen Bell or even Jessica Simpson as Chase Banner. They would bring a credibility and intelligence to the character that would be hard to match by other actresses in the industry.
Castor: But the character is 35-yr old and the CEO of a successful company!
Studio Exec: It doesn’t matter. We can have another draft of the script written so that she is 20-yr old and the horny daughter of the CEO. We can also make her… what’s that word… oh multilayered by having her cry on screen a couple times. Now that’s genius film making! I need to write this down before I forget!
Castor: uh??!? but…
Red: Would you at least consider the wonderful Marion Cottilard for a role such as this? She was mesmerizing in La Vie en Rose among other movies.
Studio Exec: Marion Who? I’ve never heard of her.
Red: (shaking uncontrollably)
Castor: I think we are done here…
Studio Exec: Don’t forget to check out When In Rome! I think it has Oscars written all over it!
I had no intention of ever seeing it but I was lucky to attend an advance screening of Youth in Revolt on Tuesday night and was agreeably surprised by it. The movie, directed by Miguel Arteta, is a teen comedy featuring a faux-clever and snappy dialogue reminiscent of Juno. The precocious Nick Twisp (Michael Cera) is a sex-obsessed 16-yr old virgin who is determined to lose his virginity as soon as possible. While on vacation at a crummy trailer park with his mother (Jean Smart) and her useless boyfriend (Zach Galifianakis), Nick meets the free-spirited Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday) and immediately falls in love with her. Sheeni has a boyfriend but entertains the thought of a summer fling while Nick is desperate to make the relationship a long-lasting one. Nick comes up with a bad-boy alter-ego of himself, Francois Dillinger (Sheeni loves anything French), who will help him insure that Sheeni will forever be his. Absurd situations and hilarity ensues.
Youth in Revolt is relatively funny thanks in large part to the good-natured Michael Cera who displays some quick-tongued comic abilities. From what I gather, the screenplay was adapted from C.D Payne’s three novels “Youth in Revolt: The Journals of Nick Twisp,” and the subsequent “Revolting Youth: The Further Journals of Nick Twisp,” and “Young and Revolting: The Continental Journals of Nick Twisp.” Clocking in at only 90 minutes, I don’t need to read the novels to realize that the movie probably merely skims through the original material. The movie suffers from an uneven tone and pacing likely from trying to compact those three novels into 90 minutes. The dialogue is clever and hilarious but this doesn’t mean it has depth or thoughtfulness behind it. The photography also seems a little too bland and gray to my liking. I realize this is to contrast Nick and Sheeni from their bleak surroundings but heck, if I wanted to see bleak, I would only need to go outside in the Minnesota winter. This is supposed to be a comedy after all!
Look up the definition of “typecast” in the dictionary and you will find a picture of Michael Cera. He is about to turn 22 but he still plays his perennial awkward but likable teen loser very effectively and carries this movie on his back. The only problem is that he does not give us anything new. Him having to play two versions of the same character is only a reminder of his apparent lack of acting range although it is apparent Cera had great fun playing the bad version of himself. Portia Doubleday is sassy but gives a somewhat muted performance in a surprisingly multi-layered role. The solid supporting cast includes plenty of familiar faces such as Ray Liotta (What’s up with the eye liners?), Steve Buscemi and the hilarious Fred Willard among others.
A relatively funny albeit unmemorable comedy. The crop of movies coming out the next two months doesn’t look very appetizing so I would not hesitate to see this one.
B
Notes: R-Rated for sexual content, language and drug use, 90 minutes. Youth in Revolt will be released on Friday, January 8.
Trailer:
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Let’s get it straight right away: Sherlock Holmes, directed by Guy Ritchie, is quite a riot and one of the most entertaining movie of the year. To be honest, I was quite mortified when I learned that Guy Ritchie ended up at the helm of the movie. Ritchie had been misfiring badly since the awesome Snatch all the way back in 2000 after all. Here, he gives us a movie which suffers from a sloppy screenplay and overbearing editing but is action packed, gorgeous looking and quite funny.
Synopsis: Just fresh off capturing and witnessing the hanging of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), an occult serial killer, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) are stunned to hear rumors that he has resurrected back from the dead and resumed his killing spree. To complicate matters, Watson is planning to get married to pretty Mary Marstan (Kelly Reilly) and move out of good old 221b Baker Street to Holmes great despair. Holmes, hilariously resolved not to let that happen, attempts to sabotage his friend’s proposal while hunting down Lord Blackwood. Holmes perks up considerably though when his tempestuous old love interest, the fetching Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) pops back in town for some mysterious business.
Some “purists”, who should probably re-read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, will complain that the movie is not true to Sherlock Holmes’ essence. However, it is made clear in the written stories that he is a martial art expert and an avid boxer (“The Adventure Of The Empty House“). Why would a man who often puts himself in danger not come into some physical confrontation at one point or another and you know… use his fighting skills? Next, it is often described that Holmes tends to come alive when his mind is kept busy with enigmas but he tends toward depression when his mind idles. Watson is his closest friend so it would not be so far fetched for Holmes to disapprove of Watson’s impending marriage for his own well-being. Guy Ritchie only attempts to break the old preconceptions of the characters while staying faithful to the material, which is actually highly open for interpretation. People have this preconceived image of this stern detective in a deerstalker hat, smoking a pipe, and saying “Elementary, my dear Watson” (which he never does in the novels by the way). I’m glad Ritchie gave a modern face-lift to the character because the original work itself is extremely conducive to a successful movie franchise and would bring a new generation of people to get interested in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work.
Many things are already assumed as the movie begins, keeping Ritchie from having to go through a laborious introduction of every single aspects of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work. The best thing going for Sherlock Holmes is the lively homo-erotic relationship between the eccentric Holmes and the proper Watson. The two have been best of friends and been cohabiting for the longest of time. Hence, the upcoming proposal by Watson to Mary Marstan throws a big wrench into that idyllic picture in Holmes’ mind. The casting of the lead roles was simply perfect. It was daring for Guy Ritchie to cast an American actor to play a quintessential British figure and the charismatic Robert Downey Jr doesn’t disappoint: An articulate and quick-witted performer, he is one of the few actors who can play an eccentric genius convincingly. His Sherlock Holmes is unkempt, arrogant, socially awkward and has his vulnerabilities especially his feelings toward Watson and Irene. Holmes is also street-wise, larger than life, and a genius badass altogether. Jude Law gives a strong performance, holding his own opposite Downey. Without Watson, there is no Sherlock Holmes and this describes their relationship in the movie as well. Watson is not pictured here as some inferior acolyte like in most previous interpretations. He is a smart and tough cookie, an Afghan war veteran who knows how to take care of himself. Downey and Law obviously had great fun shooting the movie and it shows. Together, they have excellent chemistry and absolutely nail the hilarious and constant cat fights they have over anything and everything.
The near-total focus on Holmes and Watson hurts the supporting cast who tends to get lost in Ritchie’s frenzied excess. Nevertheless, the always reliable Eddie Marsan is perfectly cast as Scotland Yard’s hapless inspector Lestrade. Lestrade is rigid and does everything by the book which puts him at odds with Holmes unconventional methods. Lord Blackwood presents an intriguing case because of the arcane and supernatural aura of his character which challenges Holmes’ rigorously scientific mind. British actor Mark Strong showcases another solid job as the character in a role that could easily have been one dimensional. Strong has a deep booming voice which makes him ideal for bad guy’s role and it helps him here to turn his thinly written character into a somewhat worthy adversary.
The first victims in action movies, when it comes to cutting scenes, are usually the women and Guy Ritchie does the ladies no favors with terribly underdeveloped roles for the Irene Adler and Mary Marstan characters. Their story line could have been more compelling if they didn’t disappear for large chunks of the movie at a time. In the stories, it is made clear that Holmes has no interest or respect whatsoever for women except for his weird admiration for Irene Adler, the only woman to ever outwit him fair and square (“A Scandal in Bohemia“). She is here reinvented as an American adventuress with a personal agenda who randomly pops in and out of the movie and it is obvious from the trailer that several of her scenes were left on the cutting room floor to keep the movie at a reasonable duration. Her motives are kept mysterious throughout the movie but it is implied she is being used by some powerful man (guess who?) who is obviously the real bad guy. Aside from looking delicious, poor Rachel McAdams is completely wasted in a thankless supporting role but finds the resource to rise above her lady-in-distress part. She blends her femininity with guile, feisty mischief, and some affecting vulnerability but ultimately isn’t given much of anything to do!!! (Yes, I want to smash my screen with the keyboard). This may be a trick to expand on her character organically in the sequel but it’s not a good one at all!!!! In the meanwhile, the lovely Kelly Reilly is just as underused and given little to work with. Thankfully, she manages to give a spirited turn as Watson’s love interest in a nondescript role.
It’s true that Guy Ritchie has always been more about style than substance and this doesn’t change here as the movie starts with an eye-opening action sequence. Ritchie and his writers, however, were patient and smart enough to stay true to the original material. Sherlock Holmes’ fans will notice the numerous nods to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s material such as Holmes’ prized picture of Irene he stole in “A Scandal in Bohemia” or the references to Holmes’ defining traits and past experiences. The action unravels at a frenzied pace and are a nearly unrelenting mix of action and chase sequences. Much like in Snatch, the action scene progressively ramp up and when you think that you can’t possibly go higher, Ritchie tops it off with an even more extravagant sequence. In terms of solving the mysteries, Ritchie also avoids the laborious dialogues that have become so cliche and uses nifty visual flashbacks instead to great effect. At the end of the day though, it is the lively banter between Downey, Law and McAdams that keeps Sherlock Holmes together and the movie tends to slow down dramatically when Holmes is by himself.
The intermittently sagging and overlong screenplay, written by an army of scribes (ok, more like 4), doesn’t take anything seriously which makes it tough for the viewer to believe that the main characters are ever in serious harm’s way. The plot is easily the weakest part of the movie and felt overly intricate and yet too simplistic for a Sherlock Holmes story. You know what? It’s all right if everyone has no idea what’s going on as long as it unravels neatly because it’s the same way with the written stories. Please don’t dumb it down to the level of a 4th grader. On a good note, the screenwriter did a nice job of setting up the next movie by leaving some parts of the plot open-ended. The movie has a feel reminiscent of Batman Begins in that it’s only a stepping stone to establish the main trio, a couple side characters and the world they live in.
Wait a minute…
The weakness in the plot are somewhat compensated thanks to award-worthy production values. The movie was shot in and around London and its Victorian recreation has a brilliant Gothic feel with the city shown as a slimy, filthy, and murky place. The action sequences are well shot and the climactic scene above the Thames River is a highlight. The costumes and period sets are so painstakingly detailed that they merit a mention. Sherlock Holmes’ costumes are rumpled and bohemian looking to emphasize his lack of personal care. On the other hand, Watson’s clothes are neat and very proper to reflect his military background and his discipline. Irene’s dresses and suits are particularly colorful and detailed to highlight a woman ahead of her time, living on the edge of the law and straddling the line between love and distrust in her relationship with Holmes. The sets were carefully built and if you only take your eyes out of the action for a minute, you will notice the incredible details in the background which contribute to create a breathing, living world. On a final note, the musical score by Hans Zimmer is original, ostentatious, strangely memorable and completes the action on the screen well. I would almost call it a work of genius.
Despite significant screenplay flaws, Sherlock Holmes is a fluffy but entertaining action-oriented interpretation of the beloved characters which will please its targeted 15-30 male-based audience. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law form one of the most entertaining action duo in recent memory and give the audience a nice Christmas gift. Has a new franchise begun? Elementary, my dear Watson!
B+
Notes: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material. 128 minutes.
By 
Loading ...
Most Popular