Ice Harvest

I'm a fan of John Cusack's work. In fact when I saw Say Anything for the first time it actually inspired me to become an actor. For whatever reason the guy speaks to me.

Which is why it's so disappointing to see his work lately. He's obviously a talented guy, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of pattern or plan in the way he chooses material. I mean watching movies like America's Sweethearts was painful for me.

Anyone want to watch Serendipity or Must love Dogs?

I mean obviously the guy wants to make some money....... but man this is ridiculous.

What the hell happened to the guy who made The Grifters, Being John Malkovich, or even High Fidelity?

I have to admit I had a tiny bit of hope when I saw the publicity for this film. For one thing it wasn't a freaking pg-13 romantic comedy, and there is a gun on the poster. Which means there might be some action and it's not a boring ass chick flick. Under closer inspection I also noticed the script was written by Robert Benton of Bonnie and Clyde fame, and Richard Russo (Empire Falls, Nobody's Fool). What also perked my interest was that it was directed by Harold Ramis. Which would lead me to believe that there was some comic potential.

Unfortunately that wasn't the case.

The script in it's present form is a wanna be comic noir thriller. John Cusack plays Charlie Arglist, a lawyer for the mob, who with the help of Vic Cavanaugh (Billy Bob Thornton) steals money from his mob boss. We don't see how it goes down, for some reason the action and the con happens before the film starts. Basically the plot of the film is about trying to stay calm, and not make any mistakes, or raise suspicion before they both can get the fuck out of Dodge. Obviously things don't' turn out as planned, and Charlie has to improvise to try and escape before it's too late.

The biggest problem I had with the film is that it's just not funny. I'm not sure who dropped the ball here. I mean Ramis and Cusack have the ability to be really hilarious. But something just doesn't click here. It almost makes me think that the script started as standard film noir, and the powers that be tried to make it into a crime comedy when the script really didn't support it. Like maybe some studio head wanted to make it more like a Tarantino film. We all know that there's not many movies out there like that.....right?

In any case the film is not a total loss, there are a couple of suspenseful sequences. Like a fun bit with a body in a steel trunk on a old wooden dock over an icy lake. But a lot of the movie just drags as we get some back story on Charlie's family life. Kind of standard boring family strife and wishing for a better life stuff.

As far as performances Cusack plays the straight man to Oliver Platt's drunken friend bit. Connie Nielson turns in her usual solid performance, and easy on the eyes appearance. Billy Bob is solid in what little he's in. Randy Quaid shows up in a menacing turn. All serviceable and solid work.

But basically the film just blends into the forgettable movie pile. We all know that's a big ass pile of movies. It's mildly entertaining for an hour and a half, maybe a couple of chuckles, couple of interesting sequences, not too boring, but also nothing impressive yet not especially awful.

Just o.k.

I guess if someone is really in a bind, and there's nothing left on the video wall, and they don't want to check out the classic or foreign film section this is there movie. At least one has the chance to see the glimmer of potential that John Cusack still has to do good interesting work.

It's now available on DVD.

Where the Truth Lies

Atom Egoyan's film was notorious for it's failed attempt to escape an NC-17 rating. Unfortunately more publicity was made for the supposed provocative scenes rather than the movie as a whole.

The story is a fascinating mystery about a young writer (Alison Lohman) who is trying to uncover the mystery of what caused the death of a young lady, who is found dead in the bathtub of a famous 1950's singing comedy duo. Although they were not charged with the murder, the event destroyed the comedy team, and changed both their lives forever.

Among the many things that are enjoyable about the movie is the outstanding performances by Kevin Bacon and Colin Firth. The two actors navigate through the different generations expertly. One moment they are playing world weary performers that are past their prime, and the next scene they are younger, vibrant 1950's style singing comedy performers. They share great chemistry, effortlessly bouncing between the two time periods, as well as, playing well off of each other when they perform their "act". It's fascinating to watch cause they really inhabit the characters so well. Colin Firth plays the straight laced British man, to Bacon's wild child American. In a way it's reminiscent of a Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis type act. But it's also unique in it's own right.

Alison Lohman plays a driven writer who is trying to find out the truth about the young woman's death. I think a lot of people will probably feel it's a one note performance. In all honesty I can see that point, but I wasn't bothered that much by her performance, because I felt her character represented the viewer's innocence, and naive understanding of the two entertainer's world. Throughout the film she is trying to find evidence to support her feeling that these two entertainers are good people at heart. She feels that their performance pieces are a true representation of their personalities. But the more she uncovers, the more she is let down when she sees their true weakness and humanity. She also laces her performance with a strong sexuality that is hard to resist. I've never really found her that attractive in most of her work, but I found her sexuality effective in this role.

The film also features outstanding production design. The costumes, set and look of the film really capture the two time periods expertly. Especially impressive considering that it's an independent film.


As far as the story and mystery plot, it's really kind of standard stuff. There are clues that lead to more clues, that eventually reveals what we think is the truth, only to have a twist at the end. It's lightly reminiscent of L.A. Confidential and other mystery type films. But it has the definite feeling of an Atom Egoyan film. I can't really articulate what THAT feeling is though. The best I can say is that it feels like his movies The Sweet Hereafter, Exotica, and Felicia's Journey. That sort of feeling of being turned on, and at the same time confused, uneasy and uncomfortable. Whatever that feeling is though, it's something I find unique to his movies and I enjoy when I watch them.

Perhaps it's the adult tone of the film that I enjoy so much. Which is probably what made the censors so nervous. The film does have an adult approach to sexuality. The characters played by Bacon, Firth and Lohman all carry an air of adult, aggressive, sexuality in their nature, and in their relationships. But it doesn't feel cheap or juvenile, it feels authentic and mature.

As far as the actual content of nudity and sexuality that earned an NC-17, I found it relatively tame. It's really unfortunate that censors felt so threatened by the material. In reality it's stuff that one would probably see in an episode of Six Feet Under or Deadwood. It's hardly anything that really merits such controversy. Also all the sexuality is done to service the story, and never feels gratuitous or exploitiative. It's one of the reasons why I found the film so refreshing. The film was obviously not aimed toward a mainstream family friendly audience, like so many of today's movies are. The movie tries to challenge the viewer with the mystery plot, and at the same time it also doesn't treat the audience like complete idiots or children by not holding back with the sexuality and complexity of the plot.

It's unfortunate the film was unrated because the box office of the film obviously suffered from the ratings board's decision. But I honestly couldn't see how the story could be told without the scenes, and I admire Egoyan's decision not to bend to the will of the censors. Hopefully the movie can now find an audience on DVD.

Check it out. It's available on Tuesday Feb. 28th.

The Weather Man

There's a lot of reasons why people watch movies. They watch to be inspired, to laugh, to cry, for an emotional release, to see an interesting reflection of life. To witness art.

As I said, lots of reasons.

When I was watching The Weather Man, I went down my own personal list, to figure out what reasons this particular story fulfills in terms of my criteria for watching films.

I couldn't find one.

I guess a story like this might appeal to some people..... actually judging by the box office returns maybe not. The Weather Man is a movie that celebrates how life sucks and then ends. Doesn't that sound fun? Isn't that inspiring? Get in line now or miss the fun.

The story concerns David Spritz (Nicolas Cage) a successful Weather man who's personal life is falling apart. His kids are each in a different kind of social trouble. David is separated from his wife, who he is still in love with, and his father is dying. David plans to try, and pull his life together by excelling in his professional life in an attempt to save his family. But can he do it before it's too late?

The movie actually has a pretty standard, and unoriginal message. It argues that the American Dream of financial success doesn't guarantee a well rounded fulfilling life. In a way it wants to be like a rich man's Death of a Salesman. The problem is screenwriter Steve Conrad waters down the material by using dark comedy to express that point.

It doesn't work.

For one thing the stuff isn't funny. The material isn't nearly witty, or shocking enough to be darkly enjoyable. The situations in the move also don't ring true enough for the viewer to be affected emotionally. So what the viewer is left with, is a unfunny story about an unsympathetic character. Basically two hours of watching a guy we don't give a shit about fail at life.

The acting in the film is solid, yet unremarkable. The direction is competent, yet not interesting. The writing is not especially bad.....or especially good. In short the movie is unimpressive, and forgettable.

It's not surprising that the studio had trouble marketing the film, because it doesn't really appeal to a movie paying audience. I don't think anyone wants to see this story, much less spend money to watch it. The whole time I kept thinking why am I watching a mega star actor in Nicolas Cage whine about the troubles of life. I don't care how much he says life sucks. This is a guy who was born into the Coppola family, was married to Patricia Arquette, and the daughter of Elvis, screwed Paris Hilton and Angelina Jolie makes at least 10 million a movie and has won an Oscar. Shouldn't this guy be playing a character that's won the lotto, or a hero that saves San Francisco from Military terrorists. I don't want to see him whine about how his overweight child gets teased by her classmates, or his naive son gets hit on by a gay drug counselor. I don't want to see any star play that role.

I can watch Jerry Springer for that.

I guess if one is in the mood to watch a movie about a guy whining about how life is hard, they can check out this DVD on Tuesday.

Domino

As I picked up the box of this DVD, and examined the cover, the first thing that came to mind was this has the potential to be "fucking horrible."

I mean really freakin' lame.

I'd heard the buzz about the film, that it wasn't a real autobiography. Supposedly the movie is "inspired by true events"...... which means jack shit. The REAL Domino Harvey was a drug addict, and was an out and proud Lesbian but the film doesn't go into that. I'm not sure why not, that's pretty interesting stuff, but apparently that wasn't the kind of movie they wanted to make.

Bad sign.

Potentially another true story gang raped by Hollywood studio heads.

That's not the only thing that made me hesitant to watch the film. The fact is, I'm not a big fan of Keira Knightly. Excuse me, ACADEMY AWARD nominated actress Keira Knightly. (Sorry but that sounds freaking hilarious to me.) She's sort of cute and all, I thought she played a good extra in Star Wars:The Phantom Menace, she also kicked the ball pretty good in Bend it like Beckham, but she hasn't really done anything that's impressed me in a film yet, she's probably a good actress, I just haven't seen her in a role to showcase her talents. It's also been well documented that she's a shy little girl, and she used a body double for her sex scenes. So there wasn't even the nude scene curiosity factor going for the flick. To make things even worse, I'm not a big fan of the new "music video" type look that Tony Scott has been using in his recent films. I find it distracting and over stylized.

If all that wasn't enough, hanging over the entire film was the sad fact that the REAL Domino Harvey had passed away shortly before the film was released in theatres from a drug overdose...... which possibly looked like suicide.

Nice.

So if one does the math:

Shit + more shit+ even more shit= a fucking ridiculous amount of stupid shit, and a waste of fucking time.

But than I looked at the credits of the film, and I noticed that it's written by Richard Kelly. The same Richard Kelly of Donnie Darko fame, and the upcoming Southland Tales.

That's pretty cool.

I guess I'm also a little curious to see if Mickey Rourke shows up for this film. I'm hoping that Sin City marks the return to form for him, this movie could potentially solidify that position.

So I said what the hell. It can't possibly worse than Two for the Money or Dukes of Hazzard. It couldn't be as juvenile as Crash?

Right?

The story of the film is pretty simple. Domino Harvey daughter of actor Laurence Harvey was a model who became bored with life and became a bounty hunter.

So what the hell went wrong?

This movie is a complete mess. It's all over the place. It's crazy to watch cause half the time the viewer doesn't know what the hell they are watching. There's lots of quick edits, high speed camera tricks, bright colors and blurred images. It's all junk, cause it doesn't serve the story. Just a bunch of images thrown together to try and look cool.

I honestly think Tony Scott wanted to try, and make a companion piece to Terry Gilliam's movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

The problem is it doesn't make sense to the story. It's all style and no substance. It's a train wreck of a film that needs to be seen to be believed. But don't see it. Run away from it as fast as one can. Actually don't look at the DVD box, don't touch it, don't even think about not renting it. In fact, don't rent any movies starting with the letter D.

Just to be safe.

As far as the acting, Keira Knightly is completely miscast. She has no business carrying a gun, smoking a cigarette, acting tough, or mean.At one point she tries to act sexy and do a lap dance.

Big mistake.

Nothing she does in the movie rings true. It's a nice try though, but this is the big leagues, one doesn't get points for effort.

As far, as Mickey Rourke, he shows up.....but when one shows up and the party is over or actually hasn't even started and looks like it'll never start, there's really no point.

Then there's Brian Austin Green, and Ian Ziering. That's right, the guys from Beverly Hills 90210. They play themselves in the film. Actually, they play themselves as crying, wimpy bitches. It's supposed to be funny, but the only thing it does is make one feel bad that they've sunk so low.

Tom Waits shows up too. For no good reason. He's just driving by..... in the desert. He says some silly shit, then gives the main characters a ride.....to Vegas. Weird.

Why Tom WHY?!!!! I love Tom Waits.

Dabney Coleman is in this fucker too, and T.K. Carter from Punky Brewster. Macy Gray um....yeah....needless to say it's a strange cast. I don't know what the makers of this film were thinking making this mess. It's like a crack addict made this movie. The one Dave Chappelle plays on his t.v. Show. It's like the guy in charge was high on acid, and he just started throwing out silly ideas, and the creative team listened, and tried to awkwardly make everything work. It's like the movie U-Turn raped a Fellini film, and this was the aborted fetus left over from that unholy union.

If this all sounds bizarre.....that's because it is. I couldn't believe what I was watching. I hope that I don't make the movie sound interesting because it isn't, it's just bad. Really bad. Fucking Horrible. Embarrassing and ridiculous.

I feel shitty for writing this. I like Tony Scott's movies: Crimson Tide, True Romance, Top Gun.

All fun.

This movie though....wow.....piece of shit.

The writing? Let's just say I'm really worried about Southland Tales. Seriously worried. I don't' know where to begin. So I won't, just take my word for it. This movie sucks...in every way. The characters are absurd, the plot is confusing and ridiculous. The structure....what little of it there is, flies all over the place. It's like a really bad imitation of a movie TRYING to be a Tarantino rip off. It's not even good enough to be called a Q.T. rip off.

I'm done.

This movie doesn't deserve the effort I'm spending to write about it. Seriously. Horrible.

When I watch movies like this, I start to question why I even watch movies. Seriously. I just wasted two hours of my life. I should've stopped watching, but I don't give up on movies. I wait it out to the bitter end. To think I could have spent those last two hours channel surfing, watching porn, or rearranging my sock drawer. What a friggin waste.

Domino arrives on DVD Tuesday. Pray to god to turn you into a bird, so that you can fly far...far...far away from it.

Crash

What's interesting about the audience reaction to this Paul Haggis movie is that it creates such a strong reaction. People either love it..... or hate it. Even amongst critics I've read a lot of top ten lists that have this movie amongst the best. Roger Ebert picked it as the best movie of the year.

The film is nominated for the Academy Award for Best Film of the year.

But I've also found the film to be on some worst film lists. L.A. weekly's Scott Foudas basically calls the movie irresponsible and insulting. He's not alone. Critics from the New York Times, Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times have had negative reviews of the film.

I think that the reasons why the reactions are so strong for the film is because the movie has noble intentions. I think that it tries to illustrate that ALL people are racist in some way, but they are also redeemable, and ultimately can have good intentions. It's easy to look socially conscious for liking the film. While detractors can come off as a Grinch for not liking the film or at worst even a racist.

RIDICULOUS.

My immediate reaction to the film after just watching it is indifference.

In all honesty, I'm having trouble figuring out what all the fuss is about. I estimate by next year the movie will be forgotten, and dismissed as a mediocre film at best. Certainly not worthy of the praise or disdain it seems to be generating.

At it's core the movie has a good heart, it's trying to encourage discussion about race relations. God knows there's nothing wrong with that. What's frustrating about the movie, however, is that it does such a sloppy job at it. There are huge holes of logic and believability. The scenario's in the movie are also juvenile and uninspired. It's obvious why some people are insulted by the film. The movie resorts to the most stereotypical, and simplistic interactions to tell it's story.

The movie's point is to simply provoke the viewer to condemn or praise the behavior of certain characters in the film, so that the viewer can feel superior or sympathetic towards them. Then in the third act, the film pulls the rug from under the viewer by showing them an opposite side of those same character's personality smashing their perceptions of the characters.

It's shamefully manipulative, and to the educated it's insulting.

In terms of originality the movie doesn't contribute anything potent or impressive, it's laughable as a morality tale.

But the sad thing is that there's probably lots of uneducated people out there that will find the film inspiring. It's hard to believe, but it's true, I can see why some viewers can see the film as important. At it's heart the movie is saying that people are complex and shouldn't be judged at first glance.

Not a bad message.

But to the educated, the film seems like it's preaching to the choir, and preaching in a condescending way.

I guess, If I were to defend the film I'd say that in some ways, it's a lot like a workplace training video. At first view, the stuff covered on the video seems like pretty standard, and logical stuff. It may seem insulting to watch. But ultimately, one day, there willl be a moment when one is working on the job, and they will painfully notice, to their own disbelief, that one of their fellow employees should've paid closer attention to the video. There are people out there that don't know how to act. They need to be told that stuff is wrong. What's simple for some to comprehend, is difficult to others. It's sad but true.

I just wish the film was good.

As I mentioned earlier the film has gaping holes of logic. For instance one crucial moment in the film a police officer sexually gropes a character. Everyone knows that no officer in their right mind would ever attempt anything like this. Especially in Los Angeles, with video cameras everywhere, even in the police cars. The last thing any L.A.P.D cop wants to do nowadays is create ANOTHER controversy. Especially involving an obviously upperclass citizen. Unless they want a huge lawsuit and infamy.

At another point in the film a character pulls a gun, and almost shoots someone. The problem is that the character who is almost shot knows exactly who this person is, and doesn't turn him over to the police. Apparently it's okay to let irresponsible gun wielding citizens to almost shoot loved ones, and then let them go for no reason.

At another point an officer inexplicably picks up a strange hitch-hiker than.....AFTER picking him up, and riding with him suddenly becomes suspicious and nervous.

The movie is filled with these types of moments of stupidity, it's horrible, immature, writing.

The fact that the film is set in Los Angeles is also unbelievable, not to mention insulting. From watching the film an outsider would think Los Angeles was a recreation of 1960's Alabama. It's simply not an accurate portrayal of life in Los Angeles. Not to say that there isn't racism in L.A. But the type of racisim shown in this movie is so juvenile and idiotic it resembles at times an out of control Saturday Night Live sketch, or a grade school theatre play written by the school nun. It's really a wasted opportunity, especially with the talent and budget the film has, to me it really doesn't ring true on any level.

But it's obviously striking a chord with people. I don't consider Roger Ebert an idiot, so the film is doing something right. It's not the worse film of the year, just very forgettable.

Like I said it has a good heart. It's pretty slick, and handsome looking. The acting is solid as well. It's not a complete waste of time. I'm sure it can work as harmless entertainment for some people. It's a nice conversation starter over lunch. It's safe and mainstream in a non-threatening way.

But it actually makes me sad, and depressed that some people might consider the film important or groundbreaking. It's a joke that the film is up for all these awards. It makes me think that a lot of people aren't socially educated enough to see how immature, mediocre, and obvious the film's handling of race relations is. Scary.

Not to mention that in terms of good storytelling, I'd say the movie is a complete failure.

If one is looking for an excellent film about race relations I recommend Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. Not only is it more interesting, it's more thought provoking, subtle, and sophisticated in it's approach.

Junebug

Junebug tells the story of a newly married couple, George (Alessandro Nivolo) and Madeline (Embeth Davidtz). George and Madeline travel from Chicago to North Carolina so that Madeline can recruit a local artist to exhibit at her gallery. They use the opportunity to visit George's family, who happens to live only 30 minutes away. What Madeline finds at the house is a complex and repressed family, which is put into turmoil by the visit of herself and her husband.

First off, this is a strange movie.

Not David Lynch strange, more like a low budget student film kind of strange. For instance, the movie inexplicably opens with scenes of men yodeling. I guess one can argue that the scenes are creating an atmosphere around the film. But in reality, from what I can gather, it serves no purpose to the story. It seems that its just a different kind of moment put into the movie to be...well...quirky. Director Phil Morrison also likes to line up silent images and shots of atmosphere throughout his film. For example he'll shoot the image of trees lightly blowing in the wind for 10 seconds, then he'll cut to an empty street for 10 seconds, then a kitchen table set for another 10 seconds. The images aren't something that's breathlessly beautiful to behold like in a Malick or Jarmusch film. They also aren't moments meant to express the passage of time, because the moments happen AFTER a fade-out of the previous scene. They are just moments of silence that gives the viewer an effective uneasy feeling that makes us feel like we are watching a unique film about non-traditional characters. If this sounds pretentious, that's because it is. I'm not sure that it entirely works, but I respect the vision.

Maybe I'm missing the point, maybe there is poignant symbolism being practiced. After some thought I came up with the interpretation that the silent scenes are expressing that the world is calm and still, and humanity creates their own stress and difficulties in life. Could be bullshit though. Maybe it's just scenes of fucking silence.

As far as the characters go, the movie is impressive and unique in it's ability to capture the truthful moments, and dynamics of the different characters. Not much effort is put into revealing a back story, or explaining certain relationships. The movie is simply observing the characters as they live from moment to moment, much like real life.

As a viewer, it's rather uncomfortable to watch, because questions arise about characters that have no intention to be answered. For instance the relationship between the two brothers is strained, but there is no explanation why. One can assume that there's family jealousy, maybe a bit of resentment by Johnny (Benjamin Mckenzie), because his brother is seemingly perfect. But the audience is never fully sure. A lot of the movie plays on assumptions, because there are no answers. It's like the audience is experiencing the family like the character of Madeline.

We observe the quirky family from up close, but we're afraid to ask why they behave a certain way...because it would be rude.

It's very interesting, and yet also frustrating to experience. It's actually something one doesn't really comprehend while watching the film. But only after, when the viewer has time to reflect. I'm sure a typical movie would give us a short monologue by a character to explain why things are the way they are.

But THIS movie doesn't care about explaining things. Just observing.

On one hand it's refreshing to experience a different way of story telling. But it also tends to push the audience away. We can't really sympathize with the characters, because we aren't allowed into their world. We sympathize with their situations, but not the characters themselves. Which is probably the director's intention. But I don't think it benefits the film. It also is a reason why a lot of people misinterpret the film as a comedy. Lots of the moments are painfully awkward, but because the audience is at an emotional distance from the characters, the audience might feel it's darkly comedic or morbidly fun.

But in reality it's not really funny.

I think the moments are painfully truthful and awkward, if anything it's funny because we recognize the behavior being displayed in our own family lives. It's really interesting to consider. I'm sure the viewer will come away thinking that the family being portrayed in the film is strange and quirky. But the reality is, more than most films, these characters are actually very normal. When people let their guards down in life, people tend to be petty, childish, resentful, and....well....strange. I think it's a big triumph of the film to expose those ideas without being dramatic or stereotypical.

That's not to say the movie is completely satisfying. I think the movie is more effective after one has time to absorb the film. It doesn't really work as an enjoyable two hours of entertainment. Since the movie is not necessarily important, it's a little pretentious to have to consider the film hours afterwards.

Lots of the attention the movie is garnering is for the performance of Amy Adams. It's a fun character, actually quite similar to the character she played in the movie Catch me if you can. It's a little surprising that she's nominated for the Academy Award, but not totally absurd. She does do a good job. If anything I came away impressed with Benjamin McKenzie's work. He rarely speaks in the film, lots of his work is internal and subtle, not something one expects from an actor from the television show The O.C.

Overall, I found the film interesting and unique. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure it works as a piece of entertainment, but if one is looking for a challenging and thought provoking piece.....about a simple family, then this is the movie to watch.

It's now available on DVD.

Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Even the biggest cynic in the world will have trouble not enjoying Wallace & Gromit's latest adventure. I'm sure the use of claymation will bring back childhood memories of Gumby and Davey & Goliath. But unlike those two works, this movie is very appealing for adults, as well as children.

This latest adventure finds the duo running a humane Anti-Pest company. The company is protecting the town from mischievous rabbits, as the towns-folk prepare for the annual giant vegetable contest. Troubles arise when the dangerous Were-Rabbit is unleashed on the town's gardens. It's up to Wallace & Gromit, with the help of Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham Carter) to uncover the mystery and capture the mysterious Were-Rabbit before it destroys all the crops and before the evil Victor Quartermaine can use this opportunity to hunt down, and kill not only the Were-Rabbit but all creatures that stand in his way.

First off, it's hard not to marvel at the wonderful visual work being presented here. It's simply stunning to watch. The detail, and look of the film is amazing. The movie has been nominated for the Academy Award for best animated feature, and the film is well deserving of it. Considering the movie took 5 years to make, at about 3 seconds of footage per day, it's the least the academy could do.

As far as the story of the film, I found it funny, and entertaining. The story is obviously not the most sophisticated stuff in the world, for me the movie seemed to work best in short bursts, with scenes of comedic bits, alternating with action pieces. For less patient people I can see how the story can drag for them, but overall I found this story much more fun, and definitely more effective than the movie Chicken Run which was made by the same creative team.

But there are some genuine good laughs in the film. I was surprised how much I laughed. It's also a really cute film. I mean that in a good way. I'm sure that a lot of film-makers wouldn't like that adjective attached to their film. But it's really an appropriate word to describe this film. It has little bunnies running around, the towns-folk are really fun and affable, the silent Gromit is adorable, the Were-Rabbit is big and furry. Even the evil character of Victor Quartermaine is fun to watch in a non-threatening way. I found myself smiling through the whole movie.

In short it's a fun, cute, enjoyable film, and definitely worth checking out.

The movie is now available on DVD.

Hot Clicks on SheNeedsIt.com!!!

     

Waiting...

Don't fuck with the people who handle your food.

Rob McKittrick drives that point home several times in his writing and directorial debut, to sickening effect. The movie is obviously a tribute to Kevin Smith's Clerks. The material is a direct rip of it's structure. It has witty dialogue, with trendy, and movie related references, crude humor and it all takes place in a workplace environment. Unfortunately it doesn't elevate enough to be special like Clerks was. In the end the movie is just another forgettable low brow comedy, with a couple of cheap laughs.

The thing is I doubt the film had any higher aspirations than just being a silly, forgettable comedy, which means it's probably a success for Rob McKittrick.

Waiting is about the workers in a restaurant called Shenanigans which is a type of T.G.I.F Fridays. Throughout the course of a work day, Dean (Justin Long) contemplates his future, Monty (Ryan Reynolds) trains the new kid, and the Cooks of the restaurant (played by Luis Guzman and Dane Cook) harass the co-workers, drop and spit on the food they prepare, and play a game where the object is to get others to look at their penis and ball sack.

The first thing people will notice when watching the movie is that it's obviously low budget. The production value feels cheap, the cinematography is weak, and the direction is mediocre to poor. The movie survives being barely watchable by the affable nature of it's comic cast. For a low budget film, it's a little bit surprising to see Luis Guzman, Ryan Reynolds, Chi Mcbride and Anna Farris. In all honesty, I can't imagine what drew this caliber of talent to a project like this. Not that this talent is an A-List crowd, but the writing really isn't that impressive, actually it's kind of juvenile. I can only speculate that they were all either paid REALLY well.... or that they were good friends with the director.

Being a server in my past, I found some of the restaurant references kind of funny, also the relationships with the co-workers and customers were amusing. But the fact is, I'm easy to please when toilet humor is involved, so I was able to find a little comedy in the film, but I'm sure a lot of people will not be so easily amused.

The movie really is just about watching some actors having fun, while making money. It's barely a movie. I almost feel guilty for ripping the film, because it's obvious that this is McKittrick's first film, and he is just starting out in the business. I'm sure it was just an accomplishment getting this talent assembled.

Which makes me question why I'm even reviewing this film.

It's obvious that McKittrick needs to develop his writing more though, if he wants to have a future in the business. He does have some potential for witty, amusing, dialogue. The script is not totally incompetent, but the movie just didn't feel polished or ready, it feels almost like a first draft. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if half the film was improvised. I'd be slightly curious to hear the back story of how, and why this film was made, but I'm really not interested enough to do the research.

If one is interested..... Waiting is available on DVD on Tuesday.

Two for the Money

Paging Michael Mann.....Mr. Mann, Mr. Pacino needs your assistance.

Wow.....where do I begin?

I guess I have to begin by saying that Al Pacino is one of the most beloved actors of all time, certainly one of my all time favorites. His resume includes some of the most memorable performances in cinematic history.

Brother....we're a long way from that here.

In all honesty, I don't think he even cares anymore, and seriously I don't think he should. At his age, he shouldn't be putting his body through a draining, stressful, physically and psychologically demanding movie shoot. He would probably be the first to admit that the days of Dog Day Afternoon are WELL behind him. I think that at this point in his career he's content with just having fun, making obscene money, and doing mediocre work with no effort.

The sad part is that I don't think the people working with him, feel the same way.

I think all the actors, and creative team TRY to bring their A+ game to the projects he's working in because the guy is still Al FUCKING Pacino. What results is even more unfortunate because even when mediocre talent tries to do excellent work, the results are still mediocre..... or worse.

The sad fact is the only reason why this movie was made in the first place is because Al Pacino was attached. It really has no business seeing the light of day.

Two for the Money tells the story of Brandon Lang (Matthew McConaughey), who after suffering a career ending football injury, becomes a sports betting expert. His uncanny ability to predict winners catches the eye of Walter Abrams (Al Pacino), one of the best betting handicap's in the business. He invites Lang into his profitable company to try, and capitalize on Lang's lucrative run. Problems arise when Lang's run of luck seems to run out.

The movie basically follows the structure of a lot of Al Pacino's recent work. He basically plays a elder tutor,with a hidden agenda, to a younger ward. Devil's Advocate, Donnie Brasco, The Recruit, Any Given Sunday, City Hall, Scent of a Woman, Two Bits the list goes on and on. It seems like the only time he stretches away from that formula is when he works with Michael Mann, or when he does Shakespeare, which is obviously something he feels passionate about. As far as I'm concerned that's the only thing worth watching from Pacino nowadays, Michael Mann movies and Shakespeare. Stuff like this movie just feels like Pacino is showing up to collect his paycheck.

As I said earlier the movie feels like it wants to be important. But in reality the material, and creative team are not up to the task. The result is unintentionally humorous, and just plain horrible. One can tell that Matthew McConaughey and Renee Russo are excited to work with Pacino, but it's a one way street. They are running in circles, Pacino is on automatic. It's sad to watch actually, and the excitement is not limited to just the actors. One can tell the script was altered to make Pacino's part more appealing to the actor. For instance, for some strange reason, Pacino's character has an unspecified heart ailment which makes him prone to strange, chest grabbing, panic attacks that are remedied by magic pills. The moments play out like a comedic SNL type recreation of his Diabetic attacks in The Godfather part III. The three times they occur in the movie, I let out hysterical laughs of disbelief. It's obvious that they were put into the movie to showcase Pacino, because there is no payoff in the movie. Just a random quirky tick that the character has. The character also has long winded philosophical speeches about man's nature, and the business that just feel like the writer padding the character's dialogue.

The script is apparently based on a true story. There's even a feature on the dvd of a conversation between the real "Brandon Lang" and Script writer Dan Gilroy.

The fact is there MIGHT be a good story in the script. Some of the stuff in the movie is kind of interesting....maybe. I'm thinking if it was a small independent film, with two solid character actors in the lead, and a cold feeling, gritty look to the film, with an exciting, talented, director there MIGHT be something interesting there. But the whole movie feels like it's been run over by the giant HOLLYWOOD machine truck.

A perfect example of that fact, is the look of the film. For some strange reason the movie is shot in this glossy, soft light that makes the movie almost feel like it's a dream. Which is a strange choice because the film feels like it WANTS to be dark, and gritty. The character's talk and act gritty, the movie has prostitutes, deadbeats, mafia types and goons. But they are all running around in this absurd soft light that makes me think of Christmas.

Needless to say the movie is horrible.

But just to drive home the point of how absurd the movie is. At one point in the film, Armand Assante, who plays a mafia type, tracks down Matthew McConaughy's character after losing tons of money on his picks. Assante puts a gun to his face after pushing him to the ground, a goon holds him down, and then Assante proceeds to.........urinate on McConaughy's chest.

He URINATES on McConaughy.....I think the pee was clear.

The moment is supposed to be powerful, but it plays like something from The Naked Gun. Something O.J. Simpson would have to endure while he's in a coma.

Two for the Money is now available on DVD....rent it at one's own risk.