What's new in theaters this week - 12/12/08

There are a lot of movies coming out this week, including a number of Oscar hopefuls.  Which ones are worth seeing?  Well, let's find out (or guess, at least).

Opening in Wide release:

• The Day the Earth Stood Still - In this remake of the 1950s sci-fi parable, Keanu Reeves stars as an alien with a warning for all humans: live in peace or be destroyed.  I don't think the special effects look all that great, but on the other hand Reeves looks like a perfect choice to play the alien.  And Jennifer Connelly's in the film too, so that pretty much guarantees that I'll see it at some point.  Rated PG-13.
• Delgo - A fantasy epic about a teenager who must rally his friends to protect their world from conflict between two warring nations.  There's no getting around it; this movie looks seriously FUGLY.  I have no idea how this movie even got made, let alone a major release.  If you watch the trailer and really want to see it, then go for it; I'm staying as far away from this film as possible.  Rated PG.
• Nothing Like the Holidays - Secrets are revealed and bonds are tested when the far-flung members of the Rodriguez family reunites for the holidays.  Don't get it twisted though; this is a comedy about the members of a dysfunctional-but-loving family coming back together for Christmas.  Not exactly original, but the movie looks very funny and heartwarming.  Rated PG-13.

Opening in Limited release:

• The Reader - Years after a passionate affair with an older woman, a law student meets her again when she is on trial as a Nazi war criminal.  Stars Kate Winslet as the woman and Ralph Fiennes as the older version of the boy retelling the story.  This looks like a good and powerful movie that I definitely want to see.  Rated R.
• Wendy and Lucy - A woman's life is derailed when her car breaks down and she loses her dog while on the way to a summer job in Alaska.  Stars Michelle Williams, whose career has recently been overshadowed by the death of her ex-husband Heath Ledger.  But this looks movie looks like proof that she's a strong actor as well.  Rated R.
• Che/Che Part 1 - Benicio Del Toro stars in the story of Che Guevara's rise in the Cuban Revolution, from doctor to rebel to revolutionary hero.  How they're releasing this film is more than a little confusing: see, the movie's about four hours long, so starting next month they're going to release the first half of the film and then release the second separately in February, but for right now they're releasing the entire film in certain cities to qualify for the Oscars this year.  But what's not hard to figure out is that the film looks great, so see it however you can.  Rated R.
• Dark Streets - A 1930s night club owner gets entangled in love, lies and betrayal amidst menacing loan sharks and the darkness of city blackouts.  This is a strange, intriguing, dreamlike movie.  But is it good?  I have no idea.  Rated R.
• Doubt - Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman star in a drama about a nun who accuses a Catholic priest of abusing a black student.  Amy Adams from "Enchanted" also stars.  This film had a great cast and is one of the bigger Oscar hopefuls.  But personally I think it doesn't look that great; it looks too stage-y and self-important.  It was based on  a play, and you can really tell (in a bad way).  Rated PG-13.
• Gran Torino - Clint Eastwood directs and stars as a grumpy Korean War veteran who must protect the neighborhood from the threat of street gangs.  This is the second film Eastwood directed this year, along with "Changeling."  It looks intriguing for sure, but I'm not really sure what type of movie it's trying to be.  And raspy-voiced Clint Eastwood singlehandedly taking on the scum of the streets is a little too reminiscent of Christian Bale's Batman.  Rated R.
• Timecrimes - A man accidentally travels to the past and meets himself there, setting off a series of disasters with unforeseeable consequences.  This is a foreign low-budget sci-fi film.  It looks strange, not particularly interesting.  I'd skip this one.  Rated R.
• What Doesn't Kill You - Mark Ruffalo and Ethan Hawke are buddies from Boston's mean streets trying to escape a life of crime--the only life they know.  This is based on the true story of the film's writer/director (he also co-stars), and it looks to be a strong and powerful film.  I definitely want to see this movie.  Rated R.
• $9.99 - A stop-motion animated story about several people living in a Sydney apartment complex looking for meaning in their lives.  Every once and awhile we get one of these weird, completely different and thoroughly original movies.  If you like things that are truly off the beaten path, then this film is definitely something you should check out.  Not rated, but definitely a film for older audiences.

"Quantum of Solace" - movie review

"Quantum of Solace," the 22nd James Bond film and the second with Daniel Craig in the role of Bond, has been a huge success, breaking world-wide box office records.  It also scored the highest opening weekend of any Bond movie ever.  But many critics have complained that this film is too dark and violent, and that it doesn't feel the way a James Bond story should.

Personally, I disagree with those complaints.  I mean, considering that we last saw Bond at the end of "Casino Royale" as a man broken and betrayed by the death of his true love-turned traitor Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), it makes sense that the follow-up would be a darker and more somber outing.  "Quantum of Solace" feels like a solid bridge from the rocky beginning of Bond's career to the suave, sophisticated super-spy he ultimately becomes.  This is a natural and needed step; I imagine the next film will bring much more of the classic Bond vibe into the picture.

"Quantum of Solace" has some amazing action sequences.  In fact, about 80-90% of the movie is action.  That's actually the movie's biggest problem; more of the story would have been nice.  The fact that movie's not very long shows that it could have easily supported some additional time; "Casino Royale" had a running time of just under two and a half hours, while "Quantum of Solace" is only about an hour and forty-five minutes.  The story is already pretty confusing, and moving it along at such a brisk rate doesn't help make it any easier to follow.  The main villain in the film is also a disappointment; he's just a skinny little businessman with an ugly face who's not a particularly interesting character.

But Daniel Craig continues to be an excellent Bond, easily the best since the original Sean Connery.  Olga Kurylenko (who played a similar role in last year's "Hitman") also does good work as the requisite femme fatale, although whether or not she qualifies as an actual "Bond Girl" is debatable since they don't really hook up.  Rather, she's more of a female version of Bond who teams up with him to bring down the bad guys.  Don't worry though, as Bond still gets a few chances to show he's smooth with the ladies.

"Quantum of Solace" isn't as memorable as "Casino Royale," but it's still a strong film in the series that paves the way for more great Bond films in the future.  "Quantum of Solace" gets a 4 out of 5.

"Twilight" - movie review

This weekend filmgoers flocked to see "Twilight," the movie based on the first book in the mega-popular vampire series and made it a huge hit.

For those not already familiar with the story of "Twilight," here's a primer: Quiet teenager Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) moves from Arizona to dreary small town Forks, WA to live with her estranged father.  Shortly after arriving, she becomes intrigued by the mysterious Cullen family, especially Edward (Robert Pattinson), an attractive but strange boy.  After talking to a number of people, including her friend Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) and Edward himself, Bella comes to realize that he and his family are actually a coven of vampires who live in secrecy and have chosen not to prey on humans.  Oh, and she falls in love with him too.

"Twilight" is one of the most faithful book-to-film adaptations that I have ever seen.  I'm not just talking about sticking to the story, the film also does an excellent job at evoking the tone of the novel.  It's so successful that at some point I stopped being aware I was watching a movie and instead got the same feeling that I did when I read the novel... I felt like I had been pulled into the world of the story.  That's a pretty rare thing; I can't remember the last time a movie was able to do that to me.

While the movie is still centered around the burgeoning love between Edward and Bella, the filmmakers have (thankfully) compacted much of that aspect down, which means that it now comes off a little more realistically (this also helps by making Edward and Bella less whiny than the way they sometimes come off in the book).  At the same time, the action in the story has been greatly expanded; there are even new scenes that introduce us to the evil vampire clan of James, Victoria and Laurent as they carve a bloodstained path towards the Cullens.   It's pretty obvious that the filmmakers were looking to expand the attraction of the story beyond the already existing, and largely female fan-base.  The fact that they managed to successfully pull this off while still remaining so faithful to the original story is commendable.  I predict a lot of guys getting dragged along by their sisters and girlfriends will be surprised at just how much they like the film too.

The movie does have a few flaws.  The biggest problem I had with it is that I wanted to see more of the Cullen family, as the majority of their scenes with Bella and most of their backstories have been cut for time.  Alice in particular feels a bit underused; most of her scenes seem to have been left on the cutting room floor, which makes me sad because she's my favorite character in the series (and in the novel she has a great backstory that connects her to James, so it's a pity they didn't use that).  Also, the special effects are sometimes  a little unconvincing; you can tell the movie was made on a lower budget.  But no movie is ever perfect, and the complaints that I have are honestly very minor compared with how much the movie gets right.  Besides, now that they are planning to film the rest of the series, we should get to spend much more time with the Cullen family in future installments.

As someone who is already deeply into the "Twilight" series, it's hard for me to predict exactly what non-Twilighters will think of the movie.  I'm pretty confident that most people will like it, but this is definitely a movie meant to please the the fans first and foremost.  And in that they have succeeded.  If you already love "Twilight" then you should love the movie.  If you're not yet familiar with or have adamantly refused to get into the series up to now, I still strongly recommend that you give the film a chance.  You may be surprised.  "Twilight" gets a 5 out of 5.

My reviews of "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" and "Quarantine"

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

"Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" isn't a great film, but it is a lot of fun, especially if you are a part of the lifestyle the movie showcases.  The film does an excellent job of recreating the feeling of hanging out in the city and going to/playing shows with your buddies.  Michael Cera (Nick) and Kat Dennings (Norah) make a nice, likable couple of misfits who are very easy to root for, and newcomer Ari Graynor is hilarious as Caroline, Norah's perpetually drunk best friend... I predict she's gonna be a big star in the future.  It's also really refreshing to see a movie that portrays gay characters in a mostly non-stereotypical way.  Sometimes the movie gets bogged down in rom-com cliches, but mostly it's an excellent film about music and love that can be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of personal musical taste.  "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" gets a 4 out of 5.

Quarantine

"Quarantine," a film in which a small group of people are trapped in an urban apartment building while the residents are inexplicably going crazy, plays like "28 Days Later" done by the makers of "The Blair Witch Project" and "Cloverfield."  Like the latter two pictures, "Quarantine" is told through the viewpoint of a TV news camera, although the whole idea is a little more believable than it was in "Cloverfield."  The film opens with a local TV news reporter shooting a story about spending a night trailing members of the local fire department.  She is played by Jennifer Carpenter, who is becoming a regular "scream queen" with previous roles as the title character in "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" and in the TV serial killer show "Dexter " (she also starred in "White Chicks" by the Wayans Brothers, which may be the scariest thing of all).  Though short at 89 minutes, the filmmakers take time to build up to the horror.  A good portion of the film is set at the fire station, where we get to know the characters as they explore and wait around for something to happen.  I always appreciate it when films like these actually allow for suspense to build up (and thankfully the characters here are much more realistic and less annoying than they were in "Cloverfield").  When the horror finally starts, it's fast-paced and relentlessly scary.  If you hate POV movies like the ones I've mentioned then you probably won't like this one either, but the truth is that "Quarantine" is a truly terrifying film that will leave you rattled... the perfect kind of movie for this time of the year.  "Quarantine" gets a 5 out of 5.

My review of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"

I watched "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" yesterday for the first time.  I didn't see it in theaters because I've never been a big Indy fan; I've only seen the original three films once and just mildly like them.  So I wasn't super-pumped about IJATKOTCS (how's that for an anachronism?).  Then I heard all the bad buzz from critics and friends who saw it, and I decided to wait to see on DVD.

So, is it as bad as a lot of people made it out to be?  Not really, but it's not particularly good either; it's a chronically mediocre experience.  Still, I can see the reasons why hardcore Indy fans hated this film.  While the originals were ridiculous-yet-fun, this film is ridiculous-and-stupid.  Pretty much everything you've already heard critiqued by others is what you'll hear me complain about.  The fridge (I can accept him possibly surviving the blast, but not the flying through the air and repeatedly slamming into the ground).  The ants (kind of cool until the start climbing on top of each other to get to Cate Blanchett).  The monkeys (yeah... sigh).  The aliens (and what the heck is going on with Cate Blanchett and the alien at the end?).

But the film does have some good stuff.  The chase through the jungle was pretty sweet; I especially enjoyed Shia LeBouf and Blanchett's sword fight on moving cars.  The film also has a great look to it; the cinematography does an excellent job of creating the feeling of being in the 1950s.  Blanchett is a sexy and sinister villain (though the rest of her Russian posse aren't nearly as interesting).  And the series of events leading up to nuking the fridge are well-staged too.

But overall the movie just doesn't connect.  I didn't care about any of the characters or about what happened to them.  In the end, it just felt like kind of a silly, forgettable experience.

I give "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" a 2 out of 5.

Movie Review - "Burn After Reading"

Joel and Ethan Coen, the writer-directors of "Burn After Reading," seem to have a formula for how they make movies.  Almost every time they put out a dark, serious-minded film, they tend to follow it up with a more quirky, lightheaded one.  For example, their Oscar-nominated "Fargo" was followed by the now-classic stoner comedy "The Big Lebowski."  Now, after winning multiple Academy Awards for their last film, "No Country For Old Men," they've returned with this off-the-wall exercise in goofball insanity.

The film stars a number of major Hollywood stars, including Brad Pitt ("Fight Club"), Francis McDormand ("Fargo"), George Clooney ("Ocean's 11"), John Malkovich ("Being John Malkovich"), and Tilda Swinton ("Michael Clayton").  The plot of the film is all over the place, but it involves a disgraced FBI agent named Osbourne Cox (Malkovich), who decides to write his memiors as a tell-all book that will (in his eyes, anyway), blow the doors open on everything.  Meanwhile, his wife (Swinton) is secretly planning to divorce him (in the meantime she's sleeping with another government employee, played by Clooney).  A disc containing her divorce information is accidently left at a local gym, where it is found by two of its employees (Pitt and McDormand).  Mistakingly assuming it to be secret undercover information, the duo end up deciding to use it to blackmail Cox.

I've just described about 15% of the entire story; this movie is filled with more twist and turns than a roller-coaster (Russians, plastic surgery, sex addiction, murder, and online dating all figure into the story as well).  But, like "The Big Lebowski," the plot is kind of a moot point.  The pleasures of this movie come from the performances.  All of the actors give excellent performances (special props go to Pitt, who sheds his Movie-Star quality and plays his character as if he just walked out of a cartoon).  The movie stars a little slow but gets really funny as it goes on.  But the movie also gets really confusing, and the ending is, well... not really much of an ending.  However, this is still a very funny and engaging movie that is definitely worth seeing.

"Burn After Reading" gets a 3 out 5.

Movies on DVD: "Rogue" and "The Wizard of Gore (2008)"

Today's post is a review of two horror films recently released on DVD.

"Rogue" is based on the true story of a tour group in the Australian Outback that found themselves trapped and attacked by a large and extremely pissed-off crocodile.  I'm not usually big on these kind of man-vs-animal films, but this one is the best of its kind since "Jaws."  Much of the credit goes to writer-director Greg McLean, who wisely follows the "Jaws" model and keeps the killer croc offscreen for most of the first half of the film.  He uses this time to develop each of the characters on the boat, allowing them to both gain our sympathy and act like real people rather than stock characters when the action finally kicks in.  There are no good and bad guys in this film, just a bunch of scared yet smart people who try to help each other survive.  The acting is top-notch, especially from leads Michael Vartan ("Alias") and Radha Mitchell ("Silent Hill").  The special effects are surprisingly good as well.  Despite a final showdown between man and beast near the end that is beyond plausibility, most of the events in the film are portrayed realistically enough for us to go along with them.  "Rogue" provides the same suspense and beautiful Australian scenery as McLean's last picture, the slasher film "Wolf Creek," but without that movie's overly sadistic violence.  The result is a surprisingly excellent film from a genre usually known for producing crap-tastic movies.  Ignore the terrible DVD artwork, which makes it look like one of those terrible Z-grade Sci-Fi Channel movies; "Rogue" is seriously worth checking out.  I give it a 4 out of 5.

"The Wizard of Gore" is a remake of the 1970 blood-and-guts-filled cult classic.  If the title sounds familiar to you, it was mentioned in last year's hit "Juno" (Jason Bateman and Ellen Page even watch a scene from it).  This new version revolves around Montag the Magnificent, a magician who intrigues audiences by seemingly performing bloody disgusting acts of dismemberment on willing participants (played in this film by members of the punk-rock burlesque troupe the Suicide Girls, which of course means that they strip naked before being sliced/burned/etc).  Afterwards, however, the participant reappears, alive and in one piece.  But there's a problem: the following day, that same person is found dead, with wounds identical to what Montag inflicted on them.  So what's going on?  That's what Edmund, the protagonist, wants to know.  As he drags his girlfriend Maggie along to each of Montag's performances, he becomes increasingly obsessed with finding out how Montag performs his tricks.  It doesn't help that Edmund starts having nightmares in which he sees himself killing the victims.  Interesting set-up, right?  Well, unfortunately the film is far from perfect.  For one thing, despite its name and lineage, "The Wizard of Gore" isn't really all that gory.  Oh, there's blood and guts all right, but most audiences will probably be expecting a lot more than what the movie provides.  Another problem is that the story starts getting really confusing as it goes on.  With the many plot twist and turns, by the end of the film I wasn't really sure what exactly what happened (or, more importantly, why things turned out the way it did).  However, the biggest problem is that the new plot twists don't really make much sense.  In the original film, the trick was that the magician made the audience think they were seeing a blood-free illusion when in reality he was gruesomely killing the victims.  In this version it's the other way around: Montage makes the audience think they're seeing the victims murdered when he's actually not doing anything to them.  So then why are the victims murdered afterwards?  It would seem like it's unnecessary and only attracts a lot of unwanted attention.  The movie doesn't have a real clear reason for that (and I haven't spoiled the end the film, by the way).  Yet despite the problems, the film gradually won me over.  I liked the dreamlike, David Lynch-vibe of it.  Crispin Glover ("Back to the Future" trilogy) gives a crazy-good performance as Montag.  And, depending on your personal tastes, the abundant nudity of the Suicide Girls will be either a good reason to see this movie or another reason to avoid it.  "The Wizard of Gore" definitely isn't for everyone, but fans of this kind of film should enjoy it.  It gets a 3 out of 5.

Movie Review - Brideshead Revisited

The plot: The story takes place in England during the extended period between World War I and World War II.  Charles Ryder, a student an Oxford college, meets and soon befriends Sebastian Flyte, a charismatic young man.  As the two become close, Charles gets to know the rest of Sebastian’s family, in particular his mother, Lady Marchmain, and his sister Julia.  Eventually Charles and Julia fall in love, which doesn’t sit well with Sebastian, who has also fallen in love (or, at least, in lust) with Charles.  At the center of everything is Lady Marchmain, a strong-willed Catholic who uses religion to effectively control the lives of her children (religion and faith figure strongly into the story-line, as Charles is an outspoken Atheist).

Does this sound like a film you want to see?  Here’s a better question: did you like last year’s Atonement?  If so, chances are you’ll like Brideshead Revisited, although it’s not at all in the same league as that film.

That’s not to say that Brideshead Revisited is a bad film at all.  It’s well-acted, tells a great story and is absolutely beautiful to look at.  But it doesn’t have the same emotional punch or epic scope that Atonement did; I didn’t come away from Brideshead Revisited feeling much of anything other than appreciation for having seen a good film.  And considering that this is a film adaptation of a 355 page novel that begins around the first world war and ends during the second, at times it feels like a lot of stuff has happened offscreen that would’ve been helpful to know.  Also, the film doesn’t quite manage to convey the vast amount of time that the story spans.  Apparently there is a 1982 television miniseries that does a better job of telling the entire story.

At the same time, I was consistently entertained throughout the film.  I cared about the characters and wanted to know what would happen to them; in particular I really wanted things to work out for Julia and Charles.  It was also refreshing to see a quieter, more thoughtful picture during the summer months, when almost everything coming out is a big loud action film (though I am a little surprised that Miramax chose to release this now as opposed to the fall, during the traditional Oscar season). And, like Brokeback Mountain and The Village, Brideshead Revisited is the kind of film that I believe one is able to appreciate more on repeat viewings.

Long story short, if you liked Atonement and are up for another thoroughly old school British experience, Brideshead Revisited may be up your alley.

Brideshead Revisited gets a 4 out of 5.

Movie Review - Tropic Thunder

Sorry I never got around to posting my movie reviews last week like I said I would; I'll be posting them all this week instead.

In Roger Ebert’s positive review of Ghostbusters, he remarked that it’s incredibly difficult to effectively mix big budget special effects with comedy.  “Special effects require painstaking detail work,” he said.  “Comedy requires spontaneity and improvisation, or at least that’s what it should feel like, no matter how much work has gone into it.”  Tropic Thunder is another movie that manages to balance over-the-top special effects/action with smart, very funny comedy.  It stars Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., and Ben Stiller (who also directed and co-wrote the film).

The movie centers around a group of actors shooting “Tropic Thunder,” a big budget, Apocalypse Now-styled war film based on a supposedly true story.  When the shoot goes over budget and the studio starts to get antsy, the director decides to drop the actors into the jungle on their own in order to give them some real motivation.  Unbeknownst to all of them, the site they are dropped at is part of a nearby heroin cartel, and the guys ultimately find themselves fighting a real battle (even if they aren’t always aware of it).

This is clearly a labor of love for Stiller, who in the last few years has starred in a number of forgettable comedies (The Heartbreak Kid, Envy, etc.).  Unlike those films, Tropic Thunder pulses with energy and inspiration.  The film gives the audience an intriguing look at the inner workings of Hollywood and the lives of actors that, while surely broadened for comedic effect, doesn’t feel like it’s too far removed from reality.  Stiller also proves himself to be a skilled action director: the intense action sequences often rank on the same level as the films they are spoofing.  But, most importantly, the action never gets in the way of the comedy.  All the actors get a chance to get big laughs out of the material, especially Downey Jr. as a revered Australian actor (think Daniel Day-Louis) playing an African American sergeant.  Downey takes a potentially hazardous role and walks the line perfectly; he could very easily get an Oscar nod for this role.

There are a lot of in-jokes and special guest appearances that make up some of the funniest bits of the movie (hint: it may take you a few minutes to realize the movie has actually started).  Most people already know about the appearance of a certain Scientologist, who may have single-handedly saved his career with this role.  Tropic Thunder manages to be one of the best comedies of the year as well as one of the best action films.  Definitely worth seeing.

Tropic Thunder gets a 4 out of 5.