Painful Moments in Movie History #2: The Fireplace Scene

Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, 2002

Director: 

George Lucas

Writers: 

George Lucas, Jonathan Hales

______________________________

INTERIOR: NABOO LAKE RETREAT, LODGE, FIREPLACE ALCOVE - TWILIGHT

A fire blazes in the open hearth. PADMÉ and ANAKIN are sitting in front of it, gazing into the flames.

ANAKIN:
From the moment I met you, all those years ago, not a day has gone by when I haven't thought of you. And now that I'm with you again, I'm in agony. The closer I get to you, the worse it gets. The thought of not being with you- I can't breathe. I'm haunted by the kiss that you should never have given me. My heart is beating, hoping that kiss will not become a scar. You are in my very soul, tormenting me. What can I do? I will do anything that you ask...

Silence. The logs flame in the hearth. PADMÉ meets his eye, then looks away.

Stay Cinematically Healthy by Avoiding Salt in Your Diet

Angelina Jolie: Spreading goodwill (for UNHCR) and taking names...

Well that didn't take long, did it? Or maybe it was just a dream. Only a week after moviegoers were treated to Inception's intelligent and original story (albeit maybe it not quite as intelligent as advertised), it's time for us to bracingly wake up to reality. Or, depending on if the totem is spinning, accept that this is "limbo". Wherever we are, it's a dreadfully dull place, where movies like Salt deliver a steady stream of mind-numbing clichés and altogether stupid plots. This puffy spy thriller is a particularly brainless affair: half-Bond, half-Bourne, half-baked, and, mercifully, half an hour shorter than expected, when it doesn't end but simply stops mid-scene.

Originally produced as a star vehicle for Tom Cruise before he dropped out for what can only be assumed was the disastrous Knight and Day, Salt was rewritten for Angelina Jolie (the "best woman in the world" who, we should remember, "dies for our sins"), who predictably signed on to play yet another sexy assassin. The change in gender of our anti-hero is perfectly appropriate for the purpose of the story, but that doesn't excuse the eye-rolling flourishes of Jolie making kissy faces and tiger scowls during hand-to-hand combat, or inexplicably removing her panties and using them to shroud a security camera.

Getafilm Gallimaufry: Robin Hood, L'Enfant, Cruise's Curse, Toy Story 3, and The Two Escobars

Robin Hood (B+)

After too many months away from the movies I jumped in with both feet last week, starting with a big spring blockbuster that I didn't want to let get away from me on the big screen. In the last installment of Gallimaufry I declared my love for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, as well as the Robin Hood brand as a whole. Out of the loop as I've been from the movies scene in 2010, I completely forgot that Ridley Scott's version was meant to be an introduction to the title character.

You could understand, then, why I was growing restless as the movie went on and on with only minor teases of the charm, wit, humor, and romance that I associated with Robin and his merry men. Ridley's crew was comprised of weathered patriots fighting a ruthless (and inexplicably baldheaded?) villain for the honor of King Richard's crown. Embarrassingly, I was left scratching my head all the way until the finale, after which a title card reminded us that "now the legend begins". Ahhh, that's right! I'm thickheaded like that sometimes.

Why You Should See The Last Airbender

To review: two of M. Night Shyamalan's films are among the Five Worst Movies I Have Ever Seen. 

Since The Happening, though, I've tried to look at and, yes, even appreciate Shyamalan's films as milestones in cinema history. It's incredibly rare that movies this distinctively awful are seen by so many millions of people - nearly all of whom, ironically, would consider them unwatchable. The opening of a Shyamalan film is truly a social phenomenon in my eyes, much different than the latest teen fiction trilogy installment or fanboy-frothworthy video game adaptation.

Ask yourself, how often are you around to witness a formerly celebrated artist's career - be it a musician, writer, or painter - dramatically crumble through no fault or circumstance (i.e., drugs, mental illness) other than their own bad ideas?

I'm not asking you to appreciate the art of Shyamalan's films, but rather the rarity of his career. This is a filmmaker - by most accounts supremely talented (at what? I couldn't say) - who despite obscenely negative reviews still continues to write and direct blockbuster films with major studio backing. It would be as if LeBron James were to suddenly go ice cold for the next decade with his new team (oh, let's say 2.5 points per game and the team wins fewer than 20 games every year), and yet still command sell-out crowds and an eight-figure signing bonus for his next contract.

Looking at it another way, Shyamalan has officially moved into car wreck/natural disaster/graphic war images territory. Despite your deepest fears or your most sincere moral judgments you just can't look away, and when you take a step back you realize you are witnessing a piece of history in the making.

Yes, when our kids are watching Shyamalan's films in shocked awe at midnight screenings 25 years from now (let's be optimistic and assume people will still visit movie theaters in 25 years), you can tell them that you recognized at the time the significance of these films. You knew that you were bearing witness to "a hate crime against film lovers", and that his films brought out the most superlatively creative writing from critics around the world. You knew that these weren't just "bad" movies, but among the worst original productions coming out of a very dark period in Hollywood.

If you don't see The Last Airbender for yourself, see it for future generations. See it for history.

Painful Moments in Movie History #1: The Animal Cracker Scene

Armageddon, 1998

Director: 

Michael Bay

Writers: 

Jonathan Hensleigh, J.J. Abrams, Tony Gilroy, Shane Salerno

______________________________

A.J.:
You know  what I was thinking?

Grace Stamper:
What?

A.J.:
I really don't think that the animal cracker qualifies as a cracker.

Grace Stamper:
Why?

A.J.:
Well cause it's sweet, which to me suggests cookie, and, you know, I mean putting cheese on something is sort of a defining characteristic of what makes a cracker a cracker. I don't know why I thought of that, I just...

Grace Stamper:
Baby, you have such sweet pillow talk.

A.J.:
I got like a little animal cracker, Discovery Channel thing happening right here. (affects Australian accent) Watch the gazelle as he grazes through the open plains. Now, look as the cheetah approaches. Watch as he stalks his prey. Now the gazelle is a little spooked. He could head north, to the ample sustenance provided by the mountainous peaks above. Or, he could go south. The gazelle now faces mans most perilous question: north...or, south...way down under. Tune in next week.

Grace Stamper:
Baby? Do you think it's possible that anyone else in the world is doing this very same thing at this very same moment?

A.J.:
I hope so. Otherwise what the hell are we trying to save?

300 Words About: Green Zone

"Look, man, we had to know this would flop after DiCaprio couldn't even carry Body of Lies. At least we got paid up front, right?"

Green Zone is like Glenn Beck, or Keith Olbermann, or even Jon Stewart. It's incredibly loud, incredibly loose-tongued, and incredibly lacking in moderation or nuance of any kind. Incredibly, Universal Pictures wagered $100+ million that cash-strapped audiences would want to see cable news-styled hysterics within the context of one of the most unpopular film genres of our time: the Iraq War movie (remember that The Hurt Locker is the lowest-grossing Best Picture winner in history).

Granted, Universal did have the "Bourne in Baghdad" angle to lure audiences (how has no one made a mash-up trailer yet?), and Paul Greengrass previously directed United 93, one of the best films of the last decade. But as much as Green Zone had on its side in terms of star power, nothing can make up for an extremely dated and painfully retread screenplay by Brian Helgeland - one that overflows with Big Grand Statements, both said and unsaid by its caricatures.

I figured something was wrong when Universal kept pushing the release date for Green Zone later and later (eventually past the 12/31/09 Oscar eligibility deadline), but wow, I haven't been this disappointed since about 10 minutes ago, when I saw that Brian Helgeland also wrote the upcoming Robin Hood reboot starring Russell Crowe.

Sacked from The Blind Side, Forcing a Fumble

Hmm, it's not my eyes playing tricks on me - that is a Best Picture nomination... 

I've made the joke before that the best part of some bad movies is when the end credits begin scrolling, representing the end of the torturous affair. While this was certainly true for The Blind Side, what made matters much worse was the fact that the end credits went on to suggest what the movie should have been in the first place: a documentary. I actually became emotional viewing the photos of Michael Oher's real-life family because I finally experienced the true weight of the story. It was not the heavy-handed afterschool special it resembled during the whole running time, but actually someone's life - and it deserved a much better treatment.

300 Words About: The Box

So lemme get this straight, that's two disasters in a row from Richard Kelly, right?

Literally the first words I heard after a promotional screening of Richard Kelly's The Box were, "I'm so glad I didn't have to pay for that," from a relieved audience member as he left the theater. Yes you did, I thought to myself. We all did, and in more than one way.

There are a lot of options presented to the characters in The Box, only some of which (I've heard) are taken from the original short story by Richard Matheson, which apparently made for a great "Twilight Zone" episode in the 80's. The options include choosing between this or that, which will lead to one of these things happening first and second and so on. Tragically for me, never was a character presented with an option to outright end the movie and save thousands of lives in theaters around the world. "The button has been pushed," proclaimed a creepy, still-Nixonian Frank Langella, and along with everyone else I had to live with (and eventually die by) the decision I had already made to see this movie.

My disappointment may differ from yours since I'd actually been looking forward to The Box for well over a year, previewing it in my forecast for 2009 and even mentioning it back in my review of Southland Tales. I think what I failed to recognize after Kelly's defense of that disaster is how closely his words resembled M. Night Shyamalan's (who, it should be known by now, is no friend to this blog). Whether you end up seeing The Box or not, know this fact: If Shyamalan and his rising heir-apparent Kelly ever make a film together, it will be a cinematic spectacle of metaphysical frivolity and pompous bloviating like the world has never seen (at least not since Knowing).

A Closer Look at the Worst Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)

A couple of weeks ago I caught a story about Rotten Tomatoes listing the worst films of the first decade of this century/millennium (2000-2009). Obviously curious to see what was included, I headed over to RT to see the full list of shame. Here it is, from the "best" (an RT rating of 7%) to the worst (RT rating of 0%); titles are followed by the film's release year...

REVIEW: Break (F)

Break is the new movie "featuring" David Carradine in one of his last roles (he has several more films yet to be released), and it inexplicably opens for a one week engagement today at St. Anthony Main before a DVD release in July.

Find my 0/4 star capsule review from today's Star Tribune here.

Grade:
Writing - 4
Acting - 5
Production - 5
Emotional Impact - 4
Music - 4
Social Significance - 1

Total: 23/50= 46% = F

I Love Knowing the Great Betrayal, Man

Actually I just like mashing movie titles together. I've seen three of the five major movies opening in the Twin Cities tomorrow, though I missed chances at Duplicity and Sunshine Cleaning (just as well since that would have made for an impossibly long title). Since this near clean sweep of new releases doesn't happen very often, here are capsule reviews of each. And I'm including The Great Buck Howard even though it was pushed back locally - yet again - for another week.

______________________________

I Love You, Man (B+)

Hey PR firms, how 'bout a little creativity?

I'm not going to use the pop culture "B-word" surrounding this movie because I just don't like it (and I'm a stubborn contrarian with things like that). Besides, there's little romance going on here anyway, just your typical manchild hijinx. Which is not to say I Love You, Man doesn't have its funny moments. Paul Rudd continues to show the same leading man potential he had in Role Models, the supporting characters (especially Andy Samberg, Jon Favreau and Lou Ferrigno - who for some reason isn't a credited cast member) are hilarious, and there are two or three belly laugh-inducing scenes - and maybe a few more if you don't mind hearing the same joke five times.

But if you're looking for maturity or wit or originality, well then you should know better than to even be reading this. Just because Judd Apatow isn't involved here doesn't mean his influence isn't all over it: honest, innocent loser (The 40 Year-Old Virgin) has to get himself in order before major life event (Knocked Up), all while being held back by childish schlub friends (Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and so on). Apatow's is a brand that all comedies are copying these days, which means you've seen I Love You, Man before and you'll see it again soon. It's really almost like a sequel to Role Models: "See what happens to Danny Donahue five years later when he's about to get married and his only friends are still the nerdy role-playing kids!".

If stale humor is OK with you, or if you love the band Rush - you'll probably love I Love You, Man.

______________________________

The Betrayal (Nerakhoon) (A)

Find my original capsule review here.

As I mentioned in my pre-preview of the 2009 P.O.V. season yesterday, I've given The Betrayal a lot of attention here since seeing it at MSPIFF last year. Now that it's opening here and an official poster has been made, I'm offering what will likely be my final recommendation. It requires some patience to watch but it will likely teach you quite a bit about immigration and cultural assimilation, and also make you consider the collateral costs of war.

______________________________

The Great Buck Howard (B-)

Colin Hanks at his most expressive still looks like Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump.

By the last minute of The Great Buck Howard I had one question in my mind: why in the world was this movie made? It hadn't been terrible to that point by any means, but then it hadn't really been anything - it just existed on screen like a vapor, as if somebody made a movie about a guy who woke up this morning and had a cup of coffee. Then the epilogue text came up, reminding me that The Great Buck Howard was inspired by a true story: the career of the famous mentalist "The Amazing Kreskin", for whom writer/director Sean McGinly once worked as an assistant. Alright - so it's a biopic/tribute movie of sorts, and McGinly reminds us on screen that "no one has ever proven that his [Kreskin's] magic is anything less than 100% amazing". Whatever - McGinly also hasn't proven to me that this movie is anything less than 100% forgettable.

I'm being overly harsh. It was entertaining enough and I laughed quite a bit at John Malkovich taking this part and running with it, much like Jim Carrey used to do with these unique roles. But this movie is just missing something to make it really terrific, like a magic show where all of the tricks are decent but none of them are astounding. Worse, you often find yourself waiting for a punchline that never comes, so the comedy blows out of some scenes like hissing balloon. Too bland to see in the theater, but charming enough for a DVD rental.

______________________________

Knowing (F)

You might find yourself doing this during the movie in order to keep yourself entertained.

And Hollywood's crowning achievement (and my guess as the box-office winner) for the week of March 20, 2009, is the disaster movie Knowing. It's about knowing when the world will end, and if that happens in real life before you're done watching this movie, consider yourself a blessed soul. Without question the worst movie I've seen since The Happening (though not nearly as pretentious), this Nicolas Cage vehicle shocked me only because it was worse than I thought it could be under the direction of Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City, I, Robot).

I'll look at it in two parts: first noting the obvious weaknesses of Knowing and then shredding it for a complete disregard for logic and reason. MAJOR SPOILERS WILL FOLLOW.

Since I already mentioned Shyamalan's disastrous last movie, why not start there? Like the now-infamous director's recent movies, Knowing tries to make big, bold statements about paranormal issues like the existence of life on other planets and the ability to see the future or otherwise operate outside of normal human dimensions. Instead of attempting anything fresh or thoughtful, however, Knowing goes about its business primarily by alternating between expensively produced special effects (you can almost see the money burning in the fire from the explosions), tons of cheap, door-slamming thrills, and way too many scenes with freaky kids who are truly awful actors. And like Shyamalan's movies, the conversations you have afterwards won't be about the themes of the movie, but about the mystery of how and why these movies continue to be made with such frequency.

Knowing does add one somewhat original contribution to the "end times" genre by making numerous references to religious prophecies, but theological discussions deserve better than Nicolas Cage and aliens. This movie could have been, well, at least decent without these two liabilities and all the rest of the trappings of extravagant Hollywood fluff, including the most manipulative use of sound effects and a musical score that I've heard in years: something...Is... GoInG... TO... HAPPEN RIGHT NOW - DUN DUN DUN!!!!

And now for a few of the immediate questions that threw my mind into a frenetic tizzy while watching Knowing. Somebody help me out because I'm really too dense to understand the following:

Why didn't the school officials start looking for Lucinda inside the school before dark? And when searching for her inside the school, why didn't they just turn on the lights?

Why didn't Lucinda just get another piece of paper and pencil instead of carving bare wood with her fingers? The "whisper people" told her to write it in a closet where she might never be found?

Wasn't Miss Taylor's class the only one to write the letters for the time capsule? If so, how were there enough letters available to hand out to the entire school 50 years later, and how had the enrollment at the school not significantly increased?

Why would anyone ever marry Lucinda, and how was she never committed to a mental institution?

Why does an MIT astrophysicist not only own a Ford F-150, but drive it like he just stole it?

Why does an MIT astrophysicist live in a decrepit old house, where half the rooms are inexplicably and beautifully furnished while the other half resemble interrogation rooms?

What's the significance of showing us the tiger show on TV so many times?

Why didn't John tell anyone else about the numbers other than his dullard MIT colleague?

Why would John, an alcoholic, not know how to properly pour himself a drink without spilling it all over?

What was the point of Caleb's hearing aid? It literally served no purpose (especially since Abby and Lucinda could hear the aliens just fine without one) other than to amplify the creepy whisper noises for the audience, right?

Wasn't the first disaster (the plane crash) to happen on 10/26/08? Then how did the last one happen on 10/19/08? I swear those dates were messed up.

Why did John run into the burning wreckage of the plane crash while everything was clearly still exploding, and how did the paramedics know he wasn't a passenger when they arrived on the scene?

Why did the aliens give the kids the rocks from the clearing instead of just telling them the message?

Why are the aliens ultimately revealed to be simply skinless, translucent humans, with the same muscle and bone structure and central nervous system? This has to be the most pathetic attempt at alien life in years, doesn't it?

If it's so hot because of the solar flares, how can there be so much fog and so many puddles at night? Wouldn't the earth's atmosphere be scorched of all moisture at this point?

Why would the aliens forecast any of the other disasters in the 50 years of history when it's all irrelevant to the point at hand - and what's the significance of 50 years in the context of human life, anyway?

Why did the alien show Caleb the burning world outside his window and completely freak him out? Why not just tell Caleb what's going to happen - like they eventually did?

Why would Lucinda write "EE" backwards when she's written all of the number forwards? Just as a sneaky trick for whoever figures it out?

Why didn't Caleb have a cell phone? Wouldn't it be more likely that he would have a cell phone than that he would always have change handy for a pay phone? Why there are so many pay phones around in the first place?

Why does the fate of the world always lie in the hands of white American kids? And why do all of the last major disasters only happen in the U.S.?

Why were there so many people waiting in the subway station? Don't those trains run every few minutes?

Why did Caleb honk the horn of the truck if the aliens aren't there to harm them or take them away? I mean, they're calmly communicating with each other, right? What was he so afraid of?

Why was the gas station manager the only person in Boston who had a Boston accent?

Why does Manhattan remain the only city whose destruction qualifies the apocalypse when it's not even the 10th largest city in the world?

Why wouldn't the GPS coordinates on the school closet door show through the paint if they were scratched so deeply into the wood?

How did the aliens expect the kids were going to make it to the UFO clearing without their help? Why wouldn't they just take the kids in their sleep or by force at any other point during the movie?

Why did the aliens drive an old-school Cadillac boat and not something more awesome?

Why did Caleb start writing the numbers at the end? Wouldn't John have assumed those were more clues, instead of stopping him from finishing?

Why would the news anchor say, "We're going to stay on the air as long as we possibly can. All we're going to do is repeat what we've been saying all along - get indoors and underground."? Why would he stay on the air and not just put up a blue screen with that message instead? Do they really care about maintaining their market share of the local news at this point?

How was John able to calmly drive through the city with the streets on fire and people in chaotic riots? What were people doing standing around in the streets anyway?

Who dressed the kids in tunics in the New World and why - shouldn't they be unclothed like Adam and Eve?

Why do the aliens give the kids albino bunnies? Because rabbits breed? Is it just going to be humans and rabbits in the New World?

Please help me with these and many other questions if you see Knowing, because otherwise I'll continue to feel like a complete idiot.

REVIEW: Friday the 13th (C)

Come on, don't you know by now that Jason ALWAYS wins at hide-and-go-seek? His feet are as light as a ballerina's.

Find my review from the Star Tribune here.

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 7
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 7
Music - 5
Social Significance - 1

Total: 37/50= 74% = C

REVIEW: Nobel Son (D)

Should have been titled "The Family That Preys", but Tyler Perry already took it...

Find my review from the Star Tribune here. I think I was a half a star too generous.

There's a reason this movie was sitting on a shelf for the last year and a half after premiering at Tribeca 2007: it's unfit for consumption. Randall Miller is having quite a year for himself between this and Bottle Shock, having twice attempted to deep-six what's left of Alan Rickman's career.

Grade:
Writing - 5
Acting - 7
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 5
Music - 3
Social Significance - 3

Total: 31/50= 62% = D

REVIEW: Changeling (C-)

A full disclosure before I address this movie: For the last decade, there has been no actress who's bothered me more than Angelina Jolie. I don't know her and I don't mean to make any personal judgments about her. I think she has acting talent and I commend her efforts (whatever her motive) for bringing awareness to the plight of refugees worldwide.

But that doesn't mean I have to respect her lifestyle and it doesn't mean I have to like her movies. It doesn't mean I have to fawn over her children or her fashion sense, or that I have to ignore the fact that as arguably the most overexposed celebrity in the world, it's virtually impossible for her to disappear into any role. It doesn't mean I have to drop to my knees while she simply alternates between sexy killer (Tomb Raider, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Beowulf, Kung Fu Panda, Wanted) and tortured hero (Beyond Borders, A Mighty Heart, Changeling). It doesn't mean I have to listen to her pretentiously deliver the wisdom of an old soul as she waxes nostalgic about Hollywood's golden years (she's the oldest 35 year-old I've ever heard; you're not Meryl Streep, honey). And it certainly doesn't mean I have to accept the ridiculous notion that she has "died for my sins". Please.

I say all of this as a defense, because if you know this about me (and enough people do), you're ready to dismiss my criticism for Changeling as criticism for Jolie. But it's not. There is plenty enough wrong with this movie that has nothing to do with her, and it wouldn't be fair to tear down a movie for one performance anyway. Jolie gets a pass for this one, even though the costumed character of her Oscar-baiting performance reminded me more of an emaciated clown than a distraught mother. To be most accurate, this was Madame Tutli-Putli brought to life (let's forget I recently made the same comparison for a different movie). But Jolie was fine in her part, predictably balancing elegance with extreme emotional outbursts. So if wasn't her that I had a problem with, what was it?

For starters, the lack of a compelling story. On the surface, the true life tale of a mother battling with the corrupt L.A.P.D. over the true whereabouts of her kidnapped child sounds fascinating, but digging deeper it ends up being a bit of a bore. Equal parts Zodiac and L.A. Confidential, it lacks both the chilling moments of the former and the suspenseful intrigue of the latter. There's almost no way to form a natural connection with the characters (natural being the operative word, assuming you can ignore the manipulative filmmaking), which makes sitting through it for 141 minutes pretty tiring. There's a noirish feel around the entire production (especially in the visual style and setting), but Changeling is glaringly lacking in two of the most important elements of noir: character and tone.

Who are these people, and why should we care about them? Christine Collins (Jolie) is depicted as a saintly single mom, but we know literally nothing about her aside from the fact that her husband left her and her son, and now she works as a manager at the telephone company. She’s certainly the victim of a great tragedy here, but I guess I needed something else to latch on to. Besides, it seemed more like Angelina Jolie playing Angelina Jolie than anything else. Give me more background on Christine Collins and I’ll be better able to empathize with Christine Collins.

Even more one-dimensional than Collins is Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan from USA’s “Burn Notice”), the tough talking L.A.P.D. cop who writes his own rules, emotionally wavers between mildly annoyed and extremely irritated, and, for no identifiable reason, speaks with an Irish brogue. In the other corner is John Malkovich (Burn After Reading), a historically great actor who recently seems to be phoning in these blaring performances just so he has an opportunity to shout on cue. Add in a stereotypically insane villain, some annoying kids (who apparently don’t age at all during their adolescence), and evil mental hospital nurses who look like they just came off the set of an old horror movie, and you’ve rounded out the overall poor cast of characters. If not for Christine’s boss and Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone) showing some flashes of believable emotion, there might not be a real person on screen throughout the movie.

In fact, the cityscapes and period touches feel more realistic than the people speaking, and it would be fair to predict Changeling receiving some Oscar consideration for its art direction (an opportunity for Best Costume was missed by having Jolie wear the same outfit throughout the movie). Beyond that, I would be surprised if the movie made any splashes during award season.

Oh wait, I forgot. The person responsible for this mess is also the person most beloved by the Academy in recent years: Clint Eastwood.

To take nothing away from a legendary career that spans four decades, I wonder if anyone has yet to gain the courage to tell Mr. Eastwood that his recent projects (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, all three Best Picture nominees or winners) aren’t quite as good as he’s tried to make us admit. The guy has a gift for manipulation, and I’m talking about his filmmaking, not his business practices. In Changeling, it’s evident in the cheap thriller moments (chicken spooks detective at ranch) and subliminal musical scores (throughout the legal proceedings), as well as unnecessary flashbacks (the ax and the ruler) and exaggerated running time (just because it’s long doesn’t mean it’s epic).

Angelina Jolie saves the world again at a theater near you...

I don’t want to call Changeling a bad movie as much as I want to call it a missed opportunity. On paper, the story really should have made for something more substantive, more moving or at the very least, more relatable to 2008. Kids are still going missing and the L.A.P.D. is still accused of corruption, but Eastwood fails to connect any dots and make this story relevant in the way that (never thought I’d compare these two “directors”) Ben Affleck did last year in Gone Baby Gone. Alright, so that movie took place in the present day – maybe that’s unfair. But at least Gone Baby Gone was mostly entertaining, wasn’t it? The same can’t be said for Changeling. Now excuse me while I inexplicably buy a ticket to see Eastwood’s Gran Torino next month…

Grade:
Writing - 6
Acting - 7
Production - 6
Emotional Impact - 6
Music - 4
Social Significance - 5

Total: 35/50= 70% = C-

REVIEW: Blindness (D)

Maybe two years ago, my brother was telling me about one of the best books he'd ever read. I'd never heard of "Blindness", the novel by Portuguese author José Saramago, but it sounded pretty amazing. Ironically, both of us were disappointed when we soon learned it was going to be adapted into a movie - he out of concern that it wouldn't do justice to the book, and me out of horror after discovering it would star Julianne Moore in the lead role. It takes maybe seven positive elements to get me to a movie starring her these days, and Blindness had five: Mark Ruffalo (Reservation Road), Alice Braga (Redbelt), Gael Garcia Bernal (Babel), Fernando Meirelles, and an exotic shooting location (Montevideo and São Paulo). Five is close enough, I figured - quite incorrectly.

Soon into this movie, I did indeed become overwhelmed with fear of going blind, mostly because I realized that if it got any worse I wouldn't be able to safely flee the theater. Easily one of the worst movies I've seen all year, Fernando Meirelles' Blindness can only be a total nightmare for fans of the book and a complete shock to everyone else. How could such an interesting concept go so horribly wrong?

The title isn't too creative, but it's about as descriptive as it needs to be. One by one, everyone in the world suddenly and mysteriously loses their eyesight. Called the "white sickness" (those who suffer from it only see constant white light), the condition causes a SARS-like panic among the public, and the first major group of victims (all of whom are nameless) is quarantined in an abandoned hospital, or dorm, or factory - whatever that was. An eye doctor (Ruffalo) is one of these early victims, and for reasons unexplained, his wife (Moore) is the one person in the world who is immune to the "infection".

The majority of the movie takes place in the three wards of this asylum, where we witness what amounts to a crazy social experiment reminiscent of "Lord of the Flies". All cultural norms gradually erode away as blind groups in the wards turn on each other in a desperate attempt to stay alive. It's a situation that just oozes potential for studies in leadership, morality, responsibility, and the degradation of human culture, but we're left seeing decaying limbs, human waste, and fat, naked bodies. In easily the most disturbing scene of the movie, an African-American male (an interesting casting note?) from the violent, ruling ward punches a woman to death while raping her. Any remnants of hope I had for mankind were completely dashed when this scene evoked laughs in the audience. This world is over.

In between the disgusting imagery and bad acting throughout the majority of Blindness, we actually don't see much at all. Meirelles does his best to convince us that we're actually going blind, manipulatively using blurred focus, mixed-scene editing, washed-out lighting and, in one overlong scene, a completely black screen backed by exaggerated sound effects. None of this worked, of course, but that dark scene did satisfy my curiosity about whether the movie would be better if I simply closed my eyes (it wasn't). When the group anticlimactically reenters society, Meirelles switches gears, somehow downshifting from a terrible suspense thriller to a senseless horror flick with the comically animalistic human behavior seen in Dawn of the Dead and other recent zombie movies. We're even graced with a topless shower scene, one of many gratuitously "dramatic" moments Meirelles tosses in just to remind us that he's taking this seriously. Sound familiar? M. Night Shyamalan employed the same tactic to disastrous effect in The Happening, a movie which Meirelles should be thankful already firmly holds the title of worst movie of 2008.

[Agh, I've been sitting here for 15 minutes unsuccessfully trying to caption this PERFECT picture with a wicked description! Share yours in the comments...]

What's more surprising? That I made it through this entire movie, or that I still have hope for the future projects of Fernando Meirelles? It would take a lot more than one bad movie - even one as horrendous as Blindness - to cancel out the brilliance of City of God, and there was more than enough potential in The Constant Gardener and this year's overlooked City of Men to keep faith that Meirelles still has talent and artistic vision to spare. This was just a case of a filmmaker completely inhabiting his own picture, from the awkwardly-used cinematography to the carefully constructed deserted city, which in my opinion looked much more realistic in I Am Legend, Children of Men, and even a movie like Vanilla Sky. When every piece of trash and every burning car is perfectly placed in each scene, what is actually a real city location begins to look way too much like a set. Whatever - this is obviously the least among the problems found in Blindness. As it is, you'll be wasting the eyesight that you may still have in sitting through this movie. Your vision (and your hard-earned money) would be much better spent on this year's uplifting Blindsight.

Grade:
Writing - 5
Acting - 6
Production - 6
Emotional Impact - 4
Music - 5
Social Significance - 5

Total: 31/50= 62% = D

300 Words About: Step Brothers

Grown men fighting like little children. The most symbolic movie of the year?

How is Judd Apatow not a recognizable name yet? We only ever hear, "From the guy who brought you...", as if it's not obvious enough when we see the cast. So, from the guy who "brought" us Anchorman, Kicking & Screaming, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Talladega Nights, Knocked Up, Superbad, Walk Hard, Drillbit Taylor, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, You Don't Mess With the Zohan, and Pineapple Express, (breathe) comes Step Brothers.

There's little to discuss as relates to the plot of Step Brothers: Ferrell and Reilly are middle-aged children living at home with single parents (Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins, respectively) who meet and get married. Now reluctant stepbrothers, the two men wrestle, hurl objects, and scream obscenities at each other for 95 minutes, stopping only to put on a different vintage 80's shirt at every opportunity.

A disclaimer, beforehand: 1.) My expectations for movies "brought to us" by Apatow was as low as ever, regardless of the specifics of his involvement; 2.) I didn't think John C. Reilly's full-blown commitment to comedy since 2005 was a good thing; and 3.) fresh off the heels of the terrible Semi-Pro, I still believed Will Ferrell could do no wrong.

All three of those facts remained true after Step Brothers. I thought Ferrell was hilarious, I thought Reilly was horrible, and I think the Apatow brand is a sham. Moreover, I'm concerned that the whole crew has become lazy, and that this is all we can expect going forward. The writing is uninspired (e.g., a repetitive sleepwalking gag) and there's way too much reliance on physical comedy. Also, it should say something when Jenkins steals every scene from the two leads. It would be one thing if Ferrell and Reilly were playing immature adults. We've seen that before and it can work. But here, they're actually playing immature children.

What happened to the wicked wit of Anchorman (Ferrell and Adam McKay wrote both movies, along with Talladega Nights)? Even though the plot of Anchorman was just as inane, it was more than saved by hilarious characters and well-developed jokes, and remains one of my favorite comedies. The formula in Step Brothers, unfortunately, seems to be one part character, two parts slapstick, three parts obscenities, a measure of potty humor and (Apatow's contribution I'm sure) a dash of male genitalia.

I know I'll sound like a snob, but is this really acceptable as the best work by America's comic geniuses? It's no wonder the funniest movie of the year so far has come from France.

SNUBBED: Julianne Moore in "Freedomland"

I've been known to complain about a lot of Oscar snubs over the years, but there is one that still stings, still keeps me up at night, and still tempts me to boycott those stupid awards. That Julianne Moore didn't even receive a nomination for her performance in 2005's criminally underrated Freedomland is, to be quite frank, a travesty.

Although we all know she was stunningly stellar in such movies as The Ladies Man, Evolution, Laws of Attraction, The Forgotten, and Next, it's her turn in Freedomland that sends chills up your spine and tears down your face. I've provided evidence of one of the film's stronger moments above.

Observe her brilliance in acting like she's disoriented and panicked. Watch her navigate a sea of emotions as she fully inhabits the character of a psychotic mother. Take notes on her incredible ability to cry without actually crying.

Every great performance involves two actors, however, and Samuel L. Jackson gives an acting clinic here perhaps worthy of its own Oscar nomination. He's almost unrecognizable from his other roles here, shouting and repeatedly questioning someone while standing above them. Also, I know people with asthma, and I had to ask them if they could determine whether he was acting or not. I could not. His wheezing, huffing, groaning and puffing adds significantly to the gripping intensity of the scene.

Take this to the bank, folks: Freedomland is arguably one of the best films of the decade, and no Oscar snub discussion is complete without its mention.

Because the oversight is just so tragic, I think even more evidence may be needed to cement that claim: the first 1:17 of this long clip. I know it will be hard to tear your eyes away from the screen, but I've limited it to that so you don't become too emotionally overwhelmed.

Put my heart at rest. Put my heart at rest, AMPAS: honor Julianne Moore and Freedomland with a retroactive Academy Award...

[This post is one of many featured in Lazy Eye Theatre's Bizarro Blog-a-Thon, June 23-25. Don't bother checking out any of the other featured posts... ]

300 Words About: The Happening

It's OK, Jess, it's OK. At least we're not in the theater watching this.

"We've sensed it. We've seen the signs. Now...It's Happening." That's not just the official tagline for The Happening, it's also a perfect summation of my expectations of M. Night Shyamalan's latest offering. I "sensed" it would be the uncontested worst film of the year, I saw the "signs" (simply his last movie, Lady in the Water), and now, indeed, it "happened". On Friday the 13th, Shyamalan pulled the veil off his latest disaster, and once again people are flocking to see it. I vowed I wouldn't pay for it. In a fit of confusion, I ended up paying for it. At least I illegally paid the student price, saving $1.50 in one of my wisest financial decisions in years.

To paraphrase the classic bit from Denny Green, it's clear that Shyamalan "is who we thought he was": the most self-righteous and contemptuous filmmaker currently working in Hollywood. It would defy logic to argue that he's unaware of how bad his movies are, but instead of seeking to make any improvements, he stubbornly continues to try to convince us that we're idiots, and that his conspicuous messages are the new gospel for mankind.

That's the real problem. It's not that the writing and acting are horrid, or that sense and logic are missing from the first frame onward, or that the thrills and chills are about five movies tired now after The Sixth Sense. It's not the terrible supporting characters or the unconvincing special effects or even the worst fake newscasts I've ever seen.

It's that in the middle of all of this, just when the movie should start making fun of itself, Shyamalan again throws a serious message or clichéd fright (e.g., doll on the bed) at us. In short, the difference between garbage like Jumper or Meet the Spartans (my favorite whipping post if you didn't notice) and garbage like The Happening is that garbage like The Happening tries to be serious.

Although Shyamalan preaches, "This is the best B movie that you will ever see," his sincere attempts at romance, suspense, and drama, combined with the heavy-handed message about Mother Nature's wrath, prove (at least to me) that he's just making excuses for the terrible reception. He had plenty of opportunity to make this over-the-top ridiculous - if that was his intention. Instead, he predictably implies that we're morons for not getting it.

I saw The Happening to find out if he could make a movie more offensively awful than Lady in the Water. Is it? I still don't know since it seems comparing two epically bad movies is as difficult as comparing two epically good ones, but I nevertheless truly recommend seeing either one (don't pay for it) in order to sharpen your movie senses.

300 Words About: Redbelt

On paper, Redbelt looks like a mad lib: "Chiwetel Ejiofor (American Gangster) stars with Tim Allen (Wild Hogs) and Emily Mortimer (Lars and the Real Girl) in a movie about martial arts, written and directed by David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross)."

What?

My curiosity got the best of me (as it usually does when Mamet is involved with something), but in this case, curiosity unfortunately almost killed the moviegoer. Redbelt is a dull, tedious, inane film, saved from the lowest depths of mediocrity by one Chiwetel Ejiofor, who we'll assume took this particular role simply to diversify his credits and/or add Mamet to his Rolodex. Had Ejiofor been given the chance to do more within his role, Redbelt just might have achieved Mamet's vision of a story of a man in the midst of a moral storm, forced to choose between money, honor, love and life.

This particular man is Mike Terry (Ejiofor), a Jiu-Jitsu instructor in L.A. who's apparently the only pure master left in the sport, his peers having sold out to the showy (and profitable) mixed martial arts pay-per-view culture. Mike refuses to compete despite the financial troubles that are straining his marriage to an aspiring fashion designer, Sondra (Alice Braga, I Am Legend; City of God). An accident at Mike's training academy between a traumatized lawyer (Mortimer) and a troubled cop is the first in a series of unfortunate incidents for Mike, tangling him up with loan sharks, fight promoters, the cop's wife, and Chet Frank (Allen), a washed up, worn down actor who wants to use Mike's secret training techniques in his next film. As you would guess, all of this eventually leads to an alternate ending from The Karate Kid.

Mamet's inclusion of unnecessary characters and silly plot contrivances dilutes a potentially great character study. His distinctive writing is on full display here, but it's nothing to appreciate in a dead-end story. I think most people have already given up on Mamet (I was the only person in theater), and at this point it will probably take more than curiosity for me to pay for his next film.

REVIEW: 21 (C-)

Background: Before anything else, I need to disclose a few things that colored my impression of 21. First, I went to college in Boston (specifically, at Boston University, the primary filming location for the movie) and I know my around the Las Vegas Strip. Secondly, though I don't know how to count cards, I am familiar with the story that eventually turned into Ben Mezrich's book Bringing Down the House, which was adapted into 21 (and given the new title to avoid confusion with the Steve Martin/Queen Latifah comedy classic). Neither of those facts make me special, but together they produced a lot of distractions that other viewers might have missed. Anyway, 21 was directed by Robert Luketic (Legally Blonde, Monster-In-Law) and stars veterans Kevin Spacey (Superman Returns) and Laurence Fishburne (Bobby), along with up-and-comers Jim Sturgess (Across the Universe) and Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns). Controversy has been brewing for some time about the casting of the film, since all of the original members of the actual MIT team in 1994 were Asian-American males. It's only 2008, though, so Sturgess (an Englishman) was hired as the lead for no sensible reason other than to see if he can pull off an American accent (he can't). Of course, 21 is meant to be a "loose" adaptation, and I guess the multiple documentary versions of the story weren't sexy enough (cue Bosworth, though her character has some basis in reality). Hollywoodization was the next logical step, but at least Jeff Ma, on whom Sturgess' character is based, has a cameo as a Blackjack dealer at Planet Hollywood.

Synopsis: Ben Campbell (Sturgess) is a saint and a genius. It's his senior year at MIT and he's applied for a prestigious full-ride scholarship to Harvard Medical School, but during his initial interview he's told his resume doesn't "jump off the page" and he glumly goes back to his blameless life. How will he get $300,000 to pay for tuition and expenses? Certainly not from the robotics project he's been working on with his impossibly nerdy friends, nor from his $8/hr job. Fortunately, opportunity comes knocking when his professor, Micky Rosa (Spacey), recruits him to join Rosa's secret Blackjack club, which also happens to include Ben's crush, Jill Taylor (Bosworth), on its roster. Initially hesitant, Ben is awkwardly seduced by Jill with a necktie and he decides winning at Blackjack is his only way to pay for med school. The plan is simple, and brilliant: the "spotters" will count the cards in the deck to determine the probability of what's left to play before signaling Ben in to the table to bet big when the deck is "hot." Micky takes the crew to Vegas for their first of many successful weekend trips, however hormones and tensions rage as Ben and Jill grow close and a jerk member of the team grows jealous of Ben's success. To make matters worse, Cole Williams (Fishburne) is monitoring the group's activity from his lair below Planet Hollywood, where they often play. Vegas is phasing out security firms in place of face-detection technologies, and Williams is fighting for his job and his trade. Counting cards is not illegal, but Williams will provide "services" (beatdowns) to casinos that become aware of gamblers counting at their tables. It doesn't take long before Micky's plan unravels - Ben is greedy and arrogant and Williams is waiting to strike. By this point the movie is a full-on farce, and before it casually ends we're treated to fake moustaches, cheesy dialogue and something missing from too many movies: a chase through a restaurant kitchen.

I Loved:
+ The nostalgia of seeing BU inside and out on the big screen. Alumni will recognize the Mugar basement, the BU Pub (and Castle), the new fitness center (new since I went there), Bay State Road and other spots. You probably won't recognize the Hotel Commonwealth in Kenmore Square (I didn't), which was apparently dressed up as a Las Vegas spa.

I Liked:
+ Kevin Spacey as a more believable villain than his Lex Luthor. His work since 1999 has been embarrassing, but he still has a twinkle in his eye. On the same note, Laurence Fishburne has also been underachieving lately, hasn't he?
+ The soundtrack - appropriate, energetic, and thankfully missing Elvis Presley's "A Little Less Conversation."
+ Aaron Yoo (Rocket Science) and Liza Lapira (Cloverfield) in charming supporting roles - and I guess I appreciated that they're Asian-American.

I Disliked:
- The almost obscenely predictable clichés: steamy Chinatown with the year-round Chinese New Year celebration and parade; "Sir - you forgot your bag" (were you holding your breath?); the clandestine, underground security dungeon (why is it always so dark in those rooms with monitors?); the 2.0.9. competition triumph; the sound of cards landing on the table with the force of an atomic bomb; "Me and Micky Rosa go way back..." (you don't say!); etc., etc., etc.
- Jim Sturgess, unfortunately. I don't know what it was here, but he didn't fit and the voiceovers were terrible. The accent and terrible script didn't help.

I Hated:
- The ridiculous errors in geography. I'll leave the Boston stuff alone (but - Jill lives in Quincy?) because most people aren't familiar enough with it, but the Las Vegas Strip is too well-known for such egregious errors. They stay at the Hard Rock (not even on Las Vegas Blvd.) and stroll downstairs to the brand new Red Rock Casino (about 15 miles away from the Strip)? The penthouse at the Hard Rock overlooks the Bellagio from across the street? Uh, not even close. You wouldn't put the Empire State Building overlooking Central Park. What's the difference here?
- The jaw-dropping script that featured some of the worst dialogue I've heard in years: "I've already lost everything; I don't want to lose you, too."

Grade:
Writing - 4
Acting - 6
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Significance - 3

Total: 35/50= 70% = C-

Last Word: Despite being a terribly-made movie in almost every aspect, 21 actually comes together as a fun and flashy weekend romp in Vegas. In that sense it's achieved its only purpose, since it would be preposterous to suggest it either tells a true story or includes any meaningful lessons. Sure to inspire a new generation of card counters in the same way Fight Club and Rounders created their respective subcultures, 21 is also the most successful commercial Las Vegas has ever produced for the college set (compared to what I accidentally saw this morning - the worst music video ever). Planet Hollywood, which opened just last year, clearly had a major advertising stake in 21, as did the Red Rock and Hard Rock casinos, neither of which are considered Vegas hotspots. Details aside, there are moments of cheap comedy (a fat kid eating Twinkies, Kevin Spacey in disguise, etc.) that try to hide the underlying tragedy: a movie that had almost unlimited potential has been turned into a lazy mess of clichés. At times like this you really have to wonder how the guy who directed Legally Blonde got his hands on the juiciest unproduced material that has come along in years. 21 strives to be a guilty pleasure at the highest level, but my inability to swallow major inaccuracies prevented me from having any fun, and more than once my movie-watching intelligence was insulted by the writing. In the end, I was left holding the bag full of chocolate gold bullion.