Tweet
Your grindhouse reviews are my favorites of any of them.
-
-
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Directed by Amy Heckerling.
1982. Rated R, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Sean Penn
Phoebe Cates
Judge Reinhold
Brian Backer
Robert Romanus
Foresst Whitaker
Amanda Wyss
Ray Walston
Anthony Edwards
Nicolas Cage
We get to hang out with some of Ridgemont High’s misguided youth. Like with most high school kids, getting laid is a major objective. A few are into sports, some into drugs, some work, etc. In fact, we spend much of our time at their after-school jobs. Hormones raging ensues.
Since the movie first opened so many years ago, surfer/stoner Spicoli (Penn) has been the character most identified with Fast Times. His face was on all the posters, prominently featured in all commercials and even now adorns the DVD cover. That Spicoli has reached iconic status is a testament to the character and Penn’s performance. Truth is he’s a secondary character with a subplot.
Something similar can be said of the movie’s most enduring moment. Phoebe Cates, as Linda, emerging from the swimming pool is arguably the greatest topless scene of all time. However, its impact on the film is minimal, far less than even Spicoli. Both have become ingrained in American society. Both have proven to be wonderful marketing tools. After not having watched it in well over a decade, those were the first things I thought of.
Honestly, if Spicoli being stoned and Linda removing her bikini top were major factors Fast Times would be a failure. Instead, it succeeds because of its maturity relative to other teen sex comedies. With that in mind, I don’t think it can be overstated that the main character and the director are both female. In most such movies, we focus on a guy from a guy’s perspective. In movies from Porky’s to Superbad sex is the desired end to all their means. Here, it becomes clear early on that for our heroine, Stacy (Leigh), sex is the means she uses to reach a desired end. In fact, we know this before she does. This not-so-subtle flipping of the script gives Fast Times a depth most such movies lack. Gone are the gross-out jokes we expect from these kinds of flicks. They’re replaced by humor derived from every day American teen experiences. Deservedly, it’s become the standard by which other teen sex comedies are judged.
For all of you uninitiated youngsters who haven’t seen Fast Times, yet: don’t let the above paragraph scare you. It’s plenty raunchy and funny. It just does a little more than most of the others of its ilk. Fast Times is also remarkable for its cast. A number of them went on to lengthy careers. Aside from Penn and star Jennifer Jason Leigh, there’s Forest Whitaker, Judge Reinhold and a don’t-blink-or-you’ll-miss-him appearance by Nicolas Cage. Cage, Penn and Whitaker gives the movie three future Oscar winners. Leigh was never nominated for Oscar, but is popularly believed to have been snubbed several times.
There’s more goodness beyond the cast. Fast Times was the first feature for director Amy Heckerling. She would go on to direct a number of hit movies, including National Lampoon’s European Vacation, Look Who’s Talking, Look Who’s Talking Too, and Clueless. It’s based on a book by Cameron Crowe, who also wrote the screenplay. He would go on to write and/or direct such movies as Say Anything, Almost Famous and Jerry Maguire. Simply put, Fast Times at Ridgemont High has much more under the hood than most teen sex comedies. Thirty years later, it still shows.
MY SCORE: 9/10Comment
-
Interesting tid-bit that probably only I find interesting: This movie's plot is extremely close to the plot of "The Lizzie Mcguire" movie. Girl goes abroad with her friends, bears resemblance to someone who is famous in the foreign land, she exploits that resemblance, hi-jinks ensue. I just find it funnny since Selena Gomez is more or less this generations Hilary Duff. Yeah, these are the kind of things you have knowledge of when you have a younger sister.Comment
-
Comment
-
Puss in Boots
Directed by Chris Miller.
2011. Rated PG, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Antonio Banderas
Zach Galifianakis
Salma Hayek
Billy Bob Thornton
Amy Sedaris
Constance Marie
Guillermo del Toro
Tom McGrath
Tom Wheeler
Already wanted for robbing to Bank of San Ricardo, Puss in Boots (Banderas) decides to steal the legendary magic beans. Planting them will grow the giant beanstalk leading to the land of giants. Once there, he hopes to steal the goose that lays the golden eggs. Getting the beans isn’t going to be easy because they’re possessed by the murderous outlaw couple Jack (Thornton) and Jill (Sedaris). Soon, Puss in not alone in his quest. He runs into an old friend that once betrayed him. The friend also wants the magic beans and has a plan to get them. Begging forgiveness and a chance to make things right between them, he enlists Puss to help him. This friend is none other than Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Galifianakis).
Like the Shrek franchise its spun from, Puss in Boots takes many well-worn fairy tales and breathes new life into them by reimagining the characters closer to our reality, yet still maintaining much of the wonder of their capabilities and surroundings. For instance, Jack and Jill haven’t only evolved into murderous outlaws, they’re also a couple arguing about whether or not to have a baby. PiB isn’t the outright deconstruction of fairy tales that Shrek is, but definitely views them through a wonderfully skewed prism.
Other genres are dragged into the fray and enhance the movie a bit more. Starting with her name and carrying through her actions our hero’s love interest, Kitty Softpaws (Hayek) is downright Bond girl-esque. There’s also nods to westerns, dance movies and of course, Zorro whom Banderas not so coincidentally portrayed twice for the big screen.
Speaking of Banderas, he is once again perfect as the sword fighting, milk drinking, lady loving cat. The same suaveness he brings to his live-action roles is translated in his voice-work. The rest of the characters were also well-voiced without overdoing it. Even Galifianakis, who has the showiest role, manages to keep it just restrained enough to not come off as over-exuberant.
More than anything, what helps PiB is that it has a freshness the last couple Shrek don’t. It’s not burdened by carrying on the whole of Shrek’s life and his ever-expanding family, nor carrying the weight of a franchise. It does enough of its own thing to prove more than worthy of becoming a separate entity.
MY SCORE: 7/10Comment
-
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
(2011)
Directed by David Fincher.
2011. Rated R, 158 minutes.
Cast:
Rooney Mara
Daniel Craig
Christopher Plummer
Stellan Skarsgard
Robin Wright
Yarick von Wageningen
Joely Richardson
Geraldine James
Donald Sumpter
Julian Sands
Ulf Friberg
Lisbeth Salander (Mara) isn’t your typical girl. She generally doesn’t like people and they generally don’t like her. She works for a company tthat does extensive background checks and is only used on “interesting” cases. In other words, she’s a very talented computer hacker. Despite being an adult, she’s also a ward of the state whom we’ll see jump through some very interesting hoops to get control of her own affairs. Oh, almost forgot, she has a tattoo of a dragon on her back.
Back to Lisbeth’s job as a hacker. That’s her entry point into the main plot. She’s been keeping close tabs on Mikael Blomkvist (Craig). He’s a disgraced journalist, having just been successfully sued for libel by a very powerful and high profile businessman. Lisbeth was hired by another rich and powerful guy, Henrik Vanger (Plummer). After being satisfied with what she’s found, Vanger hires Mikael to solve a mystery. Over 40 years ago, Henrik’s niece Harriet disappeared. Even though this happened on the secluded island the entire Vanger family lives on, she was never found and no one has ever been held responsible. Henrik believes someone in the family is her killer. Mikael takes on the project, but obviously can’t make any promises on such a cold case. Eventually, he decides he needs some help and hires Lisbeth, himself.
Truthfully, it takes a while for our two main characters to actually meet one another. Until then, each is embroiled in their own fascinating drama filled with twists and turns. Mikael’s whodunit progresses not unlike many others, but it’s still well done and maintains suspense. Lisbeth’s life saga is brutal, yet compelling. The warning here is that there are some difficult scenes to sit through. After they meet, the twists keep coming and our intrigue is piqued.
In the two lead roles, both Mara and Craig perform excellently. Mara’s Lisbeth appears fragile but is really calloused from the many blows life has dealt, and keeps dealing her. She doesn’t believe in self-pity, only penance. She takes the philosophy of “an eye for an eye” to a whole new level. On the other hand, Craig plays Mikael as the complete opposite of James Bond whom most of us will think of when he first shows up on the screen. Mikael’s a cerebral and emotional guy that’s not used to being in physical danger. Like Bond, women seem drawn to him but it has nothing to do with machismo or suaveness like it does for the super agent. Mikael also doesn’t seem to deal with pain, too well. He’s pretty much the inverse of not only Bond, but also of Lisbeth. Mikael has a tough looking exterior with a soft middle. She’s far more action hero than he.
Don’t get the wrong idea. Though there is action, an action flick this is not. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is part murder mystery, part character study. It’s not only a study of Lisbeth, but of Mikael, too. A large part of this is how their relationship evolves. It’s interesting to note how, as a pair, they function in ways opposite of traditional gender roles. Seeing them interact not-so-subtly lets us know what we should expect when things get tense.
TGwtDT is an excellent movie. However, it can’t be reviewed without comparing it to the Swedish original from 2009. To be fair, director David Fincher’s American version is not a remake, even though it bears a strong resemblance to its predecessor. Both are adaptations of the Stieg Larsson novel of the same name and the first of a trilogy. Without having read it, I’ve heard that this version is slightly more faithful to the book.
I have seen the Swedish film, though. There are some differences. Some work better in this movie while others favor the original. Two main ones stick out. Lisbeth’s guardian is one of the movie’s villains. I feel this character was better done, more thoroughly evil in the Swedish movie. This makes certain events that much sweeter in their brutality. The other is multi-faceted. It starts with the various relaitionships of Mikael. This version explores them more deeply by making the editor of his magazine much more of a factor. This leads us to an ending that better sets up the sequel. Of course, this presumes the entire trilogy will be adapted as they were in Sweden. If you put a gun to my head and force me to choose which I like better, I’ll say this one by a very slim margin.
MY SCORE: 9/10Comment
-
What'd you think of the opening credits, dell?Comment
-
Comment
-
Priest
Directed by Scott Charles Stewart.
2011. Rated PG-13, 87 minutes.
Cast:
Paul Bettany
Karl Urban
Cam Gigandet
Maggie Q
Christopher Plummer
Lily Collins
Brad Dourif
Stephen Moyer
Josh Wingate
Alan Dale
Generally speaking, there are two types of vampires. The first type is a tortured soul who hates what he’s become. The idea of feeding on humans disgusts them. He views his immortality as more of curse than a gift. The other type has completely bought in to the Prince of Darkness persona. He’s very charming, yet manipulative, overtly sexual, sadistic and just thoroughly evil. As we’ve seen in nearly a century’s worth of vampire movies and books, there is plenty to be mined in the depths of either type. Unfortunately, Priest tries to reinvent the wheel and fail’s miserably. The vampires here are eyeless, saber toothed greenish monsters that crawl around on all fours. Applause should be given for trying to take the genre in a new direction. However, like in the Wrong Turn movies, it’s not a direction we should’ve went.
As the story goes, man and vampire have been warring since the beginning of time. Vamps were getting the best of it, so much so that humans literally walled themselves into makeshift cities where everything is controlled by the church. Somehow that’s not really explained, a group of super soldiers called Priests rise up and kill most of the creatures of the night, herding the remainders onto reservations. Since they’re no longer needed the Priests have faded into normal society. That’s a bit difficult considering each one of them has a tattoo of a cross splattered on their face.
We focus on, um, Priest (Bettany). He was once the leader of a squad of Priests and still has nightmares about the one guy he lost. Within a few minutes we find out that the lost guy, Black Hat (Urban) is now leading around a pack of vampires around. Don’t blame me, they didn’t give these guys regular names. And yes, I said a pack of vampires. We’ll get to that later. Anyhoo, Black Hat’s first stop is at Priest’s brothers house. No, this isn’t within the walls of the city. This is on a barren farm way out in the middle of nowhere. The vamps kill the brother and his wife, then kidnap their daughter. Taking none too kindly to having his niece abducted, Priest hooks up with the farm town’s very young sheriff Hicks (Gigandet) and springs into action. By the way, the higher ups in the church forbid this and send four other Priests to bring him back, dead or alive. Actually, the higher ups don’t do anything except get shouted down by Monsignor Orelas (Plummer) who gives the order to track down our hero. Did I mention that he said dead or alive? Just checking.
As a first person shooter or an RPG on your video game console of choice, what follows would probably be fun. The source material seems suited for this. I guess here is where I should mention Priest is based on yet another graphic novel I’m not cool enough to have even heard of. Were the fans of this book railing so loudly that Hollywood had to oblige them with a big screen adaptation? I seriously doubt it.
The problem starts with the vampires. They seem not to be able of intelligent thought, let alone formulating evil plans to conquer the world. This includes the one vampire all of this is attributed to. Spoiler Alert!!!: This vampire barely has a presence and should play a prominent role in a sequel, if one is ever made. As a whole, the vampires don’t impress as a real threat to humanity. Sure, they’re a physical threat, but are every bit as vulnerable to our weapons as any other animal plus they can’t come out during the day. Instead of a race that aspires to world domination, they’re much more a nocturnal pack of rabid dogs roaming the wastelands. I told you we’d get back to the “pack” thing, didn’t I?
Our threat comes in the way of Black Hat, the former Priest. Though they treat it as some big secret, the deal is he’s a “human vampire.” Basically, it just means he’s like Blade, if you’re familiar with that comic book hero. Of course, the difference is that Black Hat is a bad guy. He helps because he’s by far the most interesting character in the movie. Actually, Monsignor Orelas is the most interesting character. That’s mostly because he’s played by Christopher Plummer, but I digress. Our hero is exceedingly bland, his sidekick is a waste of space and the potential for a love interest is telegraphed far in advance, but only given an infantessimal moment of no consequence. Why yes, silly, her name is Priestess. The few almost intimate seconds they share isn’t enough to make these characters three dimensional, just a sad reminder that they could’ve been. Likewise for the movie’s one twist. By the time it happens we don’t care anymore. On top of all this, Priest is also similar in tone and confrontation with the church as Legion. This is no mere coincidence since that movie has the same director and star.
Both the not quite there love affair and thrown in twist make the entire movie feel rushed. Instead of developing anything at all, we’re merely hurried off from one action sequence to the next. The overall effect is we feel like we’ve just watched someone else play a video game for an hour while they us their other controller is broken. To make matters worse, one of their “better” friends comes over and starts using it with no problems. I like playing video games. I don’t like watching other people play them.
MY SCORE: 3/10Comment
-
The Hangover Part II
Directed by Todd Phillips.
2011. Rated R, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Bradley Cooper
Ed Helms
Zach Galifianakis
Ken Jeong
Jeffrey Tambor
Justin Bartha
Paul Giamatti
Jamie Chung
Mason Lee
The gang’s all back for another misadventure. It’s Stu (Helms) who is tying the knot. He and his lovely fiancé Lauren (Chung) are having their wedding in her native Thailand. Of course, he invites his buddies Phil (Cooper) and Doug (Bartha) to tag along. Understandably, after the events of the first movie, it takes quite a bit of cajoling before Stu agrees to invite Alan (Galifianakis). Per Stu’s orders, there will be no bachelor party. Begrudgingly, he agrees to have one beer with the fellas on the beach before returning to Lauren’s side. Of course, much more than that happens and the boys don’t remember any of it when they wake up in a rundown Bangkok hotel. This time, the missing party is Lauren’s little brother/child prodigy Teddy played by the Mason Lee, the son of famed director Ang Lee. Teddy is only 16 but is already a Stanford pre-med student. The only sign of him in the room is the finger he seems to have lost at some point during the night. It’s still wearing his Stanford ring. Mysteriously, they have added one: Mr. Chow (Jeong), the villain from part one. Now, he’s on their side. The guys going all over Bangkok looking for Teddy ensues.
If you’ve seen the first one, then you’ll notice that this is essentially the same movie. This is both a good and a bad thing. It’s good because I suspect the audience for this is people who love the original and want more of it. Part II is more than happy to oblige. It’s a sequel that doesn’t seem to tell a new part of the story as much as it just gives us an alternate version of its predecessor. The downside to this is that the sameness gets to be overwhelming, at times. The freshness and mystery of the original is gone. We have a fairly good idea how this will turn out and, in a number of cases, it’s kind of hard to laugh at the same jokes twice.
Once that freshness and mystery has dissipated, the only thing we have left are those jokes. Due to many of them being recycled material, they’re much more hit and miss than in the previous film. Luckily, when they hit, they tend to hit big. There is loud, hearty laughter to be had at several points. Other funny moments eminate from Alan through another superb performance by Zach Galifianakis. You may find more with Chow, but that depends on whether or not you find Ken Jeong annoying. The same goes for the monkey the boys have acquired.
One other thing does mark this as a true sequel, though. Things are bigger. Aside from Teddy potentially missing a digit, or worse, Chow is now an international criminal with international heat on him. There’s some shooting and huge car chase. Even Stu’s physical dilemmas are bigger. He wakes up with a tattoo on his face. It is a replica of the one that adorns the grill of Mike Tyson. Instead of being a nod to the first film like it’s obviously intended, it’s a constant reminder of the better movie. Still, later on we’ll learn something about Stu even bigger than that. As for Tyson, he himself eventually turns up again. Sadly, this time he does something far worse to our ears than he ever did to Evander Holyfield’s.
The Hangover Part II isn’t a bad watch, despite all I’ve said. It just pales in comparison with its predecessor. As stated, it’s the same basic formula. Unfortunately, most of the new ingredients dilute the potency of its humor. Mainly to blame is all the action flick stuff thrown in. Whenever those elements pop up, they give the movie a far more serious tone. Instead of action and comedy complementing one another, they take turns. This makes the movie uneven, almost as if we’re switching channels back and forth between a sitcom and a murder mystery. To be honest, this is probably a lot better for people who haven’t seen Part I. With that said, I do like the movie. I laughed a lot which is what comedy is about. I just don’t like it as much as the original.
MY SCORE: 6.5/10Comment
-
Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked
Directed by Mike Mitchell.
2011. Rated G, 87 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Lee
Justin Long
Christina Applegate
Anna Faris
Amy Poehler
David Cross
Jenny Slate
Matthew Gray Gubler
Jesse McCartney
Brothers and sisters of the congregation, I’ve learned a new word: twee. Let us turn our text to the book of Urbandictionary.com, chapter 20 verse 23. It says that twee is “something that is sweet, almost to the point of being sickeningly so. As a derogatory descriptive, it means something that is affectedly dainty or quaint, or is way too sentimental. In American English it often refers to a type of simple sweet pop music, but in British English it is used much more widely for things that are nauseatingly cute or precious. It comes from the way the word sweet sounds when said in baby talk. Twee.
Family, this is the part where I tell you that the Lord works in mysterious ways. It could only have been the Almighty God that deposited the word twee into my spirit and moved me to seek out its meaning just hours before sitting down to watch Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked. Only He could’ve known that without knowledge of this itty bitty word there Would Be…Could Be…Should Be…no review today. I would have not the language to express the sights and sounds that Engulfed Me…Surrounded Me…Trapped Me as the whale did Jonah! Twee.
Brothers and sisters, I don’t think you understand. You see, there are three…yes, indeed there are Three…Count ‘em One, Two, Three boy chipmunks. There’s Alvin (Long), Simon (Gubler) and Theodore (McCartney). They are one of the biggest musical acts in the world. They call themselves…I Said they call themselves THE, as in THE one and only…as in THE most important…as in THE stars of our show…they call themselves THE Chipmunks. There are also three girl chipmunks: Brittany (Applegate), Jeanette (Faris) and Elanor (Poehler). They too, are one of the biggest musical acts in the world. They are known as The Chipettes. Now family, even big time stars need some time away from the spotlight…a chance to recharge their batteries…some R and R…to take it easy. So, what do they do? They go on a family vacation with their so-called “father”, the human being named Dave (Lee). This is NOT David who slew Goliath! No, NOT THAT David who became king of Israel! This ain’t even DOCTOR David Bruce Banner who transforms into the Incredible Hulk when angry! This is Just Dave, guardian of six singing chipmunks. Dave and his family are oh-so-sweet, sickeningly so. Twee.
Family, let us not take their vocation…oh yeah church, I’m moving on to their VO-cation and away from their VA-cation…let us not take their VO-cation lightly. That’s right, they sing. They sing with helium fueled voices so shrill they pierce the lower rungs of Heaven! These voices grate nerves like the horns of The Fallen Angel scraping the soles of The Creator’s feet! They sing. They sing songs that are WEAK…FRAIL…INNOCUOUS…WITHOUT Substance…DEFICIENT in Strength! They sing Simple Sweet pop music! It’s Nauseatingly cute! Twee.
Brothers and sisters, like Satan has a plot to enter our souls and turn us away from our Salvation, so too does Chipwrecked have a plot. The Chipmunks, The Chipettes and their so-called “father” Dave take a cruise for their family vacation. Shortly after their ship sets sail, Alvin’s mischief causes mayhem. All six of the furry little creatures find themselves holding tightly the string of a kite. The wind carries them to a Deserted Island! Dave MUST find them! His Heart is BROKEN! His “Children” are MISSING! His Paternal INSTINCTS take over! He MUST…he HAS TO…he WILL get to That Island! His MOTIVATION…DEDICATION…OBLIGATION…INCLINATION…His E-MOTION and DE-VOTION...Their Connection…Their link…Their Familial Bond…Their Unconditional LUUUUHHHVV is Disturbingly adorable…Horrifically pleasant…Repulsively perky! It is NOT funny! It is NOT exciting! It is NOT suspenseful! It LACKS tension! It LACKS imagination! It is Syrupy Sweet, Sickeningly So! It is filled with Simple…Sweet…Delicate…Forceless…Languid…Limp…Power less pop music! It is AFFECTEDLY DAINTY, QUAINT and way too SENTIMENTAL! It is NAUSEATINGLY CUTE and PRECIOUS! Brothers and Sisters, Chipwrecked Is Wrecked! It is EXCEPTIONALLY UNEXCEPTIONAL! It is BROMIDICALLY BLAND…DEVILISHLY DULL…MERCILESSLY MILD…PARTICULARLY PLAIN…TRAGICALLY TRITE! WithOUT question, the good Lord has placed in MY VERY HEART the perfect word to describe the ATROCITY to which I bore witness: Twee.
Can I get an “Amen”?
MY SCORE: 0/10
Comment
-
American Splendor
Directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini.
2003. Rated R, 101 minutes.
Cast:
Paul Giamatti
Harvey Pekar
Hope Davis
Joyce Brabner
Judah Friedlander
Toby Radloff
James Urbaniak
Madylin Sweeten
Danielle Batone
When most of us think of comic books, we think of costumed heroes with super powers battling outlandish villains. Harvey Pekar, played by both Paul Giamatti and the real Harvey himself, this seemed to extremely limit the types of tales that could be told. He felt the possibilities would be infinite if storylines were more directly drawn from real life. With that in mind, he created “American Splendor,” a comic book series based on his own life. The “ripped from reality” principle is applied to this film. We weave in and out of fictionalized accounts of Harvey’s experiences and his own observations of them. It’s a viewing excursion different than most and superior to the few similarly styled movies I’ve come across. We first meet Harvey shortly before he hatched the idea for his own comic. Things unfold in an almost linear fashion up to and including the filming of this movie. This gives it a wonderfully self-aware quality that comes across as conversational and without the arrogances that seems to be inherent in most such films.
Visually, American Splendor is subtle, yet poignant. Harvey’s cluttered apartment is a perfect representation of the mind he’s able to pull his stories from. Many of the outdoor scenes have a chilly look to them, mirroring his normal disposition. This is interspersed with interviews of Real Harvey, as he’s listed in the credits, his wife Real Joyce (Brabner) and his buddy Real Toby (Radloff). In one brilliant shot we see the actors playing Harvey and Toby (Friedlander) taking a break in the background, completely out of character, while the genuine articles are talking to the camera. If there is one place the visuals falter, it’s in its depiction of Pekar’s final appearance as a guest on “The David Letterman Show.” We saw his first via a clip of the real thing. It’s seamlessly integrated into the film. For the last appearance, that technique is abandoned and we get Giamatti doing the scene. That wouldn’t be bad at all since he is quite good. However, having an actor play Letterman and only showing odd shots of the back of his head is jarring. It feels like a movie that’s been completely open about itself suddenly has something to hide.
Much of the humor is derived from Harvey’s social awkwardness. Despite this and his not-so-sunny demeanor the script, Giamatti’s performance and Real Harvey combine to endow the man with a weird sort of charm. For instance, the first thing he does after meeting Joyce (Davis) face to face for the first time is tell her he’s had a vasectomy. We laugh and wonder what she must be thinking. Still, it’s so typically Harvey that we understand. Essentially, that’s the overwhelming theme of AS. Regardless of all his idiosyncrasies, we wouldn’t have him any other way.
MY SCORE: 9/10Comment
-
Midnight in Paris
Directed by Woody Allen.
2011. Rated PG-13, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Owen Wilson
Rachel McAdams
Marion Cotillard
Kathy Bates
Michael Sheen
Carla Bruni
Adrien Brody
Kurt Fuller
Mimi Kennedy
Tom Hiddleston
Corey Stoll
Gil Pender (Wilson) is a successful Hollywood screenwriter who wants to break into legitimate literature. To that end, he’s working on a novel. He’s also on vacation in Paris with his fiancé Inez (McAdams) and her parents. We immediately learn that he longs to have been alive and in the city during the 1920s when many of the greatest artists of all time roamed its streets. His days are spent with Inez around her friends and family. More often than not this includes Paul (Sheen), an insufferable know-it-all. In an effort to get away from Paul’s incessant pontification, Gil finds himself taking late night walks alone. It just so happens that every night at midnight he’s scooped up by some people in this movie’s version of a DeLorean and they take him to precisely where he wants to be: Paris in the 1920s. Shortly, he’s face to face with F. Scott Fitzgerald (Hiddleston) and Ernest Hemingway (a particularly good Stoll). He get his manuscript read by Gertrude Stein (Bates). He also gets acquainted with a number of others such as Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo) and Bunuel (Adrien de Van). Each morning he’s back in the present longing to get back to the past. Yes, this is a movie about his romantic view of a particular city but also about traditional romance, too. Is Inez really right for him? Perhaps it’s Picasso’s on-again, off-again mistress Adrianna (Cotillard). After all, the two take a shine to each other.
Midnight in Paris gets points for being an atypical romantic comedy. The genre is filled with tales of boy meets girl that proceed through a succession of predictable ups and downs. They only differentiate themselves by the preposterousness of their situations. Seriously speaking, what could be more preposterous than a time traveling aspiring novelist meeting his long deceased heroes and possibly falling in love with their women? The difference is those other movies pass themselves off as only slight exaggerations of the type of romance we’re all sure to experience when we meet that special someone when in truth they’re farcical, at best. This film understands its place. It knows it is presenting us with impossible events and runs with it. Through characters other than Gil, it lets us know it is keenly aware how crazy this whole thing is.
The writer and director is none other than Woody Allen. As proof, the movie contains many of his usual touches. Gil is fairly similar to most of Allen’s protagonists: smart, quirky and a bit of a loner. He’s probably not as self-deprecating as he might’ve been had Allen played the character himself, though. The women are flighty, yet seem to have a keen understanding of our hero. Like the director’s best, MiP is charmingly whimsical. Unfortunately, it relies too heavily on its premise. It seems to think that transporting us back and forth in time is enough to wow us. It often settles for cute instead of going for all-out funny. Sure, there are laughs to be had. However, they’re spaced at intervals too large. Near the end, things get a bit convoluted as a third era is awkwardly introduced. Still, MiP does lots of things well. It is a good Woody Allen movie, just not a great one.
MY SCORE: 7/10Comment
-
Watched the Titanic again the other night and came to see how you reviewed, as I do with most movies I watch. I'm shocked you haven't reviewed it!
e: BTW love your review of Alvin and the Chipmunks. My baby cousin loves the Chipmunks and whenever I'm watching her I'm forced to watch. It's miserable.Comment
-
Comment
Comment